The Official June 2015 Study Group Forum

[lawjag2015]

Officially checking in. My job has made it pretty much impossible for me to take Feb so I'll be hanging out with you wonderful Juners ITT now

That sucks that February didn't pan out for you, but I'm glad you're still motivated to sit for the LSAT.

Yep, I am determined to take the exam.. someday

Knowing me, it'll prob end up being the Dec 2025 exam or something, haha

Welcome, Pepper! I've been beating the job drum as well!

[JackelJ]

Aw Pep, sorry Feb didn't work out for you. But, we are going to do awesome in June!

[lawjag2015]

I am still focusing on the linear variety, and it turns out that in round one, I had timing issues and/or errors in 20 games, so the round two comprised of these 20 games, and in round two I had timing issues and/or errors in 12 games.

At what point would you slow learn these games instead of doing more timed rounds of successively less games each?

[RZ5646]

I am still focusing on the linear variety, and it turns out that in round one, I had timing issues and/or errors in 20 games, so the round two comprised of these 20 games, and in round two I had timing issues and/or errors in 12 games.

At what point would you slow learn these games instead of doing more timed rounds of successively less games each?

I'm not totally sure what your practice methodology is, but I always go for -0 and let the clock count up. I try to go fast, but I don't stop until I'm confident that I got all the questions right. Sometimes that take 5 minutes, other times it takes 15.

[lawjag2015]

I am still focusing on the linear variety, and it turns out that in round one, I had timing issues and/or errors in 20 games, so the round two comprised of these 20 games, and in round two I had timing issues and/or errors in 12 games.

At what point would you slow learn these games instead of doing more timed rounds of successively less games each?

I'm not totally sure what your practice methodology is, but I always go for -0 and let the clock count up. I try to go fast, but I don't stop until I'm confident that I got all the questions right. Sometimes that take 5 minutes, other times it takes 15.

I go for both accuracy and time, so its not as if I am willingly sacrificing accuracy to be able to finish the game in time. LG is my problem area.

[leslieknope]

Posting this here because it's more relevant for you guys than for us Febbers (I hope), but LSAC is putting out a new Superprep book! This is the more terrible equivalent of when a new Harry Potter books comes out.

[JackelJ]

I go for both accuracy and time, so its not as if I am willingly sacrificing accuracy to be able to finish the game in time. LG is my problem area.

Focus on accuracy first. The timing will come after you master the concepts. As in, don't give yourself a time limit until you consistently go -0 when drilling untimed

Posting this here because it's more relevant for you guys than for us Febbers (I hope), but LSAC is putting out a new Superprep book! This is the more terrible equivalent of when a new Harry Potter books comes out.

yay, more materials for me to buy. The LSAT is seriously hurting my bank account

[RZ5646]

Posting this here because it's more relevant for you guys than for us Febbers (I hope), but LSAC is putting out a new Superprep book! This is the more terrible equivalent of when a new Harry Potter books comes out.

I think I'm going to do the Superprep tests as my next PTs. Did anyone think the explanations were very helpful?

[Tycho]

Moving fairly efficiently through the LG Bible, taking time at the end of each section/chapter to review the concepts and mini-drills. I'm grasping the essentials fairly quickly, but will be working to generate inferences efficiently and accurately (the latter I don't seem to struggle with, like most probably). For now, I seem to be one of those masochists who enjoy LGs, but we'll see if that holds true when it's time to drill. Looking forward to the challenge. Luckily, the few issues I seem to have with LR seem to be a function of simply working through the Q too quickly. Just need to read it carefully and efficiently. Got the last few wrong on my diagnostic b/c I missed a key word/phrase.

On another note, I had considered meeting with a pre-law adviser at my university before coming across this forum. You will be happy to note that I've been sufficiently dissuaded from doing that now. The resources on here are much better than anything I've seen from pre-law advising at my school.

[179orBust]

Haven't done much studying lately, been busy with trivial things that unfortunately have taken up large chunks of my days this past week. Anyway, managed to drill 25 NA questions tonight and got 24/25 correct. Starting to feel more comfortable with these questions.

Quick question though: Are you suppose to pre-phrase your answers for these questions.? I usually just identify the support + conclusion and then move right to answer choices. It's been working so far, but I'm worried that I'm developing bad habits.

Also, just watched the video of the Jordanian pilot getting killed. Don't think I'll be able to sleep tonight. We're living in such a sick world.

[RZ5646]

I wouldn't prephrase necessary assumption answers because there are so many options. It's not like SA where you see an obvious gap between conditionals that needs filled.

Btw I tried reading the stem first on that LR I did the other day and I just couldn't do it. I'd either forget and go right to the stim, or I'd end up rereading the stem after the stimulus anyway. It's hard to break habits, so for those of you just starting to study, carefully decide what method you want to use before hitting the questions.

I do alright at LR so it's no big deal, but I do think stem-first might be superior and wonder if I'm missing out on some time savings.

[leslieknope]

RZ, I switched to stem first from months of doing stimulus first, and what helped me is that after reading the stem, I always take a second to define my task. For example for an NA, I'll be like "okay so I need to find a necessary assumption." That way I get more out of the stimulus the first time I'm going through it, and it saves a bit of time. It definitely took awhile before I mentally made the switch, though.

[jetsfan1]

Haven't done much studying lately, been busy with trivial things that unfortunately have taken up large chunks of my days this past week. Anyway, managed to drill 25 NA questions tonight and got 24/25 correct. Starting to feel more comfortable with these questions.

Quick question though: Are you suppose to pre-phrase your answers for these questions.? I usually just identify the support + conclusion and then move right to answer choices. It's been working so far, but I'm worried that I'm developing bad habits.

Also, just watched the video of the Jordanian pilot getting killed. Don't think I'll be able to sleep tonight. We're living in such a sick world.

I normally pre phrase, but with a VERY open mind. My thinking is along the lines of "it could be this, but lets see what the answer choices say." Not only for NA, but for all LR, I think having an ironclad grasp of the argument is by far and away the most important point.

RZ. Same with me. I'm having trouble making that transition, although I want to. Leslie, do you think there is an accuracy component to reading the stem first as well? Or is it just a time thing?

[leslieknope]

I mean, only in the sense that if you have more time then you can get a better grasp on the stimulus. For example, for a most strongly supported question, if you read the stem first then you know right away that you probably won't be finding a conclusion and can just get ahold of the facts and apply them to the ACs. For an assumption question, you know going in that the argument is going to be missing something and can look for the gap as you read. I know I'm much less prone to making stupid mistakes this way. But I mean, different things work for different people. LRB says to read the stimulus first, whereas Manhattan says the opposite.

[RZ5646]

I've been going -0 or -1 on LR sections, so is it still worth investing the time to switch methods or should I just stay the course?

[leslieknope]

lol well in that case I would absolutely not change anything. I only switched methods because I was having timing issues- if it ain't broke, definitely don't fix it.

[TheWalkingDebt]

For LG, would you all say if I disliked The Trainer methods/found them not helpful, I will probably feel the same for the MLSAT LG book? I have been doing simple sequencing games drills the last three days and I just am not picking it up too well (read: missing inferences, sloppy diagramming, misreading rules [this being on me mostly]). I'm getting -1 at least on most games, and sometimes upwards of -3/-4 per game, and going way over the time. I'm finding 7sage helpful as far as diagramming goes, and would be interested to know if LGB + 7sage + cambridge is the better route to go and I can just ditch/sell the MLSAT LG book back.

[JackelJ]

For LG, would you all say if I disliked The Trainer methods/found them not helpful, I will probably feel the same for the MLSAT LG book? I have been doing simple sequencing games drills the last three days and I just am not picking it up too well (read: missing inferences, sloppy diagramming, misreading rules [this being on me mostly]). I'm getting -1 at least on most games, and sometimes upwards of -3/-4 per game, and going way over the time. I'm finding 7sage helpful as far as diagramming goes, and would be interested to know if LGB + 7sage + cambridge is the better route to go and I can just ditch/sell the MLSAT LG book back.

FWIW people told me that the Trainer's LG isn't worth spending time on. I flipped through it and didn't see anything that would be helpful. I would look through the MLSAT book before you sell it. I personally learned LG from BP and then supplemented it with 7sage and I found that to be a good method. Whichever method/book you pick I recommend the cambridge packets for LG.

[NonTradLawHopeful]

For LG, would you all say if I disliked The Trainer methods/found them not helpful, I will probably feel the same for the MLSAT LG book? I have been doing simple sequencing games drills the last three days and I just am not picking it up too well (read: missing inferences, sloppy diagramming, misreading rules [this being on me mostly]). I'm getting -1 at least on most games, and sometimes upwards of -3/-4 per game, and going way over the time. I'm finding 7sage helpful as far as diagramming goes, and would be interested to know if LGB + 7sage + cambridge is the better route to go and I can just ditch/sell the MLSAT LG book back.

I have taken out a few minor things from the Trainer LG sections and incorporated them into my diagrams, but for the most part the 7Sage has been most helpful. It makes it easier to review with the videos when you are setting your diagrams up the same way as he is.

[20170322]

Just got absolutely DESTROYED by a complex ordering packet.

Guess I know what I'll be drilling this week.

[jetsfan1]

Just got absolutely DESTROYED by a complex ordering packet.

Guess I know what I'll be drilling this week.

+1. Rough three hours over here, mostly with games as well. Trying to forget about it and bounce back tomorrow. First time this ever happened that I went back to BR in LR and actually changed a right answer to a wrong one. Frustrating beyond all belief.

ETA: Curious to ask though, what are everyone's career goals after law school?

[RZ5646]

ETA: Curious to ask though, what are everyone's career goals after law school?

To not be poor.

[peppermint]

.

[peppermint]

.

[lawjag2015]

ETA: Curious to ask though, what are everyone's career goals after law school?

To not be poor.

To leave the terribly unsatisfying world of engineering consulting behind for a career more challenging and remunerative that also provides a shot at partnership in a business or opening my own practice.