December 2012 Re-takers Forum

[Sugar Lumps]

WHOWANTSTOGODRUNKSLEDDINGCOMETOCOLORADONOW

[AKsnow]

WHOWANTSTOGODRUNKSLEDDINGCOMETOCOLORADONOW

That sounds so amazing and you are making me miss home so bad! It's just tits cold here in Washington. No snow= no fun.

[gguuueessttt]

Time to strengthen my strengthen abilities. Weird, I crush weaken but lose 1.5 points a test to its good twin.

If you're good at weaken but not strengthen questions, maybe try thinking to yourself "what would weaken this argument?" and then look for the opposite of that. For an example, in a causation argument, if you can identify that it would weaken the argument if X does not cause Y, look for an answer choice that closes that gap.

ETA: that was a pretty shitty example. But what I'm trying to say is that if you are good at weaken questions, then you should be able to improve your ability to answer strengthen questions pretty easily. Just try to brainstorm all the things that would weaken the argument and then look for the answer choice that closes at least one of those gaps.

[Lenahan3]

Update on my tests, to keep me honest.

PT 12 yesterday at a coffee house.

Early afternoon testing time.

Ex. RC section from PT 9

LR: -1
Ex. RC: -2
LG: -1
RC: -2
LR2: -2

173 / 180

LR: The stimuluses are much longer in these old PT's. When taking that into account along with my slowed down strategy, I'm normally checking my answers up until the second time is called. Also, these answers just feel "messy" in some way or another, which is aggravating. The wrong answers are more obviously wrong oftentimes, but the right answers are worded strangely and it makes it difficult to choose some of the time.

LG: I'm running into these old games (this one contained "flasks") which are fairly difficult, more so than the norm, but make you think differently, as I've said before. I went -1 here on a blunder, not because I didn't know the answer.

RC: The passages are (obviously) the same length, but they're somewhat shallower/easier than the modern ones. However, I still find these useful considering more practice is better and these older PT's sometimes have types of questions you're not likely to see on the modern PT's.

Thoughts on PT 12: I jacked this test up, badly. I was in another city all morning getting my car's oil/filter changed, and when I got around to taking my PT later that afternoon, my heart just wasn't in it, shown in me missing 2/3 of my questions after the break. Still, it showed me how a lack of concentration can absolutely bomb a score on a relatively narrow scale (-10) so all in all, it was a useful PT.




PT 13

Taken: This evening, finishing around 9:00 (my time).

Location: Coffee house again. Place is loud as fuck so it's a good distraction, but this may be one of the last times I use it because it has a nice, homey quality to it that I might miss if I become accustomed to it.

LG: -3
LR: -2
Ex. LR: -2
RC: -2
LR2: -0

LR: Same as PT 12. These older PT's have long stimuluses, and it is incredibly easy to get lost within their ridiculously long logic chains. I came to a few that genuinely stymied me, which is rare. Still, it's a useful experience.

LG: This LG featured the "clans" game, which is very time-consuming and set up in much the same way as "flasks." Again, I made an easy blunder instead of missing a hard question, which is something I desperately need to fix.

RC: Some girl spilled coffee all over the floor right next to me, so it is sufficient to say that my concentration was slightly snapped. I went -2 in this one, and I'm unhappy with that. Big time.

Thoughts on PT 13: I felt slightly better than yesterday, but taking it late at night like this really jacked up my concentration. I need to get better at connecting chains of logic and less distractable (made-up word?).



Overall: I'm not very happy with my performance on these last two tests, but life is hectic and sometimes I suppose things will take a dip. Also, I think the messiness of LR and LG's difficulty makes these old PT's overall more difficult than the modern ones, taking into account the modern PT's RC difficulty. I'm reviewing these problems tomorrow then taking the rest of the day off (from the LSAT). I really think taking these tests late in the day like this affects my scores, so I'm going to test that out with another old PT (14) on Monday, taken at the "proper" time of the day and see how things go. No huge problems, but the little ones will add up and I need to fix that ASAP.

LG: If anybody is still reading this chapter of my thoughts/progress, this is probably where you will be interested. GO TAKE OLD LG GAMES! Seriously. They're much more time-consuming than modern games, not to mention more difficult and everything else you can think of. The easier games in each section are sometimes easier than the "easy" games on modern PT's, but the difficult games more than make up for it. I'm of the opinion that there hasn't been a single game in the "difficult category" since CD's and Jewels in the 2000's. Dinosaurs, zones, and stained glass were approaching the level of some of these old games, but they still aren't there yet. If you drill these old games, you CAN achieve an acceptable score on LG in December.

LR: I know some of you have difficulty in finishing, or at the very least, would like some extra time for some of the more difficult questions or to check over your answers. DO OLD LR SECTIONS! When you finally arrive back at the modern LR's, they won't necessarily seem easier (they're not) but they will feel far more clean-cut and I can almost guarantee that you'll notice at least a slight speed boost, which is valuable in itself. Being forced to deal with messy, seemingly disconnected LR questions makes the clean-cut ones, if not easier, more appreciable.

RC: I'm of the opinion (as almost everybody else) that RC is harder in the late 50's and 60's than these old tests. However, these are still worth taking, so if you're in need of some extra practice, grab these suckers.

That's it. Hope you DVR'ed that hour long feature you missed while reading this.

[Psib337]

Just finished PT 53:

LR: -4
LG: -2
LR: -4
RC: -7

84/166

If stayed liked this until December I'd be happy, if I got this score in December I'd be happy (even though with applying so late the higher the better). I would however like to not have one question significantly worse than the others, I feel like I can get reading under control in a month though, generally if I'm paying attention things aren't too bad (not to mention just the first few chapters of Manhattan have changed the way I look at RC). More Manhattan and PT 54 tomorrow!

[annet]

New Bond movie is worth the study break.

But now back to LR.

[mcs268]

Retook 59 again today.

LG - 2
LRs - 2
RC - 1

-5/178

Guess retaking old tests isn't inflating me to 180 too much. I expected this with the later tests since IMO they appeared harder to me. Although i recognized the LGs and RCs doing the questions still felt like I was seeing them for first time, although LR was definitely more engrained in my memory

[gguuueessttt]

Retook 59 again today.

LG - 2
LRs - 2
RC - 1

-5/178

awesome job!!


I've given up on studying for the night. Drinking whiskey and trying to re-write my PS while jamming out to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q66v9kv1F24 . Such is my life.

[PickledPanda]

Retook 59 again today.

LG - 2
LRs - 2
RC - 1

-5/178

awesome job!!


I've given up on studying for the night. Drinking whiskey and trying to re-write my PS while jamming out to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q66v9kv1F24 . Such is my life.

Nice music, I dunno how to classify it. It's good though.

[desiballa21]

Forgot that I had promised someone I would go out for their bday. Fuck, I'd much rather be drilling to be honest. Trying to sneak home a little early so I can drill some LR and get some LG done. LGs from the 20s are just much more deduction based, no? At least much more deduction based than the 50s & 60s, right? Oh well. Going to try to get 61 done tomorrow and join y'all for review. Laters.

[HawkeyeGirl]

I just finished reading the Manhattan RC book and found it extremely helpful. It wasn't groundbreaking, but it articulated a lot of things that I had been starting to realize during my intense drilling. Namely why answers were incorrect, which helps me confidently cross them off now. I also learned a lot from their discussion on structure. I had definitely heard that you should read for structure before, but I had always struggled with it. Reading about it and using their drills to practice definitely helped me grasp it a bit more.

I went -1 on PT 61 RC after reading it, but my problem with RC has always been consistency, so 1 data point is meaningless.

[gguuueessttt]

Forgot that I had promised someone I would go out for their bday. Fuck, I'd much rather be drilling to be honest. Trying to sneak home a little early so I can drill some LR and get some LG done. LGs from the 20s are just much more deduction based, no? At least much more deduction based than the 50s & 60s, right? Oh well. Going to try to get 61 done tomorrow and join y'all for review. Laters.

Sometimes it's good to go out, have fun, and decompress. That said, for the past couple weeks I've been acting as if my friends and boyfriend don't exist. So much to do in so little time!

[gguuueessttt]

I just finished reading the Manhattan RC book and found it extremely helpful. It wasn't groundbreaking, but it articulated a lot of things that I had been starting to realize during my intense drilling. Namely why answers were incorrect, which helps me confidently cross them off now. I also learned a lot from their discussion on structure. I had definitely heard that you should read for structure before, but I had always struggled with it. Reading about it and using their drills to practice definitely helped me grasp it a bit more.

I went -1 on PT 61 RC after reading it, but my problem with RC has always been consistency, so 1 data point is meaningless.

I just bought the Manhattan RC guide yesterday. I'm glad you think it's helpful. Good job on the -1!

[HawkeyeGirl]

I just finished reading the Manhattan RC book and found it extremely helpful. It wasn't groundbreaking, but it articulated a lot of things that I had been starting to realize during my intense drilling. Namely why answers were incorrect, which helps me confidently cross them off now. I also learned a lot from their discussion on structure. I had definitely heard that you should read for structure before, but I had always struggled with it. Reading about it and using their drills to practice definitely helped me grasp it a bit more.

I went -1 on PT 61 RC after reading it, but my problem with RC has always been consistency, so 1 data point is meaningless.

I just bought the Manhattan RC guide yesterday. I'm glad you think it's helpful. Good job on the -1!

I feel like I can now attack RC with a strategy instead of just blindly reading and answering questions. I think that'll be huge and combined with drilling, I'm hoping it'll definitely get me down to consistently -0/-1. Hopefully it works!!

[Cobretti]

I just finished reading the Manhattan RC book and found it extremely helpful. It wasn't groundbreaking, but it articulated a lot of things that I had been starting to realize during my intense drilling. Namely why answers were incorrect, which helps me confidently cross them off now. I also learned a lot from their discussion on structure. I had definitely heard that you should read for structure before, but I had always struggled with it. Reading about it and using their drills to practice definitely helped me grasp it a bit more.

I went -1 on PT 61 RC after reading it, but my problem with RC has always been consistency, so 1 data point is meaningless.

I just bought the Manhattan RC guide yesterday. I'm glad you think it's helpful. Good job on the -1!

I feel like I can now attack RC with a strategy instead of just blindly reading and answering questions. I think that'll be huge and combined with drilling, I'm hoping it'll definitely get me down to consistently -0/-1. Hopefully it works!!

That's really what has me optimistic right now too. Just having a real plan of attack for RC by itself feels huge.

[HawkeyeGirl]

That's really what has me optimistic right now too. Just having a real plan of attack for RC by itself feels huge.

Did you read Manhattan too? I bizarrely really like their scale thing haha.

[PickledPanda]

I agree. The MRC gives you a sense of being to attack the passages instead of feeling your way through as you go. You still have to understand and synthesize as you read, but you have a sense of control going in.

[Cobretti]

That's really what has me optimistic right now too. Just having a real plan of attack for RC by itself feels huge.

Did you read Manhattan too? I bizarrely really like their scale thing haha.

I haven't read it yet, but i got it in the mail the other day. I'll hit it up soon.

[HawkeyeGirl]

That's really what has me optimistic right now too. Just having a real plan of attack for RC by itself feels huge.

Did you read Manhattan too? I bizarrely really like their scale thing haha.

I haven't read it yet, but i got it in the mail the other day. I'll hit it up soon.

Aren't you supposed to be partying in San Diego this weekend?? Get off TLS and go have fun!!

[Cobretti]

That's really what has me optimistic right now too. Just having a real plan of attack for RC by itself feels huge.

Did you read Manhattan too? I bizarrely really like their scale thing haha.

I haven't read it yet, but i got it in the mail the other day. I'll hit it up soon.

Aren't you supposed to be partying in San Diego this weekend?? Get off TLS and go have fun!!

I was just there for the day, just got home and now I'm doing a take home midterm that's due at midnight.....

[HawkeyeGirl]

I was just there for the day, just got home and now I'm doing a take home midterm that's due at midnight.....

Womp womp.... That's no fun. I'm trying to muster the will power to do LR2 on PT61...

[Alorain]

Drilled LG sections from PT 20, 21, 22 today.

-2, -2, -3 respectively. So a huge jump from my usual scores of -6 to -8. Most of my mistakes came on the "off-beat" games that haven't appeared on the modern LSAT.

[Cobretti]

Drilled LG sections from PT 20, 21, 22 today.

-2, -2, -3 respectively. So a huge jump from my usual scores of -6 to -8. Most of my mistakes came on the "off-beat" games that haven't appeared on the modern LSAT.

Nice dude, you'll be set for Dec at this rate for sure

[HawkeyeGirl]

Drilled LG sections from PT 20, 21, 22 today.

-2, -2, -3 respectively. So a huge jump from my usual scores of -6 to -8. Most of my mistakes came on the "off-beat" games that haven't appeared on the modern LSAT.

That's great Al!! Good work. Keep up the drilling!

[enidwexler]

PT 19 Game #1: -1
PT 26 Game #2: -0
PT 40 Game #1: -0
PT 44 Game #1: -0
PT 2 Game #2: -1 (stupid mistake)
PT 21 Game #4:

I realize this is a super random bunch - they were at the end of PLG's Linear Games chapter. So, taken with a grain of salt...

ETA: Props to Al for getting through PT 21's LG only missing 2 - one of the rules on that fourth game really screwed me up, hence the " "