JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread Forum

[052220151]

Is it too late to start studying for June 2013? I don't plan on going to law school any time soon, but want to write the test before working.

Feasible to start now, take in June and re-take in December or February if anything?

Yes. Definitively yes. By yes I mean it's not too late.

Chill bro chill. You're fine. Have you read the manhattan or powerscore books yet? If not, read them. Do some drills, try and do about 30 PTs or so. You should be golden.

[BlaqBella]

In the event we dont have our room access set up yet in time for tomorrow evening, I think everyone should still try and use the same location like last time. It should be available after 9PM EST and definitely vacant by 10PM EST.

Sorry for the hassle guys. Just want us to get a decent and interactive online space for review and sometimes these things take a little time for set up. We should definitely be all sorted out by this weekend, is my guess.

[052220151]

In the event we dont have our room access set up yet in time for tomorrow evening, I think everyone should still try and use the same location like last time. It should be available after 9PM EST and definitely vacant by 10PM EST.

Sorry for the hassle guys. Just want us to get a decent and interactive online space for review and sometimes these things take a little time for set up. We should definitely be all sorted out by this weekend, is my guess.

will you pm me the link

[Daily_Double]

Meant to do more, but exhausted and calling it a day. Today I drilled 25 of the difficult problems, level 4s from Cambridge, this is a separate pack consisting of mixed question types all of level 4, and I redid, I'm going back through them all, 5 relative ordering games from Cambridge, didn't remember any of them, I'm guessing because they're easy.

Games: Relative Ordering, first 5 games, -0, (19:42)
LR: 25 questions, -2, PT 1, S1, #22, and PT 2, S2, #22, untimed

[RhymesLikeDimes]

With RC, does anyone else find that most of their incorrect answers come from questions where you were 50/50 with the correct response? I keep doing this, and it's driving me nuts. I think it explains why I've had such fluctuations with my RC score. With LR and LG, usually when I miss problems it's because I misread/misinterpreted something. Rarely is it on 50/50 guesses.

All 5 RC questions I missed this morning were on problems where I narrowed it down to my answer and the correct answer. I went back to my old PTs, and found that 11/14 mistakes came on questions where I had also narrowed to 50/50 (with the correct answer being the half I didn't pick). It's almost as frustrating as when you change from a correct answer to a wrong answer.

Does anyone have any tips for breaking through this, or is it just something that's unavoidable given the structure of questions?

[griffin.811]

So how does 10pm EST work for everyone? DD, that should be 9pm CST. And the room should available for use then.

Also, like DD (I think) mentioned, try to write down the problems you got wrong ahead of times, and why you thought those answers were justified (supporting lines/ideas for RC, key words for LR etc...)

[wtrc]

Hate to bring up PT39 again, but I had to leave early, and I'm assuming that section 4 #14 was discussed? Trying to wrap my head around how A and B are different?

[griffin.811]

Hate to bring up PT39 again, but I had to leave early, and I'm assuming that section 4 #14 was discussed? Trying to wrap my head around how A and B are different?

We actually had a pretty good discussion on why this was incorrect.

1. The causal relationship: This is an "if then" statement. The thing we are trying to prove true (the conclusion) should be in the "then" part of the "if/then"

We want to prove the THEORY correct because it is validated by the computer models.

So we should look for: "If the models behave like the theory suggests, THEN the theory is correct." Again, we want to prove that the theory is correct, not that the models are correct.

A. The correct answer does this.
B. Tempting, but this reverses the relationship, and uses the truth of the theory to prove the computer models are correct. Eliminate.
C. Models discovering something in the future??? Scope --> Elim.
D. Again, scope! is this even discussed? Elim.
E. We dont know what happens when errors are found because we arent told. Elim.

If you were stuck between A and B but didnt see the causal relationship, you could have also picked up on the subtle word changes.

The passage says: Scientists concluded there is "GOOD EVIDENCE" that the theory is correct.

(A) says "...then that theory is 'PROBABLY' correct.
(B) says "...'IS' correct"...

HTH

[wtrc]

Hate to bring up PT39 again, but I had to leave early, and I'm assuming that section 4 #14 was discussed? Trying to wrap my head around how A and B are different?

We actually had a pretty good discussion on why this was incorrect.

1. The causal relationship: This is an "if then" statement. The thing we are trying to prove true (the conclusion) should be in the "then" part of the "if/then"

We want to prove the THEORY correct because it is validated by the computer models.

So we should look for: "If the models behave like the theory suggests, THEN the theory is correct." Again, we want to prove that the theory is correct, not that the models are correct.

A. The correct answer does this.
B. Tempting, but this reverses the relationship, and uses the truth of the theory to prove the computer models are correct. Eliminate.
C. Models discovering something in the future??? Scope --> Elim.
D. Again, scope! is this even discussed? Elim.
E. We dont know what happens when errors are found because we arent told. Elim.

If you were stuck between A and B but didnt see the causal relationship, you could have also picked up on the subtle word changes.

The passage says: Scientists concluded there is "GOOD EVIDENCE" that the theory is correct.

(A) says "...then that theory is 'PROBABLY' correct.
(B) says "...'IS' correct"...

HTH

You're great, thanks so much.

[RhymesLikeDimes]

Great stuff, it confused the heck out of me when I took it.

[griffin.811]

Glad I could help!

[CanILive]

I need some help guys:

I recall hearing of a site/program where you could insert the questions that you had missed and it would identify strength/weakness areas.

Does anybody have a link to this?

Thanks in advance!

[CanILive]

Meant to do more, but exhausted and calling it a day. Today I drilled 25 of the difficult problems, level 4s from Cambridge, this is a separate pack consisting of mixed question types all of level 4, and I redid, I'm going back through them all, 5 relative ordering games from Cambridge, didn't remember any of them, I'm guessing because they're easy.

Games: Relative Ordering, first 5 games, -0, (19:42)
LR: 25 questions, -2, PT 1, S1, #22, and PT 2, S2, #22, untimed

Damn, talk about going hard.

Props.

[objection_your_honor]

http://lsatqa.com

[theycallmefoes]

I need some help guys:

I recall hearing of a site/program where you could insert the questions that you had missed and it would identify strength/weakness areas.

Does anybody have a link to this?

Thanks in advance!

I think you're thinking of lsatqa.com

Edit: Wasn't quite fast enough. Darn.

In other news, just drilled some necessary assumption questions during Mediaeval Philosophy.

[CanILive]

http://lsatqa.com

Awesome.

Thanks so much!

[howlery]

How much should I be paying for the bibles? I've seen some for ~30, but am not sure if thats a good deal or not. Been checking Craigslist, Amazon, Half, and B&N but the prices are nearly identical.

[griffin.811]

Got all three Manhattan guides for maybe 80 after shipping? dont really remember though.

[howlery]

Do you recommend Manhattan instead? I was thinking of doing Pithypike's guide which calls for the bibles, but whatever works is fine

[griffin.811]

Personally, I really like manhattan. I dont have the powerscore LG bible, so I cant speak to their methods, but Im really happy with the manhattan strategies for games. I think the "core" method for LR is the best I've seen. I do have the PS LR Bible, read a few pages of it after having already read the manhattan method and decided it didn't measure up. Manhattan def has the best RC guide out.

Additionally, you get access to manhattan's forums where you can post questions and have them answered by their instructors. The only thing is they may not be able to get to all of your questions, and it may not be as quick as you would like. Maybe PS has this, but not sure.

That said, some of the people in this group really have this test down so you can post questions here and I'm sure somone will help.

[objection_your_honor]

The Manhattan materials can be substituted for the bibles in PithyPike's guide without issue. They are all absolutely top notch. Make sure you get the newest (3rd) edition of their LG Guide — it's much expanded over previous editions.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Did about 30 LG drills last night, all basic linear and grouping. That's pretty much a wrap. Went sub-6min and -0 the entire way through. On to advanced linear and grouping before moving onto LR/RC.

Hope everyone's killing their practice stuff.

[megagnarley]

Checking in. Applying now but retaking a 170 in June to see how it goes.

Greetings.

[0913djp]

Checking in. Just started studying today using the Powerscore Logic Games Bible. My plan is to have the bible finished by the end of the month but perhaps sooner as I did the first fifty pages today. If I go at this rate, I will be done next Thursday. Any other suggestions as to what I should be doing? I only put in about three hours of work in those first fifty pages. Does this seem too slow?

I am going to buy the Manhattan books now. I don't plan on taking any PT's until April.

[BlaqBella]

Still pending guys....