December 2013 LSAT Study Group Forum

HeavenBeyond · Post by **HeavenBeyond** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:35 pm

PourMeTea wrote:
superdingle2000 wrote:That's it.. I'm getting the Trainer.
+Synchro Genesis is the winning combination

I'll stick to my pre-workout, ha-ha.

On another note, I just ordered the Trainer. Hope it helps

If not, I'm sending you a bill.

cheme2014 · Post by **cheme2014** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:36 pm

rebexness wrote:The Trainer is SO good guys. So good. I wish I had finished it before October.

I got it since that's what everyone's been saying but Amazon's been taking forever and a half to process my order/ship it. So annoying.

rebexness · Post by **rebexness** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:36 pm

cheme2014 wrote:
rebexness wrote:The Trainer is SO good guys. So good. I wish I had finished it before October.
I got it since that's what everyone's been saying but Amazon's been taking forever and a half to process my order/ship it. So annoying.

That happened to me in August, I was IR8AF.

PourMeTea · Post by **PourMeTea** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:36 pm

Post removed.

cheme2014 · Post by **cheme2014** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:40 pm

PourMeTea wrote:
cheme2014 wrote:
Well, in that case, I guess I'll pay Amazon a visit lol. How long does the boost last? No crashing? I just know my apartment-mate puts a scoop into her pre-workout smoothies.
It lasts...well, I don't know. A while. Because there is no crash. It's just great for energy and focus, and you don't ever feel noticeably worse after taking it!

Sounds good to me. Thanks!

alecks · Post by **alecks** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:42 pm

PourMeTea wrote:
HeavenBeyond wrote:
PourMeTea wrote:
superdingle2000 wrote:That's it.. I'm getting the Trainer.
+Synchro Genesis is the winning combination
I'll stick to my pre-workout, ha-ha.

On another note, I just ordered the Trainer. Hope it helps

If not, I'm sending you a bill.
I don't think you know how testimonials work.

I just ordered some. I can't handle (much) caffeine without rocketing myself to the moon so I'm gonna take this slow.

Also, the trainer rocks. I got it this weekend and kept going OMG!!!!!!!!!!!! I wish I would have read it sooner. Oh well. 6.5 weeks, I got this.

wealtheow · Post by **wealtheow** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:44 pm

cheme2014 wrote:
wealtheow wrote:Trainer came in the mail yesterday and it is glorious! Something about the way it is is written... it's confidence boosting, in a way. Read the intro chapters last night and going to tackle Ch 5 and the first drilling set this evening. Anyone else just start? How do you like it? I know you're out there!

Honestly, if I could unlearn PowerScore at this point, I would. Reading Manhattan and now Trainer, I feel like it set me up for some bad habits.
Uh oh -- what bad habits? I already did PowerScore and am expecting Trainer in the mail.

Let's see... I think it lead me to approach LR too mechanically. They spend so much time emphasizing types and type-specific techniques that I ended up studying types in isolation without noticing, ultimately neglecting what ties LR together. My LR score actually went down after reading PowerScore because I was overthinking everything. Went back up when I started simply thinking in terms of arguments, with a few tricks, instead of trying to balance all the categories and charts and bla.

The other huge thing is PowerScore does not spend enough time on the relationship between Nec. Assumption and Suf. Assumption. I believe they call Suf. "Justify the Conclusion" and it gets a very short chapter. They refer to Nec. Assumption as simply "Assumption." This is misleading for a newcomer. Spending time with this distinction helped me stop getting and additional 1-2 wrong a section, probably because I was using the reversal technique on sufficient questions when they didn't contain the term justify.

Dr.Zer0 · Post by **Dr.Zer0** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:45 pm

PT 40 today

happycitrus · Post by **happycitrus** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:45 pm

Do you guys think the LSAT Trainer + Cambridge packets are enough materials to prep with, or should I try to add the Manhattan LSAT books into my prep as well? I briefly skimmed through the MLSAT LG back in Sept but I can study it in greater detail if necessary.

dosto · Post by **dosto** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:47 pm

vicpin5190 · Post by **vicpin5190** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:47 pm

Some RC advice wanted. Anyone have a good strategy for helping them to locate info while taking the actual test? I've found that when I go back to review, I'm able to find the information really quickly but it seems like it slips my attention during the timed conditions?

I'm consistently able to regurgitate the structure and main points of the passage but it seems like going back and finding key bits of info that are right under my nose seems to escape me under timed conditions. Could be that by knowing the answer is wrong I'm better able to know where to look but I've even found some cases where I've actually underlined the portion of text that indicates the correct answer and still miss it.

Trainer has helped me speed up my reading but it didn't quite get me the savvy of detail location that I'd like.

cheme2014 · Post by **cheme2014** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:48 pm

wealtheow wrote: Let's see... I think it lead me to approach LR too mechanically. They spend so much time emphasizing types and type-specific techniques that I ended up studying types in isolation without noticing, ultimately neglecting what ties LR together. My LR score actually went down after reading PowerScore because I was overthinking everything. Went back up when I started simply thinking in terms of arguments, with a few tricks, instead of trying to balance all the categories and charts and bla.

The other huge thing is PowerScore does not spend enough time on the relationship between Nec. Assumption and Suf. Assumption. I believe they call Suf. "Justify the Conclusion" and it gets a very short chapter. They refer to Nec. Assumption as simply "Assumption." This is misleading for a newcomer. Spending time with this distinction helped me stop getting and additional 1-2 wrong a section, probably because I was using the reversal technique on sufficient questions when they didn't contain the term justify.

Ack I know exactly what you mean about the overthinking and assumption stuff. Thanks for the explanation!

onetwicethrice · Post by **onetwicethrice** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:51 pm

Hey guys.. I'm prepping for Feb/June and this has been bugging me...

I'm trying to understand the word "only".

nvm. im dumb,

PourMeTea · Post by **PourMeTea** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:52 pm

Post removed.

wealtheow · Post by **wealtheow** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:56 pm

PourMeTea wrote:
cheme2014 wrote:
PourMeTea wrote:
superdingle2000 wrote:That's it.. I'm getting the Trainer.
+Synchro Genesis is the winning combination
Lol my apartment-mate loves that stuff. Is it that good?
The mental clarity boost is INSANE. A fellow October Waiter got her first 180 after trying it for the first time, and it helped her get over the 175 plateau permanently leading up to test day.

LOL'ing at the Amazon "Customers Who Bought This Also Bought"... it's like all LSAT junk.

vicpin5190 · Post by **vicpin5190** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:57 pm

onetwicethrice wrote:Hey guys.. I'm prepping for Feb/June and this has been bugging me...

I'm trying to understand the word "only".

For example: Only A is B. I see that as B -> A

I went through PT 23 Game #2 and the condition says: Only applicants who are interviewed will be hired.

I saw that as Interview -> Hired, but that just didn't sound right in the common sense of things that if you're interviewed, you're hired.

So I looked at it the other way and saw that if you've been hired, you've been interviewed, which made more sense, but went against what I thought only was referring to as necessary.

So my question is, why is it like that? And how do you understand "only"? It seems as if the cop out is just to say the thing that follows it is necessary, but that didn't work here...

It still is referring to Only A are B's in this case. If only applicants who are interviewed are hired, then Interviewed Applicants is the A, it's the necessary condition for Hiring, B, to occur. Only A's are B's.

You could simplify it to "Only interviewed is hired" to help you see how it works. If it's Only Interviewed is Hired, then it breaks down into the relationship you stated for Only's: Hired --> Interviewed.

Edit: looks like you already figured it out...

PourMeTea · Post by **PourMeTea** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:02 pm

Post removed.

onetwicethrice · Post by **onetwicethrice** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:08 pm

vicpin5190 wrote:
onetwicethrice wrote:Hey guys.. I'm prepping for Feb/June and this has been bugging me...

I'm trying to understand the word "only".

For example: Only A is B. I see that as B -> A

I went through PT 23 Game #2 and the condition says: Only applicants who are interviewed will be hired.

I saw that as Interview -> Hired, but that just didn't sound right in the common sense of things that if you're interviewed, you're hired.

So I looked at it the other way and saw that if you've been hired, you've been interviewed, which made more sense, but went against what I thought only was referring to as necessary.

So my question is, why is it like that? And how do you understand "only"? It seems as if the cop out is just to say the thing that follows it is necessary, but that didn't work here...
It still is referring to Only A are B's in this case. If only applicants who are interviewed are hired, then Interviewed Applicants is the A, it's the necessary condition for Hiring, B, to occur. Only A's are B's.

You could simplify it to "Only interviewed is hired" to help you see how it works. If it's Only Interviewed is Hired, then it breaks down into the relationship you stated for Only's: Hired --> Interviewed.

Edit: looks like you already figured it out...

Yep, thanks. Totally misread what I was looking at. Thanks!

ManoftheHour · Post by **ManoftheHour** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:14 pm

After drilling the entire Cambridge series, LRs are f@#$ing easy as f@#$. I can actually breeze through them and time is no longer an issue.

No wonder I got TTT scores in the past. No drilling.

Damn. One month and two weeks left. Time to tighten up on RC.

Balthy · Post by **Balthy** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:38 pm

PourMeTea wrote:
wealtheow wrote:
LOL'ing at the Amazon "Customers Who Bought This Also Bought"... it's like all LSAT junk.
Yeah October waiters love this stuff.

Just checked out the site and ordered a pack. The skeptic in me wants to kick myself for buying something that promises so much and calls itself a "SUPERfood," but alas the LSAT has made me a desperate man..

PourMeTea · Post by **PourMeTea** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:39 pm

Post removed.

barrelofmonkeys · Post by **barrelofmonkeys** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:40 pm

PourMeTea wrote:
superdingle2000 wrote:
PourMeTea wrote:
wealtheow wrote:
LOL'ing at the Amazon "Customers Who Bought This Also Bought"... it's like all LSAT junk.
Yeah October waiters love this stuff.

Just checked out the site and ordered a pack. The skeptic in me wants to kick myself for buying something that promises so much and calls itself a "SUPERfood," but alas the LSAT has made me a desperate man..
Let me know how you like it!

OMG. I can't believe this is happening. Tea, I saw you had the most recent post in LSAT Prep and so went to Oct. Waiters, then realized it was here, and this is just horrible nonsense.

PourMeTea · Post by **PourMeTea** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:44 pm

Post removed.

barrelofmonkeys · Post by **barrelofmonkeys** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:57 pm

PourMeTea wrote:
barrelofmonkeys wrote:
OMG. I can't believe this is happening. Tea, I saw you had the most recent post in LSAT Prep and so went to Oct. Waiters, then realized it was here, and this is just horrible nonsense.
Shh, let me convert December takers to the cult of Synchro. I offer up Bee and my PT scoars and general quality of life improvement as evidence (pre and post Synchro)

You should offer up a REAL scoar. That would seal the deal.

dosto · Post by **dosto** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 2:00 pm