2010 February Study Group

User avatar
tikiman6
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:21 am

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby tikiman6 » Thu Jan 07, 2010 2:09 pm

I tried doing an RC passage last night while under the influence for kicks and giggles to see if it had any effect. Results were disastrous. Too many people died.

User avatar
pu_golf88
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:34 am

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby pu_golf88 » Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:43 pm

So I've been following the 3-Month Study Schedule from the NYC LSAT Tutor blog and recommends PT 44-58 and splicing some sections from those in for experimental sections. See any reason why it would be a big deal to just use Pretests 47-58 and splice in sections from older PTs I haven't done? Dropping $8 a PT will get even more expensive considering I haven't even done anything from the 10 More, Actual PTs.

User avatar
pu_golf88
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:34 am

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby pu_golf88 » Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:44 pm

goosey wrote:I bought Kaplans LG workbook and have worked up to chapter 7--4 more left, which will hopefully be done by the weekend and thn I plan to start my ten games a day routine.

Also have been working through an older version of Kaplans Mastery--working through LR and RC first. Will do LG later..but I am considering going through the LRB again just to refresh my memory.

The only pt I have which I've never done before is 59--decembers administration. When do you guys recommend I take that? I was considering around the 20th so that I have enough practice under my belt to know I'm no longer rusty, but not so close that if I bomb it I am psyched out on test day. Thoughts?


I don't see anything wrong with it. I just checked Amazon and it's available for pre-order. Any idea on the release date?

granger
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:35 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby granger » Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:51 pm

I have two chapters left in the LG Bible and am feeling really good about games.

Got the RC Bible, though I know it's not as highly regarded as the other bibles. I took a Kaplan course for Dec. and realized my potential with Kaplan early on (first PT after diag. was a 167, ended up scoring a 168.) I think am benefitting hugely from working with the text instead of with an instructor. Books just seem to be clearer reference, and obviously I control the pace. I'm only a chapter into the RC bible so I can't say I'm testing better yet, but I'm excited, because I feel a lot more confident during the learning process and I hope that will translate to tests. I know I have a ways to go with improving in RC, but that makes it all the more promising that I feel better about the material I'm learning this time around.

Also, PowerScore's LG methods dominate Kaplan's!

User avatar
TheTopBloke
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:29 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby TheTopBloke » Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:56 pm

determinedone wrote:I'm having trouble with Weaken questions. Anyone have any suggestions?


I think aether's previous response works very well for weaken questions. Look at the question aggresively, is if you are in a debate. I find about half the time I can answer the weaken question before I even look at the choices, and the other half the time I find an equally good answer choice.

User avatar
TheTopBloke
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:29 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby TheTopBloke » Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:59 pm

birD wrote:I have a stupid question - I put white out on my watch to mark when 8 minutes elapses, that's not against any rules right?


I do not believe the mark itself is against the rules, however, I don't think white out itself is allowed into the test room, and each section is going to have a different mark, so this strategy will prove to be impractical.

granger
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:35 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby granger » Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:06 pm

Did the PT 58 LR2 today and got -1. Also did PT 50 LG and got -1. Not going to do full PTs until I finish my RC book, so I'm doing sections to stay fresh. I was doing -1 in both before the December test, but it had been over a month since I'd done a full section of either, and I finished LG with 7-8 mins left. Good day!

User avatar
TheTopBloke
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:29 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby TheTopBloke » Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:16 pm

OK, I have a couple of LR Q's I'd like to put forth to see if anyone can help me out there. My LR scores have improved quite a lot since I first started, and I think if I could just get some help overcoming this last barrier, I can ace these on the Feb test. Below are a few examples.

PT #31 Sec #3 Q #3

I chose D, the correct answer is C. I can see how they both may be correct. What are the key words or phrases I am overlooking in the stimulus or question?

PT #31 Sec #3 Q #17

I chose C, the correct answer is E. I was considering E, but Selena describes a single impact, so I didn't feel E was covering the question thoroughly enough.

PT #31 Sec #3 Q #25

I chose E, the correct answer is B. I felt E was a better answer based on the stimulus stating 'using this ratio'.

FYI, I have never taken a logic or debate class, and I wish I had. I'm in the boonies, so the only studying i can do is with books or through chat sessions such as this. It seems to me like I'm missing something subtle, or focused on the wrong words or phrases, and I'm not working under the correct knowledge as to how to choose the correct response, and if I had the correct knowlegde, I would be well ahead. If I can get past these assumption questions and these flawed pattern of reasoning questions, I will be confident I can get every single LR question correct. Thus far, I seem to be getting about half of the assumption and flawed pattern of reasoning Q's correct. Im getting 4 to 6 incorrect per LR section at the moment, all of them assumption or flawed pattern of reasoning.

Derrex
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 1:04 am

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby Derrex » Sat Jan 09, 2010 3:44 am

TheTopBloke wrote:
PT #31 Sec #3 Q #3

I chose D, the correct answer is C. I can see how they both may be correct. What are the key words or phrases I am overlooking in the stimulus or question?

PT #31 Sec #3 Q #17

I chose C, the correct answer is E. I was considering E, but Selena describes a single impact, so I didn't feel E was covering the question thoroughly enough.

PT #31 Sec #3 Q #25

I chose E, the correct answer is B. I felt E was a better answer based on the stimulus stating 'using this ratio'.


PT #31 S3 Q3:

D is out of scope/insufficient because Lin does not make any statement as to how much leverage SHOULD be afforded. Only that there is sufficient leverage.

PT #31 S3 Q17: C is not correct because the assumption is overly broad and that something has many causes doesn't say anything about ruling out a cause (asteroid impact). In fact, it runs counter to his logic. E is correct because his proof is that the one crater pointed out would not have kicked up enough dust. From this, he concludes that it must not be an asteroid. This means he must believe that disproving the one case is sufficient to draw a general conclusion, meaning that he assumes the one case is the only case.

PT #31 S3 Q25

B is correct because the use of the ratio is incorrect. Therefore, the conclusion cannot be drawn. It never justifies using the ratio. E is not correct because it doesn't have to presume that most planetary systems have 9 planets. For example, every planetary system can have 18 planets and using this ratio, you would get 2 inhabitable planets per system. Then you would still have a lot of planets that can sustain life. A ratio of 1 to 9 can apply to numbers other than 9.

skip james
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:53 am

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby skip james » Sat Jan 09, 2010 5:33 am

aether wrote:
TheTopBloke wrote:Aether, thank you so much for that excellent response.

You're welcome! :D

Do you approach all 'strengthen' Q's in the same way, filling a gap?

This technique is not just for 'strengthen' questions.

For all questions, I read the prompt first so I know what I'm looking for. Then (for most questions) I read the argument aggressively, looking for flaws, just like I'm in a debate. This technique has two advantages. First, any flaw you spot will help you locate the correct answer choice. LSAT arguments never contain random flaws. Any logical error you find within the argument will be relevant to the correct answer choice.

Second, the aggressive reading style helps to keep your mind alert through a very lengthy test. Sometimes you won't spot an obvious flaw, but that's okay. You're still reading actively and keeping your mind alert, which is worth the price of admission.

You'll most often find flaws in these types of questions:
  • Identify the flaw (or "this argument is most susceptible to criticism because"), obviously.
  • Assumption, because a missing assumption is just another type of logical flaw.
  • Strengthen, because if it needs strengthening there might be an obvious gap you can fill.
  • Weaken, because you might be able to exploit an existing flaw or gap to weaken it even more.

In fact, the only question type where I don't look for flaws is inference ("from this argument, you can most reasonably infer/conclude which of the following"). Inference questions don't have flaws... not until you add them yourself by selecting a wrong answer choice. :mrgreen:


for what it's worth, i endorse the value of this approach.

febstriver
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 2:13 am

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby febstriver » Sat Jan 09, 2010 4:59 pm

Go February!

just chimin' in..

nikkei325i
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:45 am

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby nikkei325i » Mon Jan 11, 2010 6:53 am

Just chiming in here...

What do you guys think my chances are of getting into schools with a March 1st deadline? I know schools have rolling admissions, and that your chances of being admitted become slimmer as the deadline nears but just how slim is it?

User avatar
hobbsey
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 12:28 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby hobbsey » Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:26 pm

Hello Feb LSAT friends, this is my first post but I have been lurking these forums since Nov-ish when I started studying! The Feb test will be my first and hopefully only crack at the LSAT, since otherwise I would be doomed to an international retake. This week I’m trying to change my studying routine from reading the powerscore LG and LR books and doing small timed drills to actually completing the most recent full length tests.

I have a pretty brutal work schedule at the moment, but I planned to take the Wednesday-Friday before the test off from work to do some more relaxed full length tests and last minute studying. The powerscore books recommend not studying on the day before the test… but it seems like I already took the time and I’m certainly not going to waste it watching the Price is Right :roll:

User avatar
TheTopBloke
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:29 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby TheTopBloke » Mon Jan 11, 2010 5:00 pm

I agree with their recommendation. If you're not prepared to take the test, spending the last day studying is definitely not going to help you.


nikkei325i
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:45 am

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby nikkei325i » Tue Jan 12, 2010 11:01 pm

Here is a test for you guys:

alex1524 wrote:
1. All engines use oil
2. Cars use oil
Conclusion: Cars have engines

Just wondering what you guys think. Based on these 3 statements and not your knowledge on oil and cars, would you say this argument is true or false. Why or why not?

christopher1108
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:28 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby christopher1108 » Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:40 am

engines may not be the only thing that uses (has) oil.

User avatar
TheTopBloke
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:29 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby TheTopBloke » Wed Jan 13, 2010 4:36 am

nikkei325i wrote:Here is a test for you guys:

alex1524 wrote:
1. All engines use oil
2. Cars use oil
Conclusion: Cars have engines

Just wondering what you guys think. Based on these 3 statements and not your knowledge on oil and cars, would you say this argument is true or false. Why or why not?


False. Cars may use oil without having engines. Trans. oil, diff. oil, etc...

missinglink
Posts: 946
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:49 am

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby missinglink » Wed Jan 13, 2010 4:09 pm

Well, I'm committed to taking this again in February. Scored a 157 and 159 on my first two examinations. First one, I was ill-prepared. Second one, I got no sleep the night before. Missed my PT average of 166 by quite a bit.

This time around, I'm taking it a little easier. Three timed PTs this month - 48, 50, 52. Two 167s and a 168. Also doing sections in areas I need to work on, like RC and LGs. Been getting -1 and -0 on LR sections pretty regularly, but usually a -5 to -7 on LGs, and a handful of missed RCs.

Just need to find some way to deal with test anxiety. Would be nice to finally have a respectable LSAT to go with a 3.8 gpa. Also would be nice not having to do this at the end of the application cycle, as I've likely hurt my chances at some places.

User avatar
somewhatwayward
Posts: 1446
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby somewhatwayward » Wed Jan 13, 2010 4:10 pm

im joining up. i just registered to retake on feb 6.

nikkei325i
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:45 am

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby nikkei325i » Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:51 pm

I am going to be practicing on my RC timing myself. Let's do this!

User avatar
TheTopBloke
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:29 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby TheTopBloke » Wed Jan 20, 2010 1:38 am

aether wrote:
pu_golf88 wrote:PT 34, Section 4, Game 4.

Doesn't this mean that if L is at S then O has to be at both R and S.

That is exactly what it means. You're understanding the logic perfectly, Golf. You're just failing to take the last little inference step. :D

Whenever Dr. Longtree works at Souderton, we have a paradox: Dr. Onawa is suddenly required to be in two places at once. But Dr. Onawa cannot be in two places at once! It's impossible. Therefor... (drum roll, please)

...we infer that Dr. Longtree can never work at Souderton.

When you spotted this paradox, you were supposed to permanently assign Dr. Longtree to the Randsborough clinic and continue working the problem! :D

Make sense now?


WOW! Thanks for clarifying that one! I've never seen in any study materials and never would have thought to consider that inference. That's very helpful thank you!

aether
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:25 am

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby aether » Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:37 am

TheTopBloke wrote:WOW! Thanks for clarifying that one! I've never seen in any study materials and never would have thought to consider that inference. That's very helpful thank you!

You are very welcome! :D

User avatar
somewhatwayward
Posts: 1446
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby somewhatwayward » Wed Jan 20, 2010 1:00 pm

i did PT 51, 50, and 57 over the past three mornings

User avatar
tikiman6
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:21 am

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby tikiman6 » Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:24 pm

Took a discouraging 168 yesterday. Somehow I didn't finish RC, which has never happened to me before, and as a result I am going to work on pacing in the next couple weeks. I finished the RC after, and found a 171 if I had finished the section, which is still below par for me.

Then I got a 178 today 8)




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”