The Official September 2014 Study Group Forum

[mornincounselor]

Post removed.

[Toby Ziegler]

Well I acquired the Cambridge packets and started drilling last night. Started out with Sufficient Assumption questions. 14/14 on the easiest questions, no circled questions.

You might also try mixing in every level of difficulty when drilling rather than drilling all level 1, then level 2, and so on and so forth.

I used to still by level, then I read in a thread somewhere that it's more helpful to mix it up. I've found that mixing all levels together really shows you how are proficient you are at a certain question type.

This is brilliant. I haven't done this, but definitely going to implement it today. Thanks, Bill.

[BillPackets]

Well I acquired the Cambridge packets and started drilling last night. Started out with Sufficient Assumption questions. 14/14 on the easiest questions, no circled questions.

You might also try mixing in every level of difficulty when drilling rather than drilling all level 1, then level 2, and so on and so forth.

I used to still by level, then I read in a thread somewhere that it's more helpful to mix it up. I've found that mixing all levels together really shows you how are proficient you are at a certain question type.

This is brilliant. I haven't done this, but definitely going to implement it today. Thanks, Bill.

No problem Toby.

I thought the same thing when I read that advice. I think it just makes a lot more sense.

While we're on the topic of drilling technique, I've also started blind reviewing and checking my answers by page, instead of doing like 15 questions, blind reviewing, then checking my answers.

I've found that doing it by page increases my blind review stamina.

Anyone else try different blind review methodologies?

[Toby Ziegler]

Well I acquired the Cambridge packets and started drilling last night. Started out with Sufficient Assumption questions. 14/14 on the easiest questions, no circled questions.

You might also try mixing in every level of difficulty when drilling rather than drilling all level 1, then level 2, and so on and so forth.

I used to still by level, then I read in a thread somewhere that it's more helpful to mix it up. I've found that mixing all levels together really shows you how are proficient you are at a certain question type.

This is brilliant. I haven't done this, but definitely going to implement it today. Thanks, Bill.

No problem Toby.

I thought the same thing when I read that advice. I think it just makes a lot more sense.

While we're on the topic of drilling technique, I've also started blind reviewing and checking my answers by page, instead of doing like 15 questions, blind reviewing, then checking my answers.

I've found that doing it by page increases my blind review stamina.

Anyone else try different blind review methodologies?

This is exactly what I do, except I do 2 pages which is usually 8. However I think I am going to make a bit of a change. I just finished a thorough study of a single question type and drilled it. But I am thinking of studying the remainder of the game types then drilling them all together once I've studied them all, rather than one-by-one. I feel like this would be more beneficial as a whole, any thoughts?

[mornincounselor]

Post removed.

[BillPackets]

So...we are almost 5 months to the day away from the September LSAT. I don't about you guys, but 5 months has never seemed so close. I just made a schedule up tonight that will take me to test week. Wanted to see what you guys think.

For background, I've been studying since late February. I've gone over the Powescore LG, watched an incredible amount of JY's vids, covered LR in the trainer and also using 7sage. I've drilled a lot of LG, and drilled almost every question type of LR, but not as intensely as LG. I just started to understand the power of blind review and reviewing answer choices in general a couple weeks ago.

And I haven't really touched RC.

After this Friday (the 25th), I will not be working, so I'll be spending everyday on the LSAT.

April 28th-May 5th - do chapters 4 (flaw), 5 (review assumption) and 6 (strengthen weaken) in the Manhattan LR book. Basically my daily schedule will go something like: review questions from previous day; read new chapter for the day; drill questions that were covered in the chapter. The next day I would continue reviewing what I did the previous day, and drill more of the same question type. The next day I would review, read new chapter, drill new questions, etc etc.

May 5th - 12th - chapters 7 (principle support) and 9 (principle example). Repeat process described above.

May 12th - 19th - chapters 10 (analyze argument structure), 11 (inference questions), and 12 (matching). Again repeat process described above.

May 19th - either June 2nd or June 9th - cover RC. I've oh briefly touched on RC at this point, so I'm going to dedicate a full 2-3 weeks to only RC (with some LR and LG review thrown in). I have the manhattan RC book, as well as the trainer. I'm giving myself a week cushion here.

June 2nd or June 9th - Sept 13 or 20 - PRACTICE TESTS - basically during these 3.5 months all I plan on doing is PTing. I want to do every PT available, which I have thru Cambridge. So this means doing just over 30 PTs during this time period. I plan on doing 2-3 per week...something like PT one day, blind review the next, check answers and continue reviewing. I'll probably go for closer to 2/week at the beginning and as I get more prodigy r'nt move towards 3 later in the summer. And of course, REVIEW REVIEW REVIEW.

I'm not sure whether I'll taper studying around sept 13 or the 20th...guess we'll see how all these PTs go.

Edit: awesome autocorrect. By "prodigy r'nt (?)" I meant proficient.

[mornincounselor]

Post removed.

[Tyr]

Since I don't have a definitive study schedule, how do you folks break up the types of sections you do? For example, do you go through a LR book (take your pick), then go through a LG book, then a RC book? Or instead, do you do a chapter out of each, or some other variety?

I was looking for a Manhattan study schedule, but couldn't find one. Additionally, the Pithypike, etc. examples don't seem to break it down by what to do when, just by month.

[Toby Ziegler]

Since I don't have a definitive study schedule, how do you folks break up the types of sections you do? For example, do you go through a LR book (take your pick), then go through a LG book, then a RC book? Or instead, do you do a chapter out of each, or some other variety?

I was looking for a Manhattan study schedule, but couldn't find one. Additionally, the Pithypike, etc. examples don't seem to break it down by what to do when, just by month.

So I studied LG about 6 months ago (just the linear games) but I am acting as if I have no exposure to them when I come back around to LG study. But since I have started a rigorous study I've started with LR. At first I went through MBT questions in LRB and looked through the inference section in MLSAT then drilled the MBT sections out of the Cambridge packets. But I am going to abandon that technique. I am going to read the remainder of the LRB and MLSAT LR guide (and most likely the Trainer), then drill the packets. It may seem like a lot of work to do before drilling but if you're setting aside 2-4 hours a day for study, as I am, you go through those books fairly quickly. However, for LG I will study a section (basic linear, advanced linear, grouping, etc.) and drill after that section. I think the LGs have much more distinction between game types and drilling once I have completed that type will be beneficial.
HTH

[Toby Ziegler]

Came to the first question that tripped me up in the Sufficient Assumption packet, pt 5-s1-q12 (35 in the packet) about meteorites and geologically stable regions.

I had issues with this question because I couldn't determine the meaning of "destructive geophysical processes." When I looked on Manhattan forums and saw it defined as volcanoes/earthquakes I reread the prompt and the correct choice popped out at me. Looking back I should have been able to do the question even without knowing this phrase.

Cutting this question out for further reflection.

I had something similar happen to me with a MBT question about obesity percentage in children. At first the answer seemed obscure, but after I stared at it for about 10 minutes it made perfect sense. I think it's question 123 or so, I know it's in the 120's.

[BillPackets]

Since I don't have a definitive study schedule, how do you folks break up the types of sections you do? For example, do you go through a LR book (take your pick), then go through a LG book, then a RC book? Or instead, do you do a chapter out of each, or some other variety?

I was looking for a Manhattan study schedule, but couldn't find one. Additionally, the Pithypike, etc. examples don't seem to break it down by what to do when, just by month.

Something like that.

I think it's helpful to continuously review what you've previously covered. So if you go through games, then start on LR, do a couple of games before/after doing your LR for the day. And review LR questions from the previous day, etc.

Basically, just keep reviewing. I think abandoning a question type or section while covering another is detrimental because it doesn't stay fresh in your mind.

[Toby Ziegler]

My 10 actual officials volume 5 arrived yesterday. There is officially nothing more I need to buy for LSAT prep. My wife is extremely happy about that. Went through conditional reasoning yesterday in the LRB felt like it was a waste of my time having studied Aristotelian and predicate logic for my major. Has anyone read both the LRB section and MLSAT section on conditional logic? Is there anything different in MLSAT? I am thinking about skipping it.
Studying strengthen/weaken questions today. They're more tricky than Must be True questions, IMHMFO.

[BillPackets]

My 10 actual officials volume 5 arrived yesterday. There is officially nothing more I need to buy for LSAT prep. My wife is extremely happy about that. Went through conditional reasoning yesterday in the LRB felt like it was a waste of my time having studied Aristotelian and predicate logic for my major. Has anyone read both the LRB section and MLSAT section on conditional logic? Is there anything different in MLSAT? I am thinking about skipping it.
Studying strengthen/weaken questions today. They're more tricky than Must be True questions, IMHMFO.

If you know conditional logic, then you know conditional logic. I did the 7sage lessons on conditional logic and skipped them in MLSAT. I didn't feel like I missed out an anything since the rules for conditional logic are constant.

[Toby Ziegler]

My 10 actual officials volume 5 arrived yesterday. There is officially nothing more I need to buy for LSAT prep. My wife is extremely happy about that. Went through conditional reasoning yesterday in the LRB felt like it was a waste of my time having studied Aristotelian and predicate logic for my major. Has anyone read both the LRB section and MLSAT section on conditional logic? Is there anything different in MLSAT? I am thinking about skipping it.
Studying strengthen/weaken questions today. They're more tricky than Must be True questions, IMHMFO.

If you know conditional logic, then you know conditional logic. I did the 7sage lessons on conditional logic and skipped them in MLSAT. I didn't feel like I missed out an anything since the rules for conditional logic are constant.

Thanks for the input, Bill. I am going to skip them.

[mornincounselor]

Post removed.

[LinksDair818]

Checking in.
Just found out about TLS, Blind review, recently came across 7Sage (awesome), and the personal trainer.

So far in terms of materials this is what I have:
1)Blueprint course books (took it last fall)
2)LGB + LRB (pdf) older editions
3)LG drill packets by game type (pdf) up to PT40.
4)PT's 1-40

I have taken a Blueprint course, read both bibles and have been drilling S,N,S+, and W- through the Blueprint course books (Hw sections). Basically have been learning from older bibles and drilling them by section in the BP hw sections. I have been drilling LG timed in under 8:30 and 9:30 for games with 7 Q's with avg -0 or -1 per game.

I have not touched RC at all, however, I still have BP books to review and drill. I am considering buying MLSAT RC and maybe even the LR as well.
After reading the previous post about the LSAT trainer I am def considering purchasing that as well.

Any suggestions would be helpful.


Thanks to everyone that has posted such useful information thus far!!

[BillPackets]

It's illegal to share the Cambridge packets.

[Toby Ziegler]

I'm having some issues with the conditional logic problems towards the end of the Sufficient Assumption packet. Of the 7 questions I tagged as difficult 5 involve complex conditional logic.

Questions like Ann either taking a leave or quitting her job (21-2-20) and farmers who are rich/poor and good/bad (9-2-23) or desire for praise/desire to help others (37-4-20). Problems like these cause me headaches.

How is your diagramming? I had a bit of a leg up studying it formally in college, but you will ges to the point where you can see the diagram in your head. But I will say, some of the really complex conditional statements I still make a quick diagram. But yeah, how are your diagrams?

[Toby Ziegler]

Checking in.
Just found out about TLS, Blind review, recently came across 7Sage (awesome), and the personal trainer.

So far in terms of materials this is what I have:
1)Blueprint course books (took it last fall)
2)LGB + LRB (pdf) older editions
3)LG drill packets by game type (pdf) up to PT40.
4)PT's 1-40

I have taken a Blueprint course, read both bibles and have been drilling S,N,S+, and W- through the Blueprint course books (Hw sections). Basically have been learning from older bibles and drilling them by section in the BP hw sections. I have been drilling LG timed in under 8:30 and 9:30 for games with 7 Q's with avg -0 or -1 per game.

I have not touched RC at all, however, I still have BP books to review and drill. I am considering buying MLSAT RC and maybe even the LR as well.
After reading the previous post about the LSAT trainer I am def considering purchasing that as well.

Any suggestions would be helpful.

Also, I would be willing to share the LG drill packets I have on PDF..

Thanks to everyone that has posted such useful information thus far!!

Welcome to the team. Yeah like Bill says that's illegal. Especially if they're Cambridge packets, for they say explicitly in their agreement that the product is only licensed to you. Don't do anything to hurt your chances of being admitted to the bar
You should also pick up Mike Kim's LSAT trainer. TLS wisdom will tell you to use the questions from the earlier PTs (usually 1-38-ish) for drilling and save the newer ones for full practice testing.

[Toby Ziegler]

It's illegal to share the Cambridge packets.

Bill you need an avatar so we can fictionally picture you when you post.

[alpha kenny body]

I see little merit in purchasing the Cambridge packets for the sole purpose of drilling. Do not mistake my opinion, they are a great company and offer a valuable service to their respective market through other means. However, the company performed a duty that, anyone who is somewhat serious about this test could, assuming certain factors, make the effort to accomplish by: collecting the necessary preptests (the method of retrieval and repercussions are your own); saving to HD and/or printing them out for continuous use; locating the sticky within this board index thread that organizes the LR questions by type; the LSAT Blog webpage that offers the same complimentary service as the sticky thread; and finally, drilling all the of questions however you choose. Pertaining to LG and RC, if you are not signed up for a free account with 7Sage and Manhattan and their respective programs, you should do so immediately so you can utilize their descriptions and solutions (between the two companies) of virtually every problem for every single preptest. With respect to 7Sage, they will be your guide for organizing the LG problems you obtain, as well as to understand how the problems are designed and conquered. With respect to Manhattan, they will guide you through the description, organization, and solution to all of the LR and RC problems you will drill. Someone who isn't me, performed what would have been a credit card charge for the service and convenience, in under an hour for free.

[BillPackets]

I'm having some issues with the conditional logic problems towards the end of the Sufficient Assumption packet. Of the 7 questions I tagged as difficult 5 involve complex conditional logic.

Questions like Ann either taking a leave or quitting her job (21-2-20) and farmers who are rich/poor and good/bad (9-2-23) or desire for praise/desire to help others (37-4-20). Problems like these cause me headaches.

Those questions are tough. Have you looked at the manhattan forums for the explanations? They're incredibly valuable.

Edit: Yes you need to understand conditional logic to do those questions, but they're really not very hard to diagram, such that they give you the rules in the stimulus. The more difficult part is finding the gap in the logic in those questions. Even if you can diagram them, you might, after getting them diagrammed, look at your rules and still say "wtf?" You need to be able to find that gap and fill it in. And the "farmers" thing is just meant to throw your off. Take farmers out of your diagram and see if it makes more sense.

[BillPackets]

I see little merit in purchasing the Cambridge packets for the sole purpose of drilling. Do not mistake my opinion, they are a great company and offer a valuable service to their respective market through other means. However, the company performed a duty that, anyone who is somewhat serious about this test could, assuming certain factors, make the effort to accomplish by: collecting the necessary preptests (the method of retrieval and repercussions are your own); saving to HD and/or printing them out for continuous use; locating the sticky within this board index thread that organizes the LR questions by type; the LSAT Blog webpage that offers the same complimentary service as the sticky thread; and finally, drilling all the of questions however you choose. Pertaining to LG and RC, if you are not signed up for a free account with 7Sage and Manhattan and their respective programs, you should do so immediately so you can utilize their descriptions and solutions (between the two companies) of virtually every problem for every single preptest. With respect to 7Sage, they will be your guide for organizing the LG problems you obtain, as well as to understand how the problems are designed and conquered. With respect to Manhattan, they will guide you through the description, organization, and solution to all of the LR and RC problems you will drill. Someone who isn't me, performed what would have been a credit card charge for the service and convenience, in under an hour for free.

You must hang out in drug forums, SWIM. You could do that. I bought the Cambridge packets. I have no regrets. I have them on PDF. I think it's worthwhile.

[LinksDair818]

Thanks for the heads up.

[BillPackets]

Checking in.
Just found out about TLS, Blind review, recently came across 7Sage (awesome), and the personal trainer.

So far in terms of materials this is what I have:
1)Blueprint course books (took it last fall)
2)LGB + LRB (pdf) older editions
3)LG drill packets by game type (pdf) up to PT40.
4)PT's 1-40

I have taken a Blueprint course, read both bibles and have been drilling S,N,S+, and W- through the Blueprint course books (Hw sections). Basically have been learning from older bibles and drilling them by section in the BP hw sections. I have been drilling LG timed in under 8:30 and 9:30 for games with 7 Q's with avg -0 or -1 per game.

I have not touched RC at all, however, I still have BP books to review and drill. I am considering buying MLSAT RC and maybe even the LR as well.
After reading the previous post about the LSAT trainer I am def considering purchasing that as well.

Any suggestions would be helpful.


Thanks to everyone that has posted such useful information thus far!!

The trainer is solid. So is MLSAT LR. You'll also need all the newer PTs...40-70 or whatever.

Also, review. Review everyday. Reviewing is more important than quantity. If you review well, then you'll drill well.