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 » Mon May 29, 2017 3:24 pm

I've been making a lot of mistakes lately but I think it's gonna help me in the next couple of weeks. I've really been buckling down and trying to identify those mistakes, whereas if I was killing it I might slack off a little too much. 2 more weeks, guys, lets get it!!!

User avatar
dm1683

Silver
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2016 9:57 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby dm1683 » Mon May 29, 2017 3:31 pm

Amerision wrote:Ohhh, god. Took PT 79 today even though I was feeling like shit. Did decent in LR and LG (viruses got me -2) but RC... man I don't even know what to say. 8 don't care how bad I feel, I should never go -7 in any section ever. I guess I'll try blind reviewing it? Ended up with a 167 and a bruised ego.


I guess we all took hits today. Took PT 75 and got 170. -6 RC. Some answers in that section are so absurd I can't even comprehend them. Take 2.11. How tf is the answer C? In the passage it literally says "Therefore, [answer choice B]. Accordingly, [stimulus]." And yet the inference you're supposed to make is supposed to be from the second fucking paragraph? #22 is another ridiculous one. The passage says that "until the nineteenth century, [a certain practice was common]" Meaning that the practice continued up until the nineteenth century, and changed during that century. But apparently the right answer is B instead of A?

Anyway,

PT 75

LR: -0
RC: -6
LR2: -2
LG: -2

170

User avatar
MediocreAtBest

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

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby MediocreAtBest » Mon May 29, 2017 3:38 pm

dm1683 wrote:
Amerision wrote:Ohhh, god. Took PT 79 today even though I was feeling like shit. Did decent in LR and LG (viruses got me -2) but RC... man I don't even know what to say. 8 don't care how bad I feel, I should never go -7 in any section ever. I guess I'll try blind reviewing it? Ended up with a 167 and a bruised ego.


I guess we all took hits today. Took PT 75 and got 170. -6 RC. Some answers in that section are so absurd I can't even comprehend them. Take 2.11. How tf is the answer C? In the passage it literally says "Therefore, [answer choice B]. Accordingly, [stimulus]." And yet the inference you're supposed to make is supposed to be from the second fucking paragraph? #22 is another ridiculous one. The passage says that "until the nineteenth century, [a certain practice was common]" Meaning that the practice continued up until the nineteenth century, and changed during that century. But apparently the right answer is B instead of A?

Anyway,

PT 75

LR: -0
RC: -6
LR2: -2
LG: -2

170


That's nothing to be upset about though. There were a couple BS questions, which happens, and you know that one section is the only one holding your score back on this PT. RC can definitely be frustrating sometimes, with vague questions and vaguer answers that don't seem to match up to what it says in the passage at all.

User avatar
Amerision

Bronze
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 11:22 am

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Amerision » Mon May 29, 2017 4:20 pm

It's so annoying because before I started prepping for the LSAT, I came in with the mindset that I've always been good at RC since it's one of those things that's generally found on most standardized tests. And accordingly, when I first PTing, my RC's were good (-2 to -4). The thing is, my RC has not seemed to improve since then. I don't even know how to improve. There's no "do this, this, and this" method for RC -- it's just do it and hope you get it. Urghhhhhhh. I'm probably just being a little bitch. Of course there are ways to improve, or else no one would move up from their original RC score.
Last edited by Amerision on Sat Jan 27, 2018 1:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MediocreAtBest

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

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby MediocreAtBest » Mon May 29, 2017 4:42 pm

Amerision wrote:It's so annoying because before I started prepping for the LSAT, I came in with the mindset that I've always been good at RC since it's one of those things that's generally found on most standardized tests. And accordingly, when I first PTing, my RC's were good (-2 to -4). The thing is, my RC has not seemed to improve since then. I don't even know how to improve. There's no "do this, this, and this" method for RC -- it's just do it and hope you get it. Urghhhhhhh. I'm probably just being a little bitch. Of course there are ways to improve, or else no one would move up from their original RC score.


RC kind of clicked for me one day and since then I'm pretty consistently maximum -2, although sometimes I'll get a rogue section where I'm -5 or something like that. It was always a strength of mine but I agree that on the LSAT it's a little trickier since there's really no method to the madness like in LG or LR. I think the main reason i miss questions on RC is because it's also the biggest pain in the ass of the 3 sections and losing focus for just 5 seconds while reading can cost you a question.

User avatar
Walliums

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

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Walliums » Mon May 29, 2017 6:06 pm

Yesterday and today I took PT 77 and 78. I got a 170 and a 168 respectively. Feel generally awful about it. Not sure what to do at this point.

User avatar
Amerision

Bronze
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 11:22 am

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Amerision » Mon May 29, 2017 6:12 pm

Walliums wrote:Yesterday and today I took PT 77 and 78. I got a 170 and a 168 respectively. Feel generally awful about it. Not sure what to do at this point.


I know what you mean. You think "okay, well, that happened because of X and Y. My other tests are good. This won't happen on test day." But there's just that pit in your stomach that you can't ignore no matter how much you try to and it bothers you until you take another PT and have your score go up.
Last edited by Amerision on Sat Jan 27, 2018 1:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Walliums

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

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Walliums » Mon May 29, 2017 6:15 pm

Amerision wrote:
Walliums wrote:Yesterday and today I took PT 77 and 78. I got a 170 and a 168 respectively. Feel generally awful about it. Not sure what to do at this point.


I know what you mean. You think "okay, well, that happened because of X and Y. My other tests are good. This won't happen on test day." But there's just that pit in your stomach that you can't ignore no matter how much you try to and it bothers you until you take another PT and have your score go up.


Yes yes and yes. And also some of these latest PTs just feel impossible compared to the earlier ones that I do experimentals for. Like everything before PT 73 is a cakewalk.

User avatar
zkyggi

Bronze
Posts: 281
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2017 12:14 am

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby zkyggi » Mon May 29, 2017 6:36 pm

Walliums wrote:
Amerision wrote:
Walliums wrote:Yesterday and today I took PT 77 and 78. I got a 170 and a 168 respectively. Feel generally awful about it. Not sure what to do at this point.


I know what you mean. You think "okay, well, that happened because of X and Y. My other tests are good. This won't happen on test day." But there's just that pit in your stomach that you can't ignore no matter how much you try to and it bothers you until you take another PT and have your score go up.


Yes yes and yes. And also some of these latest PTs just feel impossible compared to the earlier ones that I do experimentals for. Like everything before PT 73 is a cakewalk.


The recent ones require more attention to detail in LR. I find myself in situations where I will eliminate each AC only to find out that one of them was obviously correct after rereading the stimulus.
Last edited by zkyggi on Sat Jan 27, 2018 8:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Barry grandpapy

Bronze
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2016 12:04 am

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Barry grandpapy » Mon May 29, 2017 6:42 pm

.
Last edited by Barry grandpapy on Tue Jun 13, 2017 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

NavyNuke

Bronze
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:32 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby NavyNuke » Mon May 29, 2017 7:22 pm

.
Last edited by NavyNuke on Sun Nov 12, 2017 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Slippin' Jimmy

Silver
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:56 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Slippin' Jimmy » Mon May 29, 2017 7:28 pm

zkyggi wrote:
Walliums wrote:
Amerision wrote:
Walliums wrote:
The recent ones require more attention to detail in LR..


I learned that the hard way. Also I think this is more characteristic of 70+ tests in general, the way everything is worded from stims, to stems to passages to game rules seems to be much more subtle and requires constant focus.

Barry grandpapy

Bronze
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2016 12:04 am

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Barry grandpapy » Mon May 29, 2017 7:43 pm

.
Last edited by Barry grandpapy on Tue Jun 13, 2017 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
dm1683

Silver
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2016 9:57 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby dm1683 » Mon May 29, 2017 8:16 pm

archer grandpapy360 wrote:PT 65
LR1 -1
LG -0
RC -3
LR2 -1
*Jesus Christ that dog question tho...
178

I didn't take an experimental today because it's labor day and f that.
Days until test: 14
Full PTs left: 11


JFC man what is your PT average. Seems like everything is 177, 178, 180 etc.

I still think doing like 6 PTs a week in the three weeks leading up to the test is a bad move, but you're starting to prove me wrong scoring in the high 170s every time. My concern is burnout but no signs of it yet apparently.

User avatar
dm1683

Silver
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2016 9:57 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby dm1683 » Mon May 29, 2017 8:18 pm

Slippin' Jimmy wrote:
zkyggi wrote:
Walliums wrote:
Amerision wrote:
Walliums wrote:
The recent ones require more attention to detail in LR..


I learned that the hard way. Also I think this is more characteristic of 70+ tests in general, the way everything is worded from stims, to stems to passages to game rules seems to be much more subtle and requires constant focus.


you would think the curves would be a bit more forgiving given the consensus that the test has become holistically more difficult, but that's apparently not the case. I guess LSAC thinks there's too many 170+ scorers.

Slippin' Jimmy

Silver
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:56 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Slippin' Jimmy » Mon May 29, 2017 8:57 pm

dm1683 wrote:
Slippin' Jimmy wrote:
zkyggi wrote:
Walliums wrote:
Amerision wrote:
Walliums wrote:
The recent ones require more attention to detail in LR..


I learned that the hard way. Also I think this is more characteristic of 70+ tests in general, the way everything is worded from stims, to stems to passages to game rules seems to be much more subtle and requires constant focus.


you would think the curves would be a bit more forgiving given the consensus that the test has become holistically more difficult, but that's apparently not the case. I guess LSAC thinks there's too many 170+ scorers.


I think the reason for this is that generally the LSAT taking community has gotten better at the test as access has increased over the last few years. 10 years ago there was no 7sage, LSAT Trainer or many other affordable high quality prep options. It was mainly shit tier stuff like Kaplan or super expensive courses. This is especially seen at the higher end of the spectrum (165+) and in order to keep the percentiles stable I think LSAC had to make some adjustments.

User avatar
zkyggi

Bronze
Posts: 281
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2017 12:14 am

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby zkyggi » Mon May 29, 2017 9:04 pm

dm1683 wrote:
archer grandpapy360 wrote:PT 65
LR1 -1
LG -0
RC -3
LR2 -1
*Jesus Christ that dog question tho...
178

I didn't take an experimental today because it's labor day and f that.
Days until test: 14
Full PTs left: 11


JFC man what is your PT average. Seems like everything is 177, 178, 180 etc.

I still think doing like 6 PTs a week in the three weeks leading up to the test is a bad move, but you're starting to prove me wrong scoring in the high 170s every time. My concern is burnout but no signs of it yet apparently.


Taking a PT is just studying, and we all have different thresholds for how much/long we can study. I wouldn't try to do 6PT/week for the first time leading up to test day, but after taking daily PTs for multiple weeks in a row, the test becomes easy from an endurance standpoint. When you're scoring 170+, exposure to test conditions is most important imo.

edit: I am redoing PTs 70-80 between now and test day. I really enjoyed doing the few retakes I have done. They expose me to the most recent tests while giving me the opportunity to hammer the concepts. Having the memory of a goldfish helps too.
Last edited by zkyggi on Sat Jan 27, 2018 8:20 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
zkyggi

Bronze
Posts: 281
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2017 12:14 am

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby zkyggi » Mon May 29, 2017 9:08 pm

Slippin' Jimmy wrote:
dm1683 wrote:
Slippin' Jimmy wrote:
zkyggi wrote:
Walliums wrote:
Amerision wrote:
Walliums wrote:
The recent ones require more attention to detail in LR..


I learned that the hard way. Also I think this is more characteristic of 70+ tests in general, the way everything is worded from stims, to stems to passages to game rules seems to be much more subtle and requires constant focus.


you would think the curves would be a bit more forgiving given the consensus that the test has become holistically more difficult, but that's apparently not the case. I guess LSAC thinks there's too many 170+ scorers.


I think the reason for this is that generally the LSAT taking community has gotten better at the test as access has increased over the last few years. 10 years ago there was no 7sage, LSAT Trainer or many other affordable high quality prep options. It was mainly shit tier stuff like Kaplan or super expensive courses. This is especially seen at the higher end of the spectrum (165+) and in order to keep the percentiles stable I think LSAC had to make some adjustments.


It looks like LSAT scores from 165+ were all down last year, so we may be able to expect a more generous curve? I sure hope so. -10 is my raw score floor and it would be nice if that were 172+
Last edited by zkyggi on Sat Jan 27, 2018 8:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Slippin' Jimmy

Silver
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:56 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Slippin' Jimmy » Mon May 29, 2017 9:10 pm

Off topic, but if I score 173+ on the actual test (and this is a HUUGGEE if) I may look into an admissions consultant. Its super expensive and I 100% don't have the money for it but LSN is telling me I have an outside shot at H and S if I can score high enough. I'm mainly targeting Duke and UVA and really don't have much interest in CCNP but HS is a whole 'nother level that would probably require a perfect app to get into for me.

Slippin' Jimmy

Silver
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:56 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Slippin' Jimmy » Mon May 29, 2017 9:14 pm

zkyggi wrote:
Slippin' Jimmy wrote:
dm1683 wrote:
Slippin' Jimmy wrote:
zkyggi wrote:
Walliums wrote:
Amerision wrote:


I learned that the hard way. Also I think this is more characteristic of 70+ tests in general, the way everything is worded from stims, to stems to passages to game rules seems to be much more subtle and requires constant focus.


you would think the curves would be a bit more forgiving given the consensus that the test has become holistically more difficult, but that's apparently not the case. I guess LSAC thinks there's too many 170+ scorers.


I think the reason for this is that generally the LSAT taking community has gotten better at the test as access has increased over the last few years. 10 years ago there was no 7sage, LSAT Trainer or many other affordable high quality prep options. It was mainly shit tier stuff like Kaplan or super expensive courses. This is especially seen at the higher end of the spectrum (165+) and in order to keep the percentiles stable I think LSAC had to make some adjustments.


It looks like LSAT scores from 165+ were all down last year, so we may be able to expect a more generous curve? I sure hope so. -10 is my raw score floor and it would be nice if that were 172+


I could be wrong but I thought 165-170 was up while 171+ was way down. A generous curve would be nice though (as long as the test plays to my strengths...).

User avatar
Walliums

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

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Walliums » Mon May 29, 2017 9:21 pm

So in general what's everyone's plan these next few weeks? I'm grieving over these scores today (lol), but otherwise with 79 and 80 left I'm at a bit of a loss.

User avatar
zkyggi

Bronze
Posts: 281
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2017 12:14 am

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby zkyggi » Mon May 29, 2017 9:25 pm

Slippin' Jimmy wrote:
I could be wrong but I thought 165-170 was up while 171+ was way down. A generous curve would be nice though (as long as the test plays to my strengths...).


I checked it out here: ==error==/2016-2 ... f-5-19-17/
Last edited by zkyggi on Sat Jan 27, 2018 8:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Platopus

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

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Platopus » Mon May 29, 2017 9:34 pm

Walliums wrote:So in general what's everyone's plan these next few weeks? I'm grieving over these scores today (lol), but otherwise with 79 and 80 left I'm at a bit of a loss.


I'll probably do about 6 more PT's before test day, but I'll just continue on my regular schedule including drilling and review. I'm not really as concerned about hammering through the remaining material. I am concerned however, with making sure that Monday, June 12th is an ordinary Monday. At this point in my prep, I understand the material conceptually at about a 178-180 range (there's always that one question that just never quite clicks), so I am really aiming to prep myself to show up on test day mentally refreshed and focused. Plenty of sleep, no alcohol, consistent diet & sleep schedule and some light exercise.

Slippin' Jimmy

Silver
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:56 pm

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Slippin' Jimmy » Mon May 29, 2017 9:36 pm

Walliums wrote:So in general what's everyone's plan these next few weeks? I'm grieving over these scores today (lol), but otherwise with 79 and 80 left I'm at a bit of a loss.


I have 61, 78, 79 and 80 clean and on hand, can get C2 if I feel like I need it. I work Wednesday through Friday both weeks so I'll most likely just drill and review those days. For drills I have 4 LR sections and 2 LG sections from 59 and 60 all of 73 and 74 (which were used for E-test so not 100% clean) plus I still have some older stuff that I haven't done yet.

For full tests it will be PT 78 6/3 PT 79 6/4 PT 80 6/6 and then either 61 or C2 6/10. Don't want to spend $20 on C2 but I'm a little worried that 61 won't be recent enough to take as my last full PT. I'm also contemplating taking a day off from work to do one extra but at this point I'm leaning against messing up my weakly routine. I still can do substantial prep at and after work, its just full PTs that don't work out so well on those days.

User avatar
Platopus

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

Re: The Official June 2017 Study Group

Postby Platopus » Mon May 29, 2017 9:39 pm

zkyggi wrote:
Slippin' Jimmy wrote:
I could be wrong but I thought 165-170 was up while 171+ was way down. A generous curve would be nice though (as long as the test plays to my strengths...).


I checked it out here: ==error==/2016-2 ... f-5-19-17/


Very interesting, the 170 is up, but pretty much everything else is down above 170. Right now, this is bad for us, since we don't have that 175+ yet. But if you do manage to score above 175, it seems like there are much fewer applicants, thus making them more desirable. This also explains the drop in medians. There are simply less scores out there, and so doesn't necessarily reflect on the school.



Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests