The Official October 2015 Study Group Forum

MrBalloons · Post by **MrBalloons** » Sun Aug 16, 2015 11:40 pm

GreekOmega12 wrote:Any advice on how to be mentally ready for an 8:30 AM LSAT administration? All my classes since I've been in UG were after 10:30 am and my previous LSAT was in June so the test wasn't until noon. I'm really not a morning person (or at least I don't think I am) how do I prepare myself for the October LSAT? I don't want me not being mentally awoke to be the reason I don't achieve the score I want.

Start studying in the morning, if you've got that available to you.

I wasn't a "morning person" until I stopped going to bed at 3am. Now I'm always asleep by midnight and ready to go at a normal time. I think it's worth it to yourself to at least try that out until October.

somethingElse · Post by **somethingElse** » Sun Aug 16, 2015 11:57 pm

Post removed...

pittsburghpirates · Post by **pittsburghpirates** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 12:50 am

Post removed.

Talarose · Post by **Talarose** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:43 am

RZ5646 wrote:
Talarose wrote:
How much studying have I actually done in that time? Honestly not nearly as much as I should have, maybe 1-2 months of serious prep in total. I didn't start prepping until last summer (and even then in only a very undisciplined manner), and then life would always get in the way, or I'd take a PT, get a score I considered satisfactory, and decide that I could put off studying for another few months. But of course with the test only ~50 days away, that's no longer an option.
So how much would you say you have truly focused on hardcore studying? I'm in the same boat as you starting score wise and I've been drilling LR for 3 weeks. I plan on taking a timed test Monday to see where I'm at.
That was my 1-2 months estimate, defining "serious" or "hardcore" prep as actually focusing on the LSAT 6+ hours per day like some of these TLSers with superhuman discipline apparently do. And I mean 1-2 months worth of serious prep; in reality, I don't think I've ever done more than 4 hours of work in a single day. The rest of the time has been 1-3 hours of prep book reading or drilling, or doing absolutely nothing, with emphasis on the latter lol.

I can't really estimate my time more precisely. I've read the Superprep (intro only), LGB (twice), Manhattan LR, and some of the LRB and the LSAT Trainer. I've spent considerable time on LG drilling, doing the LGB games several times, going through the Cambridge packets once, and drilling other games from early PTs, but I've drilled probably fewer than 5 LR and RC sections (each). I did do several PTs untimed, and I think that was helpful.

Thanks! If you don't mind me asking, when was it that you focused for 1-2 months on studying? I'm curious to know if those 2 months were when your score increased the most.

The Abyss · Post by **The Abyss** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 9:47 am

I'm going to do about 50 LR questions from the Most Difficult packet with thorough review and 6 or so grouping games today. Going to take PT 64 tomorrow.

Mint-Berry_Crunch · Post by **Mint-Berry_Crunch** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 12:50 pm

Post removed...

RZ5646 · Post by **RZ5646** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:50 pm

Talarose wrote: Thanks! If you don't mind me asking, when was it that you focused for 1-2 months on studying? I'm curious to know if those 2 months were when your score increased the most.

I'd say 1/3 of it was over Christmas break, 1/2 was this June/July, and the remaining 1/6 was scattered in between. Note that this was not the best approach, as the LG skills I built over Christmas decayed quickly with disuse and I had to drill hard again just to get back to the same place.

If you had a good diagnostic you can probably get into the 170s in a month or two of studying, less if your greatest weakness was LG, as mine was, as that section responds best to drilling. If your diagnostic was 165 but you got -10 on RC, well that might be different.

PoopNpants · Post by **PoopNpants** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:52 pm

I'm doing principle identify questions right now and I noticed that whenever I negate the answer choice and it makes the argument invalid, the answer is usually wrong. I do this alot on hard NA questions already so I'm wondering what other question types can be made easier by negating the ACs.

gamerish · Post by **gamerish** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 2:37 pm

Post removed...

fishpaste1 · Post by **fishpaste1** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 2:51 pm

Post removed.

pterodactyls · Post by **pterodactyls** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 2:58 pm

Mint-Berry_Crunch wrote:Haven't really studied the past couple of days. I took on a PT job coaching, so I'm tryna get that set up the next couple of days.
Really starting to feel that I need to get some drilling in so I'll be focusing on that, especially with LR. Really happy with my RC scores I think I'm finding a method that works for me (no tagging, read really fast and reference constantly). Games are consistently good, but I'm missing stupid points in LR all the time :/.

Eta wanted to see if this makes sense to people. I was trying to explain necessary questions to a friend who was having a hard time seeing how some answers that seem unrelated are correct.

Anyway, I had a shower thought this morning.
If I give you an argument like:
A->B
B->C
C->D
------
A->D
This is valid, we have a chain and can infer things on this chain.
But if we have something like this:
A->B
B->C->Z
C->D
------
A->D

Z doesn't help us get to the conclusion, it's not sufficient for anything, and in this sense is unrelated. But if we don't have Z, then it's very related. Not having it breaks upchain up, and our conclusion cannot follow. So while it seems to be coming out of left field, it's necessary to argument since to not have it would break the argument.

Does this make sense?

Yes I believe so.

Because if you take the contrapositive,

no Z -> no C -> no B

no Z -> no B

no B -> no A

Therefore,

no Z -> no A

So in the second scenario, Z must be present for the chain to work.

pterodactyls · Post by **pterodactyls** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 3:05 pm

gamerish wrote:Ugh been so sick these last few days and haven't studied at all. The panic that I might not be ready for this cycle is starting to set in.

What about taking in December?

Talarose · Post by **Talarose** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 3:18 pm

pterodactyls wrote:
gamerish wrote:Ugh been so sick these last few days and haven't studied at all. The panic that I might not be ready for this cycle is starting to set in.
What about taking in December?

Just reading this gives me anxiety.

Taking my first PT today after 3 weeks of drilling. Any thoughts on how often one should be taking PTs?

lymenheimer · Post by **lymenheimer** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 3:55 pm

Talarose wrote:
Just reading this gives me anxiety.
Taking my first PT today after 3 weeks of drilling. Any thoughts on how often one should be taking PTs?

I took at least one every week (usually on the weekend) to gauge my development over the studying term. I would suggest either 1 or 2 a week, but it depends on how many you have at your disposal.

pterodactyls · Post by **pterodactyls** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 4:08 pm

Been drilling individual LGs when I have a few free minutes here and there.

Came across the dino game today, finished it -0 in 15 mins.

I guess that's decent, considering it's supposedly one of the hardest games. That means I would have had just under 7 mins to finish each of the other three.

MrBalloons · Post by **MrBalloons** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 5:02 pm

Talarose wrote:
pterodactyls wrote:
gamerish wrote:Ugh been so sick these last few days and haven't studied at all. The panic that I might not be ready for this cycle is starting to set in.
What about taking in December?
Just reading this gives me anxiety.
Taking my first PT today after 3 weeks of drilling. Any thoughts on how often one should be taking PTs?

I take 2 or 3 per week, but I may have drilled more than you have.

If you feel like you're still missing a bunch of questions because you just don't understand them, take 1 a week. If you're working more on timing and test taking skills, take more.

Mint-Berry_Crunch · Post by **Mint-Berry_Crunch** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 5:42 pm

Post removed...

flash21 · Post by **flash21** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 5:45 pm

did anyone get killed on pt 62? Found it really hard, even in blind review it is much worse than my blind review scores ..

somethingElse · Post by **somethingElse** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 6:10 pm

Post removed...

Mint-Berry_Crunch · Post by **Mint-Berry_Crunch** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 6:31 pm

Post removed...

somethingElse · Post by **somethingElse** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 7:15 pm

Post removed...

ltowns1 · Post by **ltowns1** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 7:32 pm

somethingelse55 wrote:Gotcha. Surprised there hasn't been one like that before.

BTW, speaking of sufficient questions...You guys mind helping me out with this one? Its PT 45, Section 4, Q22. I'm thinking this might be a similar situation to what you typed up, Mint, but I could be wrong.

Basically it ends up diagramming like this (I'll put it in A and B form and simplify it to be more relevant)

P1: ~B -> ~A
P2: Most C -> ~D
C: Most C -> ~A

So TCR is ~D -> ~B. I completely understand that, since ~B gives you ~A. However, let's say that one of the answer choices skipped that step and was instead, ~D -> ~A. Would that also be a sufficient assumption? It seems like it combines with P2 to give you the same conclusion, even though it ignores P1. Is this a fault of mine to disregard that premise and a situation just like what you typed up, Mint?

Wait a minute, why isn't the TCR -B-->-D? I haven't see this question, but in this case shouldn't the sufficient condition be -B because it is apart of the first premise, which leads to the second premise, where -D is stated?

Mint-Berry_Crunch · Post by **Mint-Berry_Crunch** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 7:43 pm

Post removed...

gamerish · Post by **gamerish** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 9:12 pm

Post removed...

MrBalloons · Post by **MrBalloons** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 9:23 pm

flash21 wrote:did anyone get killed on pt 62? Found it really hard, even in blind review it is much worse than my blind review scores ..

I got my lowest ever timed PT score on it.

Granted, I also took it a long time ago before I started drilling.