Post removed. Forum

[NotASpecialSnowflake]

Hey guys I'm not going to be able to make the chat tonight. Sorry guys but I am definite let interested in doing others.

[Fianna13]

The Link is not working for meeeeeeeeeee... NOOOOOOOO

[mellow]

Needa crowdsource some insight, and you folks are a smart crowd:

1. I took the test in Feb and noticed that, unlike in PTs, I was re-reading and re-re-reading the stimulus (in LR) or rules (in LG) often because of nerves/OMFG this is the real thing/dont-make-a-stupid-error. How can this be overcome? I guess the ideal situation is increasing “bank” time in PTs to take into account the re-reading on test day.

2. What do you guys do to warm-up before a PT? I once did 2 sections, which definitely burned me out. I usually do a page from the middle of an old lR section and an LG.

Thanks !!

1. Had the exact same problem as you. I've been taking PTs these last few days with 30 min/section which forces me to finish in ~27 min if I want any extra time to check answers. I'm hoping that by the retake, I'll end up with 5 extra minutes to check answers even if I lag horribly.

2. For the actual test, I did one logic game, one reading comp passage, and ten LR questions. For PTs, I just go in blind.

What are your thoughts on using manhattan LR and then the trainer for RC and general LG review? Do the methods conflict?

They won't conflict because you're relying on only one source for each section. Now if you had two different books for LR then this would be a question to ask.

But conflict or not, I would do exactly what you listed. It seems like I'm against the majority here, but I'm actually finding the Trainer's LR not very helpful especially compared to Manhattan LR. Haven't done the RC chapters yet so can't give you a response on that.

[062914123]

.

[angels2fly]

What are your thoughts on using manhattan LR and then the trainer for RC and general LG review? Do the methods conflict?

They won't conflict because you're relying on only one source for each section. Now if you had two different books for LR then this would be a question to ask.

But conflict or not, I would do exactly what you listed. It seems like I'm against the majority here, but I'm actually finding the Trainer's LR not very helpful especially compared to Manhattan LR. Haven't done the RC chapters yet so can't give you a response on that.

Great! I was going to do all of both books but don't really think I'd have time to do that and drill/PT.

I am at about -3 per LR section from the PS Bible and really hope that Manhattan can wittle this down

[bbkk]

Dosto/bbkk, should I be in the review 70 sooner rather than later camp?

I think that depends how aware you are of what went wrong on test day. If you know exactly what happened (e.g., Bee and her logic game section) then I'd say hold off because the benefit you'd get from early review wouldn't outweigh that of having a fresh-ish PT closer to test day. But if you really can't pinpoint what happened (say you felt great about the whole thing but ended up with a score which was miles away from how you felt) then I'd say review. Reviewing it early in this instance would benefit you more than taking it closer to test day since it'd give you a better idea of the kind of errors you make under pressure and what you can mentally prepare for.

eta me, personally, I bombed LR2 and am not sure why I did so poorly on it (I knew it was tough, but not THAT tough) but I'm still holding off on reviewing. If I felt fine about it during the test but bombed, I'd look at it immediately.

Thanks! I might end up reviewing it soon then, since LR1 (which I was convinced I absolutely bombed and put me in a "cancel immediately" mindset for the rest of the test) turned out to be one of my best sections, and I was very much in a blackout fog for the rest of the test. I knew it felt like an easy test, but I just wasn't present.

Tea I might do it tomorrow. I want to know what happened to me when I was nervous. Do you wanna review together after you are done?

[mellow]

Great! I was going to do all of both books but don't really think I'd have time to do that and drill/PT.

I am at about -3 per LR section from the PS Bible and really hope that Manhattan can wittle this down

the PS Bible actually made my LR worse (ugh never reading stimulus before question again) and the Manhattan LR bumped my PT scores up by almost five points in just a few days, so definitely use Manhattan for that.

[snagglepuss]

Great! I was going to do all of both books but don't really think I'd have time to do that and drill/PT.

I am at about -3 per LR section from the PS Bible and really hope that Manhattan can wittle this down

As melody said, no conflict should arise. In fact, the author of the LSAT Trainer (Mike Kim) used to be a Manhattan teacher so the books are rather complimentary. You may even want to use the Trainer for all sections (LG, LR, RC) and supplement your Trainer LR learning with the more in-depth examination Manhattan LR offers when it comes to specific LR question types. In such a short prep period, I find that doing PTs, loading them into LSATQA, and identifying weaknesses is the way to go for moving towards -0 LR sections. You can then take those weaknesses, read the appropriate Manhattan LR chapter, and drill the question type with the Cambridge LR packets. This is just an alternative suggestion; choose what feels more in line with your needs.

[angels2fly]

Great! I was going to do all of both books but don't really think I'd have time to do that and drill/PT.

I am at about -3 per LR section from the PS Bible and really hope that Manhattan can wittle this down

the PS Bible actually made my LR worse (ugh never reading stimulus before question again) and the Manhattan LR bumped my PT scores up by almost five points in just a few days, so definitely use Manhattan for that.

about to try my first PT with the question first tomorrow! kinda excited but nervous its gonna derail me

[angels2fly]

As melody said, no conflict should arise. In fact, the author of the LSAT Trainer (Mike Kim) used to be a Manhattan teacher so the books are rather complimentary. You may even want to use the Trainer for all sections (LG, LR, RC) and supplement your Trainer LR learning with the more in-depth examination Manhattan LR offers when it comes to specific LR question types. In such a short prep period, I find that doing PTs, loading them into LSATQA, and identifying weaknesses is the way to go for moving towards -0 LR sections. You can then take those weaknesses, read the appropriate Manhattan LR chapter, and drill the question type with the Cambridge LR packets. This is just an alternative suggestion; choose what feels more in line with your needs.

Thanks I definitely will be using LSATQA to guide me!

[062914123]

.

[mellow]

Great! I was going to do all of both books but don't really think I'd have time to do that and drill/PT.

I am at about -3 per LR section from the PS Bible and really hope that Manhattan can wittle this down

the PS Bible actually made my LR worse (ugh never reading stimulus before question again) and the Manhattan LR bumped my PT scores up by almost five points in just a few days, so definitely use Manhattan for that.

about to try my first PT with the question first tomorrow! kinda excited but nervous its gonna derail me

Even if it does derail you, keep at it. What to focus on and how focused you have to be when reading a stimulus varies widely depending on the question. For example, I save a huge amount of time on "what is the main conclusion" questions because I can just skim through the stimulus. I know if it's a flaw question to focus on the conclusion and premise(s). Or if it's parallel reasoning, to focus on the structure.

[mellow]

As melody said, no conflict should arise. In fact, the author of the LSAT Trainer (Mike Kim) used to be a Manhattan teacher so the books are rather complimentary. You may even want to use the Trainer for all sections (LG, LR, RC) and supplement your Trainer LR learning with the more in-depth examination Manhattan LR offers when it comes to specific LR question types. In such a short prep period, I find that doing PTs, loading them into LSATQA, and identifying weaknesses is the way to go for moving towards -0 LR sections. You can then take those weaknesses, read the appropriate Manhattan LR chapter, and drill the question type with the Cambridge LR packets. This is just an alternative suggestion; choose what feels more in line with your needs.

just curious, do the lsatqa q type breakdowns actually make sense to you? i find them a bit bewildering and just classify my mistakes myself, lol

I haven't heard of LSATQA until now and just checked it out briefly. It seems really similar to the 7sage LSAT Scorer, which is what I've been using. Is LSATQA better?

[angels2fly]

Great! I was going to do all of both books but don't really think I'd have time to do that and drill/PT.

I am at about -3 per LR section from the PS Bible and really hope that Manhattan can wittle this down

the PS Bible actually made my LR worse (ugh never reading stimulus before question again) and the Manhattan LR bumped my PT scores up by almost five points in just a few days, so definitely use Manhattan for that.

about to try my first PT with the question first tomorrow! kinda excited but nervous its gonna derail me

Even if it does derail you, keep at it. What to focus on and how focused you have to be when reading a stimulus varies widely depending on the question. For example, I save a huge amount of time on "what is the main conclusion" questions because I can just skim through the stimulus. I know if it's a flaw question to focus on the conclusion and premise(s). Or if it's parallel reasoning, to focus on the structure.

do you advise a full reading of the question or just a quick glance for key words? i feel like im going to end up rereading it fully after the question

[dosto]

.

[mellow]

do you advise a full reading of the question or just a quick glance for key words? i feel like im going to end up rereading it fully after the question

I actually do end up rereading it just because it's there. But the time I save on the stimulus more than makes up for the extra time spent reading the question twice. My process is 1. Fully read the question, 2. Read stimulus, 3. Glance at question, 4. Go to answers.

[062914123]

.

[dosto]

.

[CookieDough]

believe me, stem first is 10000x better than stim first.

I just can't imagine how lost I'd feel reading a stimulus without knowing what on earth I'm going to be asked to do.

I can now agree with this 100%. I started doing it this way today for the first time after MONTHS of stim first and while I still need to work out the kinks, I felt a lot more confident in choosing the correct answers. I found that I spent a lot less time on the unnecessary background info in long stims in particular.

[goldenboy514]

sorry im not joining the 57 review tonight, ive been trying for 10 mins and having no luck with my computer

[angels2fly]

do you advise a full reading of the question or just a quick glance for key words? i feel like im going to end up rereading it fully after the question

If you're just starting out doing this, I'd advise reading the entire stem at first so you can get quicker at recognizing them. Eventually your eyes will get used to just jumping up to the stimulus almost instantaneously.

honestly i almost never read the stem again. i read it quickly, underline the important bits or "translate" them if necessary, then move on to the stim. i look for what i need in the stim, then move on to the AC's.

believe me, stem first is 10000x better than stim first.

will totally try this thanks everyone for the input!

[Otunga]

Considering this was my first ever PT and I got a 164 on it

are you saying your diag was 164? if so, damn that is a high diag.

Yep! I didn't realize it was considered high though since I've never had a frame of reference. I did do abnormally well on one LR section (-1), which I didn't even get close to for many, many PTs after that.

idk, i guess i consider any diag in the mid to high 160s to be pretty high. i diaged at 157

Please. 149 diag here.

And I think it's a good idea to implement 30min sections on retakes, since I have breezed through LR on retakes in the past. 25min could even be possible. Congrats on that high pt btw, Bee. The first LSAT material I touched since Oct was a LG section I previously scored -0 on, and got -6 on it. So while you may have felt rusty, you certainly didn't show it. (I've taken 3 other lg sections since then and have gotten -0, -2 and -1.)

[akechi]

Anyone care to explain PT-57, S2, LR Q#12.

I got the answer correct, but I fear that my reasoning may have been off.

[rutgers17]

Great! I was going to do all of both books but don't really think I'd have time to do that and drill/PT.

I am at about -3 per LR section from the PS Bible and really hope that Manhattan can wittle this down

As melody said, no conflict should arise. In fact, the author of the LSAT Trainer (Mike Kim) used to be a Manhattan teacher so the books are rather complimentary. You may even want to use the Trainer for all sections (LG, LR, RC) and supplement your Trainer LR learning with the more in-depth examination Manhattan LR offers when it comes to specific LR question types. In such a short prep period, I find that doing PTs, loading them into LSATQA, and identifying weaknesses is the way to go for moving towards -0 LR sections. You can then take those weaknesses, read the appropriate Manhattan LR chapter, and drill the question type with the Cambridge LR packets. This is just an alternative suggestion; choose what feels more in line with your needs.

just curious, do the lsatqa q type breakdowns actually make sense to you? i find them a bit bewildering and just classify my mistakes myself, lol

bee, I agree -- I also find lsatqa's answer classifications sort of confusing. while i input all my info and try my best to analyze it, i haven't found their question type breakdowns very helpful. has anyone else had more success with analyzing your data through lsatqa?

[mellow]

Anyone care to explain PT-57, S2, LR Q#12.

I got the answer correct, but I fear that my reasoning may have been off.

This is a sufficient assumption question, so go for the strongest answer choice. Anything that would get to the conclusion 100%.

Premise: Main purpose of most criminal organizations is to generate profits.
Conclusion: Criminal organizations will undoubtedly try to become increasingly involved in these areas.

Common aspect is criminal organizations. So you want to link "generate profits" with "will undoubtedly try to become increasingly involved in these areas (technological revolutions that promise to generate enormous profits)." D does this.