February 2017 LSAT Thread

CMac86
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun May 08, 2016 8:32 pm

Re: February 2017 LSAT Thread

Postby CMac86 » Tue Dec 13, 2016 8:32 am

This is finals week for me, and then LSAT prep goes into overdrive. My job pretty much shuts down for two weeks, so I'm shooting to do a PT every other day with blind review and question type drilling in between tests. Finally bumping up to 5 section tests. I figure, I'll mostly be adding old LG and RC sections to use as the 5th section (inserted somewhere in the middle). The last PT I completed was on 11/29/16, but I have still been drilling question types (mostly LG) and reading more dense material-The Economist, The New Yorker, and my first issue of Scientific American arrived yesterday. The last two weeks have been busy with lots of gigs and projects for school. I'm shooting to complete a few of the PT's each week outside of my home.

As far as testing centers go, I'll be completing it at CCRI in Warwick, and I booked a hotel for the night before nearby. I'm not willing to gamble the drive from home on test day, plus that will let me sleep in till my normal wake up time (0545-0600).

njames1961
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 5:23 pm

Re: February 2017 LSAT Thread

Postby njames1961 » Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:16 pm

Rigo wrote:
njames1961 wrote:Just took my first non-diagnostic PT, got a 167, still can't decide whether to register for Feb or wait til June....

Shooting for a 173, is it possible with what little time there is left before Feb?? Or should I scratch it and wait for June

Help

I'd say it's possible.
You can always sign up for Feb and postpone closer to the test if you feel you're not ready.


Thanks maybe I'll do that - I'm gonna take another PT this weekend and make a decision based on that. Hopefully I'll actually retain some of the stuff I've read about Sufficient/Necessary Assumption LR q's so I can bump up my LR score (from -5/-5 on my last PT which was total shit...)

User avatar
maybeman
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:55 am

Re: February 2017 LSAT Thread

Postby maybeman » Tue Dec 13, 2016 8:02 pm

Just got a 180 (-1) on PT 48 and am in total shock.. thought it was going to be in the low 170's forsure. Averaged 173 on my last 5 and have never even made it into the the upper 170s. Ahh I'm so happy right now damn

User avatar
34iplaw
Posts: 3027
Joined: Wed May 04, 2016 2:55 am

Re: February 2017 LSAT Thread

Postby 34iplaw » Tue Dec 13, 2016 8:39 pm

maybeman wrote:Just got a 180 (-1) on PT 48 and am in total shock.. thought it was going to be in the low 170's forsure. Averaged 173 on my last 5 and have never even made it into the the upper 170s. Ahh I'm so happy right now damn


Never hit 180 (until December... still waiting on that), but I felt awesome when I hit 177 the first time. The second break to 179 wasn't as rewarding, but still felt good.

Congrats man - you're ready for Feb! :)

Also, this Facebook live stream from Trump... kind of odd?

User avatar
maybeman
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:55 am

Re: February 2017 LSAT Thread

Postby maybeman » Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:24 pm

34iplaw wrote:
maybeman wrote:Just got a 180 (-1) on PT 48 and am in total shock.. thought it was going to be in the low 170's forsure. Averaged 173 on my last 5 and have never even made it into the the upper 170s. Ahh I'm so happy right now damn


Never hit 180 (until December... still waiting on that), but I felt awesome when I hit 177 the first time. The second break to 179 wasn't as rewarding, but still felt good.

Congrats man - you're ready for Feb! :)

Also, this Facebook live stream from Trump... kind of odd?


Thanks! I hope so.. I definitely got a bit lucky on RC, and I rarely manage to not miss a couple on games. Another month of studying will definitely make me more consistent though.

Trump did a livestream? .. what

Speaking of Trump, did anybody see that Tiffany Trump might be in our cycle? And is gunning for H? lolol

ETA -- 100% chance that sweet dec 180 is coming for :D

User avatar
airwrecka
Posts: 964
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 1:54 pm

Re: February 2017 LSAT Thread

Postby airwrecka » Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:08 pm

maybeman wrote:Just got a 180 (-1) on PT 48 and am in total shock.. thought it was going to be in the low 170's forsure. Averaged 173 on my last 5 and have never even made it into the the upper 170s. Ahh I'm so happy right now damn


that's awesome! hoping my PT tomorrow goes that well! :D haha. but I'm taking PT 73, and from my experience the newest tests (70+) are much trickier :(

User avatar
maybeman
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:55 am

Re: February 2017 LSAT Thread

Postby maybeman » Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:55 pm

airwrecka wrote:
maybeman wrote:Just got a 180 (-1) on PT 48 and am in total shock.. thought it was going to be in the low 170's forsure. Averaged 173 on my last 5 and have never even made it into the the upper 170s. Ahh I'm so happy right now damn


that's awesome! hoping my PT tomorrow goes that well! :D haha. but I'm taking PT 73, and from my experience the newest tests (70+) are much trickier :(


So I've heard :( Good luck!!

Of the 70's, I've only taken Pt 70. Did meh. Hard games are my biggest weakness for sure, which might turn out to be a big issue. Currently working through the lowest PTs, but I'm saving the upper 70's for January and am pretty nervous about them tbh

etramak
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 11:58 am

Re: February 2017 LSAT Thread

Postby etramak » Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:42 pm

Decided I'll re-take September LSAT some time before the date change deadline (I only took one LR section and one RC passage on test day before quitting).

If I get anything less than a 172 I'll push back to June.
Why is this thread so decidedly not-lit? Is the Feb LSAT really that unpopular?

User avatar
harveybirdman502
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: February 2017 LSAT Thread

Postby harveybirdman502 » Fri Dec 16, 2016 6:23 pm

34iplaw wrote:
PrezRand wrote:Really starting to get scared


Don't be scared, yo. It's gonna be eezy peezy. You also have kind of a long time until then.

Also, looking for feedback on my site/project if anyone from Feb wants to PM me and gimme your thoughts.

Merci beaucoup!


Hit me with that link.

Also, quick question, IP: How would you go about negating this statement below? By some to none or can to can not? Having trouble deciding when and when not to negate by quantity.

There are some illnesses that experienced physicians can diagnose accurately from physical examination alone.

User avatar
harveybirdman502
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: February 2017 LSAT Thread

Postby harveybirdman502 » Fri Dec 16, 2016 6:24 pm

etramak wrote:Decided I'll re-take September LSAT some time before the date change deadline (I only took one LR section and one RC passage on test day before quitting).

If I get anything less than a 172 I'll push back to June.
Why is this thread so decidedly not-lit? Is the Feb LSAT really that unpopular?


Holidays + 6 week crunch time = not lit

User avatar
34iplaw
Posts: 3027
Joined: Wed May 04, 2016 2:55 am

Re: February 2017 LSAT Thread

Postby 34iplaw » Fri Dec 16, 2016 6:54 pm

harveybirdman502 wrote:
34iplaw wrote:
PrezRand wrote:Really starting to get scared


Don't be scared, yo. It's gonna be eezy peezy. You also have kind of a long time until then.

Also, looking for feedback on my site/project if anyone from Feb wants to PM me and gimme your thoughts.

Merci beaucoup!


Hit me with that link.

Also, quick question, IP: How would you go about negating this statement below? By some to none or can to can not? Having trouble deciding when and when not to negate by quantity.

There are some illnesses that experienced physicians can diagnose accurately from physical examination alone.


Usually some is none. The negation of "some apples are red" is "no apples are red" I believe. For the above, I think it would be...

There are no illnesses that experienced physicians can diagnose accurately from physical examination alone.

Negations are supposed to be the logical opposite // contradictory I believe... you need to change the some. The problem with not changing some would be that the statements aren't actually at odds.

I say "some apples are red" to which you respond "some apples are not red!" See how they don't actually conflict? Some apples are red almost implies (not technically on the LSAT as some could be all) that some apples are not red.

If you negated both the amount and the cannot you would basically be saying that 'no illnesses cannot be diagnosed' which is more or less the same as saying all illnesses can be diagnosed.

User avatar
harveybirdman502
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: February 2017 LSAT Thread

Postby harveybirdman502 » Sat Dec 17, 2016 1:28 pm

34iplaw wrote:
harveybirdman502 wrote:
34iplaw wrote:
PrezRand wrote:Really starting to get scared


Don't be scared, yo. It's gonna be eezy peezy. You also have kind of a long time until then.

Also, looking for feedback on my site/project if anyone from Feb wants to PM me and gimme your thoughts.

Merci beaucoup!


Hit me with that link.

Also, quick question, IP: How would you go about negating this statement below? By some to none or can to can not? Having trouble deciding when and when not to negate by quantity.

There are some illnesses that experienced physicians can diagnose accurately from physical examination alone.


Usually some is none. The negation of "some apples are red" is "no apples are red" I believe. For the above, I think it would be...

There are no illnesses that experienced physicians can diagnose accurately from physical examination alone.

Negations are supposed to be the logical opposite // contradictory I believe... you need to change the some. The problem with not changing some would be that the statements aren't actually at odds.

I say "some apples are red" to which you respond "some apples are not red!" See how they don't actually conflict? Some apples are red almost implies (not technically on the LSAT as some could be all) that some apples are not red.

If you negated both the amount and the cannot you would basically be saying that 'no illnesses cannot be diagnosed' which is more or less the same as saying all illnesses can be diagnosed.


Ok. If I understand correctly then, when there is a quantity indicator like some in an NA question, you should negate that instead of the necessary indicator. The statement above isn't a great example, but if something like must or have appeared you should just leave it alone rather than placing a not after it in these instances. Yeah?

User avatar
34iplaw
Posts: 3027
Joined: Wed May 04, 2016 2:55 am

Re: February 2017 LSAT Thread

Postby 34iplaw » Sat Dec 17, 2016 2:32 pm

harveybirdman502 wrote:
34iplaw wrote:
harveybirdman502 wrote:
34iplaw wrote:
PrezRand wrote:Really starting to get scared


Don't be scared, yo. It's gonna be eezy peezy. You also have kind of a long time until then.

Also, looking for feedback on my site/project if anyone from Feb wants to PM me and gimme your thoughts.

Merci beaucoup!


Hit me with that link.

Also, quick question, IP: How would you go about negating this statement below? By some to none or can to can not? Having trouble deciding when and when not to negate by quantity.

There are some illnesses that experienced physicians can diagnose accurately from physical examination alone.


Usually some is none. The negation of "some apples are red" is "no apples are red" I believe. For the above, I think it would be...

There are no illnesses that experienced physicians can diagnose accurately from physical examination alone.

Negations are supposed to be the logical opposite // contradictory I believe... you need to change the some. The problem with not changing some would be that the statements aren't actually at odds.

I say "some apples are red" to which you respond "some apples are not red!" See how they don't actually conflict? Some apples are red almost implies (not technically on the LSAT as some could be all) that some apples are not red.

If you negated both the amount and the cannot you would basically be saying that 'no illnesses cannot be diagnosed' which is more or less the same as saying all illnesses can be diagnosed.


Ok. If I understand correctly then, when there is a quantity indicator like some in an NA question, you should negate that instead of the necessary indicator. The statement above isn't a great example, but if something like must or have appeared you should just leave it alone rather than placing a not after it in these instances. Yeah?


Let's get someone else to weigh in since I'm feeling fuzzy. I didn't really learn much of it in a mechanical way, so I don't want to answer with an absolute rule and lead you astray. Basically, my approach to negation is to come up with the most basic/lowest threshold to disprove something.

She must swim if it rains would negate to she may not swim even if it rains. (If it rains, she must swim --> even if it rains, she may not swim)

User avatar
harveybirdman502
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: February 2017 LSAT Thread

Postby harveybirdman502 » Sat Dec 17, 2016 3:02 pm

34iplaw wrote:
Let's get someone else to weigh in since I'm feeling fuzzy. I didn't really learn much of it in a mechanical way, so I don't want to answer with an absolute rule and lead you astray. Basically, my approach to negation is to come up with the most basic/lowest threshold to disprove something.

She must swim if it rains would negate to she may not swim even if it rains. (If it rains, she must swim --> even if it rains, she may not swim)


I think I answered my own question here.

I'm pretty sure that, with the exception of statements containing all, any, every, statements including quantifiers should be negated by quantifier.

The issue with the 'all' indicators is that 'not' is always included in the negation. (All dogs are cute, some dogs are not cute)

Negating some, most and the others does not involve placing a 'not' in the sentence. Sorry if that's confusing. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

User avatar
34iplaw
Posts: 3027
Joined: Wed May 04, 2016 2:55 am

Re: February 2017 LSAT Thread

Postby 34iplaw » Sat Dec 17, 2016 3:33 pm

harveybirdman502 wrote:
34iplaw wrote:
Let's get someone else to weigh in since I'm feeling fuzzy. I didn't really learn much of it in a mechanical way, so I don't want to answer with an absolute rule and lead you astray. Basically, my approach to negation is to come up with the most basic/lowest threshold to disprove something.

She must swim if it rains would negate to she may not swim even if it rains. (If it rains, she must swim --> even if it rains, she may not swim)


I think I answered my own question here.

I'm pretty sure that, with the exception of statements containing all, any, every, statements including quantifiers should be negated by quantifier.

The issue with the 'all' indicators is that 'not' is always included in the negation. (All dogs are cute, some dogs are not cute)

Negating some, most and the others does not involve placing a 'not' in the sentence. Sorry if that's confusing. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.


It's semi pedantic but I'd just keep in mind that the megaton of an all would actually be at least one. Granted, at least one is under the umbrella of some but is a lower threshold.

User avatar
harveybirdman502
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: February 2017 LSAT Thread

Postby harveybirdman502 » Sat Dec 17, 2016 5:49 pm

34iplaw wrote:
harveybirdman502 wrote:
34iplaw wrote:
Let's get someone else to weigh in since I'm feeling fuzzy. I didn't really learn much of it in a mechanical way, so I don't want to answer with an absolute rule and lead you astray. Basically, my approach to negation is to come up with the most basic/lowest threshold to disprove something.

She must swim if it rains would negate to she may not swim even if it rains. (If it rains, she must swim --> even if it rains, she may not swim)


I think I answered my own question here.

I'm pretty sure that, with the exception of statements containing all, any, every, statements including quantifiers should be negated by quantifier.

The issue with the 'all' indicators is that 'not' is always included in the negation. (All dogs are cute, some dogs are not cute)

Negating some, most and the others does not involve placing a 'not' in the sentence. Sorry if that's confusing. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.


It's semi pedantic but I'd just keep in mind that the megaton of an all would actually be at least one. Granted, at least one is under the umbrella of some but is a lower threshold.


I gotcha. Thanks. Another complication I came across today has to do with inferences yielded from All and Most. I was under the impression that in LR questions, All and Most yield Most as an inference. Whereas I'm seeing in the 7sage course that All and Most yield Some in many instances. Just trying to figure out which is which.

User avatar
34iplaw
Posts: 3027
Joined: Wed May 04, 2016 2:55 am

Re: February 2017 LSAT Thread

Postby 34iplaw » Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:24 pm

harveybirdman502 wrote:
34iplaw wrote:
harveybirdman502 wrote:
34iplaw wrote:
Let's get someone else to weigh in since I'm feeling fuzzy. I didn't really learn much of it in a mechanical way, so I don't want to answer with an absolute rule and lead you astray. Basically, my approach to negation is to come up with the most basic/lowest threshold to disprove something.

She must swim if it rains would negate to she may not swim even if it rains. (If it rains, she must swim --> even if it rains, she may not swim)


I think I answered my own question here.

I'm pretty sure that, with the exception of statements containing all, any, every, statements including quantifiers should be negated by quantifier.

The issue with the 'all' indicators is that 'not' is always included in the negation. (All dogs are cute, some dogs are not cute)

Negating some, most and the others does not involve placing a 'not' in the sentence. Sorry if that's confusing. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.


It's semi pedantic but I'd just keep in mind that the megaton of an all would actually be at least one. Granted, at least one is under the umbrella of some but is a lower threshold.


I gotcha. Thanks. Another complication I came across today has to do with inferences yielded from All and Most. I was under the impression that in LR questions, All and Most yield Most as an inference. Whereas I'm seeing in the 7sage course that All and Most yield Some in many instances. Just trying to figure out which is which.


Do you have an example? It could just be on specific questions that some is a lower threshold of most. i.e. Any valid conclusion that is A most B must also allow for you to conclude A some B (and B some A)

User avatar
appind
Posts: 2085
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:07 am

Re: February 2017 LSAT Thread

Postby appind » Sat Dec 17, 2016 8:06 pm

I am not studying for Feb but just wanted to drop a quick note for those studying and not getting the results they want right away. It'll come. I went from 130 diag to low 170s official score. I spent a lot of time on lsat and at times thought it impossible. It can be done so long you keep trying.

CMac86
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun May 08, 2016 8:32 pm

Re: February 2017 LSAT Thread

Postby CMac86 » Sat Dec 17, 2016 9:33 pm

Finals are over, and it is back to focusing heavily on LSAT. I have a lot of PT's, blind reviewing, and drilling to do!

User avatar
maybeman
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:55 am

Re: February 2017 LSAT Thread

Postby maybeman » Sat Dec 17, 2016 11:23 pm

appind wrote:I am not studying for Feb but just wanted to drop a quick note for those studying and not getting the results they want right away. It'll come. I went from 130 diag to low 170s official score. I spent a lot of time on lsat and at times thought it impossible. It can be done so long you keep trying.


Wow, I've never heard of a 40+ point score increase. That's amazing. How long did it take you?

User avatar
harveybirdman502
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: February 2017 LSAT Thread

Postby harveybirdman502 » Sun Dec 18, 2016 6:32 pm

34iplaw wrote:
harveybirdman502 wrote:
34iplaw wrote:
harveybirdman502 wrote:
34iplaw wrote:
Do you have an example? It could just be on specific questions that some is a lower threshold of most. i.e. Any valid conclusion that is A most B must also allow for you to conclude A some B (and B some A)


I gotta just go back to the basics on this I think.

Wish your new site was up for this question though. 24 on Sec. 4, PT 4 is a doozy. Future predictions always seem like CBT! But we probably won't see these types in the new tests.I don't think I've ever come across a Could Be True Except question until now. On the bright side, I only missed 2 on BR and 4 on timed.

If anyone is familiar with the schizophrenia question here, please follow up. Again, Manhattan hath failed me.

User avatar
34iplaw
Posts: 3027
Joined: Wed May 04, 2016 2:55 am

Re: February 2017 LSAT Thread

Postby 34iplaw » Sun Dec 18, 2016 8:04 pm

harveybirdman502 wrote:
34iplaw wrote:
harveybirdman502 wrote:
34iplaw wrote:
harveybirdman502 wrote:
34iplaw wrote:
Do you have an example? It could just be on specific questions that some is a lower threshold of most. i.e. Any valid conclusion that is A most B must also allow for you to conclude A some B (and B some A)


I gotta just go back to the basics on this I think.

Wish your new site was up for this question though. 24 on Sec. 4, PT 4 is a doozy. Future predictions always seem like CBT! But we probably won't see these types in the new tests.I don't think I've ever come across a Could Be True Except question until now. On the bright side, I only missed 2 on BR and 4 on timed.

If anyone is familiar with the schizophrenia question here, please follow up. Again, Manhattan hath failed me.


Okay - here are my thoughts... I initially got to right answer by POE, but I am 100% certain I have the right reason for why the correct answer cannot be true. Feel free to let me know if I should further elaborate or if anything is unclear.

[+] Spoiler
[p] brains of twins are gen. identically
[p] if only one of two is schizophrenic, certain areas smaller in affected twin
[p] if neither is schizophrenic, there are no differences
[c] schizophrenia caused by damage

the conclusion doesn't really seem to follow IMO, and the wording of the stem almost makes me think they aren't really concerned with the conclusion... we're looking for something that can't be true.

[a] Yeah... could be true... we don't know that much about the causes...it seems like, based on the stated conclusion, that physical damage is the cause, but, perhaps, there must be physical damage and genetic susceptibility.

[b] Yeah... could be true... we know very little about cures or treatments... perhaps someone would pick this b/c they think about physical damage but that's pretty vague and open ended... certainly there are physical damages that can be ameliorated by medicine

[c] Yeah... could be true... this is really open ended. For all we know, schizophrenia is maybe limited to three percent of the overall area of the brain and brains are otherwise identical... it'd be fine to say that they share many of the same characteristics.

[e] yeah.... could be true... is fine... it sounds like a pretty reasonable explanation for why the brains
got damaged but also isn't really in contradiction.

[d] is weird, and, when I first did it, I got to it by process of elimination. Part of me was thinking that perhaps it contradicts the idea that physical damage isn't probably encoded in genetic information. That said, I did realize why D is definitively a cannot be true. Based on the stimulus, we know there are circumstances in which only one of a pair of genetically identical twins develops schizophrenia... they have the same genetic information. Based on that information, we have one case of schizophrenia and one case of no schizophrenia, therefore it is impossible to determine it solely based on said information (different outcomes, same info)

etramak
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 11:58 am

Re: February 2017 LSAT Thread

Postby etramak » Mon Dec 19, 2016 1:26 pm

Bad news: Think I failed the last final of my undergraduate career last week. It was only worth 25% but if I did poorly enough it could pull my GPA below 3.9 and render my chances at HYS virtually zero.

Good news: I got a 180 on PT 72! Caveat - It was my third or fourth time retaking it...not counting all the other times I practiced the sections individually. Same situation with every other PT up to 78. Not sure how I'm supposed to prep for this.

Anon.y.mousse.
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 5:35 pm

Re: February 2017 LSAT Thread

Postby Anon.y.mousse. » Mon Dec 19, 2016 1:29 pm

Checking in. Took the Sep LSAT and was mostly happy with my score but would love a couple of extra points for scholarship negotiations. Was PTing 173 consistently before Sep LSAT and ended up with a 170, the virus game really got me.

etramak
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 11:58 am

Re: February 2017 LSAT Thread

Postby etramak » Mon Dec 19, 2016 3:40 pm

I know this test isn't disclosed but do they at least let us know the number of correct responses and the scale?




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest