The Official September 2016 Study Group - WAKE ME UP WHEN SEPTEMBER ENDS Forum

[proteinshake]

~140 pages left in Manhattan LG. should be done with it by the end of the week and then moving on the Manhattan LR next week after a PT!

How are you liking it so far? I'm planning on starting MLSAT LG at the end of the week myself thanks to your awesome advice. I just looked through the first chapter or so of each MLSAT book and I like the layout and explanations much better!
Hoping it translates to some solid success, lord knows I need it.

Congrats on the progress Protein Shake

it's awesome! I read it for my last take in December so I am familiar with its awesomeness. so far I've drilled all the Simple/Complex/Relative ordering games and went -1/0 on every game (mostly -0)! the games in the book are pretty hard, so the the drill packs seem much easier.

I'm excited to start! I'm about 1/3 of the way through the LGB and hope to be starting MLSAT LG within a week or two.

And that is amazing! Good work, keep it up!

doh! I should probably mention that you should skip the in/out grouping chapters in the LGB! you will CERTAINLY adopt the Manhattan methods for those, LGB really lacks on those. same goes for pure sequencing. LGB is horrid for pure sequencing.

[Alexandros]

.

[Barack O'Drama]

~140 pages left in Manhattan LG. should be done with it by the end of the week and then moving on the Manhattan LR next week after a PT!

How are you liking it so far? I'm planning on starting MLSAT LG at the end of the week myself thanks to your awesome advice. I just looked through the first chapter or so of each MLSAT book and I like the layout and explanations much better!
Hoping it translates to some solid success, lord knows I need it.

Congrats on the progress Protein Shake

it's awesome! I read it for my last take in December so I am familiar with its awesomeness. so far I've drilled all the Simple/Complex/Relative ordering games and went -1/0 on every game (mostly -0)! the games in the book are pretty hard, so the the drill packs seem much easier.

I'm excited to start! I'm about 1/3 of the way through the LGB and hope to be starting MLSAT LG within a week or two.

And that is amazing! Good work, keep it up!

doh! I should probably mention that you should skip the in/out grouping chapters in the LGB! you will CERTAINLY adopt the Manhattan methods for those, LGB really lacks on those. same goes for pure sequencing. LGB is horrid for pure sequencing.

Haha! Thank you 1000x I was just skimming the book and the pure sequencing made absolutely no sense to me. I will skip those 100%. I am just trying to get a handle on advanced ordering games and then I'm probably going to hit MLSAT.

[usaorbust]

Grouping games, in general and more so for ones with extreme emphasis on conditionals, have been killing me. Anyone have any advice for these or books that have worked well in prepping you for them? I'm going through the LGB right now and I am wishing it covered more than just basic stuff, especially for grouping!

[Barack O'Drama]

Grouping games, in general and more so for ones with extreme emphasis on conditionals, have been killing me. Anyone have any advice for these or books that have worked well in prepping you for them? I'm going through the LGB right now and I am wishing it covered more than just basic stuff, especially for grouping!

Haven't got to grouping games too much yet, but I think, as protein shake said above, the Manhattan LSAT LG may be better for grouping games. I am really liking the LGB, as it is giving me a good base. However I can see how it doesn't really go into much past the basic stuff. The chapters seem to give you a few pages on how to do a certain game, then a drill of 6-8 games to practice with explanations, and that's all she wrote. Great to learn the basics, but it needs to be coupled with intense drilling to be 100% effective. I am having the same problem with mastering advanced ordering games (This may be due to just starting out this week), but I too wish it covered more strategy beyond the basics.

As for conditionals, I struggled with understanding it a bit because I sort of already thought I understood it, and I did to a certain extent, but it seems like applying it is where I was having trouble. I went back and reviewed conditional logic early last week and now feel really good about it. I think a good review from the LG bibles first chapter may help.

I know this isn't too useful, however, I think with more practice and perhaps adding the MLSAT may help you. At least that is what I am hoping for

[kkilambi]

I don't know how people finish 15 questions in 15 minutes in LR. I am only able to complete 10 questions in 12.30 minutes. What are the ways I can speed up?

[momoyome]

I don't know how people finish 15 questions in 15 minutes in LR. I am only able to complete 10 questions in 12.30 minutes. What are the ways I can speed up?

Not all questions are created equally. Some questions you can do in a minute and under (the first 10-12 in a LR section). Others you need more time. Work on mastery of the material and question types and that'll shave off time on the easy questions to give you more time on the harder ones.

[proteinshake]

I don't know how people finish 15 questions in 15 minutes in LR. I am only able to complete 10 questions in 12.30 minutes. What are the ways I can speed up?

this is a pretty advanced technique. if you aren't too far in yet, it's not a big deal if you can't do this yet. 15 in 15 is making very good time, 10 in 12 minutes is still good. to speed up, always know the flaw before you get into the answer choice and always anticipate what the answer will be. this will help you save a bunch of time when selecting an answer.

[20170322]

I don't know how people finish 15 questions in 15 minutes in LR. I am only able to complete 10 questions in 12.30 minutes. What are the ways I can speed up?

this is a pretty advanced technique. if you aren't too far in yet, it's not a big deal if you can't do this yet. 15 in 15 is making very good time, 10 in 12 minutes is still good. to speed up, always know the flaw before you get into the answer choice and always anticipate what the answer will be. this will help you save a bunch of time when selecting an answer.

Yeah, anticipating is the best thing to do. If you know what the answer is before reading the options, you can move very quickly.

[CoGar]

Has anyone taken the LSAT - India test available on the Cambridge website ? Should i be wary of score or does it equally align with other prep tests?

[Alexandros]

.

[34iplaw]

Signing up for Testmasters, as I definitely need some help with structure for the long run. Class has a well regarded instructor with a strong score, and it is only 11 people.

Does anyone have a referral code they would like me to use? If so, PM me within the next few hours otherwise I'll use a random one off google. You can buy an extra prep book with that referral money! Well, half of one...

[20170322]

Gonna drill 10 science passages in a row today to work on RC. God have mercy on my soul.

[studyingeveryday]

I started the Trainer, and it's actually been pretty interesting so far! Thanks to those who suggested it. I'm going to do the 4 week plan and then move on to the Manhattan books.

Though I'll do a lot of drilling throughout using the trainer plan, I'm wondering: how are you all spreading out your drilling and practice tests? Do you drill everyday? And how many practice tests are you taking each week? Are you going to increase more practice tests as you get closer to test day?

I was thinking I could start taking practice exams in the third week of the trainer, and then another the next week, and when I'm done with the trainer I'll have 10-11 weeks left until test day (depending on how fast I get through the trainer). I'll also simultaneously be going through all the Manhattan books. Should I just consistently do a practice exam per week and then maybe 3 the in the last few weeks?

I'm trying to figure this all out so I can set aside PTs for drilling and PTs for full-length practice! Thank you!

[studyingeveryday]

Gonna drill 10 science passages in a row today to work on RC. God have mercy on my soul.

Whoa, good luck!

[CoGar]

Hey guys,

On the games when you see "if and only if" as a condition rule, how do you diagram it?
Ex: "B will be placed in position 2 if and only if C is placed in position 4"

Would it just be C4 --> B2? Then what would the contrapositive of this???

Thanks alot

[Mikey]

Hey guys,

On the games when you see "if and only if" as a condition rule, how do you diagram it?
Ex: "B will be placed in position 2 if and only if C is placed in position 4"

Would it just be C4 --> B2? Then what would the contrapositive of this???

Thanks alot

Idk how others diagram it but this is how I personally do and understand it.

oi
B2-->C4

I put the "OI" above the arrow for only if. This can be misinterpreted to say if B is in 2 then C is in 4, but you must remember the Only If factor, but this is how I do it.

Contrapositive would be C4 --> B2 ....... So if C isn't in 4 then B doesn't get to be in 2.

Remember that this is how I do it, others may do it differently and you may find another way of diagramming it more simple.

[proteinshake]

Hey guys,

On the games when you see "if and only if" as a condition rule, how do you diagram it?
Ex: "B will be placed in position 2 if and only if C is placed in position 4"

Would it just be C4 --> B2? Then what would the contrapositive of this???

Thanks alot

Idk how others diagram it but this is how I personally do and understand it.

oi
B2-->C4

I put the "OI" above the arrow for only if. This can be misinterpreted to say if B is in 2 then C is in 4, but you must remember the Only If factor, but this is how I do it.

Contrapositive would be C4 --> B2 ....... So if C isn't in 4 then B doesn't get to be in 2.

Remember that this is how I do it, others may do it differently and you may find another way of diagramming it more simple.

whoa Mikey's method confused me

I would do C4 <-----> B2

contrapositive: -C4 <-----> -B2

[Mikey]

Hey guys,

On the games when you see "if and only if" as a condition rule, how do you diagram it?
Ex: "B will be placed in position 2 if and only if C is placed in position 4"

Would it just be C4 --> B2? Then what would the contrapositive of this???

Thanks alot

Idk how others diagram it but this is how I personally do and understand it.

oi
B2-->C4

I put the "OI" above the arrow for only if. This can be misinterpreted to say if B is in 2 then C is in 4, but you must remember the Only If factor, but this is how I do it.

Contrapositive would be C4 --> B2 ....... So if C isn't in 4 then B doesn't get to be in 2.

Remember that this is how I do it, others may do it differently and you may find another way of diagramming it more simple.

whoa Mikey's method confused me

I would do C4 <-----> B2

contrapositive: -C4 <-----> -B2

Haha yeah man, I knew it would sound confusing but just wanted to share the way I do things xD. I tried explaining it but I suck at explaining lol.

[proteinshake]

Hey guys,

On the games when you see "if and only if" as a condition rule, how do you diagram it?
Ex: "B will be placed in position 2 if and only if C is placed in position 4"

Would it just be C4 --> B2? Then what would the contrapositive of this???

Thanks alot

Idk how others diagram it but this is how I personally do and understand it.

oi
B2-->C4

I put the "OI" above the arrow for only if. This can be misinterpreted to say if B is in 2 then C is in 4, but you must remember the Only If factor, but this is how I do it.

Contrapositive would be C4 --> B2 ....... So if C isn't in 4 then B doesn't get to be in 2.

Remember that this is how I do it, others may do it differently and you may find another way of diagramming it more simple.

whoa Mikey's method confused me

I would do C4 <-----> B2

contrapositive: -C4 <-----> -B2

Haha yeah man, I knew it would sound confusing but just wanted to share the way I do things xD. I tried explaining it but I suck at explaining lol.

but creative!

[Barack O'Drama]

I started the Trainer, and it's actually been pretty interesting so far! Thanks to those who suggested it. I'm going to do the 4 week plan and then move on to the Manhattan books.

Though I'll do a lot of drilling throughout using the trainer plan, I'm wondering: how are you all spreading out your drilling and practice tests? Do you drill everyday? And how many practice tests are you taking each week? Are you going to increase more practice tests as you get closer to test day?

I was thinking I could start taking practice exams in the third week of the trainer, and then another the next week, and when I'm done with the trainer I'll have 10-11 weeks left until test day (depending on how fast I get through the trainer). I'll also simultaneously be going through all the Manhattan books. Should I just consistently do a practice exam per week and then maybe 3 the in the last few weeks?

I'm trying to figure this all out so I can set aside PTs for drilling and PTs for full-length practice! Thank you!

The Trainer is the GOAT! haha..

When I was reading The Trainer--which was the first book I used in my studying--I drilled questions that pertained to every chapter. For instance, while I was reading the chapter on LR Flaws I think I did ~50 flaw questions from the Cambridge packet. Mostly the easier ones to save the more difficult for when I went through the LR Bible/MLSAT LR. As far as practice test, I haven't really done any since my diagnostic a few weeks ago. I have just been drilling because I know that my LG skills are still too weak, and have focused on passages/drilling question types. I definitely try to drill everyday after everything I learn. It really helps to instill what you are learning. I would just follow whatever the study schedule says about PT'ing. I would say at this point, wait until you've gone through the trainer to really get into PT'ing. Before I got through the trainer, I sort of found myself struggling to do some questions that the Trainer went on to explain. I basically figured that drilling made more sense--at least at that point. YMMV though. I think your idea to do one after 3 weeks with the trainer is a good plan. As far as setting aside PTs for drilling vs. full-length tests: I a, using all the PTs from 40-77 for full-length test and drilling out of the Cambridge packets that have questions up until PT40. So it may work to break them up like that.

I think you are making a good choice doing the Trainer--> MLSAT. I wish that is what I had done from the get-go. I still don't think the bibles hurt in anyway, but the LR Bible was largely a time sink when the MLSAT seems to be much better imho.

[Mikey]

but creative!

[potus]

Hey guys,

On the games when you see "if and only if" as a condition rule, how do you diagram it?
Ex: "B will be placed in position 2 if and only if C is placed in position 4"

Would it just be C4 --> B2? Then what would the contrapositive of this???

Thanks alot

Idk how others diagram it but this is how I personally do and understand it.

oi
B2-->C4

I put the "OI" above the arrow for only if. This can be misinterpreted to say if B is in 2 then C is in 4, but you must remember the Only If factor, but this is how I do it.

Contrapositive would be C4 --> B2 ....... So if C isn't in 4 then B doesn't get to be in 2.

Remember that this is how I do it, others may do it differently and you may find another way of diagramming it more simple.

whoa Mikey's method confused me

I would do C4 <-----> B2

contrapositive: -C4 <-----> -B2

Yep. If you need more practice on this kind of diagramming and contrapositives, I recommend playing some LSAT Arcade and playing the game "If/Then." It's very useful.

[Archer@Law]

Hey guys,

On the games when you see "if and only if" as a condition rule, how do you diagram it?
Ex: "B will be placed in position 2 if and only if C is placed in position 4"

Would it just be C4 --> B2? Then what would the contrapositive of this???

Thanks alot

Idk how others diagram it but this is how I personally do and understand it.

oi
B2-->C4

I put the "OI" above the arrow for only if. This can be misinterpreted to say if B is in 2 then C is in 4, but you must remember the Only If factor, but this is how I do it.

Contrapositive would be C4 --> B2 ....... So if C isn't in 4 then B doesn't get to be in 2.

Remember that this is how I do it, others may do it differently and you may find another way of diagramming it more simple.

whoa Mikey's method confused me

I would do C4 <-----> B2

contrapositive: -C4 <-----> -B2

Yep. If you need more practice on this kind of diagramming and contrapositives, I recommend playing some LSAT Arcade and playing the game "If/Then." It's very useful.

On page 191 Mike states that biconditionals can just be grouped as "ST" rather than using the double arrows. I think of them as follows:

If S, then T
If T, then S
If Not S, then not T
If Not T, then not S

[proteinshake]

Hey guys,

On the games when you see "if and only if" as a condition rule, how do you diagram it?
Ex: "B will be placed in position 2 if and only if C is placed in position 4"

Would it just be C4 --> B2? Then what would the contrapositive of this???

Thanks alot

Idk how others diagram it but this is how I personally do and understand it.

oi
B2-->C4

I put the "OI" above the arrow for only if. This can be misinterpreted to say if B is in 2 then C is in 4, but you must remember the Only If factor, but this is how I do it.

Contrapositive would be C4 --> B2 ....... So if C isn't in 4 then B doesn't get to be in 2.

Remember that this is how I do it, others may do it differently and you may find another way of diagramming it more simple.

whoa Mikey's method confused me

I would do C4 <-----> B2

contrapositive: -C4 <-----> -B2

Yep. If you need more practice on this kind of diagramming and contrapositives, I recommend playing some LSAT Arcade and playing the game "If/Then." It's very useful.

On page 191 Mike states that biconditionals can just be grouped as "ST" rather than using the double arrows. I think of them as follows:

If S, then T
If T, then S
If Not S, then not T
If Not T, then not S

yup that works as well. I would go with what you feel more comfortable with between what Archer and I said! (sorry Mikey)