The Official June 2017 Study Group

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

DOLPHINS, ARE YOU READY TO CRUSH THIS TEST?

Poll ended at Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:54 pm

FU%# YES!!!
11
28%
F#$k YES!!!
6
15%
FEAR MY BOTTLE SHAPED NOSE!!!
22
56%
 
Total votes: 39

User avatar
MediocreAtBest

Silver
Posts: 632
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 2:51 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby MediocreAtBest » Sat May 20, 2017 7:20 pm

Mint-Berry_Crunch wrote:
MediocreAtBest wrote:
Mint-Berry_Crunch wrote:So that digi test was interesting


Once I saw they were splitting us into two rooms, i figured our chances of running into each other were slim.

The test was...interesting though. Had some pros and cons.


Lol yeah I realized that might not happen. I was in the room on the right of that means anything.


Haha I was in the room on the left, wasn't meant to be. I was gonna swing by Stone afterwards but I was starving so I just went to 3 monkeys instead.

User avatar
Future Ex-Engineer

Silver
Posts: 1430
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Future Ex-Engineer » Sat May 20, 2017 7:55 pm

MediocreAtBest wrote:I thought LG RC LR RC LR was pretty brutal. I wish you had the option of hiding the timer once 5 minutes are left, having the ticking number at the top makes me feel super rushed. On LG, I liked having the rules on the left side of the screen for each question, but my timing was a little off (maybe because it was the first section) and I barely finished in time. On LR, I think I prefer having the stim immediately above the stem instead of to the side like that, but whatever. Overall I think I prefer a physical test instead of this, but maybe just because that's the way I've been doing it since January haha.

Also thought the test was kinda tough, maybe because of the layout of the sections or because I was running on 3.5 hours of sleep but I'm guessing I'm around 170.

The most useful thing I learned was that I should pack a snack for the actual test, by the third section my stomach was growling like crazy. And U of Richmond's campus is beautiful, even though it's the second best college in the city.


Yeah so uh unless I had a tablet with super powers, you definitely could just touch the timer and it would disappear...

User avatar
Future Ex-Engineer

Silver
Posts: 1430
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Future Ex-Engineer » Sat May 20, 2017 8:03 pm

I'm going to write up a post here later for longevity sake with my feedback that maybe some poor schmuck from LSAC will read at some point (I thought we were going to have to do some survey afterwards, but apparently not), but for now here's my thoughts after having gotten to consider the test more fully on my 3.5 hour drive home.

1) LG was not at all as bad as I was expecting. Plenty of space in the scratch paper, and it wasn't that bad. I think on harder games (I feel like PT 73 has very easy games) it might be difficult with having to go back and forth between screen and paper, but not a problem today. Finished with 9.5 minutes remaining.
2) I thought LR was actually a bit easier. Having only one question visible at a time helped me not get distracted seeing a huge question stim coming up. That being said, I think solely because it was on a screen, it made it easier for me to misread a couple of ACs, resulting in two misses I shouldn't have had.
3) The biggest problem: RC. I work full time as an engineer, and am constantly on a screen. I am also constantly multitasking - thus, when I am faced with a screen for RC, concentration is much more difficult than the traditional book test. Also, having to scroll through the passage as opposed to being able to see the entire thing at once makes 'as stated by the passage' or 'strongly suggested by the passage' questions much more difficult (IMO) - if you can't see everything at once, how are you supposed to quickly scan for answers if you don't remember exactly where it is? I missed 5 'as stated in the passage' questions (only missed 7 total RC), and I can't help but think this is part of the reason.

Writing portion is much easier (not that it matters at all).

I also quite liked having the tablet self-time. It makes it so there are no discrepancies with bad proctors not giving enough time or anything. Made my pacing even easier than using my Mastermind Watch. That being said, I'm almost automatic on timing now anyway, and I feel like I have a good internal clock set for timing, so it really doesn't matter that much. Was pretty pumped that I hit 20 in 20 on the first 20 questions of LR2 today though.

User avatar
MediocreAtBest

Silver
Posts: 632
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 2:51 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby MediocreAtBest » Sat May 20, 2017 8:03 pm

Future Ex-Engineer wrote:
MediocreAtBest wrote:I thought LG RC LR RC LR was pretty brutal. I wish you had the option of hiding the timer once 5 minutes are left, having the ticking number at the top makes me feel super rushed. On LG, I liked having the rules on the left side of the screen for each question, but my timing was a little off (maybe because it was the first section) and I barely finished in time. On LR, I think I prefer having the stim immediately above the stem instead of to the side like that, but whatever. Overall I think I prefer a physical test instead of this, but maybe just because that's the way I've been doing it since January haha.

Also thought the test was kinda tough, maybe because of the layout of the sections or because I was running on 3.5 hours of sleep but I'm guessing I'm around 170.

The most useful thing I learned was that I should pack a snack for the actual test, by the third section my stomach was growling like crazy. And U of Richmond's campus is beautiful, even though it's the second best college in the city.


Yeah so uh unless I had a tablet with super powers, you definitely could just touch the timer and it would disappear...


Yeah you had the option for the first 30 minutes, but the last 5 minutes you couldn't do that.

User avatar
Future Ex-Engineer

Silver
Posts: 1430
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Future Ex-Engineer » Sat May 20, 2017 8:04 pm

MediocreAtBest wrote:
Future Ex-Engineer wrote:
MediocreAtBest wrote:I thought LG RC LR RC LR was pretty brutal. I wish you had the option of hiding the timer once 5 minutes are left, having the ticking number at the top makes me feel super rushed. On LG, I liked having the rules on the left side of the screen for each question, but my timing was a little off (maybe because it was the first section) and I barely finished in time. On LR, I think I prefer having the stim immediately above the stem instead of to the side like that, but whatever. Overall I think I prefer a physical test instead of this, but maybe just because that's the way I've been doing it since January haha.

Also thought the test was kinda tough, maybe because of the layout of the sections or because I was running on 3.5 hours of sleep but I'm guessing I'm around 170.

The most useful thing I learned was that I should pack a snack for the actual test, by the third section my stomach was growling like crazy. And U of Richmond's campus is beautiful, even though it's the second best college in the city.


Yeah so uh unless I had a tablet with super powers, you definitely could just touch the timer and it would disappear...


Yeah you had the option for the first 30 minutes, but the last 5 minutes you couldn't do that.


Oh. Did not know that. Guess it's pretty obvious who didn't try to do that in the last 5 minutes and just assumed it would work then too (me :lol: )

User avatar
Mint-Berry_Crunch

Platinum
Posts: 5816
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 1:20 am

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Mint-Berry_Crunch » Sat May 20, 2017 9:31 pm

MediocreAtBest wrote:
Mint-Berry_Crunch wrote:
MediocreAtBest wrote:
Mint-Berry_Crunch wrote:So that digi test was interesting


Once I saw they were splitting us into two rooms, i figured our chances of running into each other were slim.

The test was...interesting though. Had some pros and cons.


Lol yeah I realized that might not happen. I was in the room on the right of that means anything.


Haha I was in the room on the left, wasn't meant to be. I was gonna swing by Stone afterwards but I was starving so I just went to 3 monkeys instead.


lol my gf was in the room on the left.


We went to stone but we're too hungry to stay. Didn't realize they didn't have food

User avatar
tuna_wasabi

Bronze
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby tuna_wasabi » Sat May 20, 2017 10:20 pm

Future Ex-Engineer wrote:So after going back and inputting my answers for 73 from memory, I ended up with a scaled 170.

PT73
89 raw
170 scaled
-7 RC :shock: So I missed 5 of 7 questions on the Marcusian/advertising passage. Someone's tablet randomly shut off during that section, and the resulting chaos from proctors caused a lot of distractions while I was in that passage. I'm going to hope that's what happened.
-4 LR1: caught two of my mistakes as I was transcribing answers. Just mis-read a couple of ACs and they punished me for pre-phrasing without perfect precision
-0 LG
-1 LR2: caught my mistake here on the transcribe.

Overall can't be mad about consistently breaking 170. Hate hard RC passages though.


The RC for PT 73 is ridiculous. Don't feel bad if you bomb it. Let's hope the test in June is slightly more reasonable.

User avatar
Saylor1720

New
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2016 5:10 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Saylor1720 » Sat May 20, 2017 10:36 pm

Finally got my first 170, after a 169 on Tuesday! My goal is 168+ so I need to stay consistent.

PT70
LR1: -2
RC: -5
LG: -0 (finally)
LR2: -5
Score: 170

I took it in a rather loud place as well, I could feel the fatigue during the 4th section, as I took this one with no break instead of a 5th section due to life's time constraint. Really happy about this! Would love to get LR down to -5 or better total and shave 2 points off of RC in the last 3 weeks! Woohoo!

User avatar
Future Ex-Engineer

Silver
Posts: 1430
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Future Ex-Engineer » Sat May 20, 2017 10:57 pm

lynn.wibi wrote:
Future Ex-Engineer wrote:So after going back and inputting my answers for 73 from memory, I ended up with a scaled 170.

PT73
89 raw
170 scaled
-7 RC :shock: So I missed 5 of 7 questions on the Marcusian/advertising passage. Someone's tablet randomly shut off during that section, and the resulting chaos from proctors caused a lot of distractions while I was in that passage. I'm going to hope that's what happened.
-4 LR1: caught two of my mistakes as I was transcribing answers. Just mis-read a couple of ACs and they punished me for pre-phrasing without perfect precision
-0 LG
-1 LR2: caught my mistake here on the transcribe.

Overall can't be mad about consistently breaking 170. Hate hard RC passages though.


The RC for PT 73 is ridiculous. Don't feel bad if you bomb it. Let's hope the test in June is slightly more reasonable.


Yeah, I hope so. It was my assessment that LR and LG were both very simple in this test compared to what I've seen in the 60s, so I guess they made RC much harder to compensate? Either way, I'm hoping for the exact opposite in June. I'd love a hard games section and super simple RC

User avatar
Jack_Kelly

Silver
Posts: 900
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 12:52 am

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Jack_Kelly » Sat May 20, 2017 11:01 pm

Anyone have any advice for rapid LG improvement beyond 7sage and PowerScore?

I'm doing better than most people on here in the 170s on the other sections but just tragic in the games, regularly double digits missed.

User avatar
Platopus

Silver
Posts: 1482
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 11:20 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Platopus » Sun May 21, 2017 12:16 am

Future Ex-Engineer wrote:I'm going to write up a post here later for longevity sake with my feedback that maybe some poor schmuck from LSAC will read at some point (I thought we were going to have to do some survey afterwards, but apparently not), but for now here's my thoughts after having gotten to consider the test more fully on my 3.5 hour drive home.

1) LG was not at all as bad as I was expecting. Plenty of space in the scratch paper, and it wasn't that bad. I think on harder games (I feel like PT 73 has very easy games) it might be difficult with having to go back and forth between screen and paper, but not a problem today. Finished with 9.5 minutes remaining.
2) I thought LR was actually a bit easier. Having only one question visible at a time helped me not get distracted seeing a huge question stim coming up. That being said, I think solely because it was on a screen, it made it easier for me to misread a couple of ACs, resulting in two misses I shouldn't have had.
3) The biggest problem: RC. I work full time as an engineer, and am constantly on a screen. I am also constantly multitasking - thus, when I am faced with a screen for RC, concentration is much more difficult than the traditional book test. Also, having to scroll through the passage as opposed to being able to see the entire thing at once makes 'as stated by the passage' or 'strongly suggested by the passage' questions much more difficult (IMO) - if you can't see everything at once, how are you supposed to quickly scan for answers if you don't remember exactly where it is? I missed 5 'as stated in the passage' questions (only missed 7 total RC), and I can't help but think this is part of the reason.

Writing portion is much easier (not that it matters at all).

I also quite liked having the tablet self-time. It makes it so there are no discrepancies with bad proctors not giving enough time or anything. Made my pacing even easier than using my Mastermind Watch. That being said, I'm almost automatic on timing now anyway, and I feel like I have a good internal clock set for timing, so it really doesn't matter that much. Was pretty pumped that I hit 20 in 20 on the first 20 questions of LR2 today though.


I'm going to have to 100% disagree for LG. Seriously, they only gave us a pen, what the hell is that? In the future, maybe it could be more bearable with the separate scratch paper and pencils, but having only a pen was shitty. LR I could probably get used to, but I really like being able to see the super long PR question coming up. Still not a fan of having to diagram on a separate sheet of paper. I tried it once, and it was clumsily and time consuming . RC I agree sucks. Not being able to see the entire passage makes it extremely difficult. I went -3 or maybe -2. I put in an incorrect change at the buzzer beater and have no way of knowing if my actual answer was changed.

In general I really liked having the timer, since it totally erasers the need for a watch. Knowing I had exactly 11 second left was a good thing. However, I would've liked the option to switch from a count down to a count up timer. My watch goes from 0-35 not 35-0, so it was a little mental judo to remind myself 22 minutes left is only 13 minutes in. Again, I could get used to it by still have so much time on the books with my 0-35 watch it threw me off a bit. Also, I think the propensity for bubbling errors is much greater on this thing. Seriously, I caught myself a couple of time accidentally clicking the strike out box, instead of the AC.

User avatar
Platopus

Silver
Posts: 1482
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 11:20 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Platopus » Sun May 21, 2017 12:22 am

Jack_Kelly wrote:Anyone have any advice for rapid LG improvement beyond 7sage and PowerScore?

I'm doing better than most people on here in the 170s on the other sections but just tragic in the games, regularly double digits missed.


Radically reconsider your approach. If you usually do the "multiple scenario" set up like 7 sage, try a parsed down set up, or vice versa. Also, maybe consider spending more time in the actual set up when you are taking the test. I started going from like -4 / -5 to -0/-1 once I spent considerably more time working with the rules on each game. Not always, but sometimes a game will have a key inference, that if figured out blows the whole game wide-open. It feels like cheating, but you are meant to be rewarded for figuring it out. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I would take that as a sign that you should spend more time up front with the rules figuring out how they affect one another. Other tricks: look for logically equivalent answers, use other questions to knock out global MBT, CBT, MBF, etc.

User avatar
Jack_Kelly

Silver
Posts: 900
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 12:52 am

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Jack_Kelly » Sun May 21, 2017 12:33 am

Platopus wrote:
Jack_Kelly wrote:Anyone have any advice for rapid LG improvement beyond 7sage and PowerScore?

I'm doing better than most people on here in the 170s on the other sections but just tragic in the games, regularly double digits missed.


Radically reconsider your approach. If you usually do the "multiple scenario" set up like 7 sage, try a parsed down set up, or vice versa. Also, maybe consider spending more time in the actual set up when you are taking the test. I started going from like -4 / -5 to -0/-1 once I spent considerably more time working with the rules on each game. Not always, but sometimes a game will have a key inference, that if figured out blows the whole game wide-open. It feels like cheating, but you are meant to be rewarded for figuring it out. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I would take that as a sign that you should spend more time up front with the rules figuring out how they affect one another. Other tricks: look for logically equivalent answers, use other questions to knock out global MBT, CBT, MBF, etc.

Thanks, I'll try that. I've discovered my main issue is not knowing when to split a board (and when I specifically look for how to split it, I somehow manage to split it wrong a lot).

User avatar
MediocreAtBest

Silver
Posts: 632
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 2:51 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby MediocreAtBest » Sun May 21, 2017 12:35 am

Mint-Berry_Crunch wrote:
lol my gf was in the room on the left.


We went to stone but we're too hungry to stay. Didn't realize they didn't have food


Yeah I think Legend is the only brewery that has an actual kitchen built in, and they have good beer and a great view of downtown Richmond. We probably should have just agreed to meet there but it is what it is. Maybe next time lol.

User avatar
Future Ex-Engineer

Silver
Posts: 1430
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Future Ex-Engineer » Sun May 21, 2017 12:39 am

Platopus wrote:
Future Ex-Engineer wrote:I'm going to write up a post here later for longevity sake with my feedback that maybe some poor schmuck from LSAC will read at some point (I thought we were going to have to do some survey afterwards, but apparently not), but for now here's my thoughts after having gotten to consider the test more fully on my 3.5 hour drive home.

1) LG was not at all as bad as I was expecting. Plenty of space in the scratch paper, and it wasn't that bad. I think on harder games (I feel like PT 73 has very easy games) it might be difficult with having to go back and forth between screen and paper, but not a problem today. Finished with 9.5 minutes remaining.
2) I thought LR was actually a bit easier. Having only one question visible at a time helped me not get distracted seeing a huge question stim coming up. That being said, I think solely because it was on a screen, it made it easier for me to misread a couple of ACs, resulting in two misses I shouldn't have had.
3) The biggest problem: RC. I work full time as an engineer, and am constantly on a screen. I am also constantly multitasking - thus, when I am faced with a screen for RC, concentration is much more difficult than the traditional book test. Also, having to scroll through the passage as opposed to being able to see the entire thing at once makes 'as stated by the passage' or 'strongly suggested by the passage' questions much more difficult (IMO) - if you can't see everything at once, how are you supposed to quickly scan for answers if you don't remember exactly where it is? I missed 5 'as stated in the passage' questions (only missed 7 total RC), and I can't help but think this is part of the reason.

Writing portion is much easier (not that it matters at all).

I also quite liked having the tablet self-time. It makes it so there are no discrepancies with bad proctors not giving enough time or anything. Made my pacing even easier than using my Mastermind Watch. That being said, I'm almost automatic on timing now anyway, and I feel like I have a good internal clock set for timing, so it really doesn't matter that much. Was pretty pumped that I hit 20 in 20 on the first 20 questions of LR2 today though.


I'm going to have to 100% disagree for LG. Seriously, they only gave us a pen, what the hell is that? In the future, maybe it could be more bearable with the separate scratch paper and pencils, but having only a pen was shitty. LR I could probably get used to, but I really like being able to see the super long PR question coming up. Still not a fan of having to diagram on a separate sheet of paper. I tried it once, and it was clumsily and time consuming . RC I agree sucks. Not being able to see the entire passage makes it extremely difficult. I went -3 or maybe -2. I put in an incorrect change at the buzzer beater and have no way of knowing if my actual answer was changed.

In general I really liked having the timer, since it totally erasers the need for a watch. Knowing I had exactly 11 second left was a good thing. However, I would've liked the option to switch from a count down to a count up timer. My watch goes from 0-35 not 35-0, so it was a little mental judo to remind myself 22 minutes left is only 13 minutes in. Again, I could get used to it by still have so much time on the books with my 0-35 watch it threw me off a bit. Also, I think the propensity for bubbling errors is much greater on this thing. Seriously, I caught myself a couple of time accidentally clicking the strike out box, instead of the AC.


Bolded 1: What did you dislike about a pen? It doesn't run out of ink and you don't have to sharpen it. I guess this may be a bigger deal for others than I thought. I always use a pen for my engineering work, so it felt second nature to me.

Bolded 2: Absolutely - I forgot to mention that in my initial reflections. I believe for one, the strike out/AC option, while absolutely necessary, is not perfect in its current iteration. I also found that sometimes the screen didn't respond to my first or second press. It wasn't enough for me to consider it a 'problem', but it was enough that I noticed it.

User avatar
Platopus

Silver
Posts: 1482
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 11:20 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Platopus » Sun May 21, 2017 12:39 am

Jack_Kelly wrote:
Platopus wrote:
Jack_Kelly wrote:Anyone have any advice for rapid LG improvement beyond 7sage and PowerScore?

I'm doing better than most people on here in the 170s on the other sections but just tragic in the games, regularly double digits missed.


Radically reconsider your approach. If you usually do the "multiple scenario" set up like 7 sage, try a parsed down set up, or vice versa. Also, maybe consider spending more time in the actual set up when you are taking the test. I started going from like -4 / -5 to -0/-1 once I spent considerably more time working with the rules on each game. Not always, but sometimes a game will have a key inference, that if figured out blows the whole game wide-open. It feels like cheating, but you are meant to be rewarded for figuring it out. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I would take that as a sign that you should spend more time up front with the rules figuring out how they affect one another. Other tricks: look for logically equivalent answers, use other questions to knock out global MBT, CBT, MBF, etc.

Thanks, I'll try that. I've discovered my main issue is not knowing when to split a board (and when I specifically look for how to split it, I somehow manage to split it wrong a lot).


There are some good indications, for example "S is either in slot 1 or else in slot 7" - split that bitch. Grouping games, like the one today. There were 5 items and 2 groups, each group had to have at least 2 items. So either one had 2 and the other 3 or vice versa, split it up. For me, it was just getting comfortable taking the extra time to split the board. It seems like you're wasting time, but in most cases it makes the game way easier. Experiment with a couple of games and see if it helps.

User avatar
Future Ex-Engineer

Silver
Posts: 1430
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Future Ex-Engineer » Sun May 21, 2017 12:42 am

Jack_Kelly wrote:
Platopus wrote:
Jack_Kelly wrote:Anyone have any advice for rapid LG improvement beyond 7sage and PowerScore?

I'm doing better than most people on here in the 170s on the other sections but just tragic in the games, regularly double digits missed.


Radically reconsider your approach. If you usually do the "multiple scenario" set up like 7 sage, try a parsed down set up, or vice versa. Also, maybe consider spending more time in the actual set up when you are taking the test. I started going from like -4 / -5 to -0/-1 once I spent considerably more time working with the rules on each game. Not always, but sometimes a game will have a key inference, that if figured out blows the whole game wide-open. It feels like cheating, but you are meant to be rewarded for figuring it out. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I would take that as a sign that you should spend more time up front with the rules figuring out how they affect one another. Other tricks: look for logically equivalent answers, use other questions to knock out global MBT, CBT, MBF, etc.

Thanks, I'll try that. I've discovered my main issue is not knowing when to split a board (and when I specifically look for how to split it, I somehow manage to split it wrong a lot).


I think more than anything, this could be your main issue. Worrying too much about 'techniques' is often an indicator of lack of mastery/full understanding of a conceptual area. We tend to rely on memorized techniques/strategies rather than adapt and conquer when we don't truly understand something. Maybe that's part of the deal here.

I don't even know what 'splitting a board' means, but I've only missed 3 LG questions in the past 5 months

User avatar
Platopus

Silver
Posts: 1482
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 11:20 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Platopus » Sun May 21, 2017 12:43 am

Future Ex-Engineer wrote:
Bolded 1: What did you dislike about a pen? It doesn't run out of ink and you don't have to sharpen it. I guess this may be a bigger deal for others than I thought. I always use a pen for my engineering work, so it felt second nature to me.

Bolded 2: Absolutely - I forgot to mention that in my initial reflections. I believe for one, the strike out/AC option, while absolutely necessary, is not perfect in its current iteration. I also found that sometimes the screen didn't respond to my first or second press. It wasn't enough for me to consider it a 'problem', but it was enough that I noticed it.


Regarding the pen, IDK I have like 20 pencils, so I'll never have to sharpen it. For specific local questions, I really like being able to set up the board and then work through an AC, and erase to do the next AC if the AC checks out, especially on CBT or MBT question. Not being able to do that kinda sucked.

User avatar
Future Ex-Engineer

Silver
Posts: 1430
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Future Ex-Engineer » Sun May 21, 2017 12:43 am

Platopus wrote:
Jack_Kelly wrote:
Platopus wrote:
Jack_Kelly wrote:Anyone have any advice for rapid LG improvement beyond 7sage and PowerScore?

I'm doing better than most people on here in the 170s on the other sections but just tragic in the games, regularly double digits missed.


Radically reconsider your approach. If you usually do the "multiple scenario" set up like 7 sage, try a parsed down set up, or vice versa. Also, maybe consider spending more time in the actual set up when you are taking the test. I started going from like -4 / -5 to -0/-1 once I spent considerably more time working with the rules on each game. Not always, but sometimes a game will have a key inference, that if figured out blows the whole game wide-open. It feels like cheating, but you are meant to be rewarded for figuring it out. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I would take that as a sign that you should spend more time up front with the rules figuring out how they affect one another. Other tricks: look for logically equivalent answers, use other questions to knock out global MBT, CBT, MBF, etc.

Thanks, I'll try that. I've discovered my main issue is not knowing when to split a board (and when I specifically look for how to split it, I somehow manage to split it wrong a lot).


There are some good indications, for example "S is either in slot 1 or else in slot 7" - split that bitch. Grouping games, like the one today. There were 5 items and 2 groups, each group had to have at least 2 items. So either one had 2 and the other 3 or vice versa, split it up. For me, it was just getting comfortable taking the extra time to split the board. It seems like you're wasting time, but in most cases it makes the game way easier. Experiment with a couple of games and see if it helps.


After reading this I'm insanely curious to know how other people do games. What you are talking about sounds completely foreign to me.

User avatar
Future Ex-Engineer

Silver
Posts: 1430
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Future Ex-Engineer » Sun May 21, 2017 12:45 am

Platopus wrote:Regarding the pen, IDK I have like 20 pencils, so I'll never have to sharpen it. For specific local questions, I really like being able to set up the board and then work through an AC, and erase to do the next AC if the AC checks out, especially on CBT or MBT question. Not being able to do that kinda sucked.


Oh I see. Didn't realize you were an eraser person.

I used to be an eraser person, but found that I often times erased information that would be useful on later questions, so I started just keeping all the scenarios packed tightly together. Definitely not the only way (and I don't even claim it to be the optimal way) to do games, but I've found that to work really well for me. Because of that, I wasn't hindered by ink today

User avatar
tuna_wasabi

Bronze
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby tuna_wasabi » Sun May 21, 2017 1:39 am

Future Ex-Engineer wrote:
lynn.wibi wrote:
Future Ex-Engineer wrote:So after going back and inputting my answers for 73 from memory, I ended up with a scaled 170.

PT73
89 raw
170 scaled
-7 RC :shock: So I missed 5 of 7 questions on the Marcusian/advertising passage. Someone's tablet randomly shut off during that section, and the resulting chaos from proctors caused a lot of distractions while I was in that passage. I'm going to hope that's what happened.
-4 LR1: caught two of my mistakes as I was transcribing answers. Just mis-read a couple of ACs and they punished me for pre-phrasing without perfect precision
-0 LG
-1 LR2: caught my mistake here on the transcribe.

Overall can't be mad about consistently breaking 170. Hate hard RC passages though.


The RC for PT 73 is ridiculous. Don't feel bad if you bomb it. Let's hope the test in June is slightly more reasonable.


Yeah, I hope so. It was my assessment that LR and LG were both very simple in this test compared to what I've seen in the 60s, so I guess they made RC much harder to compensate? Either way, I'm hoping for the exact opposite in June. I'd love a hard games section and super simple RC


Yep, personally I found the PT 73's RC is harder than PT 65's RC. I'd love easy RC/LG/LR section and a hella generous curve...

Jk. Reasonable sections are the best. Not too easy to make the curve brutal, not too hard to make takers absolutely piss their pants.

User avatar
tuna_wasabi

Bronze
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby tuna_wasabi » Sun May 21, 2017 2:00 am

PT 65
LR 1: -1
LR 2: -3
LG: -2
RC: -3
Score: 174

Experimental sections:
PT 13.2 (LR): -4
PT 13.4 (LR): -1

Notes: Very tired and not in the zone throughout the test. LR: The 3 mistakes in LR 2 were very obvious right after I finished the test; one of those moments where you just quickly scan the section and mentally curse yourself. 3 of the mistakes in experimental LR's were due to reading the question stems wrong: "Weaken" as opposed to "strengthen", MBF as opposed to MBT, etc. LG: diagrammed the last game wrong. I suspect this -2 was largely due to sheer luck; the real test would absolutely murder this kind of diagramming mistakes. RC: The weed passage was hard, but coming into the test knowing the difficulty of PT 65's RC forced my mind to focus a bit.

Starting to wonder if I should spend more time just doing questions instead of reviewing.

User avatar
it's allgood

Bronze
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 1:04 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby it's allgood » Sun May 21, 2017 10:55 am

lynn.wibi wrote:PT 65
LR 1: -1
LR 2: -3
LG: -2
RC: -3
Score: 174

Experimental sections:
PT 13.2 (LR): -4
PT 13.4 (LR): -1

Notes: Very tired and not in the zone throughout the test. LR: The 3 mistakes in LR 2 were very obvious right after I finished the test; one of those moments where you just quickly scan the section and mentally curse yourself. 3 of the mistakes in experimental LR's were due to reading the question stems wrong: "Weaken" as opposed to "strengthen", MBF as opposed to MBT, etc. LG: diagrammed the last game wrong. I suspect this -2 was largely due to sheer luck; the real test would absolutely murder this kind of diagramming mistakes. RC: The weed passage was hard, but coming into the test knowing the difficulty of PT 65's RC forced my mind to focus a bit.

Starting to wonder if I should spend more time just doing questions instead of reviewing.


You may want to consider that the issue is stamina rather than needing practice on individual questions. If that is the case, then I would recommend continuing with the practice tests rather than just doing questions instead of reviewing.

User avatar
tuna_wasabi

Bronze
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby tuna_wasabi » Sun May 21, 2017 12:24 pm

it's allgood wrote:
lynn.wibi wrote:PT 65
LR 1: -1
LR 2: -3
LG: -2
RC: -3
Score: 174

Experimental sections:
PT 13.2 (LR): -4
PT 13.4 (LR): -1

Notes: Very tired and not in the zone throughout the test. LR: The 3 mistakes in LR 2 were very obvious right after I finished the test; one of those moments where you just quickly scan the section and mentally curse yourself. 3 of the mistakes in experimental LR's were due to reading the question stems wrong: "Weaken" as opposed to "strengthen", MBF as opposed to MBT, etc. LG: diagrammed the last game wrong. I suspect this -2 was largely due to sheer luck; the real test would absolutely murder this kind of diagramming mistakes. RC: The weed passage was hard, but coming into the test knowing the difficulty of PT 65's RC forced my mind to focus a bit.

Starting to wonder if I should spend more time just doing questions instead of reviewing.


You may want to consider that the issue is stamina rather than needing practice on individual questions. If that is the case, then I would recommend continuing with the practice tests rather than just doing questions instead of reviewing.


Hey thanks! I forced myself to do this after a stressful day at work and really wasn't feeling it. Planning to do 7 PT's till June 12 nonetheless.

User avatar
Walliums

Silver
Posts: 626
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2016 1:39 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Walliums » Sun May 21, 2017 12:52 pm

Platopus wrote:
archer grandpapy360 wrote:BIIIIIIIG FUCK YOU TO LSAC. Got out from that digital test at 230!!! AND it turns out I already took that shit from a PT a couple weeks ago. Currently blowing $100 on margaritas


My thoughts exactly, I was really hoping for this to be a fresh test with new material. Taking a test I already own is stupid as hell. Do they not have a February test they could've used instead?

Also LG RC LR RC LR for a fake test? They're trying to fuck us here. I'm volunteering, be nice give me a 2 LG experimentals and at least break up all the god damn reading...


Boy am I glad that my testing center was full when I went to sign up because I would have been piiiiissssed



Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests