The Official June 2014 Study Group Forum

[knowyourself]

Checking in !!! Just quickly went through the thread to catch-up. Out of curiosity, anyone here from Canada ?

- The support here is GREAT! and this thread is 100% necessary.
- I've also heard of people improving their RC by reading difficult books on their spare time, can anyone recommend a few ??

Good luck to everyone and remember to stay motivation no matter what !

Canadian here. Where abouts are you from?

BC- where it's shaped by ice and pressure Vancouver, you ?

[evolution]

Checking in !!! Just quickly went through the thread to catch-up. Out of curiosity, anyone here from Canada ?

- The support here is GREAT! and this thread is 100% necessary.
- I've also heard of people improving their RC by reading difficult books on their spare time, can anyone recommend a few ??

Good luck to everyone and remember to stay motivation no matter what !

Canadian here. Where abouts are you from?

BC- where it's shaped by ice and pressure Vancouver, you ?

Oh nice, I'm from Alberta!

[odela]

.

[knowyourself]

Checking in!

Diagnostic - 139 > Dec 2012 - 150 > Dec 2013 - 163

I will be using the LSAT Trainer for my first time, then PTs in the last month, reviewing on 7sage and Manhattan Forums.

Would any of you recommend Cambridge's Most Difficult LR Questions for $20? (I have used their LG and LR 1-39 packets already.)

Nice progress Odela! Keep up the good work. I've used Blueprint and I'm using 7sage now. Let me know your thoughts on LSAT Trainer.

[Twitch]

Got my 168 up to 179 post-review. Now if only I can be that accurate working the actual test. A girl can dream, right?

Welcome, new people!

[rebexness]

Got my 168 up to 179 post-review. Now if only I can be that accurate working the actual test. A girl can dream, right?

Welcome, new people!

Blind Review or ?

[gnomgnomuch]

Hey guys, I was wondering if you could help me out with prep test 4 section 4 question 5, an MBT question. I got the question right, but it took me a good 2 minutes to work through it, so i just want to make sure i worked through the logic properly.

So this is what i wrote down.

Most parents who are generous are good parents. (G ----> (M) GP)
Some self centered parents are also good parents. (SC ---- GP) (reversible because its a some)
All good parents share on characteristic: they are good listeners. GP -----> GL (not sure if i diagrammed this right, my reasoning was if you ARE a good parent, then you MUST be a good listener).

A) GL --> GP, thats an fallacy of the converse.
B) Some is a quantifier that could still mean all. (on my first pass i left it there because it uses some, which is a weak answer choice)
C) One term is on the necessary, the other is on the sufficient side, no valid inferences.
D) If all good parents are good listeners, and some good parents are self centered, then it stands to reason that SOME good listeners are self centered. (on my first pass i left this as well, because some is a weak answer choice)
E) There is no discussion over "fewer", automatically eliminate.

Can anyone find any chinks in my logic? specifically in the 3rd conditional statement, it tripped me up for some reason.

[unodostres]

You're good for that last one. I looked at it and did it the same way.

Since some self centered parents are good parents, a valid inference is that some good parents are self centered and I just matched that up with the last premise and got to D pretty quickly. Shared sufficient always points me to the right direction.

Before that I looked at the first premise with the last one as well but found no valid answer choice. C was actually the reverse of what I wanted.

[Twitch]

Bex, not blind review. Just going back over all the problems I missed. If I get the problem wrong again, I don't count it toward my re-score. Whether or not I get the problem wrong, I do a full write-up on why I missed the problem the first time around, why the wrong answers are wrong, and why the right answer is right.

[FlyingNorth]

Bex, not blind review. Just going back over all the problems I missed. If I get the problem wrong again, I don't count it toward my re-score. Whether or not I get the problem wrong, I do a full write-up on why I missed the problem the first time around, why the wrong answers are wrong, and why the right answer is right.

You should blind review, it's life-changing

[Twitch]

Bex, not blind review. Just going back over all the problems I missed. If I get the problem wrong again, I don't count it toward my re-score. Whether or not I get the problem wrong, I do a full write-up on why I missed the problem the first time around, why the wrong answers are wrong, and why the right answer is right.

You should blind review, it's life-changing

I know I should, but I have a lot of difficulty pinpointing it when I get a problem wrong. I mark questions I'm uncertain of and go over those as well, whether or not I got them wrong, but uortunately there is limited overlap between my level of uncertainty and my incorrect choices.

I often choose a wrong answer based on missing a word in the stimulus, or based on faulty logic. In either case, at the time I make my answer choice I'm confident that I've reasoned to it.

Do you have any ideas on how to foster that awareness of when it is wrong, or is it the sort of thing that just comes with trial and error? Or maybe I should just make the uncertainty threshhold higher by marking for BR any question I'm less than 100% sure of? Any suggestions are welcome.

[gnomgnomuch]

Bex, not blind review. Just going back over all the problems I missed. If I get the problem wrong again, I don't count it toward my re-score. Whether or not I get the problem wrong, I do a full write-up on why I missed the problem the first time around, why the wrong answers are wrong, and why the right answer is right.

You should blind review, it's life-changing

I know I should, but I have a lot of difficulty pinpointing it when I get a problem wrong. I mark questions I'm uncertain of and go over those as well, whether or not I got them wrong, but uortunately there is limited overlap between my level of uncertainty and my incorrect choices.

I often choose a wrong answer based on missing a word in the stimulus, or based on faulty logic. In either case, at the time I make my answer choice I'm confident that I've reasoned to it.

Do you have any ideas on how to foster that awareness of when it is wrong, or is it the sort of thing that just comes with trial and error? Or maybe I should just make the uncertainty threshhold higher by marking for BR any question I'm less than 100% sure of? Any suggestions are welcome.

that's EXACTLY my problem, I often end up eliminating three choices completely, and then picking the wrong out of the two that I have left.... its so frustrating, and I don't know whether more practice will whittle down the ones I get wrong. Its not a problem for level 1 and 2 questions, and not too bad for level 3 questions, but when I get to level 4 questions im getting literally 40-50 percent wrong of the entire section. Its very disheartening.

[knowyourself]

Bex, not blind review. Just going back over all the problems I missed. If I get the problem wrong again, I don't count it toward my re-score. Whether or not I get the problem wrong, I do a full write-up on why I missed the problem the first time around, why the wrong answers are wrong, and why the right answer is right.

That's actually a pretty good idea.

[confused_humpback]

What exactly is a blind review?

I'm assuming it's when you reanalyze a question after you got it wrong, without the help of outside guidance (like GMAT or Manhattan LSAT)?

[alexrodriguez]

What exactly is a blind review?

I'm assuming it's when you reanalyze a question after you got it wrong, without the help of outside guidance (like GMAT or Manhattan LSAT)?

http://7sage.com/the-blind-review-how-t ... at-part-1/

[confused_humpback]

Very interesting. I'll have to try this.

I've heard a lot of positive praise for the approach. Thanks.

[Twitch]

Bex, not blind review. Just going back over all the problems I missed. If I get the problem wrong again, I don't count it toward my re-score. Whether or not I get the problem wrong, I do a full write-up on why I missed the problem the first time around, why the wrong answers are wrong, and why the right answer is right.

That's actually a pretty good idea.

Thanks. I like it pretty well. The only downside is that it automatically cuts out 20% of the analysis because of the fact that I know I got a certain answer choice wrong and thus don't consider it as a potential answer.

Going from a 20% chance of choosing the right answer to a 25% chance has to affect the efficacy of the strategy.

[FlyingNorth]

Bex, not blind review. Just going back over all the problems I missed. If I get the problem wrong again, I don't count it toward my re-score. Whether or not I get the problem wrong, I do a full write-up on why I missed the problem the first time around, why the wrong answers are wrong, and why the right answer is right.

You should blind review, it's life-changing

I know I should, but I have a lot of difficulty pinpointing it when I get a problem wrong. I mark questions I'm uncertain of and go over those as well, whether or not I got them wrong, but uortunately there is limited overlap between my level of uncertainty and my incorrect choices.

I often choose a wrong answer based on missing a word in the stimulus, or based on faulty logic. In either case, at the time I make my answer choice I'm confident that I've reasoned to it.

Do you have any ideas on how to foster that awareness of when it is wrong, or is it the sort of thing that just comes with trial and error? Or maybe I should just make the uncertainty threshhold higher by marking for BR any question I'm less than 100% sure of? Any suggestions are welcome.

You've answered your own question right there. You should mark a question for blind review when you aren't absolutely 100% certain that you picked the correct answer.

[lawstudenthopeful727]

Hey everyone, checking in. So as I'm going through LG drills, I'm starting to photocopy them and take notes on how I felt, any distractions, what I need to improve on, etc. Basically, a small write-up. Do y'all do this? Or am I just wasting my time?

If you do something like this, would you mine sharing what your write-up looks like? Thanks in advance!

[alansadler]

Hey, I guess there's no way to ask this without feeling weird, but I've been reading some of the 180 LSAT posts, and I'm looking for someone to be my study partner. I don't know anyone else who's currently studying for the LSAT, so I'm on my own right now. If anyone else is looking for someone aiming for a 178-180 to push them, and have someone to compare with, PM me.

[gnomgnomuch]

Hey All,

can you help me out with PT3-S4-Q14 a MBF, I went on Manhattan forums and the answer the MOD gave was inconsistent with the answer on the Cambridge packets.

Stimulus: Diagramming.
1) DFP --> PSB (discount from publishers, profitably sell books)
2) DFP --> GHSV (discount from publishers, generate high sales volume)
3) GHSV --> CM or ESM (or both) (generate high sales volume, cater to masses or exclusive specialized market, or both)

Question stem: If a bookstore doesn’t cater to the masses (CM) which of the following CANNOT be true.

A) Can be true, it can still make a profit if it sells ESM.
B) Can be true, same reason as A.
C) This is correct, which means it IS true (we are looking for a cannot be true)
D) (Correct answer choice), The only way to make a profit is to either have to CM or cater to an ESM, we know from the stimulus you don’t have CM, the answer choice now says you don’t have an ESM, but it still has a profit, according to the stimulus, this is impossible.
E) This is true, if don’t have CM (question stem) and now we don’t have ESM (answer choice) we will not get a discount.

the answer choice that was give in MLSAT was C.
did I get it wrong? or am I correct here?

[JOTEN555]

Hi everyone!

Can anyone recommend an online resource?

So far I've only used the LSAT Trainer, and I like its simplified approach.

Thanks!

[gnomgnomuch]

Hi everyone!

Can anyone recommend an online resource?

So far I've only used the LSAT Trainer, and I like its simplified approach.

Thanks!

Nothing better than 7sage for LG.

[confused_humpback]

Very frustrating week working on 'Weaken' questions in Logical reasoning.

First drill: 26/32 correct, 81%
Second drill: 26/30 correct, 87%
Third drill (including blind review): 28/32 correct, 87%

Usually I do three sets of drills for each answer type and am generally able to level out at a consistent 93-97% rate of correct answers. This is pretty frustrating, especially because a lot of answers to 'Weaken' questions seem to require vague assumptive leaps, such as question 12 on PT26, Section 2, or question 24 on PT26, Section 4.

I might do a fourth drill session on questions for this type, just do be thorough, but I'm also considering just cutting my losses for now and moving onto the next question type so I don't get behind schedule.

Boulderdash!

[2016oneL]

Hey I noticed this study thread.

Is this ONLY for people taking the LSAT in June? Is there an online study thing for people taking it in December?