The Official September 2016 Study Group - WAKE ME UP WHEN SEPTEMBER ENDS Forum

[proteinshake]

a lot of lurkers ITT.

[20170322]

Just graded PT 71. Significant dip from my last score, but still above my original target score, so I guess I can't complain.

PT 71
Conditions: 5 section, taken at 8am post-workout.

LR1: -2
RC (Experimental): -1
LG: -4
LR2: -0
RC: -5
Raw: 90
Scaled: 173


Definitely bummed about the RC and LG. I misread a rule for the last game of LG, and that cost me 3 questions. Also, one passage in RC cost me 4 questions, so that's worrisome. Definitely need to spend some time drilling these two sections before I take another PT.

[PhiladelphiaCollins]

Good morning everyone. @BarackODrama, no problem. It wasn't anything that revolutionary, but it did sort of reinforce some of my general thoughts on personal statements. I need to get back to working on mine occasionally. I've been too busy proof reading other peoples'.

Anyone have any tips on LG rule substitution questions? Obviously their at the very end of a game, but I feel like I'm just throwing a dart with them more often than not and move on to the next game. I'm at like -4 or -3 right now on games so getting this loose end tied up would be huge.

They're kind of a pain at times. Usually, I try to apply three tests

1] Is it relevant? [does it have any impact on the variables of the previous rule?]

2] Does it go too far? [is it too restrictive? does it eliminate frames/scenarios/etc.]

3] Does it not go far enough? [is it not restrictive enough? does it allow for new frames/scenarios/etc.]

This will get you down to two choices pretty effectively and quickly from my experience.

Manhattan LG said [IIRC] that there are three answer types that I'm somewhat blanking on. They are something like the following...

1] Simple restatement; unusual but they have them; instead of M follows O they show O precedes M...likely to be with a more complicated rule. Maybe a but not both kind of deal.

2] Inference based; more common; let's take M follows O again. However, we will add two additional rules that say M is immediately before S and S is immediately before R [MSR chunk]. Instead of saying O precedes M, one of the answer choices will instead say O is before S or, perhaps, O is not before S.

I'll try to update this, but I think the Manhattan Guide gave a good approach for them. Another idea I've heard of is testing the rule backwards and forwards, but I need to refresh myself on that. I think the third [uncommon too IIRC] is either something in between 1 and 2, otherwise it is inference on steroids [i.e. it will be a chain of inferences that gives you the correct answer]. I'm leaning towards the third.

This is great, thanks!

[Barack O'Drama]

Just graded PT 71. Significant dip from my last score, but still above my original target score, so I guess I can't complain.

PT 71
Conditions: 5 section, taken at 8am post-workout.

LR1: -2
RC (Experimental): -1
LG: -4
LR2: -0
RC: -5
Raw: 90
Scaled: 173


Definitely bummed about the RC and LG. I misread a rule for the last game of LG, and that cost me 3 questions. Also, one passage in RC cost me 4 questions, so that's worrisome. Definitely need to spend some time drilling these two sections before I take another PT.

I think the LG is just because a dumb misread rule, so don't give too much weight to that. RC will come. And imagine if the 2nd RC was the experimental... You still did really, really amazing! Good job, Tort.

[20170322]

Just graded PT 71. Significant dip from my last score, but still above my original target score, so I guess I can't complain.

PT 71
Conditions: 5 section, taken at 8am post-workout.

LR1: -2
RC (Experimental): -1
LG: -4
LR2: -0
RC: -5
Raw: 90
Scaled: 173


Definitely bummed about the RC and LG. I misread a rule for the last game of LG, and that cost me 3 questions. Also, one passage in RC cost me 4 questions, so that's worrisome. Definitely need to spend some time drilling these two sections before I take another PT.

I think the LG is just because a dumb misread rule, so don't give too much weight to that. RC will come. And imagine if the 2nd RC was the experimental... You still did really, really amazing! Good job, Tort.

Thanks! You know, it's funny-- even 2 weeks ago, a 173 would've made me incredibly happy, but I found that I was beating myself up over this score. Then I remembered it's still good enough for Harvard, so I need to chill.

Lessons I learned:
1) ALWAYS do a warmup. My brain was off until the second section, which cost me those 2 LR questions.
2) Don't force yourself to slow down on LG just because you think you should. I slowed down too much, and this caused me to speed through the 4th game where I made all of the mistakes.
3) Drilling is more important than PT's. I'm going to drill every single RC passage.

[Alexandros]

Just graded PT 71. Significant dip from my last score, but still above my original target score, so I guess I can't complain.

PT 71
Conditions: 5 section, taken at 8am post-workout.

LR1: -2
RC (Experimental): -1
LG: -4
LR2: -0
RC: -5
Raw: 90
Scaled: 173


Definitely bummed about the RC and LG. I misread a rule for the last game of LG, and that cost me 3 questions. Also, one passage in RC cost me 4 questions, so that's worrisome. Definitely need to spend some time drilling these two sections before I take another PT.

Still a damn fantastic score! Don't beat yourself up over a few dips. And hey, a few less points here and there might give you something to work on for the next three months at least.

[Barack O'Drama]

Just graded PT 71. Significant dip from my last score, but still above my original target score, so I guess I can't complain.

PT 71
Conditions: 5 section, taken at 8am post-workout.

LR1: -2
RC (Experimental): -1
LG: -4
LR2: -0
RC: -5
Raw: 90
Scaled: 173


Definitely bummed about the RC and LG. I misread a rule for the last game of LG, and that cost me 3 questions. Also, one passage in RC cost me 4 questions, so that's worrisome. Definitely need to spend some time drilling these two sections before I take another PT.

I think the LG is just because a dumb misread rule, so don't give too much weight to that. RC will come. And imagine if the 2nd RC was the experimental... You still did really, really amazing! Good job, Tort.

Thanks! You know, it's funny-- even 2 weeks ago, a 173 would've made me incredibly happy, but I found that I was beating myself up over this score. Then I remembered it's still good enough for Harvard, so I need to chill.

Lessons I learned:
1) ALWAYS do a warmup. My brain was off until the second section, which cost me those 2 LR questions.
2) Don't force yourself to slow down on LG just because you think you should. I slowed down too much, and this caused me to speed through the 4th game where I made all of the mistakes.
3) Drilling is more important than PT's. I'm going to drill every single RC passage.

Still good enough for Harvard is right. Shit! With a 173 I'd be shocked if H didn't take me, haha. But I know the goal post might have changed for you now that you've been scoring in the 98-99%-tile. However, you seem to possess good qualities that make you hype-aware of where and what is causing the specific dips in your score. And as long as you keep doing what you're doing to address them properly, I can't imagine you scoring less than a 175 on test day. And that is being conservative due to you having 3 months to the day!

Also, thank you for the wisdom-filled tips. I think I have noticed a few warm up questions completely make or break me, especially in the am when your brain may not be 100% engaged.

[20170322]

Just graded PT 71. Significant dip from my last score, but still above my original target score, so I guess I can't complain.

PT 71
Conditions: 5 section, taken at 8am post-workout.

LR1: -2
RC (Experimental): -1
LG: -4
LR2: -0
RC: -5
Raw: 90
Scaled: 173


Definitely bummed about the RC and LG. I misread a rule for the last game of LG, and that cost me 3 questions. Also, one passage in RC cost me 4 questions, so that's worrisome. Definitely need to spend some time drilling these two sections before I take another PT.

I think the LG is just because a dumb misread rule, so don't give too much weight to that. RC will come. And imagine if the 2nd RC was the experimental... You still did really, really amazing! Good job, Tort.

Thanks! You know, it's funny-- even 2 weeks ago, a 173 would've made me incredibly happy, but I found that I was beating myself up over this score. Then I remembered it's still good enough for Harvard, so I need to chill.

Lessons I learned:
1) ALWAYS do a warmup. My brain was off until the second section, which cost me those 2 LR questions.
2) Don't force yourself to slow down on LG just because you think you should. I slowed down too much, and this caused me to speed through the 4th game where I made all of the mistakes.
3) Drilling is more important than PT's. I'm going to drill every single RC passage.

Still good enough for Harvard is right. Shit! With a 173 I'd be shocked if H didn't take me, haha. But I know the goal post might have changed for you now that you've been scoring in the 98-99%-tile. However, you seem to possess good qualities that make you hype-aware of where and what is causing the specific dips in your score. And as long as you keep doing what you're doing to address them properly, I can't imagine you scoring less than a 175 on test day. And that is being conservative due to you having 3 months to the day!

Also, thank you for the wisdom-filled tips. I think I have noticed a few warm up questions completely make or break me, especially in the am when your brain may not be 100% engaged.

Haha, yeah, I have to remember that this is a marathon. 3 months of prep is more than enough time to make massive strides. We got this!!!

[BlackCanary]

I have been the worst this past week. I'm visiting home for the first time in about two years... between seeing my family, jet lag and every type of cheese being readily available ... I'm just so distracted. Need to get back to it.

[20170322]

Anyone want to start an RC study group? We can PM and keep each other accountable, as well as giving each other tips.

[lawperson17]

Anyone want to start an RC study group? We can PM and keep each other accountable, as well as giving each other tips.

Me! I would love to join. Dread the RC section

[Pozzo]

.

[BlackCanary]

Anyone want to start an RC study group? We can PM and keep each other accountable, as well as giving each other tips.

sounds good, count me in.

[Pozzo]

.

[34iplaw]

Good morning everyone. @BarackODrama, no problem. It wasn't anything that revolutionary, but it did sort of reinforce some of my general thoughts on personal statements. I need to get back to working on mine occasionally. I've been too busy proof reading other peoples'.

Anyone have any tips on LG rule substitution questions? Obviously their at the very end of a game, but I feel like I'm just throwing a dart with them more often than not and move on to the next game. I'm at like -4 or -3 right now on games so getting this loose end tied up would be huge.

They're kind of a pain at times. Usually, I try to apply three tests

1] Is it relevant? [does it have any impact on the variables of the previous rule?]

2] Does it go too far? [is it too restrictive? does it eliminate frames/scenarios/etc.]

3] Does it not go far enough? [is it not restrictive enough? does it allow for new frames/scenarios/etc.]

This will get you down to two choices pretty effectively and quickly from my experience.

Manhattan LG said [IIRC] that there are three answer types that I'm somewhat blanking on. They are something like the following...

1] Simple restatement; unusual but they have them; instead of M follows O they show O precedes M...likely to be with a more complicated rule. Maybe a but not both kind of deal.

2] Inference based; more common; let's take M follows O again. However, we will add two additional rules that say M is immediately before S and S is immediately before R [MSR chunk]. Instead of saying O precedes M, one of the answer choices will instead say O is before S or, perhaps, O is not before S.

I'll try to update this, but I think the Manhattan Guide gave a good approach for them. Another idea I've heard of is testing the rule backwards and forwards, but I need to refresh myself on that. I think the third [uncommon too IIRC] is either something in between 1 and 2, otherwise it is inference on steroids [i.e. it will be a chain of inferences that gives you the correct answer]. I'm leaning towards the third.

Well I greatly appreciated it...

Don't mention it. Other tip that I liked but I forgot to post...

DO:

Bring some LR and a LG to warm yourself up before diagnostics and the test [things you can do fairly easily]

DO NOT:

Check the answers prior to the test

What I did today:

Testmasters Question Type Drill [again]; 25/25 this time...used to miss the last one as a weaken when its a MBF/Cannot Be True

Testmasters Homework 1; 20-30 Sufficient & Necessary LR; 8/10 - one was a stupid mistake and other I had a paraphrasing issue. one or two questions I couldn't really diagram well, but I knew the answer fairly confidently.

Testmasters Homework 1; 30-40 Sufficient & Necessary LR; 8/10 - two were down to 2-3, guessed wrong but didn't eliminate wrong one. one or two questions that I couldn't really diagram well, but I knew the answer fairly confidently

Did 3 new games that are of the harder relative ordering variety and redid the others from the other day [as well as BRd the first four of them]. BR's were 100% accuracy as I expect at this point. Made one or two really stupid reading errors but did some of the games really quick.

As I wrote this up, I realized what I hate most about Testmasters. Their damned website signs you out so damned fast it's ridiculous. I have to sign in every like 15 minutes if I'm inactive on it. Beyond aggravating. May e-mail them.

Remainder of the day - go over the LR questions and do review some of the necessary/sufficient stuff.

Today will end up being a 4-5 hour of diligent studying + 2-3 hour of 'light' studying day.

[Doubting Law]

Somehow managed to procrastinate all day today (go me). Looks like I have a wonderful friday evening/ early saturday morning of LR ahead of me.

[20170322]

Taking a 2 day vacation from the LSAT to visit family and relax. Slow and steady wins the race...

[proteinshake]

.

how did you find the BP RC book? I also received a copy of it, and since RC is my worst section, I figured I should read it if others had good experiences with it. I've seen a few people say its the best book on the market and better than Manhattan. what's your input??

[Alexandros]

Anyone want to start an RC study group? We can PM and keep each other accountable, as well as giving each other tips.

I'd be down!

[Mikey]

.

how did you find the BP RC book? I also received a copy of it, and since RC is my worst section, I figured I should read it if others had good experiences with it. I've seen a few people say its the best book on the market and better than Manhattan. what's your input??

I really liked the way that they teach you to read for structure. I haven't read any other books for RC so I can't compare it, but yeah it's a good book, imo. The only downside I think it has is that it focuses too much on writing things down. I mean, there's nothing wrong with writing something next to the passage but I felt like they overdo it. I like how they split up passage types (by structure) and the things that they teach you about question types in RC is helpful. To be completely honest, after I read it and practiced with their methods, I found myself losing focus too much since I overdid the note taking. I went to literally doing no note taking at all and I feel like that helped me maintain my focus. So everything about it is good except the excessive amount of note taking/marking that is mentioned, I feel like it wasted a lot of time.

[Alexandros]

-1 RC for each of the last 3 sections. Still can't hit the 0 mark but good enough for today.
-2 LR and a bloody -3 LR last night.
Currently debating whether to do LG or more LR.
Think I'm going to save the PT til Sunday again.

[proteinshake]

.

how did you find the BP RC book? I also received a copy of it, and since RC is my worst section, I figured I should read it if others had good experiences with it. I've seen a few people say its the best book on the market and better than Manhattan. what's your input??

I really liked the way that they teach you to read for structure. I haven't read any other books for RC so I can't compare it, but yeah it's a good book, imo. The only downside I think it has is that it focuses too much on writing things down. I mean, there's nothing wrong with writing something next to the passage but I felt like they overdo it. I like how they split up passage types (by structure) and the things that they teach you about question types in RC is helpful. To be completely honest, after I read it and practiced with their methods, I found myself losing focus too much since I overdid the note taking. I went to literally doing no note taking at all and I feel like that helped me maintain my focus. So everything about it is good except the excessive amount of note taking/marking that is mentioned, I feel like it wasted a lot of time.

ah okay cool. if I decide to read through it, I'll just ignore the markings part because that'll just mess me up.

[34iplaw]

It's a bit early, but I had my iced McDonald's coffee (none of that sweetener nonsense) and sausage mcgriddle. Good to go.

If you have not endulged in a mcgriddle, you have not lived.

[Barack O'Drama]

Howdy Folks!

Happy Saturday!

Just went for a nice run, showered, and had a glass of OJ and a protein bar. (Testing out how different foods impact my test-taking ability)

Today my plan is to drill a bunch of relative ordering, 3D ordering, and perhaps begin grouping. I want to make sure I'm getting through all the questions in the Advanced Ordering and Relative Ordering Cambridge Packets in under 8 minutes or so before I'll feel comfortable doing that.

I'm really proof for anyone who feels completely lost/slow on logic games that you can improve a lot, and quickly at that. Been prepping seriously for about a month now and can do most any ordering problem untimed and go -0. For the past few days I've been timing myself and not taking more than 10 minutes, even on more challenging ones.

Good luck studying and enjoy your day if you are taking a break from prep.

[Barack O'Drama]

It's a bit early, but I had my iced McDonald's coffee (none of that sweetener nonsense) and sausage mcgriddle. Good to go.

If you have not endulged in a mcgriddle, you have not lived.

180. mcgriddles are really tasty. Also, great for curing hangovers. Last year when I was still in UG, I would have to get them a couple times of month just for its magical ability to cure hangovers, and sometimes I am sure just because they are super tasty. God awfully unhealthy, but too tasty to care.

Also, McD's iced coffee is actually really good and I prefer it to most Starbucks and Dunkins.

Have a good day prepping today iplaw