The Official October 2015 Study Group

[seashell.economy]

Took PT #41 today - then realized that since I got PT #41 from a PDF that someone emailed me, it doesn't have the score guide that the LSAC SuperPrep books have in the back of each PT. How do I figure out my actual score w/curve for PT #41?

Also, CIRCLE game? WTF

Cambridge LSAT has keys and scales

Neat. Thanks!

[MrBalloons]

PT 61 tomorrow morning.

We'll see if I can make it 4 in a row about 170. I feel like 3 could still be a fluke, but 4 seems solid. But if I make it to 4 I'll probably think that's a fluke too, honestly. So who knows.

[bnssweeney]

Would just like to say that PT 21, Sec.3, Ques.7 may be the dumbest question/answer choices I've ever seen in my LSAT days.

And that's my rant for the night.

What are your guys' opinions on worst LSAT questions?

[ffamran]

Did preptest 49, got a 177 (or 178 if I don't count the bubbling error...) and I'm very happy

[appind]

pt-60

lg -3 (all misses in g4)
lr1 -2 (q13, 15)
lr2 -1 (q24)
rc -8 (-1 in p3, -7 in p4 due to no time)

I don't go perfect in RC every time, but I have plenty of times and as of late I've been doing really well on it. I've never actually timed how fast I read the passage versus how much I spend on questions, but I would be willing to make an educated guess that I spend more time on the passage. I read the passage and make sure that I comprehend every sentence (to an extent), as well as make sure I'm keeping track of the general structure of the passage and the viewpoints being presented. I may not remember every single detail from every sentence, but IMO its important to at least be able to make sense of each and every sentence to the point that you genuinely understand what its trying to say. Otherwise you might miss its place in the structure of the passage or misinterpret a viewpoint. I also do absolutely 0 marking up whatsoever which saves time.

As for the questions, whenever it tells me to go back to specific lines, I do so and usually read about a line or two above what lines they point out, especially if its asking something like "The author does this in lines 20-30 in order to..." As for the rest of the question types, I would say that for the majority of them I do not refer back to the passage, unless its asking for really specific details, or I'm not 100% sure that I recall what the author or viewpoint that the question is referring to consists of. But for lots of the questions, such as those that ask "It can be inferred from the passage that..." I usually will not have to refer back. Mainly because 1) I usually remember what the major viewpoints are, and 2) So many of the incorrect ACs are obviously incorrect, usually because they are too strong in logical force or out of scope (just like most strongly supported LR questions). However, if I know exactly what portion of the passage the question is referring to, I might glance at it really quick just to be that much more confident and to avoid stupid mistakes (this has actually saved me on a couple of Qs). But for main point questions as well as the questions that are asking for the organization or purpose of the passage, I almost never refer back. These are things that you are better served to keep in mind in the process of reading the passage, rather than ascertaining afterwards.

this is useful writing, i'll try this during my next RC drills. not to say that i don't try to read the passage carefully, but i find that if i take over 3:30 min to read the passage, i usually run out of time like i did in pt-60 above where i never even got to the last passage.
when you say you spend more time on the passage does it mean that you spend over 4:30min to do the initial read per passage?
also, do you subvocalize when reading passage or doing questions?

[appind]

The section difficult ratings are under Section Performance on the Trends page at 7sage.

I don't always, or even usually, go -0 RC, but I went -1 on the RC in question. I fly through the reading just watching for main points, transitions, arguments, etc. I don't mark anything. I have a lot of success with this, but I don't imagine that it's the only way to do well.

i checked out the trends page and it's 5/5 like other RC sections from PT 57-64. i guess 7sage simply marked all newer RC as 5 difficulty.
-1 on these new rc must feel great. how fast do you finish the rc and lr sections typically? my lr drilling helped me go -0 in 64 lr combined, but rc is a different story.

[The Abyss]

The section difficult ratings are under Section Performance on the Trends page at 7sage.

I don't always, or even usually, go -0 RC, but I went -1 on the RC in question. I fly through the reading just watching for main points, transitions, arguments, etc. I don't mark anything. I have a lot of success with this, but I don't imagine that it's the only way to do well.

i checked out the trends page and it's 5/5 like other RC sections from PT 57-64. i guess 7sage simply marked all newer RC as 5 difficulty.
-1 on these new rc must feel great. how fast do you finish the rc and lr sections typically? my lr drilling helped me go -0 in 64 lr combined, but rc is a different story.

The difficulty ratings are a function of how those that have inputted data have done on those sections, I believe.

[pittsburghpirates]

Post removed.

[HLSorBust]

I'm not sure if this is just me, but does anyone else find that the LR sections from recent tests easier than the older ones?

[ffamran]

I'm not sure if this is just me, but does anyone else find that the LR sections from recent tests easier than the older ones?

Yeah, the older ones have more "the following all ______ EXCEPT:" questions, and I always have to go through every answer choice for those questions...

[mist4bison]

So I remember seeing posts about parallel flaw questions and someone saying that they replace conditional statements with A/B/C. Does this actually help anyone? I'm working on parallel flaw questions now and I haven't had a single instance where it's easier to diagram using neutral letters than it is to just read the stimulus and figure out the flaw. Maybe there just aren't any that it works for in the Cambridge packets? Or do people not use it for parallel flaw and use it for parallel reasoning instead?

[MrBalloons]

-1 on these new rc must feel great. how fast do you finish the rc and lr sections typically? my lr drilling helped me go -0 in 64 lr combined, but rc is a different story.

I usually have a question or two to go when 5 minutes is called on the RC and I'm usually wrapping up or looking through circled answers on LR.

So I'd guess averages would probably be like 32 minutes for RC and 29 for LR.

[MrBalloons]

So I remember seeing posts about parallel flaw questions and someone saying that they replace conditional statements with A/B/C. Does this actually help anyone? I'm working on parallel flaw questions now and I haven't had a single instance where it's easier to diagram using neutral letters than it is to just read the stimulus and figure out the flaw. Maybe there just aren't any that it works for in the Cambridge packets? Or do people not use it for parallel flaw and use it for parallel reasoning instead?

That may've been my post. If so, yeah, I meant parallel reasoning and not parallel flaw. My bad.

Though I can imagine a more complex parallel flaw question where diagraming might help out.

[somethingElse]

Post removed...

[alpha kenny body]

-1 on these new rc must feel great. how fast do you finish the rc and lr sections typically? my lr drilling helped me go -0 in 64 lr combined, but rc is a different story.

I usually have a question or two to go when 5 minutes is called on the RC and I'm usually wrapping up or looking through circled answers on LR.

So I'd guess averages would probably be like 32 minutes for RC and 29 for LR.

For drilling, I have been trying to finish every passage within 8:45, and my thought process is that I need to have finished reading the passage and answered the first question within 4 minutes. Then, you're left with 4:45 to answer up to six questions and at the least four more.

[MrBalloons]

For drilling, I have been trying to finish every passage within 8:45, and my thought process is that I need to have finished reading the passage and answered the first question within 4 minutes. Then, you're left with 4:45 to answer up to six questions and at the least four more.

That'd make a lot of sense if the passages were all more or less equal, I think. But I think there are plenty of passages that should take less than 8:45 and plenty that should take longer.

[alpha kenny body]

For drilling, I have been trying to finish every passage within 8:45, and my thought process is that I need to have finished reading the passage and answered the first question within 4 minutes. Then, you're left with 4:45 to answer up to six questions and at the least four more.

That'd make a lot of sense if the passages were all more or less equal, I think. But I think there are plenty of passages that should take less than 8:45 and plenty that should take longer.

I definitely agree, although, most of the passages, in terms of length, are all similarly the same. It is the content that confounds one's time and/or comprehension. My method is more or less an average to strive for during each, and not concrete for all.

[PoopNpants]

My plan for the next 5 weeks is as follows

PT 6 sections straight through,then blind review, Mon. Tues. Thurs Friday
Drill Weds, one of Sat./Sun,
Last week I will probably just Pt twice, do a few sections here or there, and chill the day before.

[mist4bison]

So I remember seeing posts about parallel flaw questions and someone saying that they replace conditional statements with A/B/C. Does this actually help anyone? I'm working on parallel flaw questions now and I haven't had a single instance where it's easier to diagram using neutral letters than it is to just read the stimulus and figure out the flaw. Maybe there just aren't any that it works for in the Cambridge packets? Or do people not use it for parallel flaw and use it for parallel reasoning instead?

That may've been my post. If so, yeah, I meant parallel reasoning and not parallel flaw. My bad.

Though I can imagine a more complex parallel flaw question where diagraming might help out.

Ah, okay. You might have said reasoning; I didn't look back to check. Have yet to start drill parallel reasoning yet. Thanks

[alpha kenny body]

Taking first fully timed PT (of this retake session) tomorrow. Five sections, using 7Sage proctor, etc. I am also ordering my LSAT Watch next week!

[mornincounselor]

Post removed.

[MrBalloons]

Wow. PT 61 got a 179. I'm floored.

RC: -1
LR1: -1
LG: -1
LR2: -0

[The Abyss]

Wow. PT 61 got a 179. I'm floored.

RC: -1
LR1: -1
LG: -1
LR2: -0

Congrats!

[gamerish]

Post removed...

[bigv]

PT 41 - that circle game completely ruined me