June 2011 Study Group Forum

[99.9luft]

IT HAS BEGUN.

Did my first PT today after re-starting my studies in Feb (revised methodology thanks to the MLSAT guides).

PT 38

LR: -2
LG: -3
RC: -4
LR: -2

-11. Raw of 89, which is a 171. Not bad, considering I missed 20 on this PT last May. Did run out of time on LG and RC, but considering that i'll be PTing every other day, I'll get better at time management. Also, glad my LR time management + accuracy is showing signs of improvement.

Good job, an excellent way to get some momentum towards June. Care to share tidbits of your 'revised methodology?'

Thanks, FC!

Honestly, the revision consisted of absorbing the new edition of the MLSAT LR guide (i didn't even know Atlas existed last year when studying for June and Oct!). That's the main thing i can think of at this point that is different, as it's just been one PT. Naturally, I'm hesitant offering much advice (to avoid jinxing it, as well as sounding like a pretentious TLS douce) until i get into the 170s consistently, after having taken 15-20 PTs (should be at the end of this month).

As far as time management, I guess identifying the conclusion faster and looking at why some of the answer choices are wrong reduced the time I spent on each question. As far as secondary differences - i made sure to space my eating properly (if im hungry, i suck at testing, and life as a whole). Glad to have taken the test at 1pm (approx. the actual time we will). Excited to review this mofo tomorrow and drill what I got wrong.

[FloridaCoastalorbust]

Thanks, FC!

Honestly, the revision consisted of absorbing the new edition of the MLSAT LR guide (i didn't even know Atlas existed last year when studying for June and Oct!). That's the main thing i can think of at this point that is different, as it's just been one PT. Naturally, I'm hesitant offering much advice (to avoid jinxing it, as well as sounding like a pretentious TLS douce) until i get into the 170s consistently, after having taken 15-20 PTs (should be at the end of this month).

As far as time management, I guess identifying the conclusion faster and looking at why some of the answer choices are wrong reduced the time I spent on each question. As far as secondary differences - i made sure to space my eating properly (if im hungry, i suck at testing, and life as a whole). Glad to have taken the test at 1pm (approx. the actual time we will). Excited to review this mofo tomorrow and drill what I got wrong.

Good deal! So you found the MLSAT LR guide helpful? I am going through the LRB the second time - I need to glean more details because my LR is around -3 to -6/ section. Maybe I should check out MLSATs

[dr123]

YO where can I order the Manhattan RC book on the cheap?

[99.9luft]

Thanks, FC!

Honestly, the revision consisted of absorbing the new edition of the MLSAT LR guide (i didn't even know Atlas existed last year when studying for June and Oct!). That's the main thing i can think of at this point that is different, as it's just been one PT. Naturally, I'm hesitant offering much advice (to avoid jinxing it, as well as sounding like a pretentious TLS douce) until i get into the 170s consistently, after having taken 15-20 PTs (should be at the end of this month).

As far as time management, I guess identifying the conclusion faster and looking at why some of the answer choices are wrong reduced the time I spent on each question. As far as secondary differences - i made sure to space my eating properly (if im hungry, i suck at testing, and life as a whole). Glad to have taken the test at 1pm (approx. the actual time we will). Excited to review this mofo tomorrow and drill what I got wrong.

Good deal! So you found the MLSAT LR guide helpful? I am going through the LRB the second time - I need to glean more details because my LR is around -3 to -6/ section. Maybe I should check out MLSATs

Yes, I definitely recommend the LR guide if you want to tune up a couple of points. Without it, I used to miss -4/-7 per section last year. It has pretty unique insights, and while offering no magic formula (wrong thing to look for such in any book), it prepares you to tackle the lsat in a way that the bible has never really done (i've gone through it a couple of times - almost died of boredom, too).

[99.9luft]

YO where can I order the Manhattan RC book on the cheap?

PM Manhattan LSAT Noah: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/m ... le&u=68293

[FloridaCoastalorbust]

PT 47
LR -8
RC -5
LG - 4

Raw 83

The last RC passage at me alive. Two dumb mistakes on LG and two on LR. Such is life.

[vissidarte27]

Did my first couple of practice tests after a 163 bomb in February.

PT45
LR1: -2
RC: -4
LG: -0
LR2: -3
Raw score: 90/99
Scaled score: 173

PT48:
LR1: -0 (first time EVER that I've haven't missed any on a logical reasoning section)
LG: -2
RC: -2
LR2: -2
Raw score: 95/101
Scaled score: 172

These are pretty much in line with my pre-February PTs, so it's good to know that the procrastinating I did while I was moving house/finding a new job/dealing with life didn't hurt me too badly.

I'll probably do another PT on Tuesday. Feeling optimistic.

[chrisnyoder]

Did my first couple of practice tests after a 163 bomb in February.

PT45
LR1: -2
RC: -4
LG: -0
LR2: -3
Raw score: 90/99
Scaled score: 173

PT48:
LR1: -0 (first time EVER that I've haven't missed any on a logical reasoning section)
LG: -2
RC: -2
LR2: -2
Raw score: 95/101
Scaled score: 172

These are pretty much in line with my pre-February PTs, so it's good to know that the procrastinating I did while I was moving house/finding a new job/dealing with life didn't hurt me too badly.

I'll probably do another PT on Tuesday. Feeling optimistic.

Breaks seem to be a good thing. I hit 163 a week ago. Did much better after taking some time off.

PT39

LR1: -3
LG: - 4 (Farm demo game killed me)
RC: -4
LR2: -1
Raw: 88/100
Scaled: 170

Games are still my weak spot, but they're improving little by little.

[soj]

As I promised, I tried to get my sleeping schedule back on track by staying up till midnight last night (~12 hours past my bedtime recently). My body apparently thought it was a nap, and I woke up semi-refreshed at 4am. But I know my body still thinks I haven't had a real night's sleep yet, so I'll be tempted to crash later today. But I gotta stay strong if I want to restore my sleeping schedule. And besides, doing a PT at 6am turned out not to be such a bad idea ...

PT33
LR1: -1
RC: -2
LGe (PT29 S3): -0
LR2: -2
LG: -0
Raw: -5
Scaled: 178

LR1: It feels great to be correct in the Qs I felt unsure about. I got Q8 wrong, but only because I misread the AC I ended up selecting--I thought D said the temperature inside the silver ants, not the temperature inside the silver ants' nests (which certainly explains the ant's choice of scavenging times). No excuse for eliminating E, though. I did feel like there were a lot of Qs I'd encountered before in prepbooks, so my success has to be qualified by the fact that I was familiar with many of them.

RC: Pleasantly surprised with the result. I'll be looking at Passage 4 (Bentham's non-exclusion principle) in-depth later today. I got 4/6 on that one, and I can't immediately understand why my answer choices were wrong.

LGe: I felt as though my mental exertions were being rewarded with insights in a timely and consistent manner that made solving these games, dare I say, actually kind of fun! I had plenty of time to review all my answers.

LR2: Got Q6 and Q12 wrong. Q6 is a tough one I still don't quite understand, and Q12 I got wrong because I jumped to conclusions. Overall, very happy with how I did on Qs I was unsure about. I discovered that one of my LR weaknesses is being too slow in processing conditional chains, especially when they're mucked up with crap like without and unless. I will be reviewing this using the Bible and Manhattan today.

LG: Wow, two in/out games! The Atlas/Manhattan method saved my life here, though it was still time-consuming. It's not that in/out inferences are all that difficult to come up with--it's that I'm less confident about my in/out inferences, and therefore waste time verifying them. Thankfully, Game 1 wasn't too bad (pure sequencing), and I destroyed Game 4 quickly by identifying the only 4 possibilities.

[pinkstark]

seems like everybody here is ready to take the exam tmrw.
I'm still struggling with LR.
I'm trying to start a small study group for people who don't really understand why they got some of the answers wrong on LR.
PM me if you want to.

[Eichörnchen]

Jesus, soj- you give me a major inferiority complex!

[soj]

Sorry, I don't mean to be obnoxious or intrusive.

If you'd like, you can just ignore my comments. But no matter where we are in our prep, we all have areas to work on, so we shouldn't let ourselves be fazed by others' study methods or progress. Right?

[pinkstark]

Jesus, soj- you give me a major inferiority complex!

lol. soj gives me some motivations to stop procrastinating and complaining about the weather.

[soj]

Has anyone else done PT33 RC? Can someone explain Q24?

TCR is B, but after waffling between B and D (and at one point selecting B), I ended up with D. As far as I can see, the only indication of the author's attitude toward 18c lawyers is in lines 24-26: "Reform was frustrated both by the vested interests of lawyers and by the profession's reverence for tradition and precedent." The author's attitude toward reform is mostly positive, so the author's attitude toward the lawyers must be negative. That brought me down to (B) critical and (D) scornful. I know LSAT is rarely scornful, but I thought it might actually fit in this case ("frustrated ... by the vested interests," "reverence for tradition"). Why not? Am I reading too much into this? Would this sentence have to have been even more dismissive in order to be considered scornful?

[maxpower430]

Has anyone else done PT33 RC? Can someone explain Q24?

TCR is B, but after waffling between B and D (and at one point selecting B), I ended up with D. As far as I can see, the only indication of the author's attitude toward 18c lawyers is in lines 24-26: "Reform was frustrated both by the vested interests of lawyers and by the profession's reverence for tradition and precedent." The author's attitude toward reform is mostly positive, so the author's attitude toward the lawyers must be negative. That brought me down to (B) critical and (D) scornful. I know LSAT is rarely scornful, but I thought it might actually fit in this case ("frustrated ... by the vested interests," "reverence for tradition"). Why not? Am I reading too much into this? Would this sentence have to have been even more dismissive in order to be considered scornful?

i did that section about two weeks ago and i got that same question wrong, though i actually went the opposite of you. i don't have the test with me, but from what i recall that was the only indication of the author's attitude, which is what drove me to pick neutral (which was a dumb mistake b/c clearly he was criticizing lawyers though in a more evenhanded way). i think in order for it to be considered scornful he would have needed to be much more critical, i.e. say something along the lines of "obstinently/stubbornly refuse to reconsider precedent" or to make it seem ridiculous that lawyers would be so set on tradition etc. just my takeaway from the passage, i can give you further impressions later when i get my lsat material if you'd like. hth.

[jim-green]

Sorry, I don't mean to be obnoxious or intrusive.

soj, do you pre-phrase on RC questions? Possible to boil down your RC question answering technique in a few sentences? I am not asking about how to read and mark the passage. I do that ok. But how do you go about answering questions? I read the question, then read all 5 ans choices, then desperately look back for support for any of the answers in the passage. Do you do it differently?

[soj]

Has anyone else done PT33 RC? Can someone explain Q24?

TCR is B, but after waffling between B and D (and at one point selecting B), I ended up with D. As far as I can see, the only indication of the author's attitude toward 18c lawyers is in lines 24-26: "Reform was frustrated both by the vested interests of lawyers and by the profession's reverence for tradition and precedent." The author's attitude toward reform is mostly positive, so the author's attitude toward the lawyers must be negative. That brought me down to (B) critical and (D) scornful. I know LSAT is rarely scornful, but I thought it might actually fit in this case ("frustrated ... by the vested interests," "reverence for tradition"). Why not? Am I reading too much into this? Would this sentence have to have been even more dismissive in order to be considered scornful?

i did that section about two weeks ago and i got that same question wrong, though i actually went the opposite of you. i don't have the test with me, but from what i recall that was the only indication of the author's attitude, which is what drove me to pick neutral (which was a dumb mistake b/c clearly he was criticizing lawyers though in a more evenhanded way). i think in order for it to be considered scornful he would have needed to be much more critical, i.e. say something along the lines of "obstinently/stubbornly refuse to reconsider precedent" or to make it seem ridiculous that lawyers would be so set on tradition etc. just my takeaway from the passage, i can give you further impressions later when i get my lsat material if you'd like. hth.

Thanks, that was helpful. I guess mentioning vested interests and reverence for tradition isn't in and of itself scornful. You're right that to be scornful, the author would have had to make a stronger, more charged accusation. Also, my own personal scorn for vested interests and traditionalism probably contributed to my selecting D. Bad mistake.

@jim-green: My answering technique in RC still needs work. I also do the reading and marking fine, but I often waste quite a bit of time answering Qs. Usually, I'll read a Q, and before reading ACs, I'll make a decent effort at prephrasing (or even just general categorizing--e.g. "something negative") if the answer seems within reach of my memory.

If I can't come up with any kind of prephrase, sometimes I'll read the ACs, and other times I'll go directly to the passage and refresh my memories before reading the ACs. The latter is definitely not efficient because often you can eliminate ACs even when you don't have a prephrase. Re-reading the passage before you've even read the ACs is a huge waste of time if it turns out the stuff you were re-reading isn't even mentioned in the ACs.

I think the best strategy is to gain a good general (not specific, that's too hard) grasp of the content (not to mention tone, structure, and all that stuff) while reading so that even when you can't come up with a prephrase, you can eliminate a few ACs. The line-by-line investigative work can come after you've eliminated some ACs.

[geverett]

As I promised, I tried to get my sleeping schedule back on track by staying up till midnight last night (~12 hours past my bedtime recently). My body apparently thought it was a nap, and I woke up semi-refreshed at 4am. But I know my body still thinks I haven't had a real night's sleep yet, so I'll be tempted to crash later today. But I gotta stay strong if I want to restore my sleeping schedule. And besides, doing a PT at 6am turned out not to be such a bad idea ...

PT33
LR1: -1
RC: -2
LGe (PT29 S3): -0
LR2: -2
LG: -0
Raw: -5
Scaled: 178

LR1: It feels great to be correct in the Qs I felt unsure about. I got Q8 wrong, but only because I misread the AC I ended up selecting--I thought D said the temperature inside the silver ants, not the temperature inside the silver ants' nests (which certainly explains the ant's choice of scavenging times). No excuse for eliminating E, though. I did feel like there were a lot of Qs I'd encountered before in prepbooks, so my success has to be qualified by the fact that I was familiar with many of them.

RC: Pleasantly surprised with the result. I'll be looking at Passage 4 (Bentham's non-exclusion principle) in-depth later today. I got 4/6 on that one, and I can't immediately understand why my answer choices were wrong.

LGe: I felt as though my mental exertions were being rewarded with insights in a timely and consistent manner that made solving these games, dare I say, actually kind of fun! I had plenty of time to review all my answers.

LR2: Got Q6 and Q12 wrong. Q6 is a tough one I still don't quite understand, and Q12 I got wrong because I jumped to conclusions. Overall, very happy with how I did on Qs I was unsure about. I discovered that one of my LR weaknesses is being too slow in processing conditional chains, especially when they're mucked up with crap like without and unless. I will be reviewing this using the Bible and Manhattan today.

LG: Wow, two in/out games! The Atlas/Manhattan method saved my life here, though it was still time-consuming. It's not that in/out inferences are all that difficult to come up with--it's that I'm less confident about my in/out inferences, and therefore waste time verifying them. Thankfully, Game 1 wasn't too bad (pure sequencing), and I destroyed Game 4 quickly by identifying the only 4 possibilities.

Soj, when you finish a test do you go over everything? Only the things you missed? Only the things that you remember causing you trouble?

[geverett]

If anyone wants to go over some RC today. I would be down. just let me know

[jim-green]

If anyone wants to go over some RC today. I would be down. just let me know

I'd love to go over PT12's RC later today. Doing it now.

[soj]

Soj, when you finish a test do you go over everything? Only the things you missed? Only the things that you remember causing you trouble?

Stuff I missed and stuff that caused me trouble. I make a tiny dot next to the question number on the answer sheet to help me remember which those are. (Also helps if I have time left over during the test.)

[geverett]

If anybody wants to go over anything from PT 47 today just let me know.

[Eichörnchen]

Sorry, I don't mean to be obnoxious or intrusive.

If you'd like, you can just ignore my comments. But no matter where we are in our prep, we all have areas to work on, so we shouldn't let ourselves be fazed by others' study methods or progress. Right?

Haha you are neither obnoxious nor intrusive. You can't help that you're awesome and I definitely don't plan on ignoring you. Being inspired by you? Yes. Maybe being a little jealous? Also yes haha. Keep up the good work and you'll be one of those crazy bastards who gets a 180!

[geverett]

I am in the room right now. Having a hard time staying motivated, and don't have work today so if someone wants to come in and go over stuff I'm all for it.

[Kurst]

LG: Wow, two in/out games! The Atlas/Manhattan method saved my life here, though it was still time-consuming. It's not that in/out inferences are all that difficult to come up with--it's that I'm less confident about my in/out inferences, and therefore waste time verifying them.

Have you tried using a logic chain for In/Out games? Steve Schwartz and Griffon Prep both solve the birds in the forest game by means of the logic chain that I have in mind.

Steve Schwartz (LSAT Blog): http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/lo ... orest.html
Griffon Prep: http://www.griffonprep.com/Birdgamesolution.html