real The Official December 2016 Waiters Group - Patience is a Virtue Forum

[cherrygalore]

PT 54:

162

RC: -13
LR: -1
LG: -0
LR: -5

Felt fatigue in section 4 LR, didn't take a 15 min break. Felt really good about section 2 LR. LG was normal, kind of easy ones imo. RC, idk how to read so pardon my stupidity.

e: forgot to mention that i used the 7sage phone proctor thing

\

RC seems to be the bane of your test existence, is it a timing issue?

Timing is a bit of an issue with RC, but even the passages/question I get through don't seem to all be right. fwiw, i usually always have like 3 questions left unanswered by the time 35 mins is up, aka, i always have to rush the last passage i do.

i just suck at rc

Is there a certain type you usually miss? Are most of the ones you miss from the same passages? Or is it all over the place?

[Deardevil]

Well, that would make you absolutely perfect to help me! Haha.

TBH, general main point questions tend to get me and some of the general ones. Typically, any detail I missed I understand why.

I just finished the first 80ish pages in Manhattan RC (scale PEAR and such...dominated those reading for definition in context). I'll take some detailed notes on the next passages I do. If there's a particular PT you are familiar with or think is good for checking issues out, I'll look at those. I know in Sept that Eileen crushed me and I think I missed the last question but that was obviously nerves looking back at that one. Humanities in general are a bit of a weakness.

I'm not sure if it's something I read too close or try to pull more from the text than is there... I remember many moons ago I had that problem with the SAT verbal. I guess part of my issue is that (while I fully understand the LSAT is not the SAT) I feel like -6 on RC is not remotely okay given my general strength at reading/language/past scores on reading comprehension for standardized tests.

You really shouldn't be missing main point questions.
Try reading closer to the text and even going back a sentence/paragraph to refresh your short-term memory.

This might take longer, but it will be worth it.
Taking four minutes or so on a passage to fully understand the conclusion, author's thoughts, and organization ≈ knock seven Qs in a minute.

[Greenteachurro]

I wouldn't call myself an RC expert but I'm now PTing RC at a -1-0 range

howww

Well, that would make you absolutely perfect to help me! Haha.

TBH, general main point questions tend to get me and some of the general ones. Typically, any detail I missed I understand why.

I just finished the first 80ish pages in Manhattan RC (scale PEAR and such...dominated those reading for definition in context). I'll take some detailed notes on the next passages I do. If there's a particular PT you are familiar with or think is good for checking issues out, I'll look at those. I know in Sept that Eileen crushed me and I think I missed the last question but that was obviously nerves looking back at that one. Humanities in general are a bit of a weakness.

I'm not sure if it's something I read too close or try to pull more from the text than is there... I remember many moons ago I had that problem with the SAT verbal. I guess part of my issue is that (while I fully understand the LSAT is not the SAT) I feel like -6 on RC is not remotely okay given my general strength at reading/language/past scores on reading comprehension for standardized tests.

I moved from -6 to -3 over past couple of weeks and I found that doing a couple of passages untimed and really taking like 8-9 minutes to fully understand the passage helped a ton. Also I use the LSAT hacks method + Voyager, which is to read the passage twice and, then underline sentences I think are going to be the most important and definitions.

Okay. I'll have to give those a shot. Currently, I'm liking the manhattan RC. I honestly think my problem may just be applying myself consistently. When I first started studying, I would almost always -0 passages individually. -1s were occasional but -2 was almost unheard of for me. TBH, I may be overestimating the LSAT I think or need to embrace the uncertainty a bit more on RC. Is the first read relatively quick to just try to find key words/structure?

No the first read for me is the slow read I take like 2 minutes -- maybe 2 30 on something like Elieen. In the first read I take a 5 second break between paragraphs and decide the main point of each of the paragraphs. The second read is a lot quicker, I take about a minute, after that I take like 10 seconds and think of the main point of the passage.

Then when I go through the questions I honestly try to go back to the text as little as possible, unless it tags a specific line number. When I mess up now usually its because of a misreading of the question stem.

The hard thing about RC though, is that its almost like religion, in that its highly personal. Like when I focus on notation I get like -10, and when I did that thing in the voyager method where he wants you to actually right down the main point I did bad too. I think my way works well for me because I get an intuition for what's right and what's wrong because I really understand the passage.

[Mikey]

Is there a certain type you usually miss? Are most of the ones you miss from the same passages? Or is it all over the place?

usually all over the place

[Mikey]

No the first read for me is the slow read I take like 2 minutes -- maybe 2 30 on something like Elieen. In the first read I take a 5 second break between paragraphs and decide the main point of each of the paragraphs. The second read is a lot quicker, I take about a minute, after that I take like 10 seconds and think of the main point of the passage.

Then when I go through the questions I honestly try to go back to the text as little as possible, unless it tags a specific line number. When I mess up now usually its because of a misreading of the question stem.

The hard thing about RC though, is that its almost like religion, in that its highly personal. Like when I focus on notation I get like -10, and when I did that thing in the voyager method where he wants you to actually right down the main point I did bad too. I think my way works well for me because I get an intuition for what's right and what's wrong because I really understand the passage.

you do two reads for each passage? and the slower read takes you 2 mins?? holy crap man... a "normal" read for me is like 3:30 - 4 mins.

[Rupert Pupkin]

You guys see December registrants are up 15% from last year?!

i hope this means that the people who apply in January aren't hindered too much. prayers to the lsac gods for a merciful December test.

Shit! no i didn't. Last year's September test prob wasn't as brutal. how many in total including Sept + Dec for both years? I'd imagine, in sum, they are around the same and not total +15%.

Total takers up 1% in Sept, but first timers down 0.4%. The bump for December probably has something to do with Sept being so hard and having the registration deadline before scores came out. I'm definitely rethinking my application strategy now though.

Credit to Spivey's Twitter for the numbers.

This is exactly what I asked Spivey about. The Sep tests, including the undisclosed ones, were really difficult and that's showing with the huge increase in Dec retakers. 15% is ridiculously high. The app cycle will definitely get pushed back since a ton of ppl will be applying after Dec scores come out. The question is though, does that mean you're in a better position applying early? Really not sure about that and would appreciate what you guys have to say about that.

I think a lot of that hinges on what the score distribution is like this year. Harder tests but with a more generous curve could mean that things don't change much from the usual patterns. However, a high score might be looked upon more favorably later if it turns out that the harder tests meant a drop in high scorers this year.

Disclaimer: clueless 0L

Good point Pozzo. I reckon that will be the case. MEDIANS DROPPING AGAIN ERRRRMIGAWD! That would be clutch af

[dj9i27]

[

[34iplaw]

PT 11 S3 P3...

For #15,
(Got right but want to check reasoning) A is wrong bc speciation whereas Sanders talks about a low extinction rate.

For #20,
Why E, not A? Didn't he underestimate this as he assumed it had a relatively stable climate like the deep water mud ecosystems? Do we have evidence that his theory ever set out to account for distribution?

PT4 S2 P2...
#7, I got this right but between A and E was a bit of a guess. E was worded so strongly it made me cautious. With A, I couldn't think of where irreversible was said explicitly although it would seem to be in accordance with the tone. Is it also that it's missing the human element?

[SunDevil14]

Back on track

PT 50

Score 171
RC: -4 (All four on the last passage. Riddle Basins can go to Hell).
LR I: -3
LG: -0
LR II: -2

I felt pretty good about my 171 especially since the test played to my weakness rather than my strengths. 28 RC questions and only 22 LG. Riddled Basins was by far the hardest RC passage I have encountered, and it did not help that I had only 7 minutes remaining when I began the passage.

[34iplaw]

Back on track

PT 50

Score 171
RC: -4 (All four on the last passage. Riddle Basins can go to Hell).
LR I: -3
LG: -0
LR II: -2

I felt pretty good about my 171 especially since the test played to my weakness rather than my strengths. 28 RC questions and only 22 LG. Riddled Basins was by far the hardest RC passage I have encountered, and it did not help that I had only 7 minutes remaining when I began the passage.

-9 for 171. Wtf? Lol. Solid raw score/scale score

[SunDevil14]

PT 54:

162

RC: -13
LR: -1
LG: -0
LR: -5

Felt fatigue in section 4 LR, didn't take a 15 min break. Felt really good about section 2 LR. LG was normal, kind of easy ones imo. RC, idk how to read so pardon my stupidity.

e: forgot to mention that i used the 7sage phone proctor thing

\

RC seems to be the bane of your test existence, is it a timing issue?

Timing is a bit of an issue with RC, but even the passages/question I get through don't seem to all be right. fwiw, i usually always have like 3 questions left unanswered by the time 35 mins is up, aka, i always have to rush the last passage i do.

i just suck at rc

Is there a certain type you usually miss? Are most of the ones you miss from the same passages? Or is it all over the place?

Would definitely say that the final LR section was fatigue, I experience the same sort of distribution when I am fatigued. Do you usually miss as much on RC? If you are dead set on the December Exam, then it may be in your best interest to only attempt 3 of the 4 passages. So instead of an average of 8:45 per passage you would have 11:40 seconds.

Example:

You forgo the hardest passage, therefore you spend the extra time to really make sure you get the questions right in the other 3 passages. Lets you end up missing 1 questions per section on the 3 passage you attempt and end up getting 1 out 7 questions right on the 4 section by guessing. The result is a minus -9 instead of a -13 so in sum you net 4 points.

[SunDevil14]

Back on track

PT 50

Score 171
RC: -4 (All four on the last passage. Riddle Basins can go to Hell).
LR I: -3
LG: -0
LR II: -2

I felt pretty good about my 171 especially since the test played to my weakness rather than my strengths. 28 RC questions and only 22 LG. Riddled Basins was by far the hardest RC passage I have encountered, and it did not help that I had only 7 minutes remaining when I began the passage.

-9 for 171. Wtf? Lol. Solid raw score/scale score

Not sure if that is high or low ^ but for PT on the conversion chart for PT50 i.e converting raw score to scaled score a 91 (-9) corresponds to a 171. I just took a look at the Lsac book, from a quick glance 91 appears to yield a score as high as 174 on one test and 168 on another.

[CHyde]

.

[Deardevil]

PT 11 S3 P3...

For #15,
(Got right but want to check reasoning) A is wrong bc speciation whereas Sanders talks about a low extinction rate.

A is wrong because "high rate of speciation" is not quite the same as "high level of diversity."
Sanders only makes the comparison that the entities have stable climate, which is equivalent to not experiencing dramatic changes in climate.

For #20,
Why E, not A? Didn't he underestimate this as he assumed it had a relatively stable climate like the deep water mud ecosystems? Do we have evidence that his theory ever set out to account for distribution?

A is wrong because winter and glaciation are said to be absent.
If Billy missed his final, we can't say the professor, if he/she took attendance, giving Billy a zero is unwarranted; he wasn't even there!
Furthermore, the rest of the text doesn't really go into detail on winter. However, in the very next paragraph, it does give support to E,
something Sanders overlooked; because sparrows are north, crows are south, and eagles fly west, there is reason to doubt that climate is stable.

PT4 S2 P2...
#7, I got this right but between A and E was a bit of a guess. E was worded so strongly it made me cautious. With A, I couldn't think of where irreversible was said explicitly although it would seem to be in accordance with the tone. Is it also that it's missing the human element?

E is supported by the last sentence in the first paragraph,
where it says "The ultimate consequences of this biological collision are beyond calculation."
The rest of the passage talks about how humans cause species to perish and, that if they harm plants as well, we would be screwed.

A is wrong because the information is just not supported. Irreversible? Says who? Setback for science and everyone else? Says who?
B is very wrong because wealth is simply not what we're dealing with.
C is ridiculous. Extinctions lead to more diversity? I think not.
D talks about humans, but misses the mark since we don't know if we're now experiencing extinction or, if we are, if it's more catastrophic.

[batlaw]

Went 173 on PT 63 today: -0 LR1!, -1 LG, -2 LR, -4 RC (also did it with an extra LG from earlier PT).

My LR is looking better! I still have some that I star while taking because I know my strategy/timing isn't great or that I haven't 100% eliminated all the other wrong ones so I still need to keep working on that, but -3 total might be the best I've ever done on LR.

I really struggled with the RC, mainly because I think I spent too much time on the first and second passage and then panicked. I didn't read the 3rd passage close enough the first time in an effort to hurry and think that cost me more time. On a positive note only going -4 when I felt like I really had to scramble for the entire last 2 passages doesn't seem so bad. Definitely need to work on my RC timing though!

My extra section was LG from PT 34 and it was interesting. It almost seemed more like more recent LGs. I spent forever on the first game doing my setup and then working through all possible combos / playing it through and I'm not sure this was the best strategy. Game 2 and 3 were then pretty quick but a bit different. Then I had to rush on game 4 so missed 2 on it from making an educated guess but not working through (on BR got them right).

[batlaw]

Back on track

PT 50

Score 171
RC: -4 (All four on the last passage. Riddle Basins can go to Hell).
LR I: -3
LG: -0
LR II: -2

I felt pretty good about my 171 especially since the test played to my weakness rather than my strengths. 28 RC questions and only 22 LG. Riddled Basins was by far the hardest RC passage I have encountered, and it did not help that I had only 7 minutes remaining when I began the passage.

-9 for 171. Wtf? Lol. Solid raw score/scale score

Not sure if that is high or low ^ but for PT on the conversion chart for PT50 i.e converting raw score to scaled score a 91 (-9) corresponds to a 171. I just took a look at the Lsac book, from a quick glance 91 appears to yield a score as high as 174 on one test and 168 on another.

BTW the past 2 PTs (63, 58) I've done I've gone -7 and it has been a 173 and at first I was like harsh... but it seems that the curve has gotten a bit better over time. Also, I realized my impression could be based on doing better than I have in the past (170+). The curve tightens I think so it seems less noticeable.

[34iplaw]

Back on track

PT 50

Score 171
RC: -4 (All four on the last passage. Riddle Basins can go to Hell).
LR I: -3
LG: -0
LR II: -2

I felt pretty good about my 171 especially since the test played to my weakness rather than my strengths. 28 RC questions and only 22 LG. Riddled Basins was by far the hardest RC passage I have encountered, and it did not help that I had only 7 minutes remaining when I began the passage.

-9 for 171. Wtf? Lol. Solid raw score/scale score

Not sure if that is high or low ^ but for PT on the conversion chart for PT50 i.e converting raw score to scaled score a 91 (-9) corresponds to a 171. I just took a look at the Lsac book, from a quick glance 91 appears to yield a score as high as 174 on one test and 168 on another.

-9 for a 171 is insanely rough. When people refer to an LSAT curve, they are referring to number wrong for a 170. For example, "How the hell was September a -12?"

[34iplaw]

Well, that would make you absolutely perfect to help me! Haha.

TBH, general main point questions tend to get me and some of the general ones. Typically, any detail I missed I understand why.

I just finished the first 80ish pages in Manhattan RC (scale PEAR and such...dominated those reading for definition in context). I'll take some detailed notes on the next passages I do. If there's a particular PT you are familiar with or think is good for checking issues out, I'll look at those. I know in Sept that Eileen crushed me and I think I missed the last question but that was obviously nerves looking back at that one. Humanities in general are a bit of a weakness.

I'm not sure if it's something I read too close or try to pull more from the text than is there... I remember many moons ago I had that problem with the SAT verbal. I guess part of my issue is that (while I fully understand the LSAT is not the SAT) I feel like -6 on RC is not remotely okay given my general strength at reading/language/past scores on reading comprehension for standardized tests.

You really shouldn't be missing main point questions.
Try reading closer to the text and even going back a sentence/paragraph to refresh your short-term memory.

This might take longer, but it will be worth it.
Taking four minutes or so on a passage to fully understand the conclusion, author's thoughts, and organization ≈ knock seven Qs in a minute.

I agree. A good example of one I found harder I posted around here (about to reply to that response which may have been you) that was about the main point. Some human driven extinction passage.

[SunDevil14]

Back on track

PT 50

Score 171
RC: -4 (All four on the last passage. Riddle Basins can go to Hell).
LR I: -3
LG: -0
LR II: -2

I felt pretty good about my 171 especially since the test played to my weakness rather than my strengths. 28 RC questions and only 22 LG. Riddled Basins was by far the hardest RC passage I have encountered, and it did not help that I had only 7 minutes remaining when I began the passage.

-9 for 171. Wtf? Lol. Solid raw score/scale score

Not sure if that is high or low ^ but for PT on the conversion chart for PT50 i.e converting raw score to scaled score a 91 (-9) corresponds to a 171. I just took a look at the Lsac book, from a quick glance 91 appears to yield a score as high as 174 on one test and 168 on another.

-9 for a 171 is insanely rough. When people refer to an LSAT curve, they are referring to number wrong for a 170. For example, "How the hell was September a -12?"

I'm still kind of lost. Rough as in you usually score higher with -9 or rough as in..?

[34iplaw]

PT 11 S3 P3...

For #15,
(Got right but want to check reasoning) A is wrong bc speciation whereas Sanders talks about a low extinction rate.

A is wrong because "high rate of speciation" is not quite the same as "high level of diversity."
Sanders only makes the comparison that the entities have stable climate, which is equivalent to not experiencing dramatic changes in climate.

For #20,
Why E, not A? Didn't he underestimate this as he assumed it had a relatively stable climate like the deep water mud ecosystems? Do we have evidence that his theory ever set out to account for distribution?

A is wrong because winter and glaciation are said to be absent.
If Billy missed his final, we can't say the professor, if he/she took attendance, giving Billy a zero is unwarranted; he wasn't even there!
Furthermore, the rest of the text doesn't really go into detail on winter. However, in the very next paragraph, it does give support to E,
something Sanders overlooked; because sparrows are north, crows are south, and eagles fly west, there is reason to doubt that climate is stable.

PT4 S2 P2...
#7, I got this right but between A and E was a bit of a guess. E was worded so strongly it made me cautious. With A, I couldn't think of where irreversible was said explicitly although it would seem to be in accordance with the tone. Is it also that it's missing the human element?

E is supported by the last sentence in the first paragraph,
where it says "The ultimate consequences of this biological collision are beyond calculation."
The rest of the passage talks about how humans cause species to perish and, that if they harm plants as well, we would be screwed.

A is wrong because the information is just not supported. Irreversible? Says who? Setback for science and everyone else? Says who?
B is very wrong because wealth is simply not what we're dealing with.
C is ridiculous. Extinctions lead to more diversity? I think not.
D talks about humans, but misses the mark since we don't know if we're now experiencing extinction or, if we are, if it's more catastrophic.

Ah it was you! Yeah I agree when most of that. With A on PT4S2P2#1, I think there is support for the setback in the last sentence or two of the passage, but I don't think it says irreversible anywhere. Then again, that could be reading too much into it, but what is described there seems to be fair to label as a setback.

With the winter/glaciation, I think I recalled feeling what you were saying but I guess I felt he never discussed the distribution of animals. He missed it. He also was mistaken in assuming the tropical climate was stable. I still feel iffy with that one.

I do appreciate response.

[34iplaw]

Back on track

PT 50

Score 171
RC: -4 (All four on the last passage. Riddle Basins can go to Hell).
LR I: -3
LG: -0
LR II: -2

I felt pretty good about my 171 especially since the test played to my weakness rather than my strengths. 28 RC questions and only 22 LG. Riddled Basins was by far the hardest RC passage I have encountered, and it did not help that I had only 7 minutes remaining when I began the passage.

-9 for 171. Wtf? Lol. Solid raw score/scale score

Not sure if that is high or low ^ but for PT on the conversion chart for PT50 i.e converting raw score to scaled score a 91 (-9) corresponds to a 171. I just took a look at the Lsac book, from a quick glance 91 appears to yield a score as high as 174 on one test and 168 on another.

-9 for a 171 is insanely rough. When people refer to an LSAT curve, they are referring to number wrong for a 170. For example, "How the hell was September a -12?"

I'm still kind of lost. Rough as in you usually score higher with -9 or rough as in..?

-9 should typically be (at least more recent tests) closer to a 173/174. A test is considered to have a hard curve these days if -12=170. -9=171 is hard. But yeah. Rough as in usually a -9 is higher than a 171.

[Deardevil]

Ah it was you! Yeah I agree when most of that. With A on PT4S2P2#1, I think there is support for the setback in the last sentence or two of the passage, but I don't think it says irreversible anywhere. Then again, that could be reading too much into it, but what is described there seems to be fair to label as a setback.

With the winter/glaciation, I think I recalled feeling what you were saying but I guess I felt he never discussed the distribution of animals. He missed it. He also was mistaken in assuming the tropical climate was stable. I still feel iffy with that one.

I do appreciate response.

Sanders actually never talks about distribution (even so, that's not the point);
in fact, I don't think he even backs up his theory, except for one study offering support (the one mentioning absence of winter and glaciation).

IIRC, his hypothesis is that because the Amazon rainforest has diverse speciation, there must be stable climate there.
However, the second paragraph refutes the idea since it makes little sense for birds to be hanging out in different areas if the climate is stable.

Analogously, let's say the weather is nice (not too hot and not too cold) throughout the day (stable climate),
so every member of a small tribe is gathered around the beach to grill some delicious hot dogs and pork ribs.

If a sudden drought were to take place every few hours and precedes a hailstorm each time (instability),
people would constantly take dips in the nearby ravine and immediately go retreat back to their huts when the temperature drops.

So that's what's faulty about Sander's approach.
He is so sure something is right when, in reality, he fails to plug in the holes by underestimating one factor.

Any time!

[dj9i27]

.

[SunDevil14]

Back on track

PT 50

Score 171
RC: -4 (All four on the last passage. Riddle Basins can go to Hell).
LR I: -3
LG: -0
LR II: -2

I felt pretty good about my 171 especially since the test played to my weakness rather than my strengths. 28 RC questions and only 22 LG. Riddled Basins was by far the hardest RC passage I have encountered, and it did not help that I had only 7 minutes remaining when I began the passage.

-9 for 171. Wtf? Lol. Solid raw score/scale score

Not sure if that is high or low ^ but for PT on the conversion chart for PT50 i.e converting raw score to scaled score a 91 (-9) corresponds to a 171. I just took a look at the Lsac book, from a quick glance 91 appears to yield a score as high as 174 on one test and 168 on another.

-9 for a 171 is insanely rough. When people refer to an LSAT curve, they are referring to number wrong for a 170. For example, "How the hell was September a -12?"

I'm still kind of lost. Rough as in you usually score higher with -9 or rough as in..?

-9 should typically be (at least more recent tests) closer to a 173/174. A test is considered to have a hard curve these days if -12=170. -9=171 is hard. But yeah. Rough as in usually a -9 is higher than a 171.

Well that's good to hear. My recent 175 and 174 were -5 and -6 respectively, though I presume the most recent tests are harder. Are you aware if the most recent test include a larger distribution of LR and LG? The tests I have been currently taking have 22LG, 50/51LR, and 27/28RC. Of the entirety of test I have taken, I really prefer the 23LG, 51/52LR, 26RC distribution.

[SunDevil14]

Well, that would make you absolutely perfect to help me! Haha.

TBH, general main point questions tend to get me and some of the general ones. Typically, any detail I missed I understand why.

I just finished the first 80ish pages in Manhattan RC (scale PEAR and such...dominated those reading for definition in context). I'll take some detailed notes on the next passages I do. If there's a particular PT you are familiar with or think is good for checking issues out, I'll look at those. I know in Sept that Eileen crushed me and I think I missed the last question but that was obviously nerves looking back at that one. Humanities in general are a bit of a weakness.

I'm not sure if it's something I read too close or try to pull more from the text than is there... I remember many moons ago I had that problem with the SAT verbal. I guess part of my issue is that (while I fully understand the LSAT is not the SAT) I feel like -6 on RC is not remotely okay given my general strength at reading/language/past scores on reading comprehension for standardized tests.

You really shouldn't be missing main point questions.
Try reading closer to the text and even going back a sentence/paragraph to refresh your short-term memory.

This might take longer, but it will be worth it.
Taking four minutes or so on a passage to fully understand the conclusion, author's thoughts, and organization ≈ knock seven Qs in a minute.

I agree. A good example of one I found harder I posted around here (about to reply to that response which may have been you) that was about the main point. Some human driven extinction passage.

I agree really taking the time on the front end, especially mentally organizing the passage before hitting the questions pays off. Check out Riddle Basins passage 4 from PT 50. If you do not fully understand the passage and do the work upfront (Mentally organizing the passage, clarifying the viewpoints, etc.) Then you will get crushed by the question since both the answer choices and passage are so nuanced.