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

[20170322]

Omg, just went -3 on a single RC section. I need to fix this. WHY SCIENCE WHY

I keep having this issue where I'm at a perfect score, then, bam, like 4 questions wrong in the last passage. and agreed - RC science is the worst.

Legit considering subscribing to Scientific American.

Better Than Human by Allen Buchanan is excellent reading to familiarize yourself with science (and a little philosophy). I read it about a month ago and I feel a lot more comfortable when it comes to reading science-related things. it's also not that long (like 200 pages).

The worst thing is that, once you drill the RC, it loses a lot of its value. Like, LG you can drill 10 times and still pick something up. With RC, you may remember the answer.

[34iplaw]

May have been a little bit of a masochist to myself today, but I was enjoying myself so much that I lost track of time and got a parking ticket.

Yay east end!

I redid/reviewed some earlier simple linear games in Cambridge.

I did some new [the latter fourth] of the simple ordering games [yet to score/go over] in Cambridge.

I redid/reviewed all of the relative ordering [3 wrong which includes one miscircle and a question that I got wrong before...same silly mistake that I have to look out for...PT6S4G2Q11 I keep including O like a dumb dumb] in Cambridge. Got through some of the relative ordering in well under 4 minutes. I really like these ones. I just have to avoid going too fast/being careless.

I did complex ordering for the first time and did the first ten games in fairly close to the recommended 7sage time while missing 3 questions total in the Cambridge packets. I still need to shave some time off these, but I was pleased with my accuracy and speed for the first time tackling these types. I think I like them because they are really restrictive. Watching the 7sage videos for these now.

All in all, at least 20 games... a group of eight or so for review before lunch, and the new complex ordering plus some relative ordering after lunch.

Lots and lots of games today.

[Alexandros]

.

[34iplaw]

May have been a little bit of a masochist to myself today, but I was enjoying myself so much that I lost track of time and got a parking ticket.

Yay east end!

I redid/reviewed some earlier simple linear games in Cambridge.

I did some new [the latter fourth] of the simple ordering games [yet to score/go over] in Cambridge.

I redid/reviewed all of the relative ordering [3 wrong which includes one miscircle and a question that I got wrong before...same silly mistake that I have to look out for...PT6S4G2Q11 I keep including O like a dumb dumb] in Cambridge. Got through some of the relative ordering in well under 4 minutes. I really like these ones. I just have to avoid going too fast/being careless.

I did complex ordering for the first time and did the first ten games in fairly close to the recommended 7sage time while missing 3 questions total in the Cambridge packets. I still need to shave some time off these, but I was pleased with my accuracy and speed for the first time tackling these types. I think I like them because they are really restrictive. Watching the 7sage videos for these now.

All in all, at least 20 games... a group of eight or so for review before lunch, and the new complex ordering plus some relative ordering after lunch.

Lots and lots of games today.

Damn, that's fantastic!!!

Thanks - I actually needed some validation after today haha.

Edit: So I watched the 7SAGE for PT1S1G1 about the boys and girls with lockers, and I just want to make sure I didn't make an incorrect inference. I put this in a spoiler in case you haven't done it and don't want the question spoiled.

[+] Spoiler

Basically, they skip question 1 as it was 'too' hard, but I remembered doing it in two seconds and actually had written the inference down before even getting to the question. Basically, my reasoning/inference [never mentioned in video] was that there are five lockers and four boys. Rachel cannot be with a boy which effectively adds a "boy not" slot, therefore you could look at the game as having five boys where Rachel is paired with 'boy not.' Therefore, Nita and Trisha *must* be paired with an actual boy. Sorry if the 'boy not' slot thing is confusing, but I thought it was the best way to articulate the reasoning. I'm almost absolutely certain this is a correct inference, but I get worried as it is never mentioned in the video but seems really apparent to me.

[Alexandros]

.

[34iplaw]

May have been a little bit of a masochist to myself today, but I was enjoying myself so much that I lost track of time and got a parking ticket.

Yay east end!

I redid/reviewed some earlier simple linear games in Cambridge.

I did some new [the latter fourth] of the simple ordering games [yet to score/go over] in Cambridge.

I redid/reviewed all of the relative ordering [3 wrong which includes one miscircle and a question that I got wrong before...same silly mistake that I have to look out for...PT6S4G2Q11 I keep including O like a dumb dumb] in Cambridge. Got through some of the relative ordering in well under 4 minutes. I really like these ones. I just have to avoid going too fast/being careless.

I did complex ordering for the first time and did the first ten games in fairly close to the recommended 7sage time while missing 3 questions total in the Cambridge packets. I still need to shave some time off these, but I was pleased with my accuracy and speed for the first time tackling these types. I think I like them because they are really restrictive. Watching the 7sage videos for these now.

All in all, at least 20 games... a group of eight or so for review before lunch, and the new complex ordering plus some relative ordering after lunch.

Lots and lots of games today.

Damn, that's fantastic!!!

Thanks - I actually needed some validation after today haha.

Edit: So I watched the 7SAGE for PT1S1G1 about the boys and girls with lockers, and I just want to make sure I didn't make an incorrect inference. I put this in a spoiler in case you haven't done it and don't want the question spoiled.

[+] Spoiler

Basically, they skip question 1 as it was 'too' hard, but I remembered doing it in two seconds and actually had written the inference down before even getting to the question. Basically, my reasoning/inference [never mentioned in video] was that there are five lockers and four boys. Rachel cannot be with a boy which effectively adds a "boy not" slot, therefore you could look at the game as having five boys where Rachel is paired with 'boy not.' Therefore, Nita and Trisha *must* be paired with an actual boy. Sorry if the 'boy not' slot thing is confusing, but I thought it was the best way to articulate the reasoning. I'm almost absolutely certain this is a correct inference, but I get worried as it is never mentioned in the video but seems really apparent to me.

That sounds solid. The particular way you came up with the inference is probably not what most people would do (very creative!) but the inference required to answer the question correctly isn't particularly complicated - I'm not sure why they'd skip it over like that.

Appreciate the confirmation. I was just concerned it was a mistake that happened to work out / be lucky. I don't think I really thought of the boy not thing. I think it just sort of clicked really quickly which is why I was concerned as to why 7sage never mentioned it...not even after the question...they seem to usually be good about on reviewing other paths or confirming wrong answers on what they perceive to be harder questions.

Anywho, sleep time. Probably going to do a different game type tomorrow, as I'm pretty comfortable with the complex ordering. I see that my three errors across the ten games now were a miscircle and two just really sloppy dumb things.

[Barack O'Drama]

May have been a little bit of a masochist to myself today, but I was enjoying myself so much that I lost track of time and got a parking ticket.

Yay east end!

I redid/reviewed some earlier simple linear games in Cambridge.

I did some new [the latter fourth] of the simple ordering games [yet to score/go over] in Cambridge.

I redid/reviewed all of the relative ordering [3 wrong which includes one miscircle and a question that I got wrong before...same silly mistake that I have to look out for...PT6S4G2Q11 I keep including O like a dumb dumb] in Cambridge. Got through some of the relative ordering in well under 4 minutes. I really like these ones. I just have to avoid going too fast/being careless.

I did complex ordering for the first time and did the first ten games in fairly close to the recommended 7sage time while missing 3 questions total in the Cambridge packets. I still need to shave some time off these, but I was pleased with my accuracy and speed for the first time tackling these types. I think I like them because they are really restrictive. Watching the 7sage videos for these now.

All in all, at least 20 games... a group of eight or so for review before lunch, and the new complex ordering plus some relative ordering after lunch.

Lots and lots of games today.

Damn, that's fantastic!!!

Thanks - I actually needed some validation after today haha.

Edit: So I watched the 7SAGE for PT1S1G1 about the boys and girls with lockers, and I just want to make sure I didn't make an incorrect inference. I put this in a spoiler in case you haven't done it and don't want the question spoiled.

[+] Spoiler

Basically, they skip question 1 as it was 'too' hard, but I remembered doing it in two seconds and actually had written the inference down before even getting to the question. Basically, my reasoning/inference [never mentioned in video] was that there are five lockers and four boys. Rachel cannot be with a boy which effectively adds a "boy not" slot, therefore you could look at the game as having five boys where Rachel is paired with 'boy not.' Therefore, Nita and Trisha *must* be paired with an actual boy. Sorry if the 'boy not' slot thing is confusing, but I thought it was the best way to articulate the reasoning. I'm almost absolutely certain this is a correct inference, but I get worried as it is never mentioned in the video but seems really apparent to me.

You won't believe me, but this exact thing happened to me today... I did the game and got the first question Jy skips. However, when I went back and looked at my game sheet, I couldn't remember how I got the answer. I'm not sure if I used your reasoning, but I feel like it more or less echoes my thought process. I feel as though I might have just got lucky with that one... But whatever I did seems to have worked. I am going to redo it tomorrow and see if I can replicate whatever reasoning I used. Yours seems to be pretty solid!

Good job with getting down to business today. I drilled about 15 games out of the Advanced Ordering Cambridge and watched all the 7Sage videos on them. I am going to try to finish the packet tomorrow and then redo them all in hopes I can cut my time down. That has been my major issue--doing them in under 10-15 minutes each. I am terribly slow and hoping that practice will help with that.

[Barack O'Drama]

Hey guys!

My Perfect Score LSAT Watch came today!

http://www.perfectscorewatch.com

My review:

Cons:

It's alright...Worth $35 bucks? No. It is pretty cheap feeling (very light) and the band doesn't even fit around my wrist without being so tight it messes up my circulation. I have bigger wrists, but they aren't fat, so that kind of sucks. The silver lining is that I am planning on keeping it on the table on test day/for PTs anyway.

Pros: It works well, easy to set, and has 4 color codes so on sections you know what game or question you should be on.

My friend's sister bought a 180 watch about 3 weeks ago and it has already stopped working. She said it would occasionally stop for periods of 10-15 seconds or so. That just may be a rare defect, but it has pretty much turned me off to getting it. That was going to be my plan b if I didn't like this watch.

So, I am thinking about just getting this: https://www.amazon.com/Casio-MRW200H-7E ... schooli-20

Evan from lawschooli reccomneded it and it has good reviews.

If you're looking for an LSAT Watch the Perfect Score seems like a good choice if you don't mind spending the money. I read some bad reviews on the LSATMax that were concerning, so I didn't go with that. The problem is people who have bad experiences are more likely to write reviews, so the data may be negatively skewed. I just don't think the Perfect score was for $35... Rating: 7/10.

[proteinshake]

Hey guys!

My Perfect Score LSAT Watch came today!

http://www.perfectscorewatch.com

My review:

Cons:

It's alright...Worth $35 bucks? No. It is pretty cheap feeling (very light) and the band doesn't even fit around my wrist without being so tight it messes up my circulation. I have bigger wrists, but they aren't fat, so that kind of sucks. The silver lining is that I am planning on keeping it on the table on test day/for PTs anyway.

Pros: It works well, easy to set, and has 4 color codes so on sections you know what game or question you should be on.

My friend's sister bought a 180 watch about 3 weeks ago and it has already stopped working. She said it would occasionally stop for periods of 10-15 seconds or so. That just may be a rare defect, but it has pretty much turned me off to getting it. That was going to be my plan b if I didn't like this watch.

So, I am thinking about just getting this: https://www.amazon.com/Casio-MRW200H-7E ... schooli-20

Evan from lawschooli reccomneded it and it has good reviews.

If you're looking for an LSAT Watch the Perfect Score seems like a good choice if you don't mind spending the money. I read some bad reviews on the LSATMax that were concerning, so I didn't go with that. The problem is people who have bad experiences are more likely to write reviews, so the data may be negatively skewed. I just don't think the Perfect score was for $35... Rating: 7/10.

I have the Lawschooli recommended watch! It works very well!

[Barack O'Drama]

Hey guys!

My Perfect Score LSAT Watch came today!

http://www.perfectscorewatch.com

My review:

Cons:

It's alright...Worth $35 bucks? No. It is pretty cheap feeling (very light) and the band doesn't even fit around my wrist without being so tight it messes up my circulation. I have bigger wrists, but they aren't fat, so that kind of sucks. The silver lining is that I am planning on keeping it on the table on test day/for PTs anyway.

Pros: It works well, easy to set, and has 4 color codes so on sections you know what game or question you should be on.

My friend's sister bought a 180 watch about 3 weeks ago and it has already stopped working. She said it would occasionally stop for periods of 10-15 seconds or so. That just may be a rare defect, but it has pretty much turned me off to getting it. That was going to be my plan b if I didn't like this watch.

So, I am thinking about just getting this: https://www.amazon.com/Casio-MRW200H-7E ... schooli-20

Evan from lawschooli reccomneded it and it has good reviews.

If you're looking for an LSAT Watch the Perfect Score seems like a good choice if you don't mind spending the money. I read some bad reviews on the LSATMax that were concerning, so I didn't go with that. The problem is people who have bad experiences are more likely to write reviews, so the data may be negatively skewed. I just don't think the Perfect score was for $35... Rating: 7/10.

I have the Lawschooli recommended watch! It works very well!

Just ordered it! $15 bucks and free shipping w/ Amazon prime. I think it is affordable enough that I will be happy to have it, even as a back-up watch.

[PrezRand]

Hope all is well for yall.

[20170322]

When you wake up at 2am to pee and can't fall back asleep...

Welp, guess I may as well get some work done

[34iplaw]

May have been a little bit of a masochist to myself today, but I was enjoying myself so much that I lost track of time and got a parking ticket.

Yay east end!

I redid/reviewed some earlier simple linear games in Cambridge.

I did some new [the latter fourth] of the simple ordering games [yet to score/go over] in Cambridge.

I redid/reviewed all of the relative ordering [3 wrong which includes one miscircle and a question that I got wrong before...same silly mistake that I have to look out for...PT6S4G2Q11 I keep including O like a dumb dumb] in Cambridge. Got through some of the relative ordering in well under 4 minutes. I really like these ones. I just have to avoid going too fast/being careless.

I did complex ordering for the first time and did the first ten games in fairly close to the recommended 7sage time while missing 3 questions total in the Cambridge packets. I still need to shave some time off these, but I was pleased with my accuracy and speed for the first time tackling these types. I think I like them because they are really restrictive. Watching the 7sage videos for these now.

All in all, at least 20 games... a group of eight or so for review before lunch, and the new complex ordering plus some relative ordering after lunch.

Lots and lots of games today.

Damn, that's fantastic!!!

Thanks - I actually needed some validation after today haha.

Edit: So I watched the 7SAGE for PT1S1G1 about the boys and girls with lockers, and I just want to make sure I didn't make an incorrect inference. I put this in a spoiler in case you haven't done it and don't want the question spoiled.

[+] Spoiler

Basically, they skip question 1 as it was 'too' hard, but I remembered doing it in two seconds and actually had written the inference down before even getting to the question. Basically, my reasoning/inference [never mentioned in video] was that there are five lockers and four boys. Rachel cannot be with a boy which effectively adds a "boy not" slot, therefore you could look at the game as having five boys where Rachel is paired with 'boy not.' Therefore, Nita and Trisha *must* be paired with an actual boy. Sorry if the 'boy not' slot thing is confusing, but I thought it was the best way to articulate the reasoning. I'm almost absolutely certain this is a correct inference, but I get worried as it is never mentioned in the video but seems really apparent to me.

You won't believe me, but this exact thing happened to me today... I did the game and got the first question Jy skips. However, when I went back and looked at my game sheet, I couldn't remember how I got the answer. I'm not sure if I used your reasoning, but I feel like it more or less echoes my thought process. I feel as though I might have just got lucky with that one... But whatever I did seems to have worked. I am going to redo it tomorrow and see if I can replicate whatever reasoning I used. Yours seems to be pretty solid!

Good job with getting down to business today. I drilled about 15 games out of the Advanced Ordering Cambridge and watched all the 7Sage videos on them. I am going to try to finish the packet tomorrow and then redo them all in hopes I can cut my time down. That has been my major issue--doing them in under 10-15 minutes each. I am terribly slow and hoping that practice will help with that.

Yeah - I was super confused. I'm not sure that I actually went through the 'boy not' thing in my head, but one of the first things I wrote right under the variables was like 2x2 - JNT and 3x1 - R right beneath it.

Thanks though. Yeah - that's sort of been my routine now when I do a lot of games. I'll do some that I know well and then move onto new ones. If I'm feeling confident, I'll power through. When I hit a game time that I'm less comfortable with, I'll probably slow down and revisit some notes. I'll take a break for awhile and then watch the 7sage videos when I'm sort of wound down for the night [at least the new ones] to make sure that I didn't miss anything even if I got the questions right.

[Barack O'Drama]

May have been a little bit of a masochist to myself today, but I was enjoying myself so much that I lost track of time and got a parking ticket.

Yay east end!

I redid/reviewed some earlier simple linear games in Cambridge.

I did some new [the latter fourth] of the simple ordering games [yet to score/go over] in Cambridge.

I redid/reviewed all of the relative ordering [3 wrong which includes one miscircle and a question that I got wrong before...same silly mistake that I have to look out for...PT6S4G2Q11 I keep including O like a dumb dumb] in Cambridge. Got through some of the relative ordering in well under 4 minutes. I really like these ones. I just have to avoid going too fast/being careless.

I did complex ordering for the first time and did the first ten games in fairly close to the recommended 7sage time while missing 3 questions total in the Cambridge packets. I still need to shave some time off these, but I was pleased with my accuracy and speed for the first time tackling these types. I think I like them because they are really restrictive. Watching the 7sage videos for these now.

All in all, at least 20 games... a group of eight or so for review before lunch, and the new complex ordering plus some relative ordering after lunch.

Lots and lots of games today.

Damn, that's fantastic!!!

Thanks - I actually needed some validation after today haha.

Edit: So I watched the 7SAGE for PT1S1G1 about the boys and girls with lockers, and I just want to make sure I didn't make an incorrect inference. I put this in a spoiler in case you haven't done it and don't want the question spoiled.

[+] Spoiler

Basically, they skip question 1 as it was 'too' hard, but I remembered doing it in two seconds and actually had written the inference down before even getting to the question. Basically, my reasoning/inference [never mentioned in video] was that there are five lockers and four boys. Rachel cannot be with a boy which effectively adds a "boy not" slot, therefore you could look at the game as having five boys where Rachel is paired with 'boy not.' Therefore, Nita and Trisha *must* be paired with an actual boy. Sorry if the 'boy not' slot thing is confusing, but I thought it was the best way to articulate the reasoning. I'm almost absolutely certain this is a correct inference, but I get worried as it is never mentioned in the video but seems really apparent to me.

You won't believe me, but this exact thing happened to me today... I did the game and got the first question Jy skips. However, when I went back and looked at my game sheet, I couldn't remember how I got the answer. I'm not sure if I used your reasoning, but I feel like it more or less echoes my thought process. I feel as though I might have just got lucky with that one... But whatever I did seems to have worked. I am going to redo it tomorrow and see if I can replicate whatever reasoning I used. Yours seems to be pretty solid!

Good job with getting down to business today. I drilled about 15 games out of the Advanced Ordering Cambridge and watched all the 7Sage videos on them. I am going to try to finish the packet tomorrow and then redo them all in hopes I can cut my time down. That has been my major issue--doing them in under 10-15 minutes each. I am terribly slow and hoping that practice will help with that.

Yeah - I was super confused. I'm not sure that I actually went through the 'boy not' thing in my head, but one of the first things I wrote right under the variables was like 2x2 - JNT and 3x1 - R right beneath it.

Thanks though. Yeah - that's sort of been my routine now when I do a lot of games. I'll do some that I know well and then move onto new ones. If I'm feeling confident, I'll power through. When I hit a game time that I'm less comfortable with, I'll probably slow down and revisit some notes. I'll take a break for awhile and then watch the 7sage videos when I'm sort of wound down for the night [at least the new ones] to make sure that I didn't miss anything even if I got the questions right.

That is what I will do! I think it makes more sense to take a break and review, and then watch the 7Sage videos. I am going to try that today, thank you. And the way you did the question it seems awesome! Even Jy didn't think to do that lol I just want to get to the point where I can take a PT without missing half the damn LG section. So more drilling today!

[Barack O'Drama]

When you wake up at 2am to pee and can't fall back asleep...

Welp, guess I may as well get some work done

SweetTort, you inspire me to be more dedicated to studying. Try to get some rest when you can though.

[20170322]

When you wake up at 2am to pee and can't fall back asleep...

Welp, guess I may as well get some work done

SweetTort, you inspire me to be more dedicated to studying. Try to get some rest when you can though.

Oh, no, I was writing essays for class. Haha, thanks though!

And yeah, ever since I started hardcore working out I've been waking up to eat/drink/pee. My body is like, MOAR!!!

[Barack O'Drama]

When you wake up at 2am to pee and can't fall back asleep...

Welp, guess I may as well get some work done

SweetTort, you inspire me to be more dedicated to studying. Try to get some rest when you can though.

Oh, no, I was writing essays for class. Haha, thanks though!

And yeah, ever since I started hardcore working out I've been waking up to eat/drink/pee. My body is like, MOAR!!!

hahaha! that is awesome! And good, I'm relieved you were doing something else, studying for the LSAT at 2am sounds like a recipe for burn out. Waking up to pee sucks. You turn the light on and its like AHHHH Then you're up all night, haha.

[34iplaw]

May have been a little bit of a masochist to myself today, but I was enjoying myself so much that I lost track of time and got a parking ticket.

Yay east end!

I redid/reviewed some earlier simple linear games in Cambridge.

I did some new [the latter fourth] of the simple ordering games [yet to score/go over] in Cambridge.

I redid/reviewed all of the relative ordering [3 wrong which includes one miscircle and a question that I got wrong before...same silly mistake that I have to look out for...PT6S4G2Q11 I keep including O like a dumb dumb] in Cambridge. Got through some of the relative ordering in well under 4 minutes. I really like these ones. I just have to avoid going too fast/being careless.

I did complex ordering for the first time and did the first ten games in fairly close to the recommended 7sage time while missing 3 questions total in the Cambridge packets. I still need to shave some time off these, but I was pleased with my accuracy and speed for the first time tackling these types. I think I like them because they are really restrictive. Watching the 7sage videos for these now.

All in all, at least 20 games... a group of eight or so for review before lunch, and the new complex ordering plus some relative ordering after lunch.

Lots and lots of games today.

Damn, that's fantastic!!!

Thanks - I actually needed some validation after today haha.

Edit: So I watched the 7SAGE for PT1S1G1 about the boys and girls with lockers, and I just want to make sure I didn't make an incorrect inference. I put this in a spoiler in case you haven't done it and don't want the question spoiled.

[+] Spoiler

Basically, they skip question 1 as it was 'too' hard, but I remembered doing it in two seconds and actually had written the inference down before even getting to the question. Basically, my reasoning/inference [never mentioned in video] was that there are five lockers and four boys. Rachel cannot be with a boy which effectively adds a "boy not" slot, therefore you could look at the game as having five boys where Rachel is paired with 'boy not.' Therefore, Nita and Trisha *must* be paired with an actual boy. Sorry if the 'boy not' slot thing is confusing, but I thought it was the best way to articulate the reasoning. I'm almost absolutely certain this is a correct inference, but I get worried as it is never mentioned in the video but seems really apparent to me.

You won't believe me, but this exact thing happened to me today... I did the game and got the first question Jy skips. However, when I went back and looked at my game sheet, I couldn't remember how I got the answer. I'm not sure if I used your reasoning, but I feel like it more or less echoes my thought process. I feel as though I might have just got lucky with that one... But whatever I did seems to have worked. I am going to redo it tomorrow and see if I can replicate whatever reasoning I used. Yours seems to be pretty solid!

Good job with getting down to business today. I drilled about 15 games out of the Advanced Ordering Cambridge and watched all the 7Sage videos on them. I am going to try to finish the packet tomorrow and then redo them all in hopes I can cut my time down. That has been my major issue--doing them in under 10-15 minutes each. I am terribly slow and hoping that practice will help with that.

Yeah - I was super confused. I'm not sure that I actually went through the 'boy not' thing in my head, but one of the first things I wrote right under the variables was like 2x2 - JNT and 3x1 - R right beneath it.

Thanks though. Yeah - that's sort of been my routine now when I do a lot of games. I'll do some that I know well and then move onto new ones. If I'm feeling confident, I'll power through. When I hit a game time that I'm less comfortable with, I'll probably slow down and revisit some notes. I'll take a break for awhile and then watch the 7sage videos when I'm sort of wound down for the night [at least the new ones] to make sure that I didn't miss anything even if I got the questions right.

That is what I will do! I think it makes more sense to take a break and review, and then watch the 7Sage videos. I am going to try that today, thank you. And the way you did the question it seems awesome! Even Jy didn't think to do that lol I just want to get to the point where I can take a PT without missing half the damn LG section. So more drilling today!

Didn't notice the new avatar. I should make one. I don't think it will be as congruous with my username though.

Yeah - for sure. Haha and thanks for the vote of confidence with the inference... I got really worried I was just like seeing ghosts. I think you need to give yourself some distance with reviewing [but not too much]... it's similar to how I approach writing... so you don't fall into the same errors of thinking.

I rarely do not *totally* understand a question with the games I am working on now, so, when I do not understand one, it's fairly easy to remember and mark it. If there was a game I *totally* did not understand, I'd probably skip it, then go back to the question later and do it slowly while watching the video immediately after. I'm hoping I won't make the same stupid mistake with that one relative ordering game next few times I do it [I think it needs to be mixed in now though, as, if I set out specifically to do that question, I'll remember it without it being an improvement.]

I also kind of enjoy watching the videos while relaxing as sick as it sounds now. Instead of binge watching TV, I binge watch 7sage game videos - although I did cheat with an episode of the league last night...went a little over board on my trenta coffees and couldn't fall asleep until one.

As of now, I'm sitting on the stoop of where I grew up eagerly awaiting my Testmasters delivery [the truck literally is pulling up as I say this] as I need to sign for it. I kind of hope that it has my Amazon order too [but that's generally UPS I think] of Manhattan LG, LR, & Oration on the Dignity of Man [I decided I want to reread it...favorite quote ever is in that.]

Edit: Amazon delivery didn't come, but it's good I don't need to go to FedEx to retrieve this. It says before 8PM and left from NYC an hour ago so it'll probably be a fairly late delivery....I'll grab some soup for where I'm living and take care of some stuff around while doing some games. I have some eBay sales I need to pick up and ship out anyways. If anyone ever wants some ultra high end Italian menswear for 70%-80% off, PM me up [or, if you want advice on how to get good deal on a suit or what brands to search for if you want a great deal on those lawyer threads - feel free to message me for advice]! Out dress those associates, yo.

[Archer@Law]

More LG today. Did a mixed set of 4 games. -3 in under 35 minutes. Now I just have to figure out how to get my LR under control.

Any advice from the resident LR experts? I seem to almost always narrow it down to the one right answer and one wrong answer. End up picking the wrong one too much. I'll probably hit Mike up for this Q as well, just wanted to see what others have to say.

[Alexandros]

.

[Barack O'Drama]

May have been a little bit of a masochist to myself today, but I was enjoying myself so much that I lost track of time and got a parking ticket.

Yay east end!

I redid/reviewed some earlier simple linear games in Cambridge.

I did some new [the latter fourth] of the simple ordering games [yet to score/go over] in Cambridge.

I redid/reviewed all of the relative ordering [3 wrong which includes one miscircle and a question that I got wrong before...same silly mistake that I have to look out for...PT6S4G2Q11 I keep including O like a dumb dumb] in Cambridge. Got through some of the relative ordering in well under 4 minutes. I really like these ones. I just have to avoid going too fast/being careless.

I did complex ordering for the first time and did the first ten games in fairly close to the recommended 7sage time while missing 3 questions total in the Cambridge packets. I still need to shave some time off these, but I was pleased with my accuracy and speed for the first time tackling these types. I think I like them because they are really restrictive. Watching the 7sage videos for these now.

All in all, at least 20 games... a group of eight or so for review before lunch, and the new complex ordering plus some relative ordering after lunch.

Lots and lots of games today.

Damn, that's fantastic!!!

Thanks - I actually needed some validation after today haha.

Edit: So I watched the 7SAGE for PT1S1G1 about the boys and girls with lockers, and I just want to make sure I didn't make an incorrect inference. I put this in a spoiler in case you haven't done it and don't want the question spoiled.

[+] Spoiler

Basically, they skip question 1 as it was 'too' hard, but I remembered doing it in two seconds and actually had written the inference down before even getting to the question. Basically, my reasoning/inference [never mentioned in video] was that there are five lockers and four boys. Rachel cannot be with a boy which effectively adds a "boy not" slot, therefore you could look at the game as having five boys where Rachel is paired with 'boy not.' Therefore, Nita and Trisha *must* be paired with an actual boy. Sorry if the 'boy not' slot thing is confusing, but I thought it was the best way to articulate the reasoning. I'm almost absolutely certain this is a correct inference, but I get worried as it is never mentioned in the video but seems really apparent to me.

You won't believe me, but this exact thing happened to me today... I did the game and got the first question Jy skips. However, when I went back and looked at my game sheet, I couldn't remember how I got the answer. I'm not sure if I used your reasoning, but I feel like it more or less echoes my thought process. I feel as though I might have just got lucky with that one... But whatever I did seems to have worked. I am going to redo it tomorrow and see if I can replicate whatever reasoning I used. Yours seems to be pretty solid!

Good job with getting down to business today. I drilled about 15 games out of the Advanced Ordering Cambridge and watched all the 7Sage videos on them. I am going to try to finish the packet tomorrow and then redo them all in hopes I can cut my time down. That has been my major issue--doing them in under 10-15 minutes each. I am terribly slow and hoping that practice will help with that.

Yeah - I was super confused. I'm not sure that I actually went through the 'boy not' thing in my head, but one of the first things I wrote right under the variables was like 2x2 - JNT and 3x1 - R right beneath it.

Thanks though. Yeah - that's sort of been my routine now when I do a lot of games. I'll do some that I know well and then move onto new ones. If I'm feeling confident, I'll power through. When I hit a game time that I'm less comfortable with, I'll probably slow down and revisit some notes. I'll take a break for awhile and then watch the 7sage videos when I'm sort of wound down for the night [at least the new ones] to make sure that I didn't miss anything even if I got the questions right.

That is what I will do! I think it makes more sense to take a break and review, and then watch the 7Sage videos. I am going to try that today, thank you. And the way you did the question it seems awesome! Even Jy didn't think to do that lol I just want to get to the point where I can take a PT without missing half the damn LG section. So more drilling today!

Didn't notice the new avatar. I should make one. I don't think it will be as congruous with my username though.

Yeah - for sure. Haha and thanks for the vote of confidence with the inference... I got really worried I was just like seeing ghosts. I think you need to give yourself some distance with reviewing [but not too much]... it's similar to how I approach writing... so you don't fall into the same errors of thinking.

I rarely do not *totally* understand a question with the games I am working on now, so, when I do not understand one, it's fairly easy to remember and mark it. If there was a game I *totally* did not understand, I'd probably skip it, then go back to the question later and do it slowly while watching the video immediately after. I'm hoping I won't make the same stupid mistake with that one relative ordering game next few times I do it [I think it needs to be mixed in now though, as, if I set out specifically to do that question, I'll remember it without it being an improvement.]

I also kind of enjoy watching the videos while relaxing as sick as it sounds now. Instead of binge watching TV, I binge watch 7sage game videos - although I did cheat with an episode of the league last night...went a little over board on my trenta coffees and couldn't fall asleep until one.

As of now, I'm sitting on the stoop of where I grew up eagerly awaiting my Testmasters delivery [the truck literally is pulling up as I say this] as I need to sign for it. I kind of hope that it has my Amazon order too [but that's generally UPS I think] of Manhattan LG, LR, & Oration on the Dignity of Man [I decided I want to reread it...favorite quote ever is in that.]

Edit: Amazon delivery didn't come, but it's good I don't need to go to FedEx to retrieve this. It says before 8PM and left from NYC an hour ago so it'll probably be a fairly late delivery....I'll grab some soup for where I'm living and take care of some stuff around while doing some games. I have some eBay sales I need to pick up and ship out anyways. If anyone ever wants some ultra high end Italian menswear for 70%-80% off, PM me up [or, if you want advice on how to get good deal on a suit or what brands to search for if you want a great deal on those lawyer threads - feel free to message me for advice]! Out dress those associates, yo.

I feel like we are similar as to where we are in regards to logic games. I actually just began reading the MLSAT Logic games today. I only got the through half or so of the LG Bible and have decided to make the jump. I too actually have been staying up at night just binge watching 7Sage videos and it is honestly helped. I am actually starting to feel more positive about LGs. I have been putting quite a bit of time drilling and reading prep materials on them, and it seems to be paying off. I need to just get a mastery over the advanced ordering/ relative ordering and then I will move on to grouping/advanced grouping. I am hoping I can get a good hold over those quicker because some of the advanced ordering games have grouping elements involved.

That book sounds interesting, I had to google it to find out what it is about, haha. I am sure that won't hurt your RC skills.

Good to know about your hook-up with affordable menswear! Once I get some money before law school I want to get another suit or two. I only have 1-2 at this point, but can't have too many.

[Barack O'Drama]

More LG today. Did a mixed set of 4 games. -3 in under 35 minutes. Now I just have to figure out how to get my LR under control.

Any advice from the resident LR experts? I seem to almost always narrow it down to the one right answer and one wrong answer. End up picking the wrong one too much. I'll probably hit Mike up for this Q as well, just wanted to see what others have to say.

Congrats on killing LGs! I need to get there so I can start taking PTs without feeling like I am wasting them...

LR was a bitch for me to even get down to missing ~5 per section. When I started I was missing about 9, so I am making progress. I've been putting LR to the back burner in lieu of LGs for now. I am going to start re-hitting it this weekend, or maybe tomorrow so I don't forget what I've learned.
Honestly I think I must have done 25+ sections before I saw any major improvement. I think after doing 300 or so LR questions out of the Cambridge packets I finally began to get better. I'm still not there yet, but I do think just drilling, drilling, drilling like LG is what is going to get you there. Along with BR and really understanding why you're missing the question. If you're getting down to 2 choices really examine why you're pulling the trigger on the wrong choice. Often, it is usually a word or two that has been switched from the stimulus that is making it wrong. Also, I would just review whatever question types you're having trouble with in The Trainer/MLSAT LR/ LR Bible or whatever you're prep material consists of and review a bit.

[20170322]

Finally starting to improve on my RC in science.

I sort of wish the test was at the end of July. In August I have job training, then classes ramp back up, so I'm worried I won't have enough time to stay sharp before the test.

[PhiladelphiaCollins]

Finally finished all my PS material from last summer's course so I BR'd the diagnostic I took from a month ago. 155->164 wasn't too bad but it was a bit of a bitch to go -5 on LG during BR.

Plan on hitting up Staples today and printing out a test for tomorrow or Saturday and getting all my drilling stuff printed.

[20170322]

Just finished 2 5-game sets under 35 minutes, going -1/-0. Feeling stronger and stronger on LG.


The more I think about, the more I realize the rest of my prep is going to be taking and retaking full length PT's.