June 2014 Retakers Forum

[NotHermione]

Alright fellow retakers, question for all of you:

How are you accounting for the fact that you're reusing material? 1 month out and my average score is a 172 - I've taken the actual LSAT twice already, thus meaning I've also gone through the 50s & 60s prep tests twice already. I don't necessarily remember answers, but I think familiarity with content, specifically in RC, helps my score and I don't want to get blindsided (again) on test day.

Any recommendations? I've been considering throwing in a random test from the 30s just to see what happens, but the test has changed quite a bit since then and I don't want to waste time either.

[sashafierce]

So I just completed PT58 and scored 163, my breakdown is:

LR1 -8
RC -4
LG -2
LR -6
Raw Score: 80


I have a lot more work to do to get my RC and LR score up but I am proud of my RC score since I have only been drilling RC for the past 2 days, LR is another issue

I quit my job last week so I basically have all day everyday to devote to getting my RC and LR score up. I would really appreciate any and all suggestions

[Otunga]

What time on Friday is the review for PT59?

[Learn_Live_Hope]

...

[sashafierce]

PT58 Section 1 question 11

So this question has me really confused, prior to this question I thought that correlation does not imply causation which I perfectly understand but now I am realizing that a lack of correlation also does not imply a lack of causation

7sage explanation for this question was spot on:

When there is lightning, trees usually catch fire

Sometime trees catch fire without lightning

So lightning does not cause tress to catch fire

That is a flawed argument which I totally understand so I get why A is the correct answer BUT I don't understand why E is wrong. I thought that any argument that tried to establish causation based on correlation is automatically flawed hence even if the argument is reversed i.e. lack of causation based on beause of a lack of correlation the argument is STILL flawed because it tried to establish a link between correlation and causation. I am confused

Finally, would answer choice E be correct if it said that the argument presumes, without providing warrant, that a lack of correlation implies a lack of causation? (rather that what is actually says which is correlation implies causation???)

[Christine (MLSAT)]

PT58 Section 1 question 11

So this question has me really confused, prior to this question I thought that correlation does not imply causation which I perfectly understand but now I am realizing that a lack of correlation also does not imply a lack of causation

7sage explanation for this question was spot on:

When there is lightning, trees usually catch fire

Sometime trees catch fire without lightning

So lightning does not cause tress to catch fire

That is a flawed argument which I totally understand so I get why A is the correct answer BUT I don't understand why E is wrong. I thought that any argument that tried to establish causation based on correlation is automatically flawed hence even if the argument is reversed i.e. lack of causation based on beause of a lack of correlation the argument is STILL flawed because it tried to establish a link between correlation and causation. I am confused

Finally, would answer choice E be correct if it said that the argument presumes, without providing warrant, that a lack of correlation implies a lack of causation? (rather that what is actually says which is correlation implies causation???)

But the argument does not use a LACK of correlation to try to prove lack of causation. The stimulus clearly states that there *is* in fact a correlation between chromosome-6 damage and schizophrenia. The argument is just saying that this correlation isn't 100% perfect correlation. So if you were going to go this route, you'd need an answer choice that said that the argument assumes that imperfect correlation implies a lack of causation.

Also, you're right assuming lack of correlation implies lack of causation would be a flaw. And if this argument were doing that (which it isn't), you'd need an answer choice that actually said THAT (specifically about the lack of each), rather than simply "assumes that correlation implies causation".

These are all flaws, but you can't express them all with the statement in (E). Since we don't have a conclusion of causation, there's no way (E) can be correct. A conclusion of a LACK of causation may be just as flawed, but it's a different conclusion.

[foamborn]

What's everyone's caffeine situation? I think I'm starting to rely on it to study so I'll probably have to ask my bf to take the day off and bring me some during the break on test day. That should be allowed, right?

I stopped using caffeine during this period. Well, I say that...during breaks from the LSAT I'll have a cappuccino, but not during weeks when I'm PT-ing. I additionally drink a ton of water, which I have found helps sustain my concentration.

Just got back from a weeklong break and am continuing my streak - 3 straight 180s!

[Jack Reagan]

Alright fellow retakers, question for all of you:

How are you accounting for the fact that you're reusing material? 1 month out and my average score is a 172 - I've taken the actual LSAT twice already, thus meaning I've also gone through the 50s & 60s prep tests twice already. I don't necessarily remember answers, but I think familiarity with content, specifically in RC, helps my score and I don't want to get blindsided (again) on test day.

Any recommendations? I've been considering throwing in a random test from the 30s just to see what happens, but the test has changed quite a bit since then and I don't want to waste time either.

Best thing to do would be to take some of the older tests (30's and 40's) if you haven't already. They may be slightly easier, but they would give you a good gauge as to whether your score is inflated due to having already seen the material.

[rebexness]

Did a caffeine-less PT today and not happy with the results

PT 66
RC: -5
LR 1: -6
LG: -2
LR 2: -3
Exp: RC from PT 39, -3

Raw 84, Score 166
stings a little after Sundays 174, but oh well. It will just make sure I don't end up coasting on a few good scores when in reality I may have just gotten lucky.

[dd235]

PT 62 is THE WORST!!!

Super tough RC followed by 26 question LR followed by super tough LG followed by 26 question LR.

I feel like shit after taking it... I’m so glad I didn’t sit this for the real test

[dasani13]

Today was a tough day! People from my HS graduating class are posting about graduating law school and I got a way-below-average score on my PT.

PT 59 review tomorrow around 9pm.

[jk148706]

PT 62 is THE WORST!!!

Super tough RC followed by 26 question LR followed by super tough LG followed by 26 question LR.

I feel like shit after taking it... I’m so glad I didn’t sit this for the real test

Man 62 is so tough. I hope we don't get a test like that next month.

[Reboot_the_Robot]

This past week has been a bit rough for me. I took PT 66 on Sunday and got my lowest score (by a lot!) since I started studying for the retake. I was pretty tired that morning and completely bombed the first two sections. But still, I really wanted to be at the point where I can do well even if I'm tired/sick/scared/whatever by now, and it's freaking me out that my score could drop so abruptly.

To keep myself positive, I'm trying to focus on the fact that when I did a blind review I missed 0 on the first 2 sections. I know how to answer the questions, I just have to keep drilling problem types and find a good way to channel my growing anxiety. Maybe I should try yoga.

[alecks]

I feel like I've hit a plateau at 165/166. It's not just one particular section I'm bombing either. Went -1 on a LG section Sunday and -4 on one yesterday. Alls I want is a 167 :/

[jmjm]

Anyone found some questions in PT-B from superprep difficult. For example, B-LR1 Q21 seems wrong to me (a necessary assumption doesn't have to preclude all noneconomic factors). The explanation offered in the book doesn't address this. Is this Q wrong?

66.LR2.23 also seems tricky if someone can explain it. Why is that we can deduce that most farmers try to build properly built farms? thanks

[Learn_Live_Hope]

...

[Learn_Live_Hope]

...

[alexrodriguez]

How can I sit in on PT 59 review?

I just want to sit in to get a sense of how you all review.

[dasani13]

Today was a tough day! People from my HS graduating class are posting about graduating law school and I got a way-below-average score on my PT.

PT 59 review tomorrow around 9pm.

Dasani,

I know how it feels-i know its like a dagger in your heart (I've been there), but please keep your head up. It will all be worth it when you get accepted to your dream school.

Thank you E

[Learn_Live_Hope]

...

[rebexness]

PT 67
RC: -4
LR 1: -1
LG: -1
LR 2: -5

Exp: LG from PT 41, -19574638465647 jfc kill me now.

Raw: 89
Score: 169

brb throwing up in bag.

[Learn_Live_Hope]

PT 67
RC: -4
LR 1: -1
LG: -1
LR 2: -5

Exp: LG from PT 41, -19574638465647 jfc kill me now.

Raw: 89
Score: 169

brb throwing up in bag.

Thats a pretty good score! Very good!

[rebexness]

Except I missed like 7 LG on a section I had seen before, and didn't use my time wisely when I got stuck on the 3rd game. UGH UGH UGH BE SMARTER.

[Otunga]

173 on PT59 (I've done it before) and missed questions were evenly spread. The RC section is tough and there's a decent amount of challenging LR questions. LG isn't bad but the fourth game drags on...anybody else sink up time on it?

[sashafierce]

Did PT 59 today, got 161 which is a bit disappointing. My breakdown:
LG -7 fml
LR1 -7
RC -4
LR2 -9

I am disappointed because LG is usually my best section but this is my second -4 on RC a huge improvement from 2 weeks ago when I was -10 so I am happy about that. My LR errors are almost exclusively Assumption Family questions so I plan to re read the MLAST Chapters and drill drill drill this weekend. My next PT is Tuesday so I am hoping to get to at least 166 on that I know that I can do it I just have to find a way to master Assumption questions.

I hope everyone has a productive weekend