The Official June 2016 Study Group Forum

[Pozzo]

So, around 10 weeks of good study time left.

I'm going to start picking away at 5 section PTs in the 50s and 60s. I'm hoping to squeeze another 20 or so PTs into the remaining time.

Sounds like a good plan. How many per week?

2 a week with review time and a day off per week should do it?

This is exactly what I am doing.

Seems to be the perfect pace, for me that is.

I'm waiting to go to two per week starting the second week in April. Here's to hoping it's not too little too late.

How many are you doing per week right now, Pozzo?

My thinking is that as I get better, there will be less review of PTs needed. I will either use this extra time to drill some questions I struggle with or pack in another PT.

Doing 1 per week right now. I've been approaching it like I train when I run. Consistently building, and then taper the last couple of weeks. That's a good thought, though, about needing fewer at the end, not more.

[moorelsat]

Can anyone give me some RC tips? I do well on the other sections but on RC I get destroyed. I typically get the "What's the main idea of the passage" question right for all passages, but other than that I usually suck. I write a little notes down on the side while reading and box important names/words but I just can't seem to get this down. Help me please?

The biggest thing is to stay engaged with the passage. I swear LSAC makes these things intentionally boring so that they can lull your brain to sleep. For me it helps to think of the entire passage as one big LR stimulus. People tend to read arguments in LR with a heightened sense of awareness, but then read RC passages like they're reading a Buzzfeed article or something. If you can capture that same heightened sense of mental awareness in RC — being vigilant about conclusions, points of view, organization, the author's voice/opinion, etc. — you will find greater success.

One other tip to get into this mindset is to read the passage like an English teacher grading a paper. You're not just reading for content, you're reading to study the structure of the author's argument: Where do they lay out their main conclusion? What evidence do they provide? Is there a counterargument? Is the passage more informative than argumentative? Is the author going against the grain somehow? ("For years, scientists have believed X. However, new evidence shows support for Y." The LSAT loves to do this).

If you still find yourself struggling, it helps to do a 30 second mental recap of what you read before jumping into the questions. Do a quick skim/scan paragraph by paragraph and repeat to yourself the big takeaways from the passage.

[Mikey]

Can anyone give me some RC tips? I do well on the other sections but on RC I get destroyed. I typically get the "What's the main idea of the passage" question right for all passages, but other than that I usually suck. I write a little notes down on the side while reading and box important names/words but I just can't seem to get this down. Help me please?

The biggest thing is to stay engaged with the passage. I swear LSAC makes these things intentionally boring so that they can lull your brain to sleep. For me it helps to think of the entire passage as one big LR stimulus. People tend to read arguments in LR with a heightened sense of awareness, but then read RC passages like they're reading a Buzzfeed article or something. If you can capture that same heightened sense of mental awareness in RC — being vigilant about conclusions, points of view, organization, the author's voice/opinion, etc. — you will find greater success.

One other tip to get into this mindset is to read the passage like an English teacher grading a paper. You're not just reading for content, you're reading to study the structure of the author's argument: Where do they lay out their main conclusion? What evidence do they provide? Is there a counterargument? Is the passage more informative than argumentative? Is the author going against the grain somehow? ("For years, scientists have believed X. However, new evidence shows support for Y." The LSAT loves to do this).

If you still find yourself struggling, it helps to do a 30 second mental recap of what you read before jumping into the questions. Do a quick skim/scan paragraph by paragraph and repeat to yourself the big takeaways from the passage.

Thanks, I'll keep all of this in mind the next time I do an RC section. I've heard many people say to just force yourself into liking the passage and engage in it, such as what you said about reading it like an English teacher. Hopefully I can improve on RC because it's the section that destroys me lol, thanks!

[beenoparte125]

I feel like that strategy has had some success for me as well... when I slip and lose focus (I feel like this is especially true if i'm PTing later at night) I can really screw myself... RC is my biggest source of anxiety!!

[Blueprint Mithun]

Can anyone give me some RC tips? I do well on the other sections but on RC I get destroyed. I typically get the "What's the main idea of the passage" question right for all passages, but other than that I usually suck. I write a little notes down on the side while reading and box important names/words but I just can't seem to get this down. Help me please?

The biggest thing is to stay engaged with the passage. I swear LSAC makes these things intentionally boring so that they can lull your brain to sleep. For me it helps to think of the entire passage as one big LR stimulus. People tend to read arguments in LR with a heightened sense of awareness, but then read RC passages like they're reading a Buzzfeed article or something. If you can capture that same heightened sense of mental awareness in RC — being vigilant about conclusions, points of view, organization, the author's voice/opinion, etc. — you will find greater success.

One other tip to get into this mindset is to read the passage like an English teacher grading a paper. You're not just reading for content, you're reading to study the structure of the author's argument: Where do they lay out their main conclusion? What evidence do they provide? Is there a counterargument? Is the passage more informative than argumentative? Is the author going against the grain somehow? ("For years, scientists have believed X. However, new evidence shows support for Y." The LSAT loves to do this).

These are some excellent tips. Active reading is really the key to doing well on the RC section. If you read the passage passively, you're going to end up spending a lot of time returning to the text when you're trying to answer the questions. Given the 35-minute time limit, you want to limit this back-and-forth time as much as possible.

There are several RC question types that you can save time on by actively looking for those concepts during your first reading of the passage. In particular, I'm referring to the "big-picture" ideas, the central concepts which exist in every passage: the main point, the author's attitude, the opinions of any major perspectives on the issue, and the structure of the argument.

If you're willing to experiment with a new approach, try this one - it's akin to what we teach Blueprint students. As you read the passage for the first time, keep an eye out for those four concepts. Each passage is full of cues, and the more you practice looking for the same ideas, the better you'll get at noticing them. When you finish reading the passage, before even looking at the questions, you should attempt to define the main point, define the author's attitude (whether it was neutral or opinionated), define all the major sides to the argument, and loosely describe the structure/flow of the argument. At this stage, it's not a bad idea to actually write this info down, though as you continue to prep, you should try to do this mentally, to save time.

This doesn't mean that you shouldn't also be reading for content. If you find that you're lost, go back a few sentences and get back on track. But don't worry if the details are confusing or arcane - what's most important is that you understand what purpose they serve in the context of the argument. Another useful tip: take a few seconds after you finish reading each paragraph to do a quick mental review of how that paragraph contributed to the argument. This will help break the passage down into more manageable chunks, and give you a better understanding of its larger structure.

If you practice breaking each passage down into these concepts, you'll find yourself getting the answers to MP, AA, opinion, and structure-related questions much faster, since you won't have to spend nearly as much time jumping back in and frantically scanning the passage. Other than these, you mainly just have detail-oriented questions to deal with, which shouldn't take long if you understand the passage's structure and know where to look to find the relevant info.

An experienced RC taker sees a passage not as a chunk of information on a random subject, but as a layered argument or series of interconnected arguments. Don't rush through the passage - many students who struggle with the time limit think that leaving more time for the questions will result in a better score. This isn't necessarily the case: the best thing you can do is read + analyze the passage effectively, and be as prepared as possible for the questions. The more you practice this method, the more efficient it becomes.

Hope that helps!

[longpig]

So I'm curious who else here has used Manhattan LSAT logic games strategies in addition to other appraoches? Specifically wondering because of Manhattan's "logic chain" strategy for in/out (or according to MLSAT, biconditional) grouping games. I find the logic chain very helpful for games where there's a lot of connections to be made between straightforward rules (if G in, R out --> if R out, X and Y in, etc.) But it seems rather unhelpful with games where rules are more difficult to represent on the logic chain (i.e., if BOTH G + R out --> X in) and/or do not rely as much on these connections but more so on numerical distribution or some other inference (PT 24, G4 is an example). In these cases it seems more useful to use the "traditional" approach that PowerScore and 7sage and I think most other companies recommend.

So basically, I'm wondering if anyone else has come across this problem and do you have a consistent strategy for figuring out which method to use? Or should I just try and mold my approach to the game according to whichever strategy seems to fit better (obviously a little more complicated/could backfire if I pick the wrong one).

[Pozzo]

So I'm curious who else here has used Manhattan LSAT logic games strategies in addition to other appraoches? Specifically wondering because of Manhattan's "logic chain" strategy for in/out (or according to MLSAT, biconditional) grouping games. I find the logic chain very helpful for games where there's a lot of connections to be made between straightforward rules (if G in, R out --> if R out, X and Y in, etc.) But it seems rather unhelpful with games where rules are more difficult to represent on the logic chain (i.e., if BOTH G + R out --> X in) and/or do not rely as much on these connections but more so on numerical distribution or some other inference (PT 24, G4 is an example). In these cases it seems more useful to use the "traditional" approach that PowerScore and 7sage and I think most other companies recommend.

So basically, I'm wondering if anyone else has come across this problem and do you have a consistent strategy for figuring out which method to use? Or should I just try and mold my approach to the game according to whichever strategy seems to fit better (obviously a little more complicated/could backfire if I pick the wrong one).

I think this is one of the things that just takes practice to get the hang of, and being able to identify when one of these chains will be helpful or not. One of those chains can really "unlock" a game. But you can waste a lot trying to make chains exist where they don't. This happened to me just last night. I spun my wheels and wasted a bunch of time trying to connect a couple of rules when there was no connection to be had.

[StopLawying]

Was a huge fan of Manhattan for LR and RC, but absolutely hated their LG methods. I found them unnecessarily complicated. Just go with 7sage or Velocity, their methods are a lot more intuitive and flexible.

[moorelsat]

I've heard many people say to just force yourself into liking the passage and engage in it

If you find trouble forcing yourself to like the passage, try hating it. If you can read it while the inner monologue in your head screams, "This is stupid!", that's just as good as liking it. Liking the passage or hating the passage helps ensure you stay engaged. Apathy is death.

[Pozzo]

I've heard many people say to just force yourself into liking the passage and engage in it

If you find trouble forcing yourself to like the passage, try hating it. If you can read it while the inner monologue in your head screams, "This is stupid!", that's just as good as liking it. Liking the passage or hating the passage helps ensure you stay engaged. Apathy is death.

Hah.

[potus]

Was a huge fan of Manhattan for LR and RC, but absolutely hated their LG methods. I found them unnecessarily complicated. Just go with 7sage or Velocity, their methods are a lot more intuitive and flexible.

As I'm reading this, ...I'm drilling through the Manhattan LR book >:(

Are there some reading materials from 7sage or Velocity you could generously share? Mainly for LR.

[ayylmao]

Pulled a 177 on PT 59, but got a couple questions wrong on blind review and didn't even suspect the couple I got wrong on RC. I'm like Bill Belichick now: I get no joy out of success—I just want to destroy every mistake and move onto the next preptest.

[Mikey]

I've heard many people say to just force yourself into liking the passage and engage in it

If you find trouble forcing yourself to like the passage, try hating it. If you can read it while the inner monologue in your head screams, "This is stupid!", that's just as good as liking it. Liking the passage or hating the passage helps ensure you stay engaged. Apathy is death.

Haha that made my day

[dodint]

Took the 2007 Practice test from the LSAC website. Did it in with test conditions, no prep. Just a total diagnostic effort. Did a 148. Ouch.

I didn't run out of time in any section. Actually finished 8 minutes early in RC. I also only diagrammed two of the games, so that's an issue.

Raw:
AR 12/23
LR 14/25
LR 15/25
RC 15/27

Very humbling. I thought I'd come in around 160 to start. Never thought I'd be below average. Learning the AR/LG techniques will help a lot, and using my time better in RC will also improve my score considerably. Going 29/50 in LR is very worrisome, though. I didn't expect that at all. There were two separate strings where I missed 6 in a row, unbelievable.

I'm expecting 167-172 so I have a lot of work ahead of me. I'm really glad I bothered to commit to studying instead of just walking in and assuming I'd do well, as I do with my standardized test. What a wakeup.

[longpig]

So I'm curious who else here has used Manhattan LSAT logic games strategies in addition to other appraoches? Specifically wondering because of Manhattan's "logic chain" strategy for in/out (or according to MLSAT, biconditional) grouping games. I find the logic chain very helpful for games where there's a lot of connections to be made between straightforward rules (if G in, R out --> if R out, X and Y in, etc.) But it seems rather unhelpful with games where rules are more difficult to represent on the logic chain (i.e., if BOTH G + R out --> X in) and/or do not rely as much on these connections but more so on numerical distribution or some other inference (PT 24, G4 is an example). In these cases it seems more useful to use the "traditional" approach that PowerScore and 7sage and I think most other companies recommend.

So basically, I'm wondering if anyone else has come across this problem and do you have a consistent strategy for figuring out which method to use? Or should I just try and mold my approach to the game according to whichever strategy seems to fit better (obviously a little more complicated/could backfire if I pick the wrong one).

I think this is one of the things that just takes practice to get the hang of, and being able to identify when one of these chains will be helpful or not. One of those chains can really "unlock" a game. But you can waste a lot trying to make chains exist where they don't. This happened to me just last night. I spun my wheels and wasted a bunch of time trying to connect a couple of rules when there was no connection to be had.

Thanks for your feedback! Trying to work on this balance but yeah I get worried that over-relying on chains makes it harder for me to quickly assess conditional relationships. Glad someone else is dealing with this though.

[Pozzo]

Took the 2007 Practice test from the LSAC website. Did it in with test conditions, no prep. Just a total diagnostic effort. Did a 148. Ouch.

I didn't run out of time in any section. Actually finished 8 minutes early in RC. I also only diagrammed two of the games, so that's an issue.

Raw:
AR 12/23
LR 14/25
LR 15/25
RC 15/27

Very humbling. I thought I'd come in around 160 to start. Never thought I'd be below average. Learning the AR/LG techniques will help a lot, and using my time better in RC will also improve my score considerably. Going 29/50 in LR is very worrisome, though. I didn't expect that at all. There were two separate strings where I missed 6 in a row, unbelievable.

I'm expecting 167-172 so I have a lot of work ahead of me. I'm really glad I bothered to commit to studying instead of just walking in and assuming I'd do well, as I do with my standardized test. What a wakeup.

Don't be disheartened. You're in a much better place now than you were before taking the test. Now you know the work you have to do to meet your goal. I'd encourage you to not feel married to the June test date. You can certainly prep for it, but if you're not as far along by June as you want to be, you'll be better off taking it in the fall than forcing the issue in June.

[boomboompap]

checking in! splitter having a terrible cycle so far with a decent score. Hoping to go up another two points. GET AT ME LSAT

[Mikey]

PT27 S4 Q22

Am I the only one that thought this question was extremely weird? I ended up getting it right but was confused because I had never seen one of these questions before..

[dodint]

Very humbling. I thought I'd come in around 160 to start. Never thought I'd be below average. Learning the AR/LG techniques will help a lot, and using my time better in RC will also improve my score considerably. Going 29/50 in LR is very worrisome, though. I didn't expect that at all. There were two separate strings where I missed 6 in a row, unbelievable.

I'm expecting 167-172 so I have a lot of work ahead of me. I'm really glad I bothered to commit to studying instead of just walking in and assuming I'd do well, as I do with my standardized test. What a wakeup.

Don't be disheartened. You're in a much better place now than you were before taking the test. Now you know the work you have to do to meet your goal. I'd encourage you to not feel married to the June test date. You can certainly prep for it, but if you're not as far along by June as you want to be, you'll be better off taking it in the fall than forcing the issue in June.

Thanks. Again, I'm really glad I decided to prep.

I'm in a somewhat unique situation so I'm married to the June test. No worries, though. It'll just take some work.

I stumbled onto the 7sage Android App last night. The Logic Game videos are exceptional, I can't believe it's free.

[Mikey]

@dodint 7sage LG videos are one of the best things to use for LG prep. Personally, I do fairly well on LG at this time with only having done trial and error and learning while watching 7sage videos. Everyone is different though, so it might not work for others in which they would need a book. But definitely use those videos!!!

[Pozzo]

PT67: 164

Considerably lower than my last PT, and solidly below my target for June. But a couple factors are keeping me optimistic: It's been over two weeks since my last full PT, so I'm a bit out of practice. I took the test super early (6 AM) on a mostly empty stomach in a busy Starbucks. Adding to the commotion, an elderly gentleman took a fall midway through section 1. My section scores improved progressively through the test (-8, -5, -3, -3), so I'm thinking some of it was just shaking loose the early morning cobwebs. I'll be doing some intense BR the rest of the weekend to see what went wrong where.

[dodint]

I'm doing the Mike Kim self-study trainer course (8wk plan). As such, I took the PT62 diagnostic today. Scored a 152. Still low, but I had a great improvement in LR/RC by managing my pacing better and looking for the obvious stuff I've read so far. I got obliterated in LG though, scoring 8/23 which is half of what I scored on my prior diagnostic. The games were completely different and the stuff I learned just didn't translate over, which is fine. Honestly I'm really optimistic moving forward because AR/LG can be learned through practice but I feel like LR is more difficult so right now I'd rather be deficient in LG.

I'm about to go redo the games without a time constraint and when I think I have them, watch 7sage and see how different their solution is from mine.

[beenoparte125]

169 on pt 61 today

UGH

RC murdered me. NEED to figure out RC badly.

[Pozzo]

169 on pt 61 today

UGH

RC murdered me. NEED to figure out RC badly.

I'm dubbing this week, "Murder in the 60s." Welcome to the party. RC did the exact same to me this morning.

[Mikey]

I always go around -4 (at best) and -7 (at worst) in LR. My problem is the tougher questions around the middle area of the section. I've drilled and drilled and drilled but these tougher questions just always screw me up. FML