The Official September 2014 Study Group Forum

[kbrizz]

Cool, me either. I've been drilling for a while. Had a 140 diagnostic so don't be too worried. when do you plan on PT'ing out of curiosity? I just did a LG section from PT 42 and got owned by the stupid cookies game , in BR it wasn't bad though.

I might PT after I finish up drilling LG (So any day now) so that I can get a refreshed look at what I need to focus on in LR. I have been drilling out of the Cambridge packets so I really haven't seen the cookies game. Or really any games after PT 35 or whatever it is that Cambridge sends to in the packets.

[ultraman]

Thank you smc! How many do you recommend for drilling? Should I drill all level 3? Good luck on your study as well! So jealous of your score.

Hey! Thank you! My scores have been climbing slowly but surely - You're really not that far, and you have plenty of time to get up past 175 consistently before the actual thing (and higher, hopefully!)

I have no experience at all with Cambridge, so I can't really give specific advice, but as long as your drilling involves practicing all types of questions and figuring out the mistakes you make (why you chose the wrong answer, as well as why the correct answer was a better choice) then you're probably doing the right thing.

Personally I practice with RC Passages and LG grouped by type, and I think I've explained a couple of times ITT that it helps me pick up on patterns and learn to avoid making the same mistakes.

Thank you smc !

[eagleslive]

PT 41 (my third PT, first since March)
164
LR1: -5
LG: -4 (ran out of time on circle game)
LR2: -6
RC: -5

Need to focus on LR. I am going to start posting here more often as well.

[shakenbake]

Desperately need some help!

My PT scores fluctuate from 168 to 173. I have followed DD's study plan. I have drilled level 1&2 from Cambridge LR package and LG package twice. I have not drilled any RC passages, which I will start tomorrow.

My problem is: sometimes I missed around 6/7 on two LR sections combined and sometimes missed only 3. My RC is also a little bit messy. Sometimes I missed only 1 on RC but sometimes I could miss up to 8. I do not want take more PT because I am afraid that I will waste them. My LG is good usually 0/-1.

What should I do next? Should I do some older sections to focus on accuracy?

Any advice will be appreciated!

I am in the same boat as you!… a week and a half ago I scored a 174, and the last two PT's i had this week were a 168 and 169, almost all because of LR. I used to have trouble with RC, but lately I have missed 1 or 2, as opposed to the past - and I got that way with the Manhattan RC book. I ignored most of the "PEAR" stuff, but reading for a scale and really searching for the authors opinion helped me out a ton, so try that out.
I am at a standstill for LR though.. because I review each question and I just don't seem to be improving. I am about to start drilling tomorrow to see if it helps, but the problem is that there is no consistent type that I miss. It'll be 1-2 strengthen/weaken, maybe 2 MSS, a few "miscellaneous" (as 7sage names them), a method of reasoning question, and all of a sudden I have missed 12 total LR, when I only expected to miss 3 or 4.

Anyone who is really doing great at LR have some advice when the missed answers are so sporadic?

[mmorrell94]

Desperately need some help!

My PT scores fluctuate from 168 to 173. I have followed DD's study plan. I have drilled level 1&2 from Cambridge LR package and LG package twice. I have not drilled any RC passages, which I will start tomorrow.

My problem is: sometimes I missed around 6/7 on two LR sections combined and sometimes missed only 3. My RC is also a little bit messy. Sometimes I missed only 1 on RC but sometimes I could miss up to 8. I do not want take more PT because I am afraid that I will waste them. My LG is good usually 0/-1.

What should I do next? Should I do some older sections to focus on accuracy?

Any advice will be appreciated!

I am in the same boat as you!… a week and a half ago I scored a 174, and the last two PT's i had this week were a 168 and 169, almost all because of LR. I used to have trouble with RC, but lately I have missed 1 or 2, as opposed to the past - and I got that way with the Manhattan RC book. I ignored most of the "PEAR" stuff, but reading for a scale and really searching for the authors opinion helped me out a ton, so try that out.
I am at a standstill for LR though.. because I review each question and I just don't seem to be improving. I am about to start drilling tomorrow to see if it helps, but the problem is that there is no consistent type that I miss. It'll be 1-2 strengthen/weaken, maybe 2 MSS, a few "miscellaneous" (as 7sage names them), a method of reasoning question, and all of a sudden I have missed 12 total LR, when I only expected to miss 3 or 4.

Anyone who is really doing great at LR have some advice when the missed answers are so sporadic?

I wish I did but I'm in the exact same boat. Really frustrating to go -1 or 2 on the first LR and then -7 on the second...I have started drilling all types that I'm not getting right constantly (almost everything other than MBT and Strengthen/Weaken) and I think it's helping, but so far I'm still too inconsistent to be happy.

[Oskosh]

I fear I'll never get a perfect score in an LR section... Always end up going -1/2/3, and I always end up narrowing down do two answer choices, but invariably choose the incorrect one. Ugh!

Can someone walk me through PT 58, LR1 Q11? I narrowed it down to A and B, but of course I chose b. How is b not the correct answer? I reasoned that b was correct because it still raises the possibility of a causal connection. Also, to whomever helps me out, could you do it so that your explanation is structured in Manhattan/LSAT trainer terminology? (i.e, conclusion and then support, and where the gap in reasoning is). Thanks.

Also, I can't believe I got this one wrong, but on question 24, am I correct in my reasoning?

I initially but D because if the population outside the Abiimac Valley outside the Kiffer Forest Preserve is decreasing in population, then it raises the possibility that it is decreasing because these bears are coming into the forest preserve (therefore, the bears aren't increasing from within, the bears are just finding a way in). But I can see how that doesn't completely weaken it as E does. Since E posits that the bear population in the Abbimac Valley has remained the same over the eight years, then this definitively establishes that the bear population may have doubled, but that is because the bears from outside the reserve are getting in. Therefore, the population of the overall valley will not increase if the road is kept closed.

[Gray]

.

[boris09]

It's nights like tonight, when my friends are out enjoying themselves downtown with drinks, that really make me hope that this test will turn out well. Would really suck having all summer spent studying be in vain. Currently expected to be up till 3am drilling

Hope everyone is enjoying their LSAT filled weekend!

[ultraman]

Desperately need some help!

My PT scores fluctuate from 168 to 173. I have followed DD's study plan. I have drilled level 1&2 from Cambridge LR package and LG package twice. I have not drilled any RC passages, which I will start tomorrow.

My problem is: sometimes I missed around 6/7 on two LR sections combined and sometimes missed only 3. My RC is also a little bit messy. Sometimes I missed only 1 on RC but sometimes I could miss up to 8. I do not want take more PT because I am afraid that I will waste them. My LG is good usually 0/-1.

What should I do next? Should I do some older sections to focus on accuracy?

Any advice will be appreciated!

I am in the same boat as you!… a week and a half ago I scored a 174, and the last two PT's i had this week were a 168 and 169, almost all because of LR. I used to have trouble with RC, but lately I have missed 1 or 2, as opposed to the past - and I got that way with the Manhattan RC book. I ignored most of the "PEAR" stuff, but reading for a scale and really searching for the authors opinion helped me out a ton, so try that out.
I am at a standstill for LR though.. because I review each question and I just don't seem to be improving. I am about to start drilling tomorrow to see if it helps, but the problem is that there is no consistent type that I miss. It'll be 1-2 strengthen/weaken, maybe 2 MSS, a few "miscellaneous" (as 7sage names them), a method of reasoning question, and all of a sudden I have missed 12 total LR, when I only expected to miss 3 or 4.

Anyone who is really doing great at LR have some advice when the missed answers are so sporadic?

I plan to re-read LR Bible and Manhattan LR before doing some drill. What is your plan? Thanks for the RC tips.

[Louis1127]

WHERE IS WALTGRACE

PAGING WALTGRACE

[flash21]

Cool, me either. I've been drilling for a while. Had a 140 diagnostic so don't be too worried. when do you plan on PT'ing out of curiosity? I just did a LG section from PT 42 and got owned by the stupid cookies game , in BR it wasn't bad though.

I might PT after I finish up drilling LG (So any day now) so that I can get a refreshed look at what I need to focus on in LR. I have been drilling out of the Cambridge packets so I really haven't seen the cookies game. Or really any games after PT 35 or whatever it is that Cambridge sends to in the packets.

I think its PT's 1-38. Okay, well good luck. BTW, love dark twisted fantasy

[shakenbake]

Desperately need some help!

My PT scores fluctuate from 168 to 173. I have followed DD's study plan. I have drilled level 1&2 from Cambridge LR package and LG package twice. I have not drilled any RC passages, which I will start tomorrow.

My problem is: sometimes I missed around 6/7 on two LR sections combined and sometimes missed only 3. My RC is also a little bit messy. Sometimes I missed only 1 on RC but sometimes I could miss up to 8. I do not want take more PT because I am afraid that I will waste them. My LG is good usually 0/-1.

What should I do next? Should I do some older sections to focus on accuracy?

Any advice will be appreciated!

I am in the same boat as you!… a week and a half ago I scored a 174, and the last two PT's i had this week were a 168 and 169, almost all because of LR. I used to have trouble with RC, but lately I have missed 1 or 2, as opposed to the past - and I got that way with the Manhattan RC book. I ignored most of the "PEAR" stuff, but reading for a scale and really searching for the authors opinion helped me out a ton, so try that out.
I am at a standstill for LR though.. because I review each question and I just don't seem to be improving. I am about to start drilling tomorrow to see if it helps, but the problem is that there is no consistent type that I miss. It'll be 1-2 strengthen/weaken, maybe 2 MSS, a few "miscellaneous" (as 7sage names them), a method of reasoning question, and all of a sudden I have missed 12 total LR, when I only expected to miss 3 or 4.

Anyone who is really doing great at LR have some advice when the missed answers are so sporadic?

I plan to re-read LR Bible and Manhattan LR before doing some drill. What is your plan? Thanks for the RC tips.

Right now I'm reviewing the LR from PT 58, because of the dreadful score I got. I'm gonna go over the incorrect answers and rework them all, and then go over any that I had circled while taking the test... I'm also thinking of looking through Manhattan LR again and making some notes about each question type as a review, because I think that if I revise types and strategies, it'll help me clear out some silly mistakes I've been making. And then probably some drilling, I guess. And of course, let me know how the RC book treats you!

[HRomanus]

LR is severely pissing me off. I always finish with time, and (excluding rare, random mistakes) I always identify which questions I'm struggling with. That's why BR doesn't matter for me on LR - I spend the time during the exam.

PT 25 is a great example. Any thoughts on #23? I don't see how B is the answer. The argument doesn't imply or state that ALL computer scientists appreciate the advances in technology, just that the only people who appreciate them are computer scientists. So B isn't a flaw, right?

[Valamar]

LR is severely pissing me off. I always finish with time, and (excluding rare, random mistakes) I always identify which questions I'm struggling with. That's why BR doesn't matter for me on LR - I spend the time during the exam.

PT 25 is a great example. Any thoughts on #23? I don't see how B is the answer. The argument doesn't imply or state that ALL computer scientists appreciate the advances in technology, just that the only people who appreciate them are computer scientists. So B isn't a flaw, right?

Actually, if you read the wording more carefully, "only those who appreciates these advances are scientists" IS equivalent to "all scientists appreciate the technological advances". The tricky distinction is between "the only", and "only those".

[Oskosh]

I fear I'll never get a perfect score in an LR section... Always end up going -1/2/3, and I always end up narrowing down do two answer choices, but invariably choose the incorrect one. Ugh!

Can someone walk me through PT 58, LR1 Q11? I narrowed it down to A and B, but of course I chose b. How is b not the correct answer? I reasoned that b was correct because it still raises the possibility of a causal connection. Also, to whomever helps me out, could you do it so that your explanation is structured in Manhattan/LSAT trainer terminology? (i.e, conclusion and then support, and where the gap in reasoning is). Thanks.

Also, I can't believe I got this one wrong, but on question 24, am I correct in my reasoning?

I initially but D because if the population outside the Abiimac Valley outside the Kiffer Forest Preserve is decreasing in population, then it raises the possibility that it is decreasing because these bears are coming into the forest preserve (therefore, the bears aren't increasing from within, the bears are just finding a way in). But I can see how that doesn't completely weaken it as E does. Since E posits that the bear population in the Abbimac Valley has remained the same over the eight years, then this definitively establishes that the bear population may have doubled, but that is because the bears from outside the reserve are getting in. Therefore, the population of the overall valley will not increase if the road is kept closed.

In 11, B is not the right answer because the argument doesn't have to do with chromosomal damage causing Schizophrenia, it talks about how a specific kind of damage doesn't. In fact, the argument notes that there are people without the damage that get Schizophrenia as adults, so it's not fair to say that the argument presumes that there are no other causes. The main flaw in the argument is ignoring the possibility that there is something distinguishing the people who have the damaged chromosome and get schizophrenia from those who have the damaged chromosome and don't - A fits the bill: maybe it's different type of damage.

Also FUCK that bear question. Forest preserve VS. valley got me all screwed up. It's E - because if the valley pop. has stayed the same with the road closed, while the preserve pop. doubled, it follows that keeping it closed won't lead to a population increase - this most clearly undermines the argument. It should have been way more obvious, I think, but I got hung up on the other answer choices.

Thank you!! I never thought about it that way. How are you doing in your studies? I'm in the low 170s, but there are always a few questions that screw me up. However, I am developing cheats (that the books always gave to me, but I guess I never picked up on them).

For instance, got #10, #15 and #25 wrong in December 2006 LR1. This is the 2nd time I miss a question like #10, but I don't think this will happen again. Why? Because I never paid attention to what the argument was doing. That is, I never attempted to summarize the argument in my own words/what it was doing in my own words. But arguments that bring up two different things are usually comparing, so a simple question that I can ask myself is: What makes x better than y? Sure enough, that would have led me to answer E. But it was late at night, and I didn't think about this. Now I will, though.

#15 can be attributed to the same thing...and careful reading. I didn't notice that the biological theory snuck into the argument. However, it is clear that in using the biological theory the reasoning is assuming the truth of this theory.

#25 I just need to read...and it was a dumb mistake. I quickly recognized the causal argument, and I know how to weaken/strengthen causal reasoning questions... I just blanked and didn't do that haha. But it's clear to me why A is the correct answer. At least being able to see this after taking a section helps me out considerably.

[brooklynboy]

I also just took PT 60!

I once again got my mode grade of 176 (I also got it on PT 54 and PT 58):

LG -2
LR1: -0
LR2: -1
RC: -2

I have never gotten a perfect score on LG. I really think it's some kind of curse!!! I make silly mistakes, and most often go -1. A -0 on LG on this test would have given me a 179...

Let me know if anyone has LR questions they want to discuss; I love doing that!

RC annoys me. I have gone -0 once, but typically go -1 or -2, and I feel like each time I review I tell myself, "OK, so you should have read the question stem more carefully," or "You missed this word in the passage!" But I'm not sure how knowing that I need to be a more conscientious reader will lead to consistent improvement.

[HRomanus]

LR is severely pissing me off. I always finish with time, and (excluding rare, random mistakes) I always identify which questions I'm struggling with. That's why BR doesn't matter for me on LR - I spend the time during the exam.

PT 25 is a great example. Any thoughts on #23? I don't see how B is the answer. The argument doesn't imply or state that ALL computer scientists appreciate the advances in technology, just that the only people who appreciate them are computer scientists. So B isn't a flaw, right?

Actually, if you read the wording more carefully, "only those who appreciates these advances are scientists" IS equivalent to "all scientists appreciate the technological advances". The tricky distinction is between "the only", and "only those".

Can you explicate that further?

[Valamar]

LR is severely pissing me off. I always finish with time, and (excluding rare, random mistakes) I always identify which questions I'm struggling with. That's why BR doesn't matter for me on LR - I spend the time during the exam.

PT 25 is a great example. Any thoughts on #23? I don't see how B is the answer. The argument doesn't imply or state that ALL computer scientists appreciate the advances in technology, just that the only people who appreciate them are computer scientists. So B isn't a flaw, right?

Actually, if you read the wording more carefully, "only those who appreciates these advances are scientists" IS equivalent to "all scientists appreciate the technological advances". The tricky distinction is between "the only", and "only those".

Can you explicate that further?

"Only those who appreciate these advances are scientists" structurally is "only A is B", "A is necessary for B", or "B---->A". It becomes clearer if you reword it as "the only people who are scientists are those who appreciate these advances", from which you can also deduce "people who do not appreciate these advances are not scientists", and thus "all scientists appreciate these technological advances".

On the other hand, if the prompt had read something like "the only people who appreciate these advances are scientists" or "only scientists appreciate these advances", that would be the reverse structurally: "only B is A", "B is necessary for A", or "A----->B". I haven't really studied formal logic too comprehensively so maybe someone else would be better able to provide proper technical terms, but that is the general gist of it.

[kbrizz]

Cool, me either. I've been drilling for a while. Had a 140 diagnostic so don't be too worried. when do you plan on PT'ing out of curiosity? I just did a LG section from PT 42 and got owned by the stupid cookies game , in BR it wasn't bad though.

I might PT after I finish up drilling LG (So any day now) so that I can get a refreshed look at what I need to focus on in LR. I have been drilling out of the Cambridge packets so I really haven't seen the cookies game. Or really any games after PT 35 or whatever it is that Cambridge sends to in the packets.

I think its PT's 1-38. Okay, well good luck. BTW, love dark twisted fantasy

Thank you! You too, and keep us updated!

[kbrizz]

I also just took PT 60!

I once again got my mode grade of 176 (I also got it on PT 54 and PT 58):

LG -2
LR1: -0
LR2: -1
RC: -2

I have never gotten a perfect score on LG. I really think it's some kind of curse!!! I make silly mistakes, and most often go -1. A -0 on LG on this test would have given me a 179...

Let me know if anyone has LR questions they want to discuss; I love doing that!

RC annoys me. I have gone -0 once, but typically go -1 or -2, and I feel like each time I review I tell myself, "OK, so you should have read the question stem more carefully," or "You missed this word in the passage!" But I'm not sure how knowing that I need to be a more conscientious reader will lead to consistent improvement.

[Gray]

.

[kbrizz]

Hey guys!

Just did PT 61 and got 177 again! Should be happier, but 2 mistakes were really dumb - missing something key in the question, and misreading an answer choice. Plus the only RC question I missed was one that I changed the answer from right to wrong (again).

The other two were both parallel reasoning, so I bought and printed out the Cambridge packets for Parallel Reasoning and Parallel Flaw like immediately after the exam. I have found the Parallel Reasoning Qs more difficult in the more recent PTs and got a few wrong, so I guess I need to drill.

Breakdown:
RC: -1
LR1: -1 (Parallel)
LG: -1 (First time I've had a mistake on LG in a while, and it stings, because it was so careless.)
LR2: -2 (1 careless, 1 Parallel)

I think next weekend I'm not going to do a PT on Saturday and really focus on drilling - Parallel, RC and LG. I wish there wasn't an entire work week between now and then

Hey don't be too hard on yourself! That's awesome. Quick question. When you are drilling are you reusing material? Because it seems like you're pretty far along in the process.

[Gray]

.

[flash21]

Hey guys!

Just did PT 61 and got 177 again! Should be happier, but 2 mistakes were really dumb - missing something key in the question, and misreading an answer choice. Plus the only RC question I missed was one that I changed the answer from right to wrong (again).

The other two were both parallel reasoning, so I bought and printed out the Cambridge packets for Parallel Reasoning and Parallel Flaw like immediately after the exam. I have found the Parallel Reasoning Qs more difficult in the more recent PTs and got a few wrong, so I guess I need to drill.

Breakdown:
RC: -1
LR1: -1 (Parallel)
LG: -1 (First time I've had a mistake on LG in a while, and it stings, because it was so careless.)
LR2: -2 (1 careless, 1 Parallel)

I think next weekend I'm not going to do a PT on Saturday and really focus on drilling - Parallel, RC and LG. I wish there wasn't an entire work week between now and then

Hey don't be too hard on yourself! That's awesome. Quick question. When you are drilling are you reusing material? Because it seems like you're pretty far along in the process.

Not reusing anything yet! I hope I don't have to. I didn't start with drilling, I started with PTs, and have just targeted issues as I go along. I have done all the LGs from PT 1-20, and about half the RC from 21-40. I'm not that intense, I work too much to spend a ton of time drilling.

How much time do you spend upfront when you first read an LG prompt making inferences? I think part of my issue is when I do a new LG section I panic and don't spend enough time making the inferences you'd normally make, which results in losing a bunch of time elsewhere.

[valen]

Just finished my first timed PT and I am both exhausted and frustrated:

Superprep PT C
Timed:
LG: -7
LR: -6
LR: -6
RC: -2
Score: 165

Untimed:
LG: -2
LR: -5
LR: -3
RC: -2
Score: 172

I think the majority of my mistakes are from running out of time and mental exhaustion. I am definitely going to try to increase my speed when drilling. Also I feel like all my diagramming knowledge disappears the second that timer starts. This test really bummed me out, feels like I've taken a step back.