The Official June 2016 Study Group Forum

[sephora_addict]

Sorry to anyone who has replied to one of my posts and I haven't responded yet. I've been so sick this week with a cold and fever. Haven't been able to study or do anything. Once I feel better I promise to get back to you!

[longpig]

Hi everyone! Haven't been posting much but thought I'd check in on this lonely Saturday night with my LSAT prep...

So, first - have been getting a bit of variation with my PT's - in the last 6 weeks, I got 171, 165 (I was tired...?), and 169 most recently. Anyone else been in this situation?

Second, I'm hoping to be comfortably PT-ing above my target score before the test, but at this rate idk if that's realistic. I'm trying to get 173ish, so not sure if I can get up that many points by test day. Thoughts on the differences between PT scores and actual test day score? How much higher are you guys aiming from your current PT scores?

I'm sure all these topics have been exhausted in other parts of this forum, so please forgive me if there's already a really active discussion about this elsewhere.

[93tarheel]

-----

[guppiesbaby]

Hey guys just joining you all after getting back into my studying. I found the assumption questions are the most frustrating LR type for me. Does anyone have a trick to bridge the gap between the new information in the premise and conclusion? I just ran through a drill with the Cambridge books and I didn't do so hot. Thanks.

My explanations might not be the best so bear with me lol.
For necessary assumption questions, the answer choice must be something that the argument DEPENDS on, and when the answer choice is negated, the argument falls apart and won't make sense.

For sufficient assumption questions, the way I understand it is that the answer choice is the "taken out premise". The answer, when put into the argument, will be sufficient (ya don't say haha) enough for the conclusion to be valid.

Thanks for that! I think it's a matter of seeing more of them and getting a feel for the "missing premise" in the stimulus. Did you feel as though you had a problem with this the first time you started out? When I read the explanations from Manhattan or even Sage, I feel like they have a way of explaining things that makes seems as though I'm just missing something fundamental with these questions.

I'll keep attempting them and hopefully with exposure, be able to quickly arrive to the answer.

Most sufficient assumption questions involve conditional statements and formal logic. You might need to make conditional diagram and "connect the missing chain" to get to the right answer. Answers are predictable and strong words are preferred. The correct answer is basically a "super strengthener" in that it uses strong words (most vs some, always vs sometimes) and will make the argument so strong that it becomes flawless.

Most necessary assumption questions are unpredictable and are generally tougher. Weak words are preferred. As opposed to the sufficient assumption questions, you might find it very time inefficient to try to connect the missing chain. This is because there are too many possobiliies for the right answer. Best approach is by Negating answer choices to check and see if it will invalidate the argument.

The Negation technique is definitely helpful for sure; however, it is time consuming negating every answer choice. Understandably, when one has two answer choices left this is a good technique to use, but with fairly dense stimuluses and Answer choices that are similar makes negating answer a bit tedious. Or am I just inexperienced at this right now and I need to progress before I see substantial increase in my ability to do this quickly?

With time and practice you will get faster. Necessary assumption questions I think were the first type of LR question type I learned (from what I remember). I'm fairly decent at getting N.A questions correct now and I tend to negate every answer choice, unless the answer choice doesn't make any sense to me from the start. So just give it time and you will get better

One thing that helped me when first starting out with NA questions...they use an extended example of a tennis player at Powerscore.First off, you have to know that any statement/argument has literally thousands of assumptions attached to it.

So, back to the tennis example, if I claim that I have a friend who is the one of best tennis players in the world, what are some assumptions I've made?
-She can hit a tennis ball over the net
-She knows the rules of tennis
-She knows how to run

These are all necessary assumptions and at first I didn't get NA questions because NAs are often SO OBVIOUS that it's weird. I mean, that list of assumptions could also include things like "She's alive" "She's on planet earth" and so on.

Sufficient assumptions don't have to be true, but if they are, offer irrefutable evidence for whatever point you're trying to make. In this example, I would say "She won Wimbledon and the New York Open" (or whatever the hell it's called). With some SA answers, when I find a good one, I like to picture saying something like "She won WImbledon and the New York Open, bittttchhhhh!!!" and then drop the mic. But that's just me.

EDIT: P.S. I found Manhattan's detailed exploration of necessary vs. sufficient assumptions, and their drills, to be REALLY HELPFUL.The PS example I mentioned was not in their book but in the extra vids on their website.

[MAPP]

Sorry to anyone who has replied to one of my posts and I haven't responded yet. I've been so sick this week with a cold and fever. Haven't been able to study or do anything. Once I feel better I promise to get back to you!

Hope you get better soon!

[aghassemi91]

Currently deciding whether or not to retake in June. Sat in on the Dec LSAT.

For those who are retaking:

when do you plan on starting to study?
What will your study schedule look like?

I started studying pretty much the day after I got my score back. Up until now, I've been drilling specific question types for LR & doing mixed RC & LG sections. For the last two weeks I've started to incorporate one PT a week just to get in the groove of things; this week I've done two just b/c I wanted to add a little more pressure to get myself going. I'll be starting mixed LR, LG, & RC drills next week and will be focusing on getting my timing right with LG and my accuracy up with RC. At this point, I'll probably be doing one PT/week for a while and eventually will start doing 2.

What are you using to drill RC?

I print out 5-6 RC sections from different exams & I just go through those under timed conditions. I get through the passage itself in about 2-3 minutes & get as broad of an understanding as possible & I make very few marks, if any on the passage itself. I've been averaging -3/-4 on the drills, but for some reason I've been falling a little bit under that when I take PTs; when I do blind review my score goes back up so I'm pretty sure it's a matter of nerves affecting me & not inaccuracy.

[aghassemi91]

If anyone is interested, a few people & I were supposed to review PT #52 together this weekend, but ultimately weren't able to get around to it; we can review it instead this coming Saturday if anyone is interested. We also spoke about doing drill reviews together throughout the week so if anyone is interested in that, please PM me & we can set something up

[OtterLaw]

Checking in here. Seriously debating retaking in June to get off of a waitlist or to set me up for a better cycle next year. Currently have a 164, but am really hoping for a 168-170 this go round.

I've already taken most of the official LSAC prep tests and worked through LSAC's official LSAT prep. Any other good resources that people recommend to up my score by at least a few points? I'm concerned that having completely marked prep tests, I'm not going to be as effective in my preparation this time. I've heard good things about the Powerscore LG Bible. Any input on the other Powerscore books or good prep materials?

Any help is greatly appreciated!

[MAPP]

I print out 5-6 RC sections from different exams & I just go through those under timed conditions. I get through the passage itself in about 2-3 minutes & get as broad of an understanding as possible & I make very few marks, if any on the passage itself. I've been averaging -3/-4 on the drills, but for some reason I've been falling a little bit under that when I take PTs; when I do blind review my score goes back up so I'm pretty sure it's a matter of nerves affecting me & not inaccuracy.

Right, but from which PTs? I've heard that RC from the early PTs (i.e. 1-40) are too different from the more recent RC passages to make them effective study tools. I didn't know if you had specific experience with earlier RC passages and could comment on this?

[magooshtravis]

e.g. 76.lr2.21 stim refers to a study in which children showed increased achievement after undergoing a program. from this correlation, the stim concludes that it's likely there is a causation. since the causation is only likely, a choice that weakens the causation for some children is fully compatible with the conclusion and shouldn't weaken it. afaik there is not one question in older lsats where such a choice would weaken a "likely" conclusion. if the conclusion were about causation and not just likely causation, then i agree a choice such as C, which is credited, would weaken. but for a likely causation of the type given in the stim, a choice should have been about at least "most" children for it to weaken.

I think I'm looking at this problem differently than you are, as it doesn't seem particularly unusual to me. While you're right that it's not common to see a likely conclusion in a Weaken question, I'm not sure that it affects the answer choice much in this case. Let's go through the answers one at a time:

A) Irrelevant--the evidence and the conclusion are focused exclusively on students who did participate, so this out of the scope of the argument.

B) Irrelevant--the argument is about students who finished the program. Furthermore, the preprogram levels of achievement of a student are only relevant to the same student's postprogram levels. We are not comparing students to each other.

C) Relevant--it's about students who completed the program. Does this weaken the argument? Well, the argument is that learning chess develops skills that result in better school performance. However, if these students wanted to be on the chess team, they needed high GPAs, so they had a reason to study harder and get better grades. Therefore, this answer--at the very least--implies that there was another reason that these students' achievement levels increased. The correct answer doesn't have to disprove the conclusion. It merely needs to provide another plausible explanation for the facts that causes us to question the original conclusion, and this one does exactly that.

D) Irrelevant--we don't care about students who didn't participate in the program.

E) Irrelevant--we don't care about students who didn't complete the program.

C is correct both for the reasons offered above and because the other answer choices are irrelevant to the argument.

I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you didn't already know about this question. However, I don't see that it's strikingly different than most other Weaken questions. I think the key is to focus on putting dents in the armor of the conclusion, not trying to tear it apart completely. The conclusion says something was "likely" true, and the right answer shows how it might be false.

All this aside, I would love to see more examples of shifts like this one that you've notice in the LR section. There are definitely trends in the question types, but oddly enough, I actually think the question types are becoming more standardized in recent years, and we're seeing fewer surprises thrown in.

[aghassemi91]

I print out 5-6 RC sections from different exams & I just go through those under timed conditions. I get through the passage itself in about 2-3 minutes & get as broad of an understanding as possible & I make very few marks, if any on the passage itself. I've been averaging -3/-4 on the drills, but for some reason I've been falling a little bit under that when I take PTs; when I do blind review my score goes back up so I'm pretty sure it's a matter of nerves affecting me & not inaccuracy.

Right, but from which PTs? I've heard that RC from the early PTs (i.e. 1-40) are too different from the more recent RC passages to make them effective study tools. I didn't know if you had specific experience with earlier RC passages and could comment on this?

When I first started prepping, I did RC's from earlier tests (I believe I took RC sections from PTs ranging between 1-20, I can check when I'm home to see specifically which PTs). More recently though, I've been focusing more on PT's after #50. I keep going back & forth, but I'll probably run through just about all the PT's by the time I'm done drilling/testing.

Oh & also; I for some reason have found the earlier PTs to be a bit easier than the newer ones. I'm going to go back to strictly drilling for a few weeks again now that I've been focusing more on taking recent PTs for a while so I'll get back to you again soon & let you know if that's still the case for me.

[appind]

I think I'm looking at this problem differently than you are, as it doesn't seem particularly unusual to me. While you're right that it's not common to see a likely conclusion in a Weaken question, I'm not sure that it affects the answer choice much in this case. Let's go through the answers one at a time:

A) Irrelevant--the evidence and the conclusion are focused exclusively on students who did participate, so this out of the scope of the argument.

B) Irrelevant--the argument is about students who finished the program. Furthermore, the preprogram levels of achievement of a student are only relevant to the same student's postprogram levels. We are not comparing students to each other.

C) Relevant--it's about students who completed the program. Does this weaken the argument? Well, the argument is that learning chess develops skills that result in better school performance. However, if these students wanted to be on the chess team, they needed high GPAs, so they had a reason to study harder and get better grades. Therefore, this answer--at the very least--implies that there was another reason that these students' achievement levels increased. The correct answer doesn't have to disprove the conclusion. It merely needs to provide another plausible explanation for the facts that causes us to question the original conclusion, and this one does exactly that.

D) Irrelevant--we don't care about students who didn't participate in the program.

E) Irrelevant--we don't care about students who didn't complete the program.

C is correct both for the reasons offered above and because the other answer choices are irrelevant to the argument.

I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you didn't already know about this question. However, I don't see that it's strikingly different than most other Weaken questions. I think the key is to focus on putting dents in the armor of the conclusion, not trying to tear it apart completely. The conclusion says something was "likely" true, and the right answer shows how it might be false.

All this aside, I would love to see more examples of shifts like this one that you've notice in the LR section. There are definitely trends in the question types, but oddly enough, I actually think the question types are becoming more standardized in recent years, and we're seeing fewer surprises thrown in.

the issue with choice C is something that can be understood using this,
conclusion: Most A are B (or "A is likely B")
choice: Some A are ~B

in the above, do you think the choice weakens the conclusion?

[aghassemi91]

Idk about everyone else, but I've been feeling pretty lazy these past 2 weeks in terms of how hard I'm working. Just signed up for June's test a few minutes ago; now I have no choice but to go back to 100%

[Destiny0921]

Hello all, Just wanted to join and say i will be sitting for the June LSAT i have pushed it off long enough. Looking for maybe a study group or partner while i self study. Thanks and Good Luck everyone!

[Mikey]

Hello all, Just wanted to join and say i will be sitting for the June LSAT i have pushed it off long enough. Looking for maybe a study group or partner while i self study. Thanks and Good Luck everyone!

This thread IS your study group ^_^

[amta]

Can I get a Question first or Stimulus first Poll please?

[kirilrez]

Hi everyone,
How is everyone doing?

I've made this Facebook group for us:https://www.facebook.com/groups/1735061960059780/
, so everyone please join.

Have a nice day,
Kiril

[dvc5240]

Can I get a Question first or Stimulus first Poll please?

I had been going stimulus first up until the December test, but have recently switched to question first (recommendation by Blueprint) and I'm finding that I prefer it. Not sure if it's just a personal preference, but it gives me a little direction and also gives my mind a couple second break from the prior question when I'm moving quickly.

[RamTitan]

Can we register for the June test yet? And why is it scheduled for a Monday instead of a Saturday?

[Mikey]

Can I get a Question first or Stimulus first Poll please?

Personally, I'm more comfortable reading the question stem first. I guess it's just personal preference though.

[New_Spice180]

Hey anyone in here using the Pithypike/NoodleyOne's method for prepping, and if so, what is your breakdown for the daily drills for each game/lr type (within 3 months)?

[catherinerosoff]

Anyone in the Chicagoland area want to study together? Please message me!

[railyard]

If anyone is in the Lincoln, NE area and wants to study pls PM me!

[josh9308]

Started at 143, have gotten to 160 since. Just want to share for motivation for others; it can be done!


Best tips for RC?

[20170322]

Taking my first PT of 2016 tomorrow! This is going to determine whether or not I take in June! Wish me luck