The Official September 2014 Study Group

User avatar
Colonel_funkadunk
Posts: 2791
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:03 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Colonel_funkadunk » Sat Aug 30, 2014 9:53 am

hillz wrote:I would be happy with that. I didn't like the noon start time for June because I had too much time to sit around and be nervous + the timing of my food/caffeine was off, but I feel like 10:30 is optimal.


I'm down to petition for a 1030 start time

User avatar
hetookmetoamovie
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:03 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby hetookmetoamovie » Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:12 pm

Thanks everyone for making yesterday 10000x better. Good luck to all PTers today! Hoping the 3-day weekend has cleared out all the basic bitches in your towns.

User avatar
bound
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 4:49 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby bound » Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:44 pm

omg. Game 3 in PT68 just threw me for a loop. I haven't done that poorly on LG in forever!!

User avatar
Colonel_funkadunk
Posts: 2791
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:03 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Colonel_funkadunk » Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:50 pm

hetookmetoamovie wrote:Thanks everyone for making yesterday 10000x better. Good luck to all PTers today! Hoping the 3-day weekend has cleared out all the basic bitches in your towns.


Basic bitches :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Superstaranonymous
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:29 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Superstaranonymous » Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:53 pm

.
Last edited by Superstaranonymous on Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BillPackets » Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:46 pm

hetookmetoamovie wrote:basic bitches


I like u

User avatar
Colonel_funkadunk
Posts: 2791
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:03 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Colonel_funkadunk » Sat Aug 30, 2014 2:49 pm

Where my sept ppl @

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

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BJS » Sat Aug 30, 2014 2:50 pm

PT65 results are in!

S1 (PT31 LG S1): -2 [Experimental 1]
S2 LR1: -1
S3 LG: -0
S4 RC: -1
S5 (PT31 LR1 S2): -1 [Experimental 2]
S6 LR2: -0

I felt horrible about the RC and LR1, finishing just prior to the time. This was my first six-section PT, so I did not give a shit by S6 LR2 I was just so exhausted. I am definitely doing six section PTs from now on to increase my intellectual stamina. I need to get into a rhythm of doing more warm-ups before the PT. I need to start earlier (8:30 instead of 10:30). I need more LR and RC drills. We're just four weeks away from being done!

User avatar
Gray
Posts: 5986
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:02 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Gray » Sat Aug 30, 2014 2:53 pm

Superstaranonymous wrote:And how did I miss the sorting hat?! :cry:

Go for it!
--ImageRemoved--

User avatar
hetookmetoamovie
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:03 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby hetookmetoamovie » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:03 pm

Haha, studying for the LSAT has made me surlier than I am usually.

BJS, you're a beast!

God, Beyonce's hourglass is out of this world.

On my 15 minute break and I've logged onto TLS. Will I be doing this on test day? :lol:

User avatar
Gray
Posts: 5986
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:02 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Gray » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:08 pm

BJS wrote:PT65 results are in!

S1 (PT31 LG S1): -2 [Experimental 1]
S2 LR1: -1
S3 LG: -0
S4 RC: -1
S5 (PT31 LR1 S2): -1 [Experimental 2]
S6 LR2: -0

I felt horrible about the RC and LR1, finishing just prior to the time. This was my first six-section PT, so I did not give a shit by S6 LR2 I was just so exhausted. I am definitely doing six section PTs from now on to increase my intellectual stamina. I need to get into a rhythm of doing more warm-ups before the PT. I need to start earlier (8:30 instead of 10:30). I need more LR and RC drills. We're just four weeks away from being done!


WHOA just saw this! Nice work!

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

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BillPackets » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:10 pm

PT 65:

LR 1: -0
LG: -0
RC: -0
LR 2: -0

Even though I 180ed it didn't feel good. Overall I was very unsure on TWO questions, which really didn't sit well with me. On game day I went to be 100% confident on each question I do, even in the experimental. I'm going to practice the writing section for the remainder of the day.

User avatar
flash21
Posts: 1536
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby flash21 » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:12 pm

what is TCR for a reading comprehension book? I have the LSAT trainer and am considering getting Manhattan RC if that is supposed to be a good book. I dunno if I'm just trying to throw books at my bad RC problems though. But damn am I awful at RC.. -9 on the last PT I did :(

Anyone ? ?

Maybe I should just drill RC more. Feels like the most hopeless section for some reason.

User avatar
Gray
Posts: 5986
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:02 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Gray » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:12 pm

Why is everyone killing PT 65!?? This is supposed to be my day off but I want to write it now.

Also, why no love for sorting hat Beyonce?

User avatar
Gray
Posts: 5986
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:02 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Gray » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:13 pm

BillPackets wrote:PT 65:

LR 1: -0
LG: -0
RC: -0
LR 2: -0

Even though I 180ed it didn't feel good. Overall I was very unsure on TWO questions, which really didn't sit well with me. On game day I went to be 100% confident on each question I do, even in the experimental. I'm going to practice the writing section for the remainder of the day.


......not sure if troll

User avatar
Colonel_funkadunk
Posts: 2791
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:03 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Colonel_funkadunk » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:17 pm

smccgrey wrote:
BillPackets wrote:PT 65:

LR 1: -0
LG: -0
RC: -0
LR 2: -0

Even though I 180ed it didn't feel good. Overall I was very unsure on TWO questions, which really didn't sit well with me. On game day I went to be 100% confident on each question I do, even in the experimental. I'm going to practice the writing section for the remainder of the day.


......not sure if troll

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

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BillPackets » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:19 pm


User avatar
Gray
Posts: 5986
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:02 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Gray » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:20 pm

I meant specifically the writing section.

User avatar
Superstaranonymous
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:29 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Superstaranonymous » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:21 pm

.
Last edited by Superstaranonymous on Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BillPackets » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:22 pm

smccgrey wrote:I meant specifically the writing section.


Come on, grey. think

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

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BJS » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:24 pm

BillPackets wrote:
smccgrey wrote:......not sure if troll



See: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... humblebrag

https://mobile.twitter.com/humblebrag

For additional information, also see: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/fa ... d=all&_r=0


:oops: :oops: I am sorry!! I was excited about my score and I enjoy posting my results here because it keeps me accountable to PTing. I thought posting PT results here was acceptable. I also know that this doesn't reflect my PT average AT ALL and my average - which is just around 170 - isn't good enough.

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

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BillPackets » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:29 pm

Haha that's it! It's nbd I just think it's disheartening sometimes when we have a range of scores ITT--from the lower 160s to the mid 170s--to see people saying they felt bad about a section but went -0/-1 on it. Obvs it is for everything LSAT related (despite veering off course from time to time), so we are all here to encourage and support one another while studying/prepping for the test.

Great job, BJS. That's a serious accomplishment and one that very few test takers (like 1 out of 100) ever accomplish.

User avatar
Gray
Posts: 5986
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:02 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Gray » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:31 pm

OH I GET IT YOU WERE JOKING.

I wonder how GT's celibacy experiment is going.

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

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BillPackets » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:32 pm

smccgrey wrote:OH I GET IT YOU WERE JOKING.


Idfk y that made me laugh so much but I really loled

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

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby jmjm » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:33 pm

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?


ok, this thread has moved fast in the last couple days but came across this discussion of 63.lr2.22.

it took me 2:30 mins for the question before I picked one and moved on without feeling confident on it. Most of it was between choice A and B. I picked A.

on blind review, one can definitely rule out B. B is clearly wrong because denial of a sufficient condition doesn't necessarily mean denial of necessary condition (should receive award). one can conclude that Penn shouldn't necessarily receive award but not that Penn shouldn't receive award.

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.


that leaves A closest to the right answer but not a good answer. you still have to assume that ineligibility for the award means that penn shouldn't receive the award. imo this gap is too large for an SA question for lsat standards.
Last edited by jmjm on Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: #gobroncos, bearedman8, blackmamba8, goldenbear2020, Mockingbird42, SunDevil14, VMars and 34 guests