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

[34iplaw]

Checking in here. Probably not a big deal to most people in this forum, but I just got my first -0 on a sequencing game. Pretty pumped about that.

It is a big deal. Congrats.

[cgra1916]

Currently doing 7Sage's RC problem sets, I keep telling myself that I can comprehend better/faster with the actual paper copy of the passage since it allows me to jot down the different viewpoints and briefly summarize each paragraph instead of having to continually scroll up and down the page, etc.

Anybody else annoyed by this, or am I just making excuses?

[Dodocogon]

Currently doing 7Sage's RC problem sets, I keep telling myself that I can comprehend better/faster with the actual paper copy of the passage since it allows me to jot down the different viewpoints and briefly summarize each paragraph instead of having to continually scroll up and down the page, etc.

Anybody else annoyed by this, or am I just making excuses?

I've always been able to read better on actual paper, this isn't an exception! There's a reason I always get the actual textbook for classes rather than an ebook.

[Barack O'Drama]

Checking in here. Probably not a big deal to most people in this forum, but I just got my first -0 on a sequencing game. Pretty pumped about that.

That's awesome! sequencing was a pain in my ass at first, but once I began diagramming correctly and almost robotically, I found the the answer choices became so much easier. Congrats! Stay pumped and you can go -0 on games in September

[20170322]

Just found out I'm losing my financial aid for next year. Even more reason to kill the LSAT-- gonna need major law school scholarships.

[Mikey]

Nice to see some familiar faces around here! I mean...I wish all of us had outperformed and were "one and done" but still.

Meer!!

[Giro423]

checking in, friends

short bio:
i was PTing at an average of 169 and SOMEHOW managed a 161 on the june test... i'm still devastated about it and think i need to give myself another week or two before i start studying again, but i already registered for the september test, so here we go!!

any advice on where to begin for retakers? i was not planning on retaking, and thus, i don't think i have ANY fresh tests (i was dumb and wrote all over them - i think i may need to just buy tests again which is also a huge bummer after just paying $180 to take the test again)

also - i did my best ever in RC in june and absolutely bombed games. i knew it was happening during the test, but i didn't think it would be as bad as it was (-9). games are usually my best section, and i've never gotten more than 3 wrong per section. i also way underperformed in LR.

Same thing happened to me, was PTing in high 160's and hit 160 on the real thing. Games and LR killed me, and LR is usually my strongest (I went -9 and -14, respectively). Deezastair

[20170322]

checking in, friends

short bio:
i was PTing at an average of 169 and SOMEHOW managed a 161 on the june test... i'm still devastated about it and think i need to give myself another week or two before i start studying again, but i already registered for the september test, so here we go!!

any advice on where to begin for retakers? i was not planning on retaking, and thus, i don't think i have ANY fresh tests (i was dumb and wrote all over them - i think i may need to just buy tests again which is also a huge bummer after just paying $180 to take the test again)

also - i did my best ever in RC in june and absolutely bombed games. i knew it was happening during the test, but i didn't think it would be as bad as it was (-9). games are usually my best section, and i've never gotten more than 3 wrong per section. i also way underperformed in LR.

Same thing happened to me, was PTing in high 160's and hit 160 on the real thing. Games and LR killed me, and LR is usually my strongest (I went -9 and -14, respectively). Deezastair

Anything you would have done differently in your prep? I'm worried about a big test day drop.

[Alexandros]

Just found out I'm losing my financial aid for next year. Even more reason to kill the LSAT-- gonna need major law school scholarships.

Damn, that really sucks. D: You'll crush it, I have no doubt!

[lawpro82]

Just found out I'm losing my financial aid for next year. Even more reason to kill the LSAT-- gonna need major law school scholarships.

Did they say why

[Barack O'Drama]

Below is a link the Mike Kim's LSAT Trainer thread that gives some great advice for any retakes that might be in here:


http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 5#p7386270


Good luck, all!

[20170322]

Just found out I'm losing my financial aid for next year. Even more reason to kill the LSAT-- gonna need major law school scholarships.

Did they say why

I got a job last year, and I'm guessing it kicked my income up by too much. Tho my grant was only 2000 per semester, so it's not like I'm going from riches to rags. Just gotta be a little more aware of my spending.

[EnfieldTennisChamp]

Below is a link the Mike Kim's LSAT Trainer thread that gives some great advice for any retakes that might be in here:


http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 5#p7386270


Good luck, all!

Nice, thanks.

[Barack O'Drama]

Below is a link the Mike Kim's LSAT Trainer thread that gives some great advice for any retakes that might be in here:


http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 5#p7386270


Good luck, all!

Nice, thanks.

Thought, "Hey, it couldn't hurt, right?" ....

[34iplaw]

Breaking into RC. 7/7 first passage. I'm not really a fan of the Testmasters' explanations, and they differed wildly from how we addressed things in class. A sucker answer choice wasn't really even addressed.

Anyone else doing the course and want to go over why wrong choices are wrong / right are right? If anyone is interested [in the course or not], I'll be doing the following passages over the next few days... I'll put my est. date I'll have them done too... I'll just post my thoughts here, and feel free to reach out here or in PMs. I'd like to answer your questions as well as receive feedback on mine or if my thought process is correct in eliminations

Tonight

Oct 1994 Passage 3 [done; 7/7; #17 wondering if P1 differentiating between substantive and formal counts as explicating and does 'most judges' count as generalization; #18 Why is D wrong... the use of convoluted...or? Can E be eliminated because 'partially correct' as well? Doesn't B sort of flip what the author would say, if anything?]

June 1993 Passage 1

December 2004 Passage 2

October 2010 Passage 1

June 2004 Passage 1

September 1995 Passage 1

Will be done on Friday

December 1991 Passage 3
February 1992 Passage 4
December 1997 Passage 1
February 2000 Passage 4
December 1992 Passage 1
June 1996 Passage 1

Will be done on Sunday

June 1993 Passage 2
December 2002 Passage 2
December 1995 Passage 3
December 2006 Passage 4
February 1995 Passage 2
October 2003 Passage 4

As an aside, anyone else in the course I'm happy to have a dialogue with on anything else pertinent to the class, homeworks, etc.!

[Archer@Law]

Just found out I'm losing my financial aid for next year. Even more reason to kill the LSAT-- gonna need major law school scholarships.

I feel you on this. I'm in the middle of the appeal process for the expiration of a scholarship. It sucks. Hard.

[Dodocogon]

Just went through my June 2016 Logic Games - Crazy how much missing an inference on a game hurt me. This was game 2, an in/out assignment game with 4 spots for 6 people. During the test I missed that placing L into either 1st or 2nd won't work as it forces T to be placed 3rd (L/T must be 3rd); and T -> OR (T -> R and R -> OR together) and constricts the game board to a huge degree, as the RO takes half the board. It hurt seeing how fast I was able to go thru the questions knowing this; ended up with -5 on that game alone on test day! Could have been a huge score swing. Now I know for next time!

[CoGar]

Hey All,

Does anyone have any quick tidbits to help me clear up the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions that maybe some of my prep books are too wordy on?

Just finished PT33 G2 (in/out game with birds in the forest) where 7sage combined the rules to:
notS--> J or M--> H--> notG--> notW............This combination in itself is not confusing, just when the video talks heavily on sufficient/necessary playing a role in back tracking on the diagram to allow for certain birds to be in/out I get confused


Anyway if anyone could do a quick explanation or point me in the direction of resources (free and quick) that could elaborate on these differing principles.. Thanks so mucb

[Doubting Law]

Practice Test A (February 1996)

Conditions: Timed with breaks in between each section.

Score: 157
LR:-6
RC:-2
LG:-16
LR:-4

I literally just started working on learning LG yesterday. Hopefully will make progress soon. LG is just so frustrating.

[PhiladelphiaCollins]

Just drilled a random LR section and went -5. Not bad, it's actually crazy how much working with the scantron changes up your timing. Unfortunately I'm leaving the country tomorrow for 10 days to visit family so I'm thinking I'm just going to drill each day and stay away from PTs for the time being

[cgra1916]

Currently doing 7Sage's RC problem sets, I keep telling myself that I can comprehend better/faster with the actual paper copy of the passage since it allows me to jot down the different viewpoints and briefly summarize each paragraph instead of having to continually scroll up and down the page, etc.

Anybody else annoyed by this, or am I just making excuses?

I've always been able to read better on actual paper, this isn't an exception! There's a reason I always get the actual textbook for classes rather than an ebook.

Thanks for clearing that up! Need to get some sort of bundle or packets asap haha

[Deardevil]

Practice Test A (February 1996)

Conditions: Timed with breaks in between each section.

Score: 157
LR:-6
RC:-2
LG:-16
LR:-4

I literally just started working on learning LG yesterday. Hopefully will make progress soon. LG is just so frustrating.

Pretty good! I'm like that with LR. I'm also on the same test, but drilling LR. Probably got 20/50...

Hey All,

Does anyone have any quick tidbits to help me clear up the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions that maybe some of my prep books are too wordy on?

Just finished PT33 G2 (in/out game with birds in the forest) where 7sage combined the rules to:
notS--> J or M--> H--> notG--> notW............This combination in itself is not confusing, just when the video talks heavily on sufficient/necessary playing a role in back tracking on the diagram to allow for certain birds to be in/out I get confused


Anyway if anyone could do a quick explanation or point me in the direction of resources (free and quick) that could elaborate on these differing principles.. Thanks so mucb

For that game, I made sure I had contrapositives, which are almost always needed.
So when given a "if A, then B," write A -> B and automatically include ~B -> ~A.
Problems will ask about this, and it's much easier to see if you have all the possibilties laid out.
It's also probably good to read the whole scenario and rules before actually writing anything down.
Often, you can combine rules that are similar, so instead of setting up as you read, you wouldn't waste time erasing.

[bmathers]

Checking in here, retaking again in September. Just scored a 158 on the June LSAT... RC is my nemesis (and I also screwed up on my typically-best sections - LR).

I have lots of material on me (4 Kaplan books and the latest SuperPrep book), but I'm not sure if any of it is still unused. I need some new stuff, but looking to save some money. What do you rec? 7Sage? Testmaster? LSAT Trainer? I need some new PTs'

Thanks! My ultimate goal is now a 164 (90th percentile).

[Doubting Law]

Checking in here, retaking again in September. Just scored a 158 on the June LSAT... RC is my nemesis (and I also screwed up on my typically-best sections - LR).

I have lots of material on me (4 Kaplan books and the latest SuperPrep book), but I'm not sure if any of it is still unused. I need some new stuff, but looking to save some money. What do you rec? 7Sage? Testmaster? LSAT Trainer? I need some new PTs'

Thanks! My ultimate goal is now a 164 (90th percentile).

7Sage is great if you're looking for new PTs and video explanations of each question.

[34iplaw]

Hey All,

Does anyone have any quick tidbits to help me clear up the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions that maybe some of my prep books are too wordy on?

Just finished PT33 G2 (in/out game with birds in the forest) where 7sage combined the rules to:
notS--> J or M--> H--> notG--> notW............This combination in itself is not confusing, just when the video talks heavily on sufficient/necessary playing a role in back tracking on the diagram to allow for certain birds to be in/out I get confused


Anyway if anyone could do a quick explanation or point me in the direction of resources (free and quick) that could elaborate on these differing principles.. Thanks so mucb

Quick and dirty.

Sufficient -> Necessary

The arrow only works in one direction.

If you are given the sufficient, you must have the necessary. For some games, this is critical, as this is where you will generate contradictions. To create a contradiction, trip as many rules as possible.

If you are given the necessary, you know nothing. The arrow only works in one direction. If you are only given the necessary, the relationship falls apart and the rule is meaningless. You could have the sufficient or you could not. It does not matter. Act as if the rule didn't exist.

'If you are given the *not* necessary, you *cannot* have the sufficient as it would be a contradiction. This, in essence, is the contrapositive and where it comes from.

'edited this... you must be given the fact that the necessary does not exist...the previous wording may have been an example of equivocation.

Get a good grasp on the two following relationships...

Sufficient not -> Necessary [either or rules... you will have to have one variable or both variables... at least one of the two variables in the relationship must be present]

Sufficient -> Necessary not [but not both rules (I think this is the correct term)... you can have one variable of the two or neither... you can never have both]