The Official September 2014 Study Group Forum

[flash21]

oh! my mistake.

you've made some great progress, congratulations. especially considering how busy you are, thats great. respect the dedication.

I think we have similar issues on LG. Do you often find its one silly mistake or one just super whacky game that really ruins your LG score? Pretty common issue I've seen from LG sections, although I've only done a few timed LG sections but I've done a lot of games drilling in general.

[h3jk5h]

O.M.G.

Just got demolished by Necessary Assumption Packets, and I'm not even doing the level 3s and 4s yet.

57/72 on Level 2. Untimed. I am an idiot.

[kirilrez]

Hi, I'm checking in.
Plan to take in September, but maybe will push to December.

[gnomgnomuch]

oh! my mistake.

you've made some great progress, congratulations. especially considering how busy you are, thats great. respect the dedication.

I think we have similar issues on LG. Do you often find its one silly mistake or one just super whacky game that really ruins your LG score? Pretty common issue I've seen from LG sections, although I've only done a few timed LG sections but I've done a lot of games drilling in general.

Honestly, it's a mixture. For PT 39, i really had no problem with games 1/3/4, but game 2 was just weird. I've now looked over the 7sage vid for game 2, 3 times trying to make sure i understand it. Basically the M/S/T's don't actually have any bearing on one another, which is weird because normally when you have a rule that talks about 2 or more game pieces, that rule usually creates some kind of ordering pattern between the two, however this game didn't do that, so when i started diagramming, i basically had a blank page, since i had no idea what to do.

There are times though, when i just misread/diagram a rule, and then i don't figure it out until I'm halfway through the questions.

Thanks, I appreciate it =). I'm finishing up my internship the 21st of this month, so I'll have more time to dedicate to this test. Either way, im not taking the LSAT until I'm PT'ing a couple points above the score range i want.

[gnomgnomuch]

O.M.G.

Just got demolished by Necessary Assumption Packets, and I'm not even doing the level 3s and 4s yet.

57/72 on Level 2. Untimed. I am an idiot.

Don't feel bad, 57/72 IS NOT bad, just go over the NA sections in whichever book you're using, and really go over in depth the questions you missed, why you missed them, etc. Also, check out the Manhattan LSAT threads for LR, they're gold.

[h3jk5h]

O.M.G.

Just got demolished by Necessary Assumption Packets, and I'm not even doing the level 3s and 4s yet.

57/72 on Level 2. Untimed. I am an idiot.

Don't feel bad, 57/72 IS NOT bad, just go over the NA sections in whichever book you're using, and really go over in depth the questions you missed, why you missed them, etc. Also, check out the Manhattan LSAT threads for LR, they're gold.

Thanks for the encouragment. I've been drilling the Cambridge packets for LR and LG, and checking solutions on the Manhattan LSAT forums as well for the ones that I've missed or unsure of. I'm just prone to frustration over any bad score. I am usually at peace with myself when I get like 5-10 wrong on a level and calmly go over the questions again for review, but getting 15 wrong out of 72 questions untimed is simply pathetic.

Will take some moments off before I re-examine what went wrong.

[flash21]

oh! my mistake.

you've made some great progress, congratulations. especially considering how busy you are, thats great. respect the dedication.

I think we have similar issues on LG. Do you often find its one silly mistake or one just super whacky game that really ruins your LG score? Pretty common issue I've seen from LG sections, although I've only done a few timed LG sections but I've done a lot of games drilling in general.

Honestly, it's a mixture. For PT 39, i really had no problem with games 1/3/4, but game 2 was just weird. I've now looked over the 7sage vid for game 2, 3 times trying to make sure i understand it. Basically the M/S/T's don't actually have any bearing on one another, which is weird because normally when you have a rule that talks about 2 or more game pieces, that rule usually creates some kind of ordering pattern between the two, however this game didn't do that, so when i started diagramming, i basically had a blank page, since i had no idea what to do.

There are times though, when i just misread/diagram a rule, and then i don't figure it out until I'm halfway through the questions.

Thanks, I appreciate it =). I'm finishing up my internship the 21st of this month, so I'll have more time to dedicate to this test. Either way, im not taking the LSAT until I'm PT'ing a couple points above the score range i want.

Funny, I did PT 39 recently and had the exact same issue. I actually made a thread about it thats on the front page right now. Sometimes if rules get strangely worded i may screw up a diagram too - but logic games are pretty unique in that one mistake on the rule will screw you over badly. So I've been trying be a lot more careful .

[gnomgnomuch]

oh! my mistake.

you've made some great progress, congratulations. especially considering how busy you are, thats great. respect the dedication.

I think we have similar issues on LG. Do you often find its one silly mistake or one just super whacky game that really ruins your LG score? Pretty common issue I've seen from LG sections, although I've only done a few timed LG sections but I've done a lot of games drilling in general.

Honestly, it's a mixture. For PT 39, i really had no problem with games 1/3/4, but game 2 was just weird. I've now looked over the 7sage vid for game 2, 3 times trying to make sure i understand it. Basically the M/S/T's don't actually have any bearing on one another, which is weird because normally when you have a rule that talks about 2 or more game pieces, that rule usually creates some kind of ordering pattern between the two, however this game didn't do that, so when i started diagramming, i basically had a blank page, since i had no idea what to do.

There are times though, when i just misread/diagram a rule, and then i don't figure it out until I'm halfway through the questions.

Thanks, I appreciate it =). I'm finishing up my internship the 21st of this month, so I'll have more time to dedicate to this test. Either way, im not taking the LSAT until I'm PT'ing a couple points above the score range i want.

Funny, I did PT 39 recently and had the exact same issue. I actually made a thread about it thats on the front page right now. Sometimes if rules get strangely worded i may screw up a diagram too - but logic games are pretty unique in that one mistake on the rule will screw you over badly. So I've been trying be a lot more careful .

Yea, i think that spending 2-3 minutes on the diagram and making sure you miss nothing in your deductions/rules is a lot better than flying through your set-up, only to lose 4 points because you missed something that would have been obvious if you took your time.

[flash21]

oh! my mistake.

you've made some great progress, congratulations. especially considering how busy you are, thats great. respect the dedication.

I think we have similar issues on LG. Do you often find its one silly mistake or one just super whacky game that really ruins your LG score? Pretty common issue I've seen from LG sections, although I've only done a few timed LG sections but I've done a lot of games drilling in general.

Honestly, it's a mixture. For PT 39, i really had no problem with games 1/3/4, but game 2 was just weird. I've now looked over the 7sage vid for game 2, 3 times trying to make sure i understand it. Basically the M/S/T's don't actually have any bearing on one another, which is weird because normally when you have a rule that talks about 2 or more game pieces, that rule usually creates some kind of ordering pattern between the two, however this game didn't do that, so when i started diagramming, i basically had a blank page, since i had no idea what to do.

There are times though, when i just misread/diagram a rule, and then i don't figure it out until I'm halfway through the questions.

Thanks, I appreciate it =). I'm finishing up my internship the 21st of this month, so I'll have more time to dedicate to this test. Either way, im not taking the LSAT until I'm PT'ing a couple points above the score range i want.

Funny, I did PT 39 recently and had the exact same issue. I actually made a thread about it thats on the front page right now. Sometimes if rules get strangely worded i may screw up a diagram too - but logic games are pretty unique in that one mistake on the rule will screw you over badly. So I've been trying be a lot more careful .

Yea, i think that spending 2-3 minutes on the diagram and making sure you miss nothing in your deductions/rules is a lot better than flying through your set-up, only to lose 4 points because you missed something that would have been obvious if you took your time.

agreed. I may start double checking my rules after I've checked them off as habit now. I always get paranoid about time though.

[gnomgnomuch]

agreed. I may start double checking my rules after I've checked them off as habit now. I always get paranoid about time though.[/quote]

I feel that there will always be one game that should take only 6 minutes, and another that should take around 7, which leaves around 20 for the two harder games. But yea, accuracy > timing.

[diiggidy]

Just got done taking my first PT (PT 51) since my initial diagnostic, and am pretty happy with the results. I went -13 which scales to a 169, with a breakdown of:

LR (-2)
RC (-8)
LR (-3)
LG (-0)

I've always been pretty decent at LR, but was somewhat surprised at how well I did. I was having some trouble focusing, but I guess I was able to keep it together and get the right answers for the most part. This RC section was really tough for me, and I had a hard time staying focused on the section. I'm starting to realize i'll need to spend some more time on RC than I was planning. As for logic games, I think I had seen at least 1 or 2 of them from the prep books because I vaguely remembered them, but I'm still really happy with my performance on this test. I just started going through the Cambridge packets this week, so i'm glad to see that reading the prep books alone gave me about a 9 point score boost. This definitely gives me some motivation to keep working hard to reach my goal. Also, I didn't blind review yet (I was anxious to see my score) but plan to later. Good luck everybody!

[ilawsxhool1]

How quickly should I be finishing simple sequencing/linear games? 5min? Has someone gotten down to 4min?

[Louis1127]

How quickly should I be finishing simple sequencing/linear games? 5min? Has someone gotten down to 4min?

lol I was wondering this myself a couple months ago.

The answer is it depends. Some simple sequencing games are easy as shit and u should get them done in 5 mins.

Some have lots and lots of possibilities, few inferences, require you to do alot of plugging-and-chugging, and they should take you longer. The epitome of this is PT 68 game 4. It is literally a simple sequencing game but it's pure hell and it will take you much, much longer than 5 minutes, as it should.

[vracovino]

Just curious, how long have you been studying/drilling Logic Games? They're especially hard for me as well.

I studied about 3 months before my exam in October 2013 (I start LS in the fall). LG were super easy for me and I only took about 2 weeks to go to -1/-2ish. But I helped a lot of my friends with them. I recommend if you get one question on a game wrong, spend time rediagramming and reworking the entire game because the problem probably lies within your diagram somewhere.

That's insane. Some days I just feel down on my abilities in regards to this test, because the majority of it just doesn't come as naturally as it does for some of you guys.

Anyway, another question for whoever can attest to this: is it true that RC gets harder on the new tests? My scores are for the most part hovering around -4 or -5, but the occasional -8 reminds me how volatile this section is (and I'm only up tp PT 37)

[flash21]

Just curious, how long have you been studying/drilling Logic Games? They're especially hard for me as well.

I studied about 3 months before my exam in October 2013 (I start LS in the fall). LG were super easy for me and I only took about 2 weeks to go to -1/-2ish. But I helped a lot of my friends with them. I recommend if you get one question on a game wrong, spend time rediagramming and reworking the entire game because the problem probably lies within your diagram somewhere.

That's insane. Some days I just feel down on my abilities in regards to this test, because the majority of it just doesn't come as naturally as it does for some of you guys.

Anyway, another question for whoever can attest to this: is it true that RC gets harder on the new tests? My scores are for the most part hovering around -4 or -5, but the occasional -8 reminds me how volatile this section is (and I'm only up tp PT 37)

I've felt the same way in regard to feeling down on myself. Here is some advice that you should carry into every aspect of life: just compare yourself to you - if you are comparing yourself to others it is actually pretty de-motivating at times. I can see the value in comparing yourself to someone of equal or close skill, but a lot of the time on a forum like this you're comparing yourself with the guy that got a 160 diagnostic and is scared he won't crack 170. Make sure you're progressing everyday and you should be fine

[kbrizz]

SO frustrated.

Started drilling the first practice problems out of the Cambridge Relative ordering packet, and I'm the worst. I literally go at least -3 on every question. I feel like all of the work I did with powerscore has just gone away because I can't make many inferences of these problems, only not laws for the first and last slots.

Maybe it's because these are older problems?

Then I watch 7Sage and he always says, "this is a super easy ordering problem" and I am like... is it too late to become a doctor?
Discouraging.

[flash21]

SO frustrated.

Started drilling the first practice problems out of the Cambridge Relative ordering packet, and I'm the worst. I literally go at least -3 on every question. I feel like all of the work I did with powerscore has just gone away because I can't make many inferences of these problems, only not laws for the first and last slots.

Maybe it's because these are older problems?

Then I watch 7Sage and he always says, "this is a super easy ordering problem" and I am like... is it too late to become a doctor?
Discouraging.

hey don't worry. I used to spend upwards of 45 minutes doing basic ordering games and still get most of them wrong. I think on my diagnostic I got 1/2 correct. keep at it, 7sage is your saviour trust me

[floridaxrose]

I took a testmasters course, I put the hours in my highest PT was 167- averaging 165.
I got a 163 on the June 2014 LSAT and my GPA is 3.95.
I have been reading and most don't jump two or three points unless they failed to study not my case.
Not sure if I have theoretically reached the "cap" each individual has or if I can get to 170+ range.
I also plan on attending UF and have more than the numbers I need to go there.
The only was I could consider my dream Columbia, NYU, or Harvard is with significant financial assistance.
I am hispanic not sure if that qualified as a URM? But I have read about 163's getting into these schools, one person out of a batch so just not sure.

Any advice- I am deciding whether to retake or not?

You can start by not using TestMasters. And yes, you can increase even if you studied before. I am living proof.

How much did you study? & What did you use?
I found TestMasters extremely useful though

[floridaxrose]

Well im glad to know this ha I took a mathematical approach at it and that was reinforced by my course instructor but thanks for sharing your life lesson wisdom lol!

Seriously, if you actually want help there's a lot of flame around UT. I had tons of people ask me how I got into UT Law and when I told them LSAT they almost all asked if they thought they'd get in with like a 157-165 and I had to tell them know. If you want help, I'd be glad to help ocassionally with tips/advice on LSAT, applications, etc. I was in a similar situation, I was a chem major with a <3.0 GPA and I'm starting UT Law in the fall. IDK what or who your teacher is, but I'd rather offer some free help than see someone else screw things up by having a bad teacher.

The mathematical approach, while it makes sense also is misleading. When you're competing for about 200-300 spots at the top schools and everyone is in the high range, 1 point makes a huge difference. Whereas in the middle range 1 point means next to nothing because so many people have it. The rarity of that 1 extra point makes it worth so much more than those in the lower echelons.

With a GPA like his he is excluding himself from HYSCCN by not retaking. The amount of my friends who wasted a good GPA b/c they were too lazy to retake and are paying near $100,000 for schools like A&M, Houston, or Baylor is astoundingly terrifying to me who put no effort in during UG and will have <$100k debt for LS + UG.

What is HYSCCN?

[Louis1127]

SO frustrated.

Started drilling the first practice problems out of the Cambridge Relative ordering packet, and I'm the worst. I literally go at least -3 on every question. I feel like all of the work I did with powerscore has just gone away because I can't make many inferences of these problems, only not laws for the first and last slots.

Maybe it's because these are older problems?

Then I watch 7Sage and he always says, "this is a super easy ordering problem" and I am like... is it too late to become a doctor?
Discouraging.

hey don't worry. I used to spend upwards of 45 minutes doing basic ordering games and still get most of them wrong. I think on my diagnostic I got 1/2 correct. keep at it, 7sage is your saviour trust me

I second this. I couldn't even do a game at first and I still don't have it to where they are -0 every time but you WILL get better at them if you just keep plugging away.

The only reason I went -10 on my last game set was because I misread a rule and it killed me

[flash21]

SO frustrated.

Started drilling the first practice problems out of the Cambridge Relative ordering packet, and I'm the worst. I literally go at least -3 on every question. I feel like all of the work I did with powerscore has just gone away because I can't make many inferences of these problems, only not laws for the first and last slots.

Maybe it's because these are older problems?

Then I watch 7Sage and he always says, "this is a super easy ordering problem" and I am like... is it too late to become a doctor?
Discouraging.

hey don't worry. I used to spend upwards of 45 minutes doing basic ordering games and still get most of them wrong. I think on my diagnostic I got 1/2 correct. keep at it, 7sage is your saviour trust me

I second this. I couldn't even do a game at first and I still don't have it to where they are -0 every time but you WILL get better at them if you just keep plugging away.

The only reason I went -10 on my last game set was because I misread a rule and it killed me

Which game was that (curious) . I misread a rule recently which resulted in a 11 correct in total LG section, (also got owned on a really hard last game)

[Louis1127]

Here is your laugh before you have fun this long weekend.

So it turns out this:

"H sits immediately next to neither F nor K"

is a hell of alot different than this:

"H sits immediately next to either F or K".

I actually set the circle game up right and could have got a few questions, maybe even a majority of them before my time ran out (I had like 12 minutes to do the game).

I just misread the rule. Damn.

Anyhow, does anyone check your notated rules against the stimulus AFTER you notated them, but BEFORE moving on to make inferences/go to the questions? I feel like that would help me avoid this in the future but I also feel like ti could hurt my time.

edit: hey flash I answered your question without even knowing it, maybe i should drop the lsat and become a psychic

[flash21]

Here is your laugh before you have fun this long weekend.

So it turns out this:

"H sits immediately next to neither F nor K"

is a hell of alot different than this:

"H sits immediately next to either F or K".

I actually set the circle game up right and could have got a few questions, maybe even a majority of them before my time ran out (I had like 12 minutes to do the game).

I just misread the rule. Damn.

Anyhow, does anyone check your notated rules against the stimulus AFTER you notated them, but BEFORE moving on to make inferences/go to the questions? I feel like that would help me avoid this in the future but I also feel like ti could hurt my time.

edit: hey flash I answered your question without even knowing it, maybe i should drop the lsat and become a psychic

Thats some nasty wording to be fair. I think its a good idea to double check rules, because if you miss a rule and screw up a whole game, who cares you saved a few seconds by NOT re-checking your annotations to the rules? Manhattan's LG reccomends this, I'll probably start doing this more often too.

[ilikebaseball]

Here is your laugh before you have fun this long weekend.

So it turns out this:

"H sits immediately next to neither F nor K"

is a hell of alot different than this:

"H sits immediately next to either F or K".

I actually set the circle game up right and could have got a few questions, maybe even a majority of them before my time ran out (I had like 12 minutes to do the game).

I just misread the rule. Damn.

Anyhow, does anyone check your notated rules against the stimulus AFTER you notated them, but BEFORE moving on to make inferences/go to the questions? I feel like that would help me avoid this in the future but I also feel like ti could hurt my time.

edit: hey flash I answered your question without even knowing it, maybe i should drop the lsat and become a psychic

I remember this game. I got one of the questions wrong, forgot which one. It all comes down to plug and chug with this one I found out because there are so many different possibilities

[kbrizz]

Sigh...

You guys keep me motivated. I know I've said it before but I'll keep saying it: thank you so much!
Wish I could give back!
Hopefully I'll get there.