The Official June 2014 Study Group Forum

[BaberhamLincoln]

Do you guys think there's much of a difference/value added to getting the most recent LSATs?
I have already done the most recent "10 Actual..." book. I could purchase the one before it with PT's 29-38 for $17 or I could purchase PT's 62-71 (minus 69 because that's the one I took last June) for ~$6-8 each.

The price difference is significant, but is there a difference in what's best to study from? (Perhaps it's flawed to think the most recent tests will be more similar to what we will actually encounter on test day? Perhaps it doesn't matter? Except for the comparative stuff in RC....)

[alecks]

Do you guys think there's much of a difference/value added to getting the most recent LSATs?
I have already done the most recent "10 Actual..." book. I could purchase the one before it with PT's 29-38 for $17 or I could purchase PT's 62-71 (minus 69 because that's the one I took last June) for ~$6-8 each.

The price difference is significant, but is there a difference in what's best to study from? (Perhaps it's flawed to think the most recent tests will be more similar to what we will actually encounter on test day? Perhaps it doesn't matter? Except for the comparative stuff in RC....)

uhm 100% should be studying from the most recent tests. PT 29 is very different from PT 69.

[dd235]

Do you guys think there's much of a difference/value added to getting the most recent LSATs?
I have already done the most recent "10 Actual..." book. I could purchase the one before it with PT's 29-38 for $17 or I could purchase PT's 62-71 (minus 69 because that's the one I took last June) for ~$6-8 each.

The price difference is significant, but is there a difference in what's best to study from? (Perhaps it's flawed to think the most recent tests will be more similar to what we will actually encounter on test day? Perhaps it doesn't matter? Except for the comparative stuff in RC....)

They’re actually releasing 62-71 in one book for $20 like they did with the “10 Actual...” I think it comes out in like 4 days.

I just bought 62-71 as individual tests a couple weeks ago and wasted about $50 from what it would have cost as a bundle. Oh well.

[BaberhamLincoln]

Do you guys think there's much of a difference/value added to getting the most recent LSATs?
I have already done the most recent "10 Actual..." book. I could purchase the one before it with PT's 29-38 for $17 or I could purchase PT's 62-71 (minus 69 because that's the one I took last June) for ~$6-8 each.

The price difference is significant, but is there a difference in what's best to study from? (Perhaps it's flawed to think the most recent tests will be more similar to what we will actually encounter on test day? Perhaps it doesn't matter? Except for the comparative stuff in RC....)

They’re actually releasing 62-71 in one book for $20 like they did with the “10 Actual...” I think it comes out in like 4 days.

I just bought 62-71 as individual tests a couple weeks ago and wasted about $50 from what it would have cost as a bundle. Oh well.

Woah. So good to know. How did you know that? (Thank you btw)

[Louis1127]

Do you guys think there's much of a difference/value added to getting the most recent LSATs?
I have already done the most recent "10 Actual..." book. I could purchase the one before it with PT's 29-38 for $17 or I could purchase PT's 62-71 (minus 69 because that's the one I took last June) for ~$6-8 each.

The price difference is significant, but is there a difference in what's best to study from? (Perhaps it's flawed to think the most recent tests will be more similar to what we will actually encounter on test day? Perhaps it doesn't matter? Except for the comparative stuff in RC....)

Important because the test has changed. Plenty of threads on this. Consensus is games got easier, but perhaps a little more time consuming, LR's logic got better/tighter and trap answers became more attractive, and RC definitely got way harder. This is why it is important to get the recent tests.

[BaberhamLincoln]

Makes sense.
I prefer recent tests for peace of mind as well!

Just so glad to hear they're going to bundle them and release it soon! Save me a few bucks.

[alansadler]

Do you guys think there's much of a difference/value added to getting the most recent LSATs?
I have already done the most recent "10 Actual..." book. I could purchase the one before it with PT's 29-38 for $17 or I could purchase PT's 62-71 (minus 69 because that's the one I took last June) for ~$6-8 each.

The price difference is significant, but is there a difference in what's best to study from? (Perhaps it's flawed to think the most recent tests will be more similar to what we will actually encounter on test day? Perhaps it doesn't matter? Except for the comparative stuff in RC....)

Important because the test has changed. Plenty of threads on this. Consensus is games got easier, but perhaps a little more time consuming, LR's logic got better/tighter and trap answers became more attractive, and RC definitely got way harder. This is why it is important to get the recent tests.

Would you say there's a big difference from the mid 40 to now?

[jk148706]

Do you guys think there's much of a difference/value added to getting the most recent LSATs?
I have already done the most recent "10 Actual..." book. I could purchase the one before it with PT's 29-38 for $17 or I could purchase PT's 62-71 (minus 69 because that's the one I took last June) for ~$6-8 each.

The price difference is significant, but is there a difference in what's best to study from? (Perhaps it's flawed to think the most recent tests will be more similar to what we will actually encounter on test day? Perhaps it doesn't matter? Except for the comparative stuff in RC....)

Important because the test has changed. Plenty of threads on this. Consensus is games got easier, but perhaps a little more time consuming, LR's logic got better/tighter and trap answers became more attractive, and RC definitely got way harder. This is why it is important to get the recent tests.

I actually disagree mostly. There may be some truth to the RC claims, but even there it's dubious. Tests in the 40s and 50s are pretty close to what you will see today.

Still it is important to get and take all the new PTs

[jk148706]

Do you guys think there's much of a difference/value added to getting the most recent LSATs?
I have already done the most recent "10 Actual..." book. I could purchase the one before it with PT's 29-38 for $17 or I could purchase PT's 62-71 (minus 69 because that's the one I took last June) for ~$6-8 each.

The price difference is significant, but is there a difference in what's best to study from? (Perhaps it's flawed to think the most recent tests will be more similar to what we will actually encounter on test day? Perhaps it doesn't matter? Except for the comparative stuff in RC....)

Important because the test has changed. Plenty of threads on this. Consensus is games got easier, but perhaps a little more time consuming, LR's logic got better/tighter and trap answers became more attractive, and RC definitely got way harder. This is why it is important to get the recent tests.

Would you say there's a big difference from the mid 40 to now?

Other than comparative reading, no. I mean sure there are some differences (rc might ask an additional inference question or something), but honestly Lsac is really good at recycling the same stuff. It's one reason why people are able to improve their scores so much.

[dd235]

Woah. So good to know. How did you know that? (Thank you btw)

It’s on amazon for pre-order with a publication date of April 15.
http://www.amazon.com/10-Actual-Officia ... 883&sr=1-4

[santoki]

I know this has been asked somewhere in the land of TLS, but how do you guys throw in the experimental section? For those of use using the books from LSAC, it's hard to just throw in a section and think "this is just as important" and not take a break or anything like that.

Methods? Tips? Hugs?

[Straw_Mandible]

I know this has been asked somewhere in the land of TLS, but how do you guys throw in the experimental section? For those of use using the books from LSAC, it's hard to just throw in a section and think "this is just as important" and not take a break or anything like that.

Methods? Tips? Hugs?

Methods and tips: Remind yourself that the purpose of a PT is not to validate your scoring range capacity. The purpose of a PT is to gain exposure to testing conditions and, above all, to improve. There is no difference in the importance of an experimental section vs. the 'real' sections in a practice test. They all serve the same function.

Also offering hugs.

[Louis1127]

Do you guys think there's much of a difference/value added to getting the most recent LSATs?
I have already done the most recent "10 Actual..." book. I could purchase the one before it with PT's 29-38 for $17 or I could purchase PT's 62-71 (minus 69 because that's the one I took last June) for ~$6-8 each.

The price difference is significant, but is there a difference in what's best to study from? (Perhaps it's flawed to think the most recent tests will be more similar to what we will actually encounter on test day? Perhaps it doesn't matter? Except for the comparative stuff in RC....)

Important because the test has changed. Plenty of threads on this. Consensus is games got easier, but perhaps a little more time consuming, LR's logic got better/tighter and trap answers became more attractive, and RC definitely got way harder. This is why it is important to get the recent tests.

I actually disagree mostly. There may be some truth to the RC claims, but even there it's dubious. Tests in the 40s and 50s are pretty close to what you will see today.

Still it is important to get and take all the new PTs

We're not disagreeing.

Edit: not trying to be douche. We're just talking about different things.

[jk148706]

Do you guys think there's much of a difference/value added to getting the most recent LSATs?
I have already done the most recent "10 Actual..." book. I could purchase the one before it with PT's 29-38 for $17 or I could purchase PT's 62-71 (minus 69 because that's the one I took last June) for ~$6-8 each.

The price difference is significant, but is there a difference in what's best to study from? (Perhaps it's flawed to think the most recent tests will be more similar to what we will actually encounter on test day? Perhaps it doesn't matter? Except for the comparative stuff in RC....)

Important because the test has changed. Plenty of threads on this. Consensus is games got easier, but perhaps a little more time consuming, LR's logic got better/tighter and trap answers became more attractive, and RC definitely got way harder. This is why it is important to get the recent tests.

I actually disagree mostly. There may be some truth to the RC claims, but even there it's dubious. Tests in the 40s and 50s are pretty close to what you will see today.

Still it is important to get and take all the new PTs

We're not disagreeing.

Edit: not trying to be douche. We're just talking about different things.

Gotcha. Carry on

[10052014]

.

[WaltGrace83]

I have been posting in this thread for quite some time. However, I have not actually done more than taking timed sections. Today, I took an impromptu PT just for the hell of it - PT39. It was a 4-section test, took under strict timed conditions though with the LSAT proctor on 7sage. The only modification is that I took the break between 2/3 rather than 3/4. I skipped the blind review - terrible I know - but I knew I wasn't going to be able to get through all the blind review without making my head explode, this being my first PT and all.

Overall, I am INCREDIBLY happy with the results. I have hardly (like, not at all) studied RC. Thus, I am more excited about my LR/LG score than my raw score. Here is my breakdown:

Section 1: LG (-0)

• Games 1,3, and 4 were easy. For some reason though, I had a TON of trouble with game 2. There was some inference I couldn't get or some rule I was misunderstanding. Thus, I took about 12 minutes on this game that should have taken 5. Oh well. -0 regardless but I almost ran out of time.

Section 2: LR (-4)

• - I was blindsided even by the first few questions. I ended up getting them right but I felt like the stress got to me and I couldn't think correctly. I was being fueled very much on my instincts for the first few questions, not good, but I think that this all happened because of the fact that it was my first PT.
  - I got #6 wrong. I picked (C) and it was (D). A little bit confused at this but I'll intensely review it later.
  - I got #12 wrong. I picked (E) and circled it because I knew that I was missing something about this argument. - - On #15, I changed my answer from (D) to (A) when I had a few seconds at the end. I knew I didn't comprehend the intricacy of the argument. Luckily, I fixed it.
  - On #19, I picked the OPPOSITE. Dumb mistake . However, it was all my fault: I simply misread the argument.- - Got #22 wrong, just flat out sucked this one up.

Section 3: RC (-9)

• No excuses. I suck at RC. It's fine though - I haven't done much with it. I'll get really good at this section too.
  - Did really well on the first passage, got a -1 on it.
  - Did okay on the second passage, got a -2 mostly because I couldn't find the place where they discussed an idea and I looked for it for too long.
  - Science passage was third. DIdn't do very well and got a -3. I really felt like I did better.
  - I hardly got to the 4th passage. I got to it around the 4 minute mark but felt like if I would have done passage #4 before #3 I would have got that -9 to about a -7 because I think the third passage was harder for me.

Section 4: LR (-3)

• - I tried to keep my cool on this section. I literally thought, "well RC sucked - this test is blown. I might as well just not give a shit and just relax." I think that helped.
  - I got #5 wrong; lack of understanding of a critical detail.
  - I got #16 wrong, not sure about this one but I'll review thoroughly.
  - #21 wrong - AHHHH i get it now

OVERALL, I think this was a great experience because the questions I got wrong were primarily stuff I haven't drilled yet (2 inference, 1 paradox, and 1 complete the passage) - the other few mistakes I made was me just not understanding the argument and I am not as worried about a HUGE gap in understanding the process - I just need to work on focusing better.

Raw score: 85/101
Score: 168.

Thanks for all the help, everyone. Seriously. I finally have a TINY bit of validation. Now I am going to review the crap out of this tomorrow.

[SpiritofFire]

Do you guys think there's much of a difference/value added to getting the most recent LSATs?
I have already done the most recent "10 Actual..." book. I could purchase the one before it with PT's 29-38 for $17 or I could purchase PT's 62-71 (minus 69 because that's the one I took last June) for ~$6-8 each.

The price difference is significant, but is there a difference in what's best to study from? (Perhaps it's flawed to think the most recent tests will be more similar to what we will actually encounter on test day? Perhaps it doesn't matter? Except for the comparative stuff in RC....)

Important because the test has changed. Plenty of threads on this. Consensus is games got easier, but perhaps a little more time consuming, LR's logic got better/tighter and trap answers became more attractive, and RC definitely got way harder. This is why it is important to get the recent tests.

Would you say there's a big difference from the mid 40 to now?

Depends on what constitutes as big. I've found that now, as opposed to 40s logic games are significantly more time constricted and relies heavily on templates and trying multiple different scenarios as quickly as you can. I'm now being forced to use crappy test taking strategies more often, and am more willing to use plug and chug instead of holding out for a key inference that's less likely to be there.

RC seems less focused on structure, so I've found myself focusing more on getting the differences between viewpoints. Every question seems to go like: x is most likely to believe...

LR I think was brutal in 50s in terms of the demand placed on you to recognize tiny variations in words. It seemed to me that the trap answers were more deliberately disguised to seem appetizing, so I had slow down and be more deliberate...and double check more often. It seems to be letting go somewhat in the 60s.

There aren't huge changes in terms of what the questions look like and the types of logic tested. But that being said, my PT average was higher in the 40s and I'm scrambling to get adjusted to the 60s.

[BaberhamLincoln]

What's a blind review?

I'm in the middle of my first pt for a year. Taking a long break between two sessions to shower. I'll report back.

[BaberhamLincoln]

Pt 59:

Lg: -4
Lr: -6
Lr: -3
Rc: -8

Score: 164

I guess not bad for not having touched this in 11 months?

[BillPackets]

What's a blind review?

I'm in the middle of my first pt for a year. Taking a long break between two sessions to shower. I'll report back.

Review all questions before checking answers. Must be 100% about right answer, and 100% certain why wrong answers are wrong. If not, circle question. Then check answers.

[Louis1127]

I have been posting in this thread for quite some time. However, I have not actually done more than taking timed sections. Today, I took an impromptu PT just for the hell of it - PT39. It was a 4-section test, took under strict timed conditions though with the LSAT proctor on 7sage. The only modification is that I took the break between 2/3 rather than 3/4. I skipped the blind review - terrible I know - but I knew I wasn't going to be able to get through all the blind review without making my head explode, this being my first PT and all.

Overall, I am INCREDIBLY happy with the results. I have hardly (like, not at all) studied RC. Thus, I am more excited about my LR/LG score than my raw score. Here is my breakdown:

Section 1: LG (-0)

• Games 1,3, and 4 were easy. For some reason though, I had a TON of trouble with game 2. There was some inference I couldn't get or some rule I was misunderstanding. Thus, I took about 12 minutes on this game that should have taken 5. Oh well. -0 regardless but I almost ran out of time.

Section 2: LR (-4)

• - I was blindsided even by the first few questions. I ended up getting them right but I felt like the stress got to me and I couldn't think correctly. I was being fueled very much on my instincts for the first few questions, not good, but I think that this all happened because of the fact that it was my first PT.
  - I got #6 wrong. I picked (C) and it was (D). A little bit confused at this but I'll intensely review it later.
  - I got #12 wrong. I picked (E) and circled it because I knew that I was missing something about this argument. - - On #15, I changed my answer from (D) to (A) when I had a few seconds at the end. I knew I didn't comprehend the intricacy of the argument. Luckily, I fixed it.
  - On #19, I picked the OPPOSITE. Dumb mistake . However, it was all my fault: I simply misread the argument.- - Got #22 wrong, just flat out sucked this one up.

Section 3: RC (-9)

• No excuses. I suck at RC. It's fine though - I haven't done much with it. I'll get really good at this section too.
  - Did really well on the first passage, got a -1 on it.
  - Did okay on the second passage, got a -2 mostly because I couldn't find the place where they discussed an idea and I looked for it for too long.
  - Science passage was third. DIdn't do very well and got a -3. I really felt like I did better.
  - I hardly got to the 4th passage. I got to it around the 4 minute mark but felt like if I would have done passage #4 before #3 I would have got that -9 to about a -7 because I think the third passage was harder for me.

Section 4: LR (-3)

• - I tried to keep my cool on this section. I literally thought, "well RC sucked - this test is blown. I might as well just not give a shit and just relax." I think that helped.
  - I got #5 wrong; lack of understanding of a critical detail.
  - I got #16 wrong, not sure about this one but I'll review thoroughly.
  - #21 wrong - AHHHH i get it now

OVERALL, I think this was a great experience because the questions I got wrong were primarily stuff I haven't drilled yet (2 inference, 1 paradox, and 1 complete the passage) - the other few mistakes I made was me just not understanding the argument and I am not as worried about a HUGE gap in understanding the process - I just need to work on focusing better.

Raw score: 85/101
Score: 168.

Thanks for all the help, everyone. Seriously. I finally have a TINY bit of validation. Now I am going to review the crap out of this tomorrow.

Walt,

I am genuinely happy for you that all your hard work has paid off a little. Obviously, this 168 doesn't matter at all- what matters is what you do on test day. But the fact that your drilling, reviewing, and perseverance has shown that you have the potential to own this test should be gratifying.

I am going to take my first PT after drilling this weekend and will let everyone know how I do!

[jk148706]

I have been posting in this thread for quite some time. However, I have not actually done more than taking timed sections. Today, I took an impromptu PT just for the hell of it - PT39. It was a 4-section test, took under strict timed conditions though with the LSAT proctor on 7sage. The only modification is that I took the break between 2/3 rather than 3/4. I skipped the blind review - terrible I know - but I knew I wasn't going to be able to get through all the blind review without making my head explode, this being my first PT and all.

Overall, I am INCREDIBLY happy with the results. I have hardly (like, not at all) studied RC. Thus, I am more excited about my LR/LG score than my raw score. Here is my breakdown:

Section 1: LG (-0)

• Games 1,3, and 4 were easy. For some reason though, I had a TON of trouble with game 2. There was some inference I couldn't get or some rule I was misunderstanding. Thus, I took about 12 minutes on this game that should have taken 5. Oh well. -0 regardless but I almost ran out of time.

Section 2: LR (-4)

• - I was blindsided even by the first few questions. I ended up getting them right but I felt like the stress got to me and I couldn't think correctly. I was being fueled very much on my instincts for the first few questions, not good, but I think that this all happened because of the fact that it was my first PT.
  - I got #6 wrong. I picked (C) and it was (D). A little bit confused at this but I'll intensely review it later.
  - I got #12 wrong. I picked (E) and circled it because I knew that I was missing something about this argument. - - On #15, I changed my answer from (D) to (A) when I had a few seconds at the end. I knew I didn't comprehend the intricacy of the argument. Luckily, I fixed it.
  - On #19, I picked the OPPOSITE. Dumb mistake . However, it was all my fault: I simply misread the argument.- - Got #22 wrong, just flat out sucked this one up.

Section 3: RC (-9)

• No excuses. I suck at RC. It's fine though - I haven't done much with it. I'll get really good at this section too.
  - Did really well on the first passage, got a -1 on it.
  - Did okay on the second passage, got a -2 mostly because I couldn't find the place where they discussed an idea and I looked for it for too long.
  - Science passage was third. DIdn't do very well and got a -3. I really felt like I did better.
  - I hardly got to the 4th passage. I got to it around the 4 minute mark but felt like if I would have done passage #4 before #3 I would have got that -9 to about a -7 because I think the third passage was harder for me.

Section 4: LR (-3)

• - I tried to keep my cool on this section. I literally thought, "well RC sucked - this test is blown. I might as well just not give a shit and just relax." I think that helped.
  - I got #5 wrong; lack of understanding of a critical detail.
  - I got #16 wrong, not sure about this one but I'll review thoroughly.
  - #21 wrong - AHHHH i get it now

OVERALL, I think this was a great experience because the questions I got wrong were primarily stuff I haven't drilled yet (2 inference, 1 paradox, and 1 complete the passage) - the other few mistakes I made was me just not understanding the argument and I am not as worried about a HUGE gap in understanding the process - I just need to work on focusing better.

Raw score: 85/101
Score: 168.

Thanks for all the help, everyone. Seriously. I finally have a TINY bit of validation. Now I am going to review the crap out of this tomorrow.

Congrats man that's a great score to work with. Honestly RC has taken me the longest to master so I wouldn't neglect it. I first started studying in Sept 2012 and I still have RC issues.

But you are killing it and I bet 175+ on the real deal. Good work

[jk148706]

What's a blind review?

I'm in the middle of my first pt for a year. Taking a long break between two sessions to shower. I'll report back.

Reviewing questions and answers before u check whether u got tcr. I typically blind review only those I circled as not being sure on. But the review is essential if you want to maximize your score.

[tfinndogm]

doing a timed PT today with my new Kaplan LSAT app. Gonna attempt PT 70! hereeeee we goooooo....

[WaltGrace83]

Congrats man that's a great score to work with. Honestly RC has taken me the longest to master so I wouldn't neglect it. I first started studying in Sept 2012 and I still have RC issues.

But you are killing it and I bet 175+ on the real deal. Good work

I absolutely see what you mean! RC skills are pretty much necessary for a 170+. While I will obviously not neglect RC, I am more worried about perfecting LR and LG. I think we can all agree that LG and RC can just straight up throw you a curve ball and sometimes it just won't be your day: maybe there will be a crazy and unusual game or a RC passage about a topic you cannot even pronounce. Yet at the same time LR seems to be something fairly consistent. Thus, I'd rather focus on THOSE skills first and if I can perfect LR then I will have all the more confidence trying to perfect RC. The elements of the LSAT seems to build off of each other. Regardless, RC will be a huge focus for me in the next coming months - I still have a lot to learn though.

I used to to think that I would be insanely lucky to get a 170. One PT obviously doesn't mean shit but, for a first PT, I am super excited that maybe I undermined my abilities just a bit. I am now even MORE excited to study so hopefully I will turn this into more score increases rather than an inflated confidence from an early 2000 PT haha. This is also paired with the fact that I am increasingly becoming more aware of how much 200k is even from a place like uPenn or UVA or Harvard. I want SCHOLLY.