The Official September 2014 Study Group

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
User avatar
dasani13

Silver
Posts: 1055
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 3:21 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby dasani13 » Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:48 pm

P.J.Fry wrote:So depressing when everyone is hitting personal bests and I just hit my worst PT in the last two weeks. Stupid bumblebees and urban sprawl and australian lawyers!


that PT sucked!

User avatar
P.J.Fry

Bronze
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:15 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby P.J.Fry » Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:49 pm

chimera wrote:
P.J.Fry wrote:So depressing when everyone is hitting personal bests and I just hit my worst PT in the last two weeks. Stupid bumblebees and urban sprawl and australian lawyers!


Ya you're not alone Fry. I'm pretty sure that RC gored everyone itt


Yea so I've read. I also went -6 on a pretty easy games section which I'm actually much more unhappy about. It just felt like a better complaint than magazine interns in Tuscany.

Just not thinking clearly enough today.

Gray

Platinum
Posts: 7003
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:02 pm

.

Postby Gray » Tue Sep 02, 2014 10:00 pm

.

Gray

Platinum
Posts: 7003
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:02 pm

.

Postby Gray » Tue Sep 02, 2014 10:19 pm

.

BJS

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

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BJS » Tue Sep 02, 2014 10:22 pm

Got to PT23 S3 Q10 in my Cambridge LR Difficulty packet today. It's the nonmoving cars one that I've read about so often on here, so I knew what the answer was. But sitting there I just couldn't justify B (the nonmoving running vehiciles answer) to myself. Any help? I selected E after eliminated all except for B, which I would have eliminated without knowing it was the answer.

ETA: Nevermind, found a good answer through the search function. Definitely makes sense, but I wouldn't have made the logical connection during a real test.

User avatar
Colonel_funkadunk

Gold
Posts: 3244
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:03 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Colonel_funkadunk » Tue Sep 02, 2014 10:27 pm

smccgrey wrote:WTF the one night I go out for dinner and everyone PWs. JFC.


I had a feeling you might react this way

Gray

Platinum
Posts: 7003
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:02 pm

.

Postby Gray » Tue Sep 02, 2014 10:30 pm

.

User avatar
Colonel_funkadunk

Gold
Posts: 3244
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:03 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Colonel_funkadunk » Tue Sep 02, 2014 10:34 pm

smccgrey wrote:
Colonel_funkadunk wrote:
smccgrey wrote:WTF the one night I go out for dinner and everyone PWs. JFC.


I had a feeling you might react this way

Obviously. So apparently you have big guns and an adorable child. Now I know what it's like to not see my eyebrows.


Pg 183, you have 5 min. This is only bc I've seen your brows

User avatar
mornincounselor

Silver
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 1:37 am

Post removed.

Postby mornincounselor » Tue Sep 02, 2014 10:35 pm

Post removed.
Last edited by mornincounselor on Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Colonel_funkadunk

Gold
Posts: 3244
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:03 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Colonel_funkadunk » Tue Sep 02, 2014 10:36 pm

mornincounselor wrote:
BJS wrote:Got to PT23 S3 Q10 in my Cambridge LR Difficulty packet today. It's the nonmoving cars one that I've read about so often on here, so I knew what the answer was. But sitting there I just couldn't justify B (the nonmoving running vehiciles answer) to myself. Any help? I selected E after eliminated all except for B, which I would have eliminated without knowing it was the answer.

ETA: Nevermind, found a good answer through the search function. Definitely makes sense, but I wouldn't have made the logical connection during a real test.


Sure, so it's a strengthen question. The prompt tells us that if a person decides to walk instead of driving there is "one less vehicle emitting pollution." It concludes that if people were to walk whenever it was feasible for them to do so then "pollution [would] be greatly reduced."

Sometimes with LR I like to start reading choices from the bottom.

(E) This weakens the argument.

(D) Who Cares? This is irrelevant to the conclusion.

(C ) Okay? This certainly doesn't strengthen the argument.

(B) Hmmm. So cars in gridlock produce less emissions than cars free to move quickly done the highway (that makes sense) but the more cars there are on the road the greater the congestion there is. So the more cars on the road the more pollution caused. This falls in nicely to our argument. For if many of those people walked instead of drove ---> less cars on the road --> less congestion ---> less pollution.

This strengthens the argument.

(A) this weakens the argument.


Is it in the strengthen packet

Gray

Platinum
Posts: 7003
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:02 pm

.

Postby Gray » Tue Sep 02, 2014 10:37 pm

.

User avatar
Colonel_funkadunk

Gold
Posts: 3244
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:03 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Colonel_funkadunk » Tue Sep 02, 2014 10:40 pm

smccgrey wrote:
Colonel_funkadunk wrote:Pg 183, you have 5 min. This is only bc I've seen your brows

AWWW. Lived up to the hype.

THANK GOD

ilikebaseball

Gold
Posts: 4102
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 3:04 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby ilikebaseball » Tue Sep 02, 2014 10:41 pm

PT 54
RC-2
LR-0
LG-1
LR-5

172. Fuck the 2nd LR

User avatar
Colonel_funkadunk

Gold
Posts: 3244
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:03 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Colonel_funkadunk » Tue Sep 02, 2014 10:43 pm

ilikebaseball wrote:PT 54
RC-2
LR-0
LG-1
LR-5

172. Fuck the 2nd LR


Good job. Damn tho you were killin it Til that last section. Fatigue you think or just a tricky section?

User avatar
BillPackets

Gold
Posts: 2176
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BillPackets » Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:07 pm

smccgrey wrote:WTF the one night I go out for dinner and everyone PWs. JFC.


At least u got 2 see the colonel

User avatar
dasani13

Silver
Posts: 1055
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 3:21 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby dasani13 » Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:14 pm

ilikebaseball wrote:PT 54
RC-2
LR-0
LG-1
LR-5

172. Fuck the 2nd LR


Nice!

User avatar
hetookmetoamovie

Silver
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:03 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby hetookmetoamovie » Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:14 pm

BillPackets wrote:
smccgrey wrote:WTF the one night I go out for dinner and everyone PWs. JFC.


At least u got 2 see the colonel


"Going to see the colonel" sounds like a euphemism for something naughty. I'm probably just thinking of the old Christopher Walken skit on SNL. #old

User avatar
hetookmetoamovie

Silver
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:03 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby hetookmetoamovie » Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:16 pm

ilikebaseball wrote:PT 54
RC-2
LR-0
LG-1
LR-5

172. Fuck the 2nd LR


Awesome! :)

User avatar
Colonel_funkadunk

Gold
Posts: 3244
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:03 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Colonel_funkadunk » Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:17 pm

hetookmetoamovie wrote:
BillPackets wrote:
smccgrey wrote:WTF the one night I go out for dinner and everyone PWs. JFC.


At least u got 2 see the colonel


"Going to see the colonel" sounds like a euphemism for something naughty. I'm probably just thinking of the old Christopher Walken skit on SNL. #old



I'm glad my handle has a seductive connotation #TLSAFTERHOURS

ilikebaseball

Gold
Posts: 4102
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 3:04 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby ilikebaseball » Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:31 pm

Colonel_funkadunk wrote:
ilikebaseball wrote:PT 54
RC-2
LR-0
LG-1
LR-5

172. Fuck the 2nd LR


Good job. Damn tho you were killin it Til that last section. Fatigue you think or just a tricky section?


no idea. it always seems like there is one LR section 2x harder than the other to me

User avatar
boris09

New
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:48 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby boris09 » Wed Sep 03, 2014 12:15 am

ilikebaseball wrote:
no idea. it always seems like there is one LR section 2x harder than the other to me


+1

User avatar
sfoglia

Gold
Posts: 1767
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 1:30 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby sfoglia » Wed Sep 03, 2014 12:15 am

boris09 wrote:
ilikebaseball wrote:
no idea. it always seems like there is one LR section 2x harder than the other to me


+1


I thought that was certifiably a thing.

Congrats on the score, ILB!!

User avatar
BillPackets

Gold
Posts: 2176
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BillPackets » Wed Sep 03, 2014 12:22 am

Tonight was a good night ITT guys let's keep it up

ilikebaseball

Gold
Posts: 4102
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 3:04 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby ilikebaseball » Wed Sep 03, 2014 12:23 am

Thanks guys. I'm gonna do a couple Mcgraw Hill tests just for more difficulty before returning to regular PT's 62-72 for the final 17-20 days

User avatar
BillPackets

Gold
Posts: 2176
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BillPackets » Wed Sep 03, 2014 12:24 am

Colonel_funkadunk wrote:
boris09 wrote: bill's amazing clean form,


Thinking about this will Never get old


Haaaaaa I thot no 1 else saw that besides grey but I mean that vid is funny af



Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests