real The Official December 2016 Waiters Group - Patience is a Virtue Forum

[dj9i27]

[

[Instrumental]

Came back from vacation with an okay performance. Started off with a warm up by redoing PT9's RC with a -0. Then I took the first of my remaining 10 fresh PTs.

PT42
AR: -4 (was sluggish on game 3 and 4)
LR1: -2
RC: -6 (-2 on last three passages)
LR2: -3

Total: 86/167

Definitely want to do better, but with a month left, having just come back from a vacation and kinda feeling dread about getting back into the swing of things, I'm feeling pretty good about it. 167 is just a point under what I was averaging before the September test. I think with RC, my performance has a lot to do with confidence. Even though I had already done that warmup RC in the past, it was the second RC passage I had done so I only vaguely remembered reading them. But because of that I feel way more comfortable in approaching them and I think that influences my ability more than memory of the content itself.

[dj9i27]

[.

[jbrown23]

Any tips on method of reasoning questions?

[ZVBXRPL]

just spoke to lsac on phone. looks like pt 79 will be released late november. maybe around 20th. no set date though.

I'm pretty happy about that, personally the more I forget before I take it again the better.

wait, but you took it, so you should have the PDF for it already and shouldn't have to wait for them to release it

??

nope; took undisclosed lol

dj9i27 has the pdf of the test they took already, and can print it at leisure.

ZVBXRPL, if you took an undisclosed test (international, Sabbath), you'll never get to see it, as it was different from the one which will be released.

Any way for me to get the pdf?

[kindofcanuck]

just spoke to lsac on phone. looks like pt 79 will be released late november. maybe around 20th. no set date though.

I'm pretty happy about that, personally the more I forget before I take it again the better.

wait, but you took it, so you should have the PDF for it already and shouldn't have to wait for them to release it

??

nope; took undisclosed lol

dj9i27 has the pdf of the test they took already, and can print it at leisure.

ZVBXRPL, if you took an undisclosed test (international, Sabbath), you'll never get to see it, as it was different from the one which will be released.

Any way for me to get the pdf?

Not of the test you took. Non disclosed tests are - just that. Non disclosed. You'll never know how you did, or even for sure what the questions were.

[dj9i27]

.

[tuesdayninja]

does anyone else find the tests in 62-66 to be very kind? I've only been using them to drill and everything is much nicer than 72-78 (9) from what I recall.

Oh man I hope not, I've got those coming up and I've been doing just okay in 62-66 (167/168).

[dj9i27]

.

[ZVBXRPL]

just spoke to lsac on phone. looks like pt 79 will be released late november. maybe around 20th. no set date though.

I'm pretty happy about that, personally the more I forget before I take it again the better.

wait, but you took it, so you should have the PDF for it already and shouldn't have to wait for them to release it

??

nope; took undisclosed lol

dj9i27 has the pdf of the test they took already, and can print it at leisure.

ZVBXRPL, if you took an undisclosed test (international, Sabbath), you'll never get to see it, as it was different from the one which will be released.

Any way for me to get the pdf?

Not of the test you took. Non disclosed tests are - just that. Non disclosed. You'll never know how you did, or even for sure what the questions were.

yup -- i got that! any way for me to get the pdf of regular test from one of yall -- i.e. pt 79!

[34iplaw]

Going to start going through this a bit again. Just did my first RC passage in some time. Starting easy and working my way through the Cambridge Packets...

Curious to thoughts on explanation for #1... actually switched to wrong answer doing it. Not sure why but want to make sure the understanding is correct. The fuller detail is for something else I'm doing.

PT 8 S3 P1
rDNA

[+] Spoiler

Paragraph 1 - introduction to general topic, where the discovery came from, why it's exciting
Paragraph 2 - continuation of paragraph 1, description of what rDNA technology is and what can be done with it

Paragraph 3 - (viewpoint 1) benefits stated by proponents; +find cures, +understand genetics' influence on development, +new drugs created by organisms created with rDNA technology
Paragraph 4 - (viewpoint 1) more benefits; +energy production and waste [sewage->power], +agriculture new crops resistant to possible detrimental effects

Paragraph 5 - (viewpoint 2) critics' concerns; -risks posed to environment cannot be determined, -cause uncurable diseases, -screw up food chain in microbiological systems, -could screw up entire ecosystems, -previous two points to their extreme could eradicate humanity
Paragraph 6 - (viewpoint 2) critic's concerns continued; -cross boundaries scientists shouldn't necessarily cross, -A Brave New World and humans designed to fit a specific role in society.

Notes: Author thinks both sides are valid.

#1 - general/main point, what is the author trying to do with the passage [D]
A] tempted by this, but this misses out on the entirety of the critics' arguments which constitutes a major part of the passage
B] the author does not pick a side, and the author even gives critics some support in line 50 'another potentially serious problem'
C] like B, the author does not pick a side, and they are not advocating anything.
D] Correct... I wasn't a huge fan of the word controversy on this. That said, it does encapsulate the idea that there are proponents and critics of rDNA technology.
E] like B and C, the author does not pick a side.

#2 - detail/drawn from text, which of the following is true of research into genetic code. This idea shows up in the first paragraph...research in genetic code led to the discovery of rDNA technology. [A]
A] Correct... This is stated fairly explicitly in the passage in lines 1-7.
B] This sort of flips the actual relationship. This states that rDNA preceded research into genetic code.
C] We know that research into genetic code led to rDNA, but we don't know much else. Furthermore, we don't actually know what tangible benefits have been achieved by rDNA. This is all about supposed benefits/concerns.
D] We don't really know much about research into the genetic code of cells. rDNA definitely was not universally heralded.
E] Like D, we just don't know

#3 - detail/drawn from text, all of the following are mentioned in the passage as benefits of rDNA EXCEPT... [D]
A] Goes together with E... conversion of sewage to methane (lines 33-35)
B] organisms development would be new biological knowledge (lines 20-21)
C] all of the stuff about agriculture supports this... lines (35-38)
D] Correct. In the passage, we are told that this technology could be used to create organisms that eradicate disease, but we don't know anything about the cost of it all. Perhaps, this technology is super expensive, so it will only be used to combat the most serious diseases that are difficult to combat.
E] Goes together with A... conversion of sewage to methane (lines 33-35)

#4 - detail/inference, which of the following would most weaken one of the arguments of critics of rDNA... [A]
A] Correct. A large portion of the critics' argument (almost all of paragraph 5) is predicated on the idea that these organisms could escape from a lab. If they can't, who cares about anything mentioned in this paragraph. This seriously weakens their argument.
B] B, C, & D all suffer from one huge problem in my mind. They are all one specific case. A specific instance doesn't necessarily weaken a general argument like the one presented. With B, we also have no idea how much damage this organism did before it was contained or how easily it was contained. All this does is prove that these organisms can escape the lab.
C] This, like B & D, is about a specific case, and this A/C actually draws specific attention to this with the word 'particular.' We also don't really know much about this other than that it's population didn't explode. It could have still done irrevocable damage to ecosystems.
D] Again, like B & C, is about a specific case. Furthermore, this is a bit of an odd mix of the two contrasting viewpoints. This is about an organism that is being used (presumably) successfully to one of the proposed benefits put forth by proponents.
E] This would strengthen the proponents' argument by verifying their stance.

#5 - detail/inference, purpose of the bit about a Brave New World... [E] this bit of the passage is about the social issues and ethical conundrums that would be raised by extending rDNA methods from microbial organisms to humans (the critics aren't saying that it will be A Brave New World but certainly will bring us closer)
A] The critics only mention medical dangers in regards to incurable diseases (lines 45-48) which is a different part of the passage unrelated to the detail mentioned in #5.
B] This part of the passage is elaborating on the critics' concerns, so they are definitely not arguing in favor of rDNA technology being used on humans. This is the opposite of what we are looking for.
C] This is sort of some grandiose type statement, and it is pertinent to the 5th paragraph (and a huge component of the critics' argument) but not the detail in question.
D] This is wrong for a few reasons. Keep in mind that all benefits presented by proponents are purported and not actual while the critics' concerns are all hypothetical... all that is being said is that rDNA being used on humans could be a precursor for something like A Brave New World.
E] This is what we are looking for, but it is worded in a somewhat verbose and high level way. This part of the passage is about a possible eventuality and ethical concern raised by rDNA technology being used on humans. The passage is talking about humans being engineered to fulfill specific roles akin to a famous science fiction novel about the future (pretty much any book in this genre is a dystopia... one could argue there is no such thing as utopia.)

#6 - detail/inference, which of the following would strengthen one of the critics' arguments...
A] no effect... this is concerning the proponents argument.
B] This strengthens much of the 5th paragraph, as it validates the concerns about the impact on the ecosystems in lines 47-55.
C] no effect... this is very much the same issue as with A...it's about the proponents' argument, and it doesn't even necessarily drastically damage it...perhaps these organisms are being used to treat diseases that cannot be cured with regular drugs.
D] no effect...could possibly weaken it, as it sort of diminishes the rarity and significance of an ecosystems' collapse... if they are constantly collapsing, is it really as big of a deal if one collapses?
E] no effect...could possibly weaken it, as it sort of diminishes the impact of an escape (who cares... it'll only last a few hours anyways)

Sidenote: selling something on eBay... guy gave me a ridiculous lowball, I went down $150...they went up $25. I went down another $100. They went up another $50. I raised the price back up another $75 .

[Instrumental]

damn good for coming off a layoff, you know games will come back very strong in a weeks time.

Thanks man, I hope so. The mistakes I made were careless ones and I got lucky with some clutch 'D' guesses on the last questions I didn't have time for.

does anyone else find the tests in 62-66 to be very kind? I've only been using them to drill and everything is much nicer than 72-78 (9) from what I recall.

I actually had a dip in my scores for those tests.

[harveybirdman502]

Alright so I need some help on a very basic conditional issue involving "but not both."

Is is ~A-->B or A-->~B that indicates a but not both?

It's the second one.
Let's say A = alcohol and B = beer.
Thus, if you have beer, you definitely have alcohol.
Let's say some crazy person says you can't have both,
which implies the max you'll get out of the two is one,
then it is clear that if you have beer, you cannot have alcohol. In other words... B -> ~A.
~B -> A, on the other hand, says you only have alcohol, but "not both" does not mean "at least one." You don't need alcohol for this to work.

Haha thanks for taking the time out. I know this is super basic but I somehow got confused doing a bunch of LG over the last week. Diagramming is a bitch.

[harveybirdman502]

Curious:

What is your weakest LR question type when presented with a difficult one in the section?

Mine is definitely MSS questions, but when they are the much more difficult ones.

I agree, some MSS questions later on, also some Resolve Qs can be frustrating later on. Also Principle questions if the language is really nitpicky and you have limited time.

Definitely MSS over anything else. I try and think of the answer as a conclusion that combines all of the premises/facts but doesn't work of all the time.

I'm getting better at Resolve Qs. I read somewhere that the answer must reconcile both elements and not just one (think it was in the PS Bible). Obviously a very simple idea but it's helpful when examining answer choices.

Principle questions are so nitpicky! I had the worst one the other day. It's PT 46, S3, Question 3. Check out B and D. They give you these broad ideas and elements and expect you to infer whether or not it's an only or an any. Makes me want to pick only answers with "all" or "any" from now on lol.

[34iplaw]

Curious:

What is your weakest LR question type when presented with a difficult one in the section?

Mine is definitely MSS questions, but when they are the much more difficult ones.

I agree, some MSS questions later on, also some Resolve Qs can be frustrating later on. Also Principle questions if the language is really nitpicky and you have limited time.

Definitely MSS over anything else. I try and think of the answer as a conclusion that combines all of the premises/facts but doesn't work of all the time.

I'm getting better at Resolve Qs. I read somewhere that the answer must reconcile both elements and not just one (think it was in the PS Bible). Obviously a very simple idea but it's helpful when examining answer choices.

Principle questions are so nitpicky! I had the worst one the other day. It's PT 46, S3, Question 3. Check out B and D. They give you these broad ideas and elements and expect you to infer whether or not it's an only or an any. Makes me want to pick only answers with "all" or "any" from now on lol.

That's good... September was like disproportionately resolve IIRC. For harder questions, eliminating wrong answers is usually more powerful than focusing solely on the right answer.

I guess to add on to what DearDevil said is there are a few important relationships in conditional logic. Take A&B...

~=not

Take A & B {A&B, ~A&~B, ~A&B, A&~B}

A->B {A&B, ~A&~B, ~A&B} and A&~B disproves/breaks the conditional (useful concept for games and cannot be true questions)
A->~B {~A&~B, ~A&B, A&~B} and A&B disproves/breaks the conditional (this is the but not both relationship you inquired about previously)
~A->B {~A&B, A&~B, A&B} and ~A&~B disproves/breaks the conditional (this is the at least one relationship)
A<->B {A&B, ~A&~B} and ~A&B + A&~B disproves/breaks the conditional
~A<->B {~A&B, A&~B} and A&B or ~A&~B disproves/breaks the conditional.

Basically, it's really important to sort of figure out how different phrases relate to the concepts above. That's really what a lot of it drives at / this is a lot of what undergirds LSAT logic.

[jbrown23]

Wassup yall, first time really posting on here. Been having trouble with rc lately. Typically finish reading each passage in 2 mins but sill go -5/6 on rc. Should i slow down my reading speed. How fast do you normally read each passage?

[Deardevil]

Wassup yall, first time really posting on here. Been having trouble with rc lately. Typically finish reading each passage in 2 mins but sill go -5/6 on rc. Should i slow down my reading speed. How fast do you normally read each passage?

Speed is not so much the issue.
Do you feel like you need to go back to the passage a lot?
If so, you need to read a little slower, meaning absorb more info.
I've done this and improved by several points, as well as my timing.

[connordalto]

Wassup yall, first time really posting on here. Been having trouble with rc lately. Typically finish reading each passage in 2 mins but sill go -5/6 on rc. Should i slow down my reading speed. How fast do you normally read each passage?

Depends on the passage difficulty for me. Usually I an crush easy humanities/arts/other passages pretty quickly, around 2 min, but Ill take longer on science/law passages to try and get the details.

I feel like certain science passages (and law too) usually have this crux of info that the questions revolve around, like a correlation or concept that is absolutely key to getting 3-4 of the questions. I usually try to figure this out, and go as slow as I need. But RC is also pretty variable for me, -2 on a good day and -6 on a bad day.

[Law2020hopeful]

I've hit a big slump with my studying and I desperately need some motivation to get me through this last month. Any words of wisdom out there on how I can psych myself back up/motivate myself for the December test?

[cherrygalore]

I've hit a big slump with my studying and I desperately need some motivation to get me through this last month. Any words of wisdom out there on how I can psych myself back up/motivate myself for the December test?

If possible, go sit in on a class at a law school nearby. I was in the same boat about a month ago, sat in on a class at UCLA and was re-inspired. Just keep your eye on the prize.

[Law2020hopeful]

I've hit a big slump with my studying and I desperately need some motivation to get me through this last month. Any words of wisdom out there on how I can psych myself back up/motivate myself for the December test?

If possible, go sit in on a class at a law school nearby. I was in the same boat about a month ago, sat in on a class at UCLA and was re-inspired. Just keep your eye on the prize.

Can I just walk into Columbia and sit in on a class without being registered? Do I have to ask anyone or set it up in advance?

[34iplaw]

I've hit a big slump with my studying and I desperately need some motivation to get me through this last month. Any words of wisdom out there on how I can psych myself back up/motivate myself for the December test?

If possible, go sit in on a class at a law school nearby. I was in the same boat about a month ago, sat in on a class at UCLA and was re-inspired. Just keep your eye on the prize.

Can I just walk into Columbia and sit in on a class without being registered? Do I have to ask anyone or set it up in advance?

Contact them or talk to a friend that goes there. I just sat in on a class at Berkeley that was through a friend. Granted, that was more of a seminar, but I agree with the advice. I under performed in September (still did well which I understand) and was really out of it until I sat in on the class. Either way - I fully agree with the poster above... it's a really good way to make all of this work more concrete and less abstract.

Alternatively, remember that a few points could be worth $10,000+ a piece...

[cherrygalore]

I've hit a big slump with my studying and I desperately need some motivation to get me through this last month. Any words of wisdom out there on how I can psych myself back up/motivate myself for the December test?

If possible, go sit in on a class at a law school nearby. I was in the same boat about a month ago, sat in on a class at UCLA and was re-inspired. Just keep your eye on the prize.

Can I just walk into Columbia and sit in on a class without being registered? Do I have to ask anyone or set it up in advance?

You definitely have to set it up in advance. Just contact admissions and I'm sure they'll help you out. That's what I did with UCLA, said I was applying and would like to sit in on a class, they scheduled it with me and I got to sit in on a 1L Criminal Law class. It was super inspiring.

[nimbus cloud]

.

[batlaw]

Curious:

What is your weakest LR question type when presented with a difficult one in the section?

Mine is definitely MSS questions, but when they are the much more difficult ones.

Oh yah, I'm definitely still ironing out my MSS strategy. Too often I get hung up on a little qualifier word and forget that MSS doesn't require it to be 100% true, just probable. It almost seems like I do better on MSS when I don't think very much and just do it quickly at a high level.