December 2013 LSAT Study Group Forum

[phillywc]

Checking in. I'm retaking mainly for one or two waitlists and maybe money, I'm still submitting apps now. I take my first PT for this test in a few days... Despite the late start, I feel good. Let's do this yall.

[modernista]

Confession: I'm starting with a 150 cold diagnostic. Is getting a 168+ possible? LR: 16/25 & 12/25, LG: 14/23, and RC: 17/27. The LR is kicking my ass. If at all possible, I feel the RC section makes one feel like they need to learn how to read again.

I think I'm going to sit the December exam out. Did anyone else start as low as I did? It feels like the large majority of people started in the 160s...

It's possible... It would depend a lot on you. But it won't be easy. I would guess mid 160s as more probable.

I don't plan on taking another full-length test for a while. What's the easiest section to improve on?

Most people think it's LG. I do too. You should take more pts.

How would you space out your PTs? I'm planning to starting chapter 2 of the Powerscore LG, LR, and RC bibles tomorrow. That's going to be followed by the MLSAT equivalent of those chapters. Afterwards, I'm going to drill with Cambridge. Is this what most people do?

[Hotguy]

Confession: I'm starting with a 150 cold diagnostic. Is getting a 168+ possible? LR: 16/25 & 12/25, LG: 14/23, and RC: 17/27. The LR is kicking my ass. If at all possible, I feel the RC section makes one feel like they need to learn how to read again.

I think I'm going to sit the December exam out. Did anyone else start as low as I did? It feels like the large majority of people started in the 160s...

It's possible... It would depend a lot on you. But it won't be easy. I would guess mid 160s as more probable.
I don't plan on taking another full-length test for a while. What's the easiest section to improve on?

Most people think it's LG. I do too. You should take more pts.

How would you space out your PTs? I'm planning to starting chapter 2 of the Powerscore LG, LR, and RC bibles tomorrow. That's going to be followed by the MLSAT equivalent of those chapters. Afterwards, I'm going to drill with Cambridge. Is this what most people do?

Look, yeah they do, but not with 6 weeks left. Usually with 3 months.
You need to see some pts asap, I would consider trying to finish those books in less time.

[Nova]

You almost certainly won't be ready by dec

[modernista]

You almost certainly won't be ready by dec

February? June? I feel June would make me a little less panicked.

[Nova]

June is probably your best bet.

Feb sucks cause its not disclosed so you can't see where you messed up

[Hotguy]

June is probably your best bet.

Feb sucks cause its not disclosed so you can't see where you messed up

+1. Didn't know if you were willing to sit out a cycle.

[vicpin5190]

Ugh. Took PT 47. It was going well until section 3's LR where I Just dropped a turd.

-3 LR#1, -5 RC, - 8 LR#2, -0 Games. Total 165. Pretty bummed especially after how well PT 46 went with the 171. Well. I'll PT again tomorrow on PT51, hopefully that'll go better.

[modernista]

June is probably your best bet.

Feb sucks cause its not disclosed so you can't see where you messed up

+1. Didn't know if you were willing to sit out a cycle.

It might also be better overall as I'm not a morning person.

[toshiroh]

Okay either PT 56 reading comp was easy, or 7sage's methods are working, because I destroyed that section today. -1. Made some gains this test, so amped for more improvement!!!!! Logic games should have been perfect if it wasn't for dumb mistakes.

[toshiroh]

Not dumb, I'd say careless mistakes. mixed up an inference and wrecked a whole question in the easiest game.

[Dr.Zer0]

Did PT 40 and 41 this week

PT 40
LR 1:-3
LR 2: -2
LG: -5 (curse you Zephyr airlines!!!)
RC: -1
90/169

PT 41
LR 1: -5
LR 2: -4
LG: -6 (curse you circular game!!!)
RC: -2
84/166

My LG performance was bad in these two tests mostly due to bombing the hardest game in each section. I hope LG Dec 13 is more like June 13 LG than Dec 12 LG *shivers*

[tofuspeedstar]

How are you combatting the RC problem? I apparently suck at "main point" questions, even though they seem like the easiest. Best thing for me is just to tell myself to slow down, and make sure I can really rule out all the other options.

LSAT Trainer+Manhattan RC, lots of practice sections, and I'm reading a lot now.

[wealtheow]

I'd recommend a 20 minute nap (make sure you wake up - set multiple alarms if you have too!). Once you wake up, make some coffee and take a short walk to get some fresh air.

It may benefit you writing a prep-test slightly fatigued. Depending on your nerves come test day, you may not get that much sleep.

siiigh. you're right, you're right... i'm such a lazy bum. haha. i'll give it a go, though... in the name of TLS constructive peer pressure!

Let us know how it goes!

i did it! thanks for the gentle push. i just woke up though, haha. going to blind review and see how i did as soon as the the sleep's out of my eyes.

[wealtheow]

Not dumb, I'd say careless mistakes. mixed up an inference and wrecked a whole question in the easiest game.

which game from PT 56? Auditions? i did exactly the same thing. never even noticed i botched the inference. i was so pissed.

[cheme2014]

Trainer finally came in the mail today yay! Hopefully I can get my butt into study mode so I can make up for the delay...

Hope y'all have a great/productive weekend!

[AOT]

Starting to lose hope with these logic games

[dosto]

.

[toshiroh]

Not dumb, I'd say careless mistakes. mixed up an inference and wrecked a whole question in the easiest game.

which game from PT 56? Auditions? i did exactly the same thing. never even noticed i botched the inference. i was so pissed.

Yeah, I was so pissed as well. I connected the chain GL_J-k..... and messed up a question because I forgot that it was perfectly acceptable for k to go before J. Careless. Needless to say the rest of the games were pretty straight foward in this PT... all of them really

[bound]

PT 62

-5 RC, -7 LR#1, -2 LG, -4 LR #2.....

84/100 = 167


GOD I hate how inconsistent I am with LR! It seriously drives me nuts.

[wealtheow]

PT 59

After blind review:
LG -0
LR1 -2
LR2 -3
RC -2
Score: 176

Before review:
LG -2
LR1 -2
LR2 -6 (ouch)
RC -3
Score: 170

Second LR felt really really hard! Seriously, 19-24 felt like some kind of LR nightmare. Usually more easies are mixed into the last few, so that threw me off a bit...
And I actually got one right that I changed during blind review.
The one I caught in RC was one for which I'd missed the word EXCEPT...thought I was over that phase.

Still, not bad, considering I was on the verge of passing out the whole time!

With that said, I think this was the worst batch of RC I've ever read. Usually there's at least one passage I enjoy... these all sucked, they were totally uninteresting, and the "art" one was filled with scientific BS. NOT FAIR LSAC, CANT HAVE TWO SCIENCE-LEANING PASSAGES. grr.

[crestor]

Potentially checking in,

[PourMeTea]

Post removed.

[vicpin5190]

PT 51 today.

LR#1 -4
RC -5
LR#2 -5
LG - 0

14 total off, Raw score 86, Score of 168. Pretty good overall I guess, though I still need to get my swagger back on the LRs that I was getting in that 171. Still feel confident I can start averaging in the 170's come November.


RC seemed pretty tough but I came out surprisingly unscathed. Games were easy, but I've realized that I'm just exceptionally good at games and it has no correlation on my performance on any other section.

[onetwicethrice]

hey quick question guys..

when combining a most statement, i know you can get a valid inference from this:

A most B
B ---->C

Therefore, A most C

However,

if I have

A ---- >B
B Most C

It's not valid to say A most C, right?

Thanks.