June 2014 Retakers Forum

[dasani13]

I swear the PTs in the 50's are WAY easier then the ones in the 60's

Without a doubt that is true for RC. People told me it wasn't too significant but holy shit.

[akechi]

Yeah, I got a chance to look at Matt Sherman's post. The last two posts are by me.

I guess my real concern is that I had way too much trouble when I first saw this question under time pressure. And it alarms me that it didn't intuitively make sense to me because I was too busy trying to understand the conditionality embedded within it. I mean if somebody made a similar argument to me by saying:

My computer will not be ready for pick-up until tomorrow. But, without my computer, I can't effectively study for the LSAT. Therefore, when I start studying for the LSAT, I will not be studying effectively.

One could object, well we don't know that you won't have your computer if and when you start studying, because you haven't told us the exact time you will start studying. So you must be assuming that you will start studying before tomorrow, which means you wont have your computer.

Is this the type of internal dialogue you guys have during Necessary Assumption questions? Identify an objection, then pre-phrase a response to that objection?

[sashafierce]

Just took PT 57, scored 161

LG -5
LR1 -5
LR 2 -3
RC -11 clearly, I need to do some RC drills tomorrow....ARGHH

I am having some trouble with LG lately and would like some insight from you all:

1. Do you guys try and solve for all possibilities for basic ordering games or do you just list the rules and go straight to the questions?

2. For any game where you solve for all possibilities lets say you diagram four possible worlds 1, 2, 3 and 4. If Question 10 ask for a possible world that can only be achieved using Diagram 3 (but adds some additional information such as L is in position 1) do you draw over the diagram to reflect the new info or do you just look at our original diagram and answer the question using a "mental diagram"?

[sashafierce]

Tomorrow is my Official Drill RC till my eyes bleed day. I have heard that drilling RC sections back to back un timed really helps. Hoping and praying for a breakthrough!

[Chill_Out]

Just took PT 57, scored 161

LG -5
LR1 -5
LR 2 -3
RC -11 clearly, I need to do some RC drills tomorrow....ARGHH

I am having some trouble with LG lately and would like some insight from you all:

1. Do you guys try and solve for all possibilities for basic ordering games or do you just list the rules and go straight to the questions?

2. For any game where you solve for all possibilities lets say you diagram four possible worlds 1, 2, 3 and 4. If Question 10 ask for a possible world that can only be achieved using Diagram 3 (but adds some additional information such as L is in position 1) do you draw over the diagram to reflect the new info or do you just look at our original diagram and answer the question using a "mental diagram"?

For basic ordering games first I list the rules out and then I try to push them together. If only a few worlds exist for the game then I will attempt to solve for each of the hypothetical worlds, but sometimes this isn't efficient.

If I have solved for all the possible worlds already, and a question clearly references only one of those worlds but also adds a rule, then typically (like 90% of the time) I will re-diagram that world to include the new rule. It all depends on the flow of the game and how much time it would take.

In any case, I encourage you to experiment with different diagramming methods and do what you think provides the appropriate mix of accuracy and efficiency.

[CocoSunshine]

"It provides support for the conclusion of the argument."

"It qualifies the conclusion of the argument."

What's the difference? Why can't we assume that when something qualifies the conclusion of an argument, it supports it?

I think "providing support for" equals "strengthening".
I saw the word "qualify" in a number of answer choices in RC&LR. I think it means "constraint/limit".

[rebexness]

PT 71:
LR1: -3
LG: -3
LR 2: -3
RC: -8 (UGH) (Wasted too much time on first two passages, skipped to last passage based on time left/most questions, then ran out of time on 3rd passage.

-17 total
Score 168
thought i did way worse. Not bad enough to make me reschedule, just bad enough to be motivated. TBH my concentration is not good due to vicodin LAWL.

[Learn_Live_Hope]

Tomorrow is my Official Drill RC till my eyes bleed day. I have heard that drilling RC sections back to back un timed really helps. Hoping and praying for a breakthrough!

Good luck! I plan on devoting one day to RC as well (could be tomorrow)….drill about 15-20 sections of RC.

[dd235]

PT 71:
LR1: -3
LG: -3
LR 2: -3
RC: -8 (UGH) (Wasted too much time on first two passages, skipped to last passage based on time left/most questions, then ran out of time on 3rd passage.

-17 total
Score 168
thought i did way worse. Not bad enough to make me reschedule, just bad enough to be motivated. TBH my concentration is not good due to vicodin LAWL.

LR1: -4
LG: -0
LR2: -5
RC: -4

-13 (171)

I also thought I did MUCH worse. These are my two worst LR sections in quite some time. Either because this was a completely fresh test or because I have been extrremely preoccupied/distracted the past couple days. I'm hoping for the latter.

Anyways, we'll learn from our mistakes and dominate the review!!!

Anyone else joining us for review of PT71 on Tuesday @ 11 EST???

[dasani13]

Took PT 57 today because I had skipped it last month for whatever reason. That LG section was so ridiculous.

[rebexness]

Anyone else joining us for review of PT71 on Tuesday @ 11 EST???

Changed review time to 10PM EST, if anyone wants to review PT 71!

[dd235]

Anyone else joining us for review of PT71 on Tuesday @ 11 EST???

Changed review time to 10PM EST, if anyone wants to review PT 71!

Awesome! If anyone would like to join us then please PM Rebex or me beforehand. The more the merrier.

[dasani13]

Anyone else joining us for review of PT71 on Tuesday @ 11 EST???

Changed review time to 10PM EST, if anyone wants to review PT 71!

Awesome! If anyone would like to join us then please PM Rebex or me beforehand. The more the merrier.

I'm in

[rebexness]

PT 45

LG EXP (PT 71 redo)-0
LR 1: -3
RC: -3
LG: -0
LR 2: -3

Raw: 89
Score: 172

YAY.

Also eff that LG for having 4 in a row, on the same game, of the same letter answer choice. That will make you SERIOUSLY question your entire game.

[dasani13]

PT 45

LG EXP (PT 71 redo)-0
LR 1: -3
RC: -3
LG: -0
LR 2: -3

Raw: 89
Score: 172

YAY.

Also eff that LG for having 4 in a row, on the same game, of the same letter answer choice. That will make you SERIOUSLY question your entire game.

loll that's just fucked up of them. nice score!

[Rexdan]

Just took PT 57, scored 161

LG -5
LR1 -5
LR 2 -3
RC -11 clearly, I need to do some RC drills tomorrow....ARGHH

I am having some trouble with LG lately and would like some insight from you all:

1. Do you guys try and solve for all possibilities for basic ordering games or do you just list the rules and go straight to the questions?

2. For any game where you solve for all possibilities lets say you diagram four possible worlds 1, 2, 3 and 4. If Question 10 ask for a possible world that can only be achieved using Diagram 3 (but adds some additional information such as L is in position 1) do you draw over the diagram to reflect the new info or do you just look at our original diagram and answer the question using a "mental diagram"?

For me, it really all depends on the information. For instance, if you're given information that doesn't quite limit the number of possibilities, but are then given a new piece of information that places X in either 1 or 3 in a row of or column of three spaces, then I'd get started with the possibilities. Just use your discretion. If you believe that you can have 1-3 "worlds" for that game, then go for it. Time, of course, is also a factor here. If it took a while to create your first world, then you may want to reconsider.

Try it out and see what happens.

Also, inferences, inferences, inferences

[Rexdan]

"It provides support for the conclusion of the argument."

"It qualifies the conclusion of the argument."

What's the difference? Why can't we assume that when something qualifies the conclusion of an argument, it supports it?

I think "providing support for" equals "strengthening".
I saw the word "qualify" in a number of answer choices in RC&LR. I think it means "constraint/limit".

I'm not sure where this appeared on the thread, and I don't really care to look for it because I'm too tired to do so, but seeing these two question stems like that makes me think like this:

"It qualifies the conclusion of the argument;" oh, well that's just like a sufficient assumption, i.e. "allows the conclusion to be properly drawn."

If something qualifies the conclusion of an argument, then it's airtight; and if something has to be airtight in order for a conclusion to be true, then you have to look for a sufficient assumption.

"It provides support for the conclusion of the argument;" sounds like a strengthen question to me.

[jk148706]

.

[Rexdan]

Also, bought black Ticons yesterday

Is the debate about what pencil is superior to the rest still going on?

[jk148706]

.

[rebexness]

Also, bought black Ticons yesterday

My Palominos are waiting until June 9. I have been using my black Ticons and Mirado BWs to PT with (Ticons for LGs, MBW for everything else).

Substantial Pencil Scholarship below.
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=206480

[BaberhamLincoln]

Also, bought black Ticons yesterday

My Palominos are waiting until June 9. I have been using my black Ticons and Mirado BWs to PT with (Ticons for LGs, MBW for everything else).

Substantial Pencil Scholarship below.
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=206480

Wow. That's all I can say.
Didn't realize this mattered.

[sashafierce]

Hi All,


I need some last minute advice. I live outside the US and have to travel to sit the exam in June but my passport expired a few weeks ago and I waited until last minute to renew it. Unfortunately, the Immigration Division in my country is on strike so there is a possibility that I might not be able to travel to sit the exam. This situation has me thinking because I actually don't feel 100% ready for the June exam.

I still have 60% of my 7sage course to complete, plus I have not done enough drills/PTs. This is my third time taking the LSAT. I am thinking that I should just postpone until September since I already quit my job that would give me a full 3 months to do nothing but prepare for the exam in September.

Given that my current PT range is 161-163 and I want to get AT LEAST 165 do you all think I should try my best in June or wait and take the exam in September? Since this is my 3rd time and I 100% fully plan on starting school next year, I want to do my best on the exam. Your input would be greatly appreciated.

FYI My last three PTs (taken last week) were:
PT57 161 LR1 -5, LR2 -3 LG -5 RC -11
PT69 161 LR1 -5 LR2 -5 LG -4 RC -12
PT64 161 LR1 -5 LR2 -6 LG-6 RC -9

[rebexness]

Definitely 100 percent wait until Sept.
It sucks that you didn't decide this on Sunday or before, but do NOT waste that last test if you aren't ready.

[sashafierce]

OH SHIT! I just realized that the deadline passed. SHIT