The Official September 2014 Study Group

User avatar
Colonel_funkadunk
Posts: 2794
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:03 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Colonel_funkadunk » Sun Aug 24, 2014 11:20 pm

ilikebaseball wrote:
Colonel_funkadunk wrote:
ilikebaseball wrote:
valen wrote:Oh lord I hope so, I'd be so pleased with a curve that gets you a 172 at -10


equivalent to a -12 curve. June's was -13 (of course, with the new game thrown in). I think its not crazy to think we'll have a curve, give or take one, in that ballpark! I'd guess -12, but its just speculation. In past tests, September has been a little more lenient than June, however because of the crazy LG in June, I'd say that slightly offsets the usual trend


Curves have been higher lately. All tests in the 40s are like -8


Seems to be a combo slightly harder tests and more modernized strategies than 10 years ago. The games, in my opinion, are a little more straight forward now. The RC seems to be much tougher though


I think that's credited for sure. The comparative passage also changes things, I don't necessarily think that aspect makes it harder. The games seem to be a little more structured. For instance a section I did the other day was 3 different linear and a grouping w no real curveball. Obviously they show up but it seems less
Often than in earlier PTs

User avatar
valen
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 3:31 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby valen » Sun Aug 24, 2014 11:26 pm

ilikebaseball wrote:Seems to be a combo slightly harder tests and more modernized strategies than 10 years ago. The games, in my opinion, are a little more straight forward now. The RC seems to be much tougher though

Harder since when about? I'm taking PTs in the 50s right now and I'm wondering if RC has gotten harder since then.

ilikebaseball
Posts: 4103
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 3:04 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby ilikebaseball » Sun Aug 24, 2014 11:29 pm

valen wrote:
ilikebaseball wrote:Seems to be a combo slightly harder tests and more modernized strategies than 10 years ago. The games, in my opinion, are a little more straight forward now. The RC seems to be much tougher though

Harder since when about? I'm taking PTs in the 50s right now and I'm wondering if RC has gotten harder since then.

I feel like its different for everyone. Some people think the games are ridiculously tougher now, when I think theyre much easier. But I definitely think RC is harder now than it used to be. The comparative ones, the passage selection, etc. Almost as if they know how we're all studying for it now and adapting to us by switching it up in the questions or the structure of the passage.

LR seems basically the same to me however. Hit or miss depending on the difficulty.

User avatar
Colonel_funkadunk
Posts: 2794
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:03 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Colonel_funkadunk » Sun Aug 24, 2014 11:38 pm

ilikebaseball wrote:LR seems basically the same to me however. Hit or miss depending on the difficulty.


This. While I think certain quextions are a lot diff/ harder overall It seems like curves are made after a hard LG section or tough RC passage. This is obvi a lot of speculation , but one hard game or passage is gonna more easily screw your score more than 1 or 2 harder than avg LR questions

MadwomanintheAttic
Posts: 251
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 9:42 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby MadwomanintheAttic » Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:14 am

Been a while since I've posted here, but I've been following along. I took PT 64 and 85 today, scoring a 168 on both!! That's my highest ever. However, I've seen the questions before, so I don't know if that really counts. I didn't remember the answers, but the questions were familiar nonetheless.

I'm enrolled in an online course and I have plenty of hw left to do, but with the 27th around the corner, I'm considering abandoning the homework and focusing on practice test. There are still some LR problems I haven't drilled, but I really need tighten up my timing on the test as a whole. Any suggestions on what I should do? I feel like I'm running out of time.

BJS
Posts: 291
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 7:30 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BJS » Mon Aug 25, 2014 7:41 am

BillPackets wrote:
smccgrey wrote:I actually eliminated A because I thought that since Penn wasn't eligible, it doesn't fit that well with the conclusion - it's not that he should not receive the award, but that he can't. Still confused.


Per manhattan forum, apparently the first principle in that Q introduces a biconditional. Don't have it in front of me, but I remember the modifier was "but not otherwise." So I guess saying something like "if I'm awarded a trophy, then I won, but not otherwise," is a biconditional statement.


Can you explain this more?

diiggidy
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:32 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby diiggidy » Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:35 am

Typically I get around 4-7 wrong (combined) for LR, but the question types are pretty scattered. Mostly, I'm just getting a few of the hardest questions wrong on each section. I haven't gone through level 3's and 4's in the Cambridge packets yet, and am wondering if it's worth it to go through them. I've only gone through the more common types (Flaw, Strengthen/Weaken, NA, SA) but not the less common (MSS, MBT etc.). Should I skip the level 1's and 2's for these, and go right into the more difficult ones?

Also, any advice for the argument part questions? I've drilled them all in Cambridge, but for some reason I do terrible on them on PTs. I can get it down to two answers, and then pick the wrong one.

jmjm
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:59 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby jmjm » Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:37 am

ilikebaseball wrote:
valen wrote:
ilikebaseball wrote:Seems to be a combo slightly harder tests and more modernized strategies than 10 years ago. The games, in my opinion, are a little more straight forward now. The RC seems to be much tougher though

Harder since when about? I'm taking PTs in the 50s right now and I'm wondering if RC has gotten harder since then.

But I definitely think RC is harder now than it used to be.

User avatar
BillPackets
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BillPackets » Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:44 am

BJS wrote:
BillPackets wrote:
smccgrey wrote:I actually eliminated A because I thought that since Penn wasn't eligible, it doesn't fit that well with the conclusion - it's not that he should not receive the award, but that he can't. Still confused.


Per manhattan forum, apparently the first principle in that Q introduces a biconditional. Don't have it in front of me, but I remember the modifier was "but not otherwise." So I guess saying something like "if I'm awarded a trophy, then I won, but not otherwise," is a biconditional statement.


Can you explain this more?


i'm really still trying to wrap my head around it too. bc to me when you say something like "if A, then B, but not otherwise" the "but not otherwise" seems to me to say "if not A, then not B," but manhattan says that the but not otherwise introduces a biconditional, so the "but not otherwise," moves the B to a sufficient condition.

User avatar
BillPackets
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BillPackets » Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:46 am

btw guys i finally figured out how to use paint and now have a tar so you can imagine me IRL happy monday

User avatar
Gray
Posts: 5997
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:02 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Gray » Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:51 am

BillPackets wrote:btw guys i finally figured out how to use paint and now have a tar so you can imagine me IRL happy monday


Pic whore over here so we can imagine you accurately: Rate yourself on a 1-10 scale

User avatar
BillPackets
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BillPackets » Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:59 am

smccgrey wrote:
BillPackets wrote:btw guys i finally figured out how to use paint and now have a tar so you can imagine me IRL happy monday


Pic whore over here so we can imagine you accurately: Rate yourself on a 1-10 scale


yo i put picwhored a vid this morning to no response so now i'm really embarrassed and dont want to again

User avatar
Colonel_funkadunk
Posts: 2794
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:03 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Colonel_funkadunk » Mon Aug 25, 2014 11:00 am

smccgrey wrote:
BillPackets wrote:btw guys i finally figured out how to use paint and now have a tar so you can imagine me IRL happy monday


Pic whore over here so we can imagine you accurately: Rate yourself on a 1-10 scale


He posted a sweet vid in that thread that I edited- check it out. The live action pw is credited

User avatar
Colonel_funkadunk
Posts: 2794
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:03 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Colonel_funkadunk » Mon Aug 25, 2014 11:00 am

Colonel_funkadunk wrote:
smccgrey wrote:
BillPackets wrote:btw guys i finally figured out how to use paint and now have a tar so you can imagine me IRL happy monday


Pic whore over here so we can imagine you accurately: Rate yourself on a 1-10 scale


He posted a sweet vid in that thread that I edited- check it out. The live action pw is credited


Oh nbd disregard this then

CFC1524
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 9:50 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby CFC1524 » Mon Aug 25, 2014 11:02 am

BillPackets wrote:
BJS wrote:
BillPackets wrote:
smccgrey wrote:I actually eliminated A because I thought that since Penn wasn't eligible, it doesn't fit that well with the conclusion - it's not that he should not receive the award, but that he can't. Still confused.


Per manhattan forum, apparently the first principle in that Q introduces a biconditional. Don't have it in front of me, but I remember the modifier was "but not otherwise." So I guess saying something like "if I'm awarded a trophy, then I won, but not otherwise," is a biconditional statement.


Can you explain this more?


i'm really still trying to wrap my head around it too. bc to me when you say something like "if A, then B, but not otherwise" the "but not otherwise" seems to me to say "if not A, then not B," but manhattan says that the but not otherwise introduces a biconditional, so the "but not otherwise," moves the B to a sufficient condition.


If George wants ice cream, then Chris wants ice cream, but not otherwise.

Logically, this sentence can be written as follows:
G --> C and /G ---> /C

If you take the contrapositive of the second statement, we can create a bi-conditional:
G <---> C

User avatar
Colonel_funkadunk
Posts: 2794
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:03 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Colonel_funkadunk » Mon Aug 25, 2014 11:02 am

BillPackets wrote:
BJS wrote:
BillPackets wrote:
smccgrey wrote:I actually eliminated A because I thought that since Penn wasn't eligible, it doesn't fit that well with the conclusion - it's not that he should not receive the award, but that he can't. Still confused.


Per manhattan forum, apparently the first principle in that Q introduces a biconditional. Don't have it in front of me, but I remember the modifier was "but not otherwise." So I guess saying something like "if I'm awarded a trophy, then I won, but not otherwise," is a biconditional statement.


Can you explain this more?


i'm really still trying to wrap my head around it too. bc to me when you say something like "if A, then B, but not otherwise" the "but not otherwise" seems to me to say "if not A, then not B," but manhattan says that the but not otherwise introduces a biconditional, so the "but not otherwise," moves the B to a sufficient condition.


The but not otherwise means that only a can lead to b. So if a then b, but there is no other way to lead to b, then if b then a is valid also. Hence biconditional.

User avatar
BillPackets
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BillPackets » Mon Aug 25, 2014 11:07 am

CFC1524 wrote:
BillPackets wrote:If George wants ice cream, then Chris wants ice cream, but not otherwise.

Logically, this sentence can be written as follows:
G --> C and /G ---> /C

If you take the contrapositive of the second statement, we can create a bi-conditional:
G <---> C


ah, ok. i was missing that contra step. thank you.

User avatar
Gray
Posts: 5997
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:02 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Gray » Mon Aug 25, 2014 11:08 am

BillPackets wrote:
smccgrey wrote:
BillPackets wrote:btw guys i finally figured out how to use paint and now have a tar so you can imagine me IRL happy monday


Pic whore over here so we can imagine you accurately: Rate yourself on a 1-10 scale


yo i put picwhored a vid this morning to no response so now i'm really embarrassed and dont want to again


:lol: crap did I miss it? I missed 90% of the PW-ing last night; it was sad.

I was thinking about the cops LR question and I read it again this morning. Somehow it makes a lot more sense now.

User avatar
Colonel_funkadunk
Posts: 2794
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:03 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Colonel_funkadunk » Mon Aug 25, 2014 11:09 am

smccgrey wrote:
BillPackets wrote:
smccgrey wrote:
BillPackets wrote:btw guys i finally figured out how to use paint and now have a tar so you can imagine me IRL happy monday


Pic whore over here so we can imagine you accurately: Rate yourself on a 1-10 scale


yo i put picwhored a vid this morning to no response so now i'm really embarrassed and dont want to again


:lol: crap did I miss it? I missed 90% of the PW-ing last night; it was sad.


It's easy to miss something that's only up for 35 seconds.

And I too missed the substantial portion of pw'ing going on

User avatar
Gray
Posts: 5997
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:02 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Gray » Mon Aug 25, 2014 11:10 am

Colonel_funkadunk wrote:
smccgrey wrote:
:lol: crap did I miss it? I missed 90% of the PW-ing last night; it was sad.


It's easy to miss something that's only up for 35 seconds.

And I too missed the substantial portion of pw'ing going on

My eyebrows got some positive feedback. I love TLS.

User avatar
BillPackets
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BillPackets » Mon Aug 25, 2014 11:13 am

smccgrey wrote: :lol: crap did I miss it? I missed 90% of the PW-ing last night; it was sad.

I was thinking about the cops LR question and I read it again this morning. Somehow it makes a lot more sense now.


i couldnt figure out how to embed it (non youtube) so it was just a link. easy to miss.

for me, the trouble w the cops question was the subtlety of what made the right answer right. the second part of the principle is so long, it kind of grabs your attention away from the first principle. so for me, i was focusing on the second statement, while the first was on the backburner (in addition to misreading the first).

the principle-application questions are starting to show up quite a bit more in the early-mid 60s. they're on ok question type.

User avatar
BillPackets
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BillPackets » Mon Aug 25, 2014 11:15 am

smccgrey wrote:My eyebrows got some positive feedback. I love TLS.


yyyeah i saw the solid page about about smccgrey's eyebrows. i'm genuinely intrigued bc i dont know that ive ever seen someone's eyebrows and thot "wow look at those EYEBROWS." i feel like eyebrows are one of those things that can only hurt you. like, if you have good eyebrows then it's nbd, not a positive or negative, just a thing, but if you have some weird brows, then it's like sup w the brows on him/her?

User avatar
Gray
Posts: 5997
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:02 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Gray » Mon Aug 25, 2014 11:21 am

BillPackets wrote:for me, the trouble w the cops question was the subtlety of what made the right answer right. the second part of the principle is so long, it kind of grabs your attention away from the first principle. so for me, i was focusing on the second statement, while the first was on the backburner (in addition to misreading the first).

the principle-application questions are starting to show up quite a bit more in the early-mid 60s. they're on ok question type.


Yeah I've noticed them more and more, and I usually like them. There are only so many assumption questions one can do before one gets really bored with LR.

BillPackets wrote:yyyeah i saw the solid page about about smccgrey's eyebrows. i'm genuinely intrigued bc i dont know that ive ever seen someone's eyebrows and thot "wow look at those EYEBROWS." i feel like eyebrows are one of those things that can only hurt you. like, if you have good eyebrows then it's nbd, not a positive or negative, just a thing, but if you have some weird brows, then it's like sup w the brows on him/her?


Apparently, mine are especially majestic.

User avatar
Toby Ziegler
Posts: 701
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 2:59 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Toby Ziegler » Mon Aug 25, 2014 11:23 am

I've never even read the writing sample page/instructions. I am going to do that today (that's not all I'm going to do, obvs).

User avatar
Colonel_funkadunk
Posts: 2794
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:03 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Colonel_funkadunk » Mon Aug 25, 2014 11:24 am

smccgrey wrote:
Colonel_funkadunk wrote:
smccgrey wrote:
:lol: crap did I miss it? I missed 90% of the PW-ing last night; it was sad.


It's easy to miss something that's only up for 35 seconds.

And I too missed the substantial portion of pw'ing going on

My eyebrows got some positive feedback. I love TLS.



Nothing like a boost of confidence via lawlzers




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests