The Official June 2016 Study Group Forum

[YupSports]

Hi all! Just checking in - it's been a while since I've posted. I hope everyone's prep is going well.

I'm hoping to get some feedback on my study schedule now that we're getting closer and closer to June.

In the past few weeks, I've mainly just been drilling sections and trying to get LG finished under 35 minutes. Now that I feel like I've accomplished that, I'm moving towards heavy PT taking. I'm PLANNING on doing full 4-section timed PTs on Monday and Wednesday nights after work (reviewing on Tuesday and Thursday), taking Friday off, and doing a 5-section PT on Saturdays, reviewing on Sundays. I have 38 PTs left untouched, I'm planning on using the 8 oldest as experimental sections and the 30 newest as my 3/week full tests

a) Is burnout imminent? Should I change it to 2 PTs a week? I work a full time job, 9-6 every day, so PTs on weekdays will be after a full day of work (i.e., burnout more likely).

b) My current average PT score is 167 and I'm hoping to bump up to 170 for test day. Will all this PT taking improve my score, or should I drill on my weaker sections and sacrifice one full PT/week?

I'm weakest on LR, and RC is really hit or miss with me. RC is usually around -3, but sometimes I'll be -1 or -8 (lol), so I'm hoping to improve on consistency with RC.

ANYWAY - any feedback appreciated.

In my honest opinion, too much emphasis is placed on the quantity of PTs taken and not enough is placed on the quality of review.

With that in mind, this is how I think you could crack 170+:

Dial it back to 2 (or maybe even 1) PTs a week and focus on reviewing the following way:

Get all the games done under the time on 7sage, not the just the section as a whole. Follow the method until your eye balls bleed.

Write out all of the premises and conclusions for LR games you weren't 100% on. For the answer choices write out about why this answer choice was wrong and why the answer choice was right.

For RC you want to do the same writing out on the questions. Also, do some of the higher-level thinking recommended by Mike Kim is this article:
http://www.thelsattrainer.com/how-to-re ... nsion.html

I'm no expert, so feel free to ignore all of this if you please!

[potus]

PT 65, 177 (-1 LR, -2 LG, -3 RC)

Feeling much better about the games. I stopped trying to diagram every little thing like PowerScore and 7Sage do, and just started thinking through the rules conceptually. I find that much easier. This test had some of the tougher RC questions I have ever encountered.

Nice, congrats! Really jealous of your -1 in LR!!

[unodostres]

where do you all take your PTs? I find the library to be very annoying at times with all the little kids and babies. one time I had to pause my PT in the middle of a section because a lady was strolling her crying baby around the quiet section

Unless you're assuming that's bad, it's actually the best place to do it. I've had cops come into my library and escort people for child porn, being crazy, and whatnot.

I agree that there should be SOME noise, but sometimes it's just ridiculous and unrealistic to test conditions.

I guess you'd be surprised at what could happen. Construction, fire alarm, and since it's June, the possibility of students in the area you are testing. Maybe a film going on (happened to me). Shit happens I guess. I guess you could sit in an area away from the check out desk/children area but close enough where it's not completely quiet.

[Hennessy]

HAVEN'T DONE ANY PRACTICE TESTS OR STUDIED IN A WEEK
GAHHHHH
I'm not ready for this stupid test.

[appind]

PT 65, 177 (-1 LR, -2 LG, -3 RC)

Feeling much better about the games. I stopped trying to diagram every little thing like PowerScore and 7Sage do, and just started thinking through the rules conceptually. I find that much easier. This test had some of the tougher RC questions I have ever encountered.

great lr and rc scores

[appind]

67.S4.18

a necessary assumption would be concerned with standard personality tests only for adults, but choice A is about standard personality tests for all, which assumes children. even when the tests on children didn't detect some birth order effects on personality if those effects existed, the argument would still work. A is sufficient but doesn't seem necessary.
anyone see this issue?

[Pozzo]

67.S4.18

a necessary assumption would be concerned with standard personality tests only for adults, but choice A is about standard personality tests for all, which assumes children. even when the tests on children didn't detect some birth order effects on personality if those effects existed, the argument would still work. A is sufficient but doesn't seem necessary.
anyone see this issue?

Let me take a crack at this:

For it to be a necessary assumption (condition), the opposite of the statement would cause the argument to fall apart. If we negate it, we get something like, "Standard personality tests will detect NO birth-order effects on personality, if those effects exist." Not in children, not in adults, not in anyone. The psychologists argument is effectively saying that although siblings' and parents' perception of individuals in their family reflect the birth order effects, the fact that personality tests do not show these effects demonstrates that these effects are not real effects on one's personality. However, if standard personality tests would not detect those real effects if they did exist, then she has no support for her position. It would still be possible for them to exist and go undetected by a standard personality tests.

I think this is a classic case of LSAC using unnecessary information (children vs. adults) to obscure the real argument.

Does that make sense?

[appind]

67.S4.18

a necessary assumption would be concerned with standard personality tests only for adults, but choice A is about standard personality tests for all, which assumes children. even when the tests on children didn't detect some birth order effects on personality if those effects existed, the argument would still work. A is sufficient but doesn't seem necessary.
anyone see this issue?

Let me take a crack at this:

For it to be a necessary assumption (condition), the opposite of the statement would cause the argument to fall apart. If we negate it, we get something like, "Standard personality tests will detect NO birth-order effects on personality, if those effects exist." Not in children, not in adults, not in anyone. The psychologists argument is effectively saying that although siblings' and parents' perception of individuals in their family reflect the birth order effects, the fact that personality tests do not show these effects demonstrates that these effects are not real effects on one's personality. However, if standard personality tests would not detect those real effects if they did exist, then she has no support for her position. It would still be possible for them to exist and go undetected by a standard personality tests.

I think this is a classic case of LSAC using unnecessary information (children vs. adults) to obscure the real argument.

Does that make sense?

the negation of A is actually "sometimes standard personality tests will not detect any birth-order effects on personality, if those effects exist". it is different from standard personality tests always not detecting birth order effects on personality, if those effects exist.
that's why with the negation the argument doesn't break. those sometimes when the test will detect no both order effects when they exist, can be the times when the test is on children. since the argument is about adults, the negation wouldn't break it.

[Pozzo]

67.S4.18

a necessary assumption would be concerned with standard personality tests only for adults, but choice A is about standard personality tests for all, which assumes children. even when the tests on children didn't detect some birth order effects on personality if those effects existed, the argument would still work. A is sufficient but doesn't seem necessary.
anyone see this issue?

Let me take a crack at this:

For it to be a necessary assumption (condition), the opposite of the statement would cause the argument to fall apart. If we negate it, we get something like, "Standard personality tests will detect NO birth-order effects on personality, if those effects exist." Not in children, not in adults, not in anyone. The psychologists argument is effectively saying that although siblings' and parents' perception of individuals in their family reflect the birth order effects, the fact that personality tests do not show these effects demonstrates that these effects are not real effects on one's personality. However, if standard personality tests would not detect those real effects if they did exist, then she has no support for her position. It would still be possible for them to exist and go undetected by a standard personality tests.

I think this is a classic case of LSAC using unnecessary information (children vs. adults) to obscure the real argument.

Does that make sense?

the negation of A is actually "sometimes standard personality tests will not detect any birth-order effects on personality, if those effects exist". it is different from standard personality tests always not detecting birth order effects on personality, if those effects exist.
that's why with the negation the argument doesn't break. those sometimes when the test will detect no both order effects when they exist, can be the times when the test is on children. since the argument is about adults, the negation wouldn't break it.

Ok, this is tricky because of the way that negating "some" vs. "all" statements works. I agree with you that intuitively the negation appears to be the one you provided, but "sometimes standard personality tests will not detect any birth-order effects on personality, if those effects exist" actually goes beyond what the argument is providing us. When a statement says "some" it is the logical equivalent of saying "at least one." A logical equivalent to answer A is: "In at least one case, standard personality tests will detect birth-order effects on personality, if the effects exists." The statement, "sometimes standard personality tests will not detect any birth-order effects..." does not negate that. In fact, it's completely logically compatible. It doesn't matter how many "somes" it does not detect the effects in, even if the personality test detects them in just one case out of 1 million, it is still "sometimes." For us to negate that, it must be that there is NO case in which the standard personality test detects birth-order effects.

It's a tricky concept, for sure. Sometimes a less wordy example makes it easier to follow. If I say, "Some dogs are poodles," the negation is not "Some dogs are not poodles." It may be that all but one dog is a poodle, but if there is at least one dog that is a poodle, we have not negated the original statement. The proper way to negate this is by saying, "It is not the case that some dogs are poodles," or in plain English, "No dogs are poodles."

It's the same move in answer choice A. We can rephrase the original answer to make it a little clearer: "If birth order effects exist, then standard personality tests will detect at lest some of them." If that's not true, and birth-order effects exist even if personality tests do not detect them, then the psych's argument falls apart. I imagine the critic saying, "Who cares if these tests don't detect the effects? We all know they don't detect ever them anyway. That's not proof that the effects don't exist."

I know that this is a little (a lot) rambly, and I'm looking for a reference to send along, so it's not just a nameless, faceless person giving you tips on the interwebs. But it's late, so I'll resume my search in the morning.

I genuinely hope that made things clearer.

[Pozzo]

PT 65, 177 (-1 LR, -2 LG, -3 RC)

Feeling much better about the games. I stopped trying to diagram every little thing like PowerScore and 7Sage do, and just started thinking through the rules conceptually. I find that much easier. This test had some of the tougher RC questions I have ever encountered.

Boss.

[tuesdayninja]

Hey all, checking in. Currently getting cold feet about my cycle, but that changes everyday. I like the schools I've been accepted at but school is still so expensive! At the same time I just wanna get school over with. It changes everyday.

Have taken LSAT twice, 148 in Feb 2015 and 167 in Dec 2015. The 148 was basically a diagnostic, did not prep. The 167 was me over performing my PTs in the two months of prep leading up to the test. My highest PT was 161 with averages between 155-158. I took 9 PTs and was studying from a Kaplan LSAT premier book and Princeton review LG book, which I found to be garbage. Any recommendations for a retaker breaking 170 this go? Is it too late to try prepping to sit for June? Need the 170+ as I have a 3.26 LSAC GPA. If I don't make it I'll feel sitting out will have been a waste.

[carasrook]

Hey all, checking in. Currently getting cold feet about my cycle, but that changes everyday. I like the schools I've been accepted at but school is still so expensive! At the same time I just wanna get school over with. It changes everyday.

Have taken LSAT twice, 148 in Feb 2015 and 167 in Dec 2015. The 148 was basically a diagnostic, did not prep. The 167 was me over performing my PTs in the two months of prep leading up to the test. My highest PT was 161 with averages between 155-158. I took 9 PTs and was studying from a Kaplan LSAT premier book and Princeton review LG book, which I found to be garbage. Any recommendations for a retaker breaking 170 this go? Is it too late to try prepping to sit for June? Need the 170+ as I have a 3.26 LSAC GPA. If I don't make it I'll feel sitting out will have been a waste.

In my opinion, if you're going to retake, I would dedicate more than 2 months and maybe take in September/December and wait one more cycle. Especially if that would mean more scholarships/less debt.

[ayylmao]

I just got absolutely nuked by PT 60s LG section. It actually shook me up so much I couldn't go on with the test. I really have to work on that emotional stuff because I just couldn't keep my composure. Fuck. Wasted a PT. Figure I'll just treat each section as a separate practice section so I still get some value out of it and write this one off. 17 more PTs should be enough, I think.

Last LG scores were -2, -1, -5, and -5, not including practice sections. Ugh, the inconsistency.

[YupSports]

I just got absolutely nuked by PT 60s LG section. It actually shook me up so much I couldn't go on with the test. I really have to work on that emotional stuff because I just couldn't keep my composure. Fuck. Wasted a PT. Figure I'll just treat each section as a separate practice section so I still get some value out of it and write this one off. 17 more PTs should be enough, I think.

This killed me during the actual test this past December - blanked on one game, panicked and got down on myself, thus did not do well on the test.

I've found meditation and drilling to help me.

With the drilling I'm confident I will have at least a vague idea how to attack a game, so I just solider on.

With meditation, I take two seconds to relax, push the negative out of my head, and get a move on.

[appind]

A logical equivalent to answer A is: "In at least one case, standard personality tests will detect birth-order effects on personality, if the effects exists."

This reading of A is something I disagree with and is the issue. I read it as "always" in place of "in at least one case". e.g. when one says X will do Y, strictly speaking it means, if one had an instance of X, then it will do Y, in other words, it's guaranteed to do y.

[Mikey]

Took a relatively old (PT 10) LG section today and got -4 on it. Game 3 was simple but very weird.

[somewhatferal]

Took a relatively old (PT 10) LG section today and got -4 on it. Game 3 was simple but very weird.

Yeah, I used this LG section as a quasi-experimental section during a PT. Game 3 was bizarre, but fun. I forgot to remember the last rule, and I ended up missing three questions because of it. Good lesson.

[railyard]

Took a relatively old (PT 10) LG section today and got -4 on it. Game 3 was simple but very weird.

[beenoparte125]

174 today on PT 63.

LR -1
LG -0
LR -3
RC -2

RC was still a struggle. I was fairly confident in my answers, which seemed to sort of pay off, but not nearly as confident as one should be!!! The struggle continues.

[Mikey]

174 today on PT 63.

LR -1
LG -0
LR -3
RC -2

RC was still a struggle. I was fairly confident in my answers, which seemed to sort of pay off, but not nearly as confident as one should be!!! The struggle continues.

Yo, you're a beast. Wish I were PTing in the 170's.

[beenoparte125]

174 today on PT 63.

LR -1
LG -0
LR -3
RC -2

RC was still a struggle. I was fairly confident in my answers, which seemed to sort of pay off, but not nearly as confident as one should be!!! The struggle continues.

Yo, you're a beast. Wish I were PTing in the 170's.

Thanks, we'll all get there! I'm trusting in the process... we'll see if it pays off on D-Day.

[Mikey]

174 today on PT 63.

LR -1
LG -0
LR -3
RC -2

RC was still a struggle. I was fairly confident in my answers, which seemed to sort of pay off, but not nearly as confident as one should be!!! The struggle continues.

Yo, you're a beast. Wish I were PTing in the 170's.

Thanks, we'll all get there! I'm trusting in the process... we'll see if it pays off on D-Day.

To be completely honest, I think you will do great in June. I've been seeing all of your PT scores and you do so well. When did you start studying?

[beenoparte125]

174 today on PT 63.

LR -1
LG -0
LR -3
RC -2

RC was still a struggle. I was fairly confident in my answers, which seemed to sort of pay off, but not nearly as confident as one should be!!! The struggle continues.

Yo, you're a beast. Wish I were PTing in the 170's.

Thanks, we'll all get there! I'm trusting in the process... we'll see if it pays off on D-Day.

To be completely honest, I think you will do great in June. I've been seeing all of your PT scores and you do so well. When did you start studying?

I started seriously studying sometime in the middle of January, after a couple of months of doodling and mentally preparing myself to lock in for 5 months. Not to get sappy, but I really do believe you, me, and the others in this thread strike me as the type of people who are capable of harnessing motivation and nailing this test this year. Hard work works!

[YupSports]

174 today on PT 63.

LR -1
LG -0
LR -3
RC -2

RC was still a struggle. I was fairly confident in my answers, which seemed to sort of pay off, but not nearly as confident as one should be!!! The struggle continues.

Yo, you're a beast. Wish I were PTing in the 170's.

Thanks, we'll all get there! I'm trusting in the process... we'll see if it pays off on D-Day.

To be completely honest, I think you will do great in June. I've been seeing all of your PT scores and you do so well. When did you start studying?

I started seriously studying sometime in the middle of January, after a couple of months of doodling and mentally preparing myself to lock in for 5 months. Not to get sappy, but I really do believe you, me, and the others in this thread strike me as the type of people who are capable of harnessing motivation and nailing this test this year. Hard work works!

You, Beenoparte, I like the way you think.

I feel like there is a tightly know group of us in this thread; I am genuinely excited to see how we all do.

[carasrook]

174 today on PT 63.

LR -1
LG -0
LR -3
RC -2

RC was still a struggle. I was fairly confident in my answers, which seemed to sort of pay off, but not nearly as confident as one should be!!! The struggle continues.

Yo, you're a beast. Wish I were PTing in the 170's.

Thanks, we'll all get there! I'm trusting in the process... we'll see if it pays off on D-Day.

To be completely honest, I think you will do great in June. I've been seeing all of your PT scores and you do so well. When did you start studying?

I started seriously studying sometime in the middle of January, after a couple of months of doodling and mentally preparing myself to lock in for 5 months. Not to get sappy, but I really do believe you, me, and the others in this thread strike me as the type of people who are capable of harnessing motivation and nailing this test this year. Hard work works!

You, Beenoparte, I like the way you think.

I feel like there is a tightly know group of us in this thread; I am genuinely excited to see how we all do.

Y'all are seriously my motivation. Most of my friends/family really don't get it because they haven't done it - so their ability to relate is really difficult. It's nice to know there are other people out there in the same boat!