real The Official December 2016 Waiters Group - Patience is a Virtue Forum

[34iplaw]

Hey 34ip!
Can I volunteer for an NA question?
Can we give 76, LR1, Q18 or Q24 a try? (Take your pick, both are "fun"!)
I generally can handle most NA questions, but I'm finding that ones with wordy stimuli make it difficult to pick out the core...

As for required assumption (I'm assuming this is necessary assumptions), the go to method is to negate the answer choice. If you negate the answer choice, the argument simply doesn't work. Proper negation is key thought. If you have a specific example of one that trips you up, it may help. Is it the question type in general, when they use flowery language, when it isn't based in heavy conditional logic, or when it is based in heavy conditional logic?

Generally speaking, broader answer choices are better for necessary assumption questions, as the negation eliminates more whereas very specific ones are often wrong because it's like, 'Oh, okay...fine...well, what if it was one more?' I forget if it is Manhattan or the LSAT trainer, but they have this bit on sweater prices that is *really* good for illustrating this idea.

Feel free to post or PM some specific questions that you find particularly hard.

LR1 18 & 24 are really good ones. 24 I didn't get right when I BRd way back when, so I'm going to have to work through that one. others can chime in too

18 is an unusual analogy type question...the missing assumption is what makes it relevant.

[+] Spoiler

conclusion: instinctual abilities for people to diagnose themselves shouldn't be trusted & is anecdotal
support: the analogous case ... these ones are a bit trickier, as we are looking for the assumption that makes this anecdotal case relevant to the idea above... here we are basically given that once the rumor took hold, nurses remembered the nights with more babies...reading this argument, you should be thinking 'Huh...how is that relevant?' since the analogous case isn't remotely relevant as it currently stands. IMO, this question is weird in that it is a lot easier to prephrase than a typical necessary... immediately, we want to be looking for something along the lines of memory/confirmation bias type stuff.

A - negate it - it becomes something along the lines of - this instinct may be disproved... if the negation is true, it doesn't really wreck the argument... there could be other reasons to not trust it like common sense

B - this sort of looks what I wanted to find... negate it - it becomes something along the lines of - medical staff are equally or more likely to remember patient predictions even if no such change occurs

see how this sort of wrecks the argument... this is what makes the case analogous... the analogy is completely irrelevant if the negation of this is true... it's creating that second part of the analogy in the final sentence

C - is wrong, in my opinion, for some of the same reasons of A. If negated, we are saying that patients were being serious. This can also be eliminated for the same reason of many wrong a/cs with the who cares...we're talking about something being factual - not whether someones being serious... it sort of falls into that common type of wrong answer where feelings are extraneous

D - this I feel like is probably a common appealing wrong a/c, but, tbh, it was one of the first ones I eliminated. First, it has the issue of where the negation of less is greater than or equal to, so, if equal, the argument wouldn't be destroyed. I also was sort of looking out for something like this, as, to me, there was this apparent confirmation bias type idea going on.

E - I suppose I could see the allure of this, as it would sort of bring it closer to the analogy, but it isn't an important part of the analogy.

24 I will try to do tomorrow... I'm a bit too sapped, and, tbh, I think it's a really rough question... I'm not certain that I'd give you the best explanation for it ... I find myself gravatating towards the right answer but just from more of a hunch than demonstrable mastery. Sorry if jumbled... a bit late and my bulldogs are being rather grotesque

[Mikey]

Going through 7sage's negation lessons. I never did them, and although i'm zooming through them, i still feel like it's good to know the very basic foundations.

[harveybirdman502]

Does anyone have particular methods for approaching Required Assumption questions? Still sinking a lot of time into these. I need some real advice from high scorers.

dj9i27: PT 73 wasn't all that different from the tests in the 50s. Noticed more RA, MBT/MSS and Resolve questions in LR though. Obviously more comparative passages in RC as well. Second LR section was very difficult or I was completely burned out by then.

Did alright on LG. Need to up my game on sequencing diagrams though. That wasn't nearly as important on older games I've noticed.

Well, just remember there are two types of sequencing games. Relative ordering ones are literally impossible to do efficiently (AFAIK) without a proper diagram [or two for the rare 'harder' ones]

Diagramming is really useful for all games, but many games have one or two killer inferences that most questions hinge upon...those are the ones you can sort of divine your way out of if that is your jam.

As for required assumption (I'm assuming this is necessary assumptions), the go to method is to negate the answer choice. If you negate the answer choice, the argument simply doesn't work. Proper negation is key thought. If you have a specific example of one that trips you up, it may help. Is it the question type in general, when they use flowery language, when it isn't based in heavy conditional logic, or when it is based in heavy conditional logic?

Generally speaking, broader answer choices are better for necessary assumption questions, as the negation eliminates more whereas very specific ones are often wrong because it's like, 'Oh, okay...fine...well, what if it was one more?' I forget if it is Manhattan or the LSAT trainer, but they have this bit on sweater prices that is *really* good for illustrating this idea.

Feel free to post or PM some specific questions that you find particularly hard.

Thanks ip. I think it's less about the conditional logic than the flowery language. I'll know when I review and drill more later. I'll probably reach out with a specific question or two as well.

[harveybirdman502]

Going through 7sage's negation lessons. I never did them, and although i'm zooming through them, i still feel like it's good to know the very basic foundations.

Is this free or part of the course?

[harveybirdman502]

Hey 34ip!
Can I volunteer for an NA question?
Can we give 76, LR1, Q18 or Q24 a try? (Take your pick, both are "fun"!)
I generally can handle most NA questions, but I'm finding that ones with wordy stimuli make it difficult to pick out the core...

As for required assumption (I'm assuming this is necessary assumptions), the go to method is to negate the answer choice. If you negate the answer choice, the argument simply doesn't work. Proper negation is key thought. If you have a specific example of one that trips you up, it may help. Is it the question type in general, when they use flowery language, when it isn't based in heavy conditional logic, or when it is based in heavy conditional logic?

Generally speaking, broader answer choices are better for necessary assumption questions, as the negation eliminates more whereas very specific ones are often wrong because it's like, 'Oh, okay...fine...well, what if it was one more?' I forget if it is Manhattan or the LSAT trainer, but they have this bit on sweater prices that is *really* good for illustrating this idea.

Feel free to post or PM some specific questions that you find particularly hard.

I think we're having the same problem JessiCAL. I'll report back if I find anything helpful.

[Mikey]

Going through 7sage's negation lessons. I never did them, and although i'm zooming through them, i still feel like it's good to know the very basic foundations.

Is this free or part of the course?

part of the course

[Instrumental]

Goofed up on RC and AR today with PT 47. Aced the extra LG section I put in on which I previously had done poorly (59). Still got a score that I'd be good moving forward with though.

LR1: -2
RC: -5
LR2: -1
AR: -3 (all very careless mistakes, I think I got cocky and started moving too fast)

Score: 89/169

Gotta say though I'm starting to feel about this 169 like I was feeling about low-mid 160s prior to Sept. those previous two PTs got my expectations a bit high.

[Greenteachurro]

Bit of a fall from grace today

171: PT 77

LR1: -3
LR2:-3
RC:-2
LG:-2

This one kind of sucks because I bet it could have been a 173 because the two LG mistakes were totally dumb mistakes. I'm pretty pleased with my RC's recent improvement though, I'm actually starting to get really comfortable with RC so that's reassuring, the only questions I'm missing are either dumb mistakes or questions that have some difficult inferences.

[dj9i27]

.

[JessiCAL]

How do you generally review RC? I haven't really seen much improvement in RC, so I'm concerned I'm not reviewing correctly.

I have The Trainer, and I'm trying to make it a habit to read for reasoning structure. I generally miss detail Q's (especially inference ones). Do you guys have any particular techniques/strategies for answering detail Q's in RC?

[SunDevil14]

I'm debating doing a dual PT tomorrow... rock like a four section - 15 minute break - four section.

I've done it in the past, you are in for a long day haha. I only studied for an hour today, maybe I will take the plunge with you.

Timing didn't work out. Not the end of the world, as some of this test content was vaguely familiar...possible some was supplemental sections. Going to find a totally fresh PT and do the another after it tomorrow or Sunday.

I took the plunge today. The break in the middle was tad over 20 minutes as opposed to 15, though the extra 5 minutes or so is negligible when you are hammering out 8 sections as opposed to 5.

PT 73: 169
RC: -6 (got slaughtered)
LR: -4
LG: -1
LR II: -3

PT 72: 174
RC: -2
LR: -1
LR II: -3
LG: -2 (The last game is pretty tough)

I over did the caffeine this morning, I was pretty spacey and foggy for the 1st test. The 20 minutes of break and some nicotine really helped calmed the nerves. Although I had seen the test 72 a few months back, I was still pleased with my 174 performances coming after completing a 4 section test with no breaks. 169 on 73 was decent giving that I was to spacey for the first half and really crashing on the second, plus I did 4 sections all at once.

I noticed a big difference when attempting the final section of each test. I definitely felt the mental fatigue, I had to fight much more to focus and concentrate as opposed 3 sections followed by a break.

Special Note on LG: The most recent PT's (70+) are definitely more difficult in the games department. Though the games follow the same general patterns, the rules and game board set up are in general less formulaic and therefore not easy to quickly set up and represent. Additionally, the choice of questions tend to also be more time consuming. I think the test makers are compensating for the plethora of existing prep material available for previous games.

The rumor going around is that the free 7Sage explanations made people too good at normal type games so they started throwing these hellraisers in. There is quite a few of them in the upper 70s that don't have one, I can only hope at this point but be prepared.

I think they tend to test you in a way that requires a more conceptual and abstract approach...virus was all one inference kind of like that passing game that everyone was pissed off about. That passing game I nailed in like 4 minutes flat.

I did PT 52(?) today. Some seemed familiar (ironically, questions I got wrong). Went -3 on RC which was nice for a 177(I think) will check when home. I definitely had seen the fourth game before, but I handled it so much better.

I missed one on the passing game, I usually double check all my answers on LG and still with a good amount of time to spare. I have not had the time to double check everything for the 70's PT. Even the more basic games are a tad harder and more time consuming due to the rules and questions, they just seem to throw in oddball variables in the simpler games. The abstract games are all well and good, and some people like those, though I like the very formulaic ones. Not quite as easy to to do the majority of games / questions in your head with minimal visual representation.

[dj9i27]

.

[SunDevil14]

How do you generally review RC? I haven't really seen much improvement in RC, so I'm concerned I'm not reviewing correctly.

I have The Trainer, and I'm trying to make it a habit to read for reasoning structure. I generally miss detail Q's (especially inference ones). Do you guys have any particular techniques/strategies for answering detail Q's in RC?

Unfortunately, I believe that the majority of gains made in RC come through brute force and familiarization. You can improve, though in my opinion improving on RC is much harder and time consuming than the other sections. When you review carefully analyze each question, and make sure you know where you are drawing the support for the question in the passage. After a while you will start to pick up tends regarding what portions of the passage will be addressed in the questions, and the way which in which a question is worded will give you hints where to look.

Another issue is that RC is much less formulaic than LR and LG, so even when you pick up trends there will be exceptions and instances where those trends do not pan out.

As for questions regarding inferences, then your best bet is going to be searching the portion of the tests where arguments are made. Especially consider a portion of the text that contains a more detailed and elaborate argument and or multiple arguments. Take this advice with a grain of salt, each passage is done in a vacuum. Where as one passage may contain the answer to a inference questions in the argument portion, another may place it in with background information, appearing as if it a side note.

Hope this helps some, RC is not my strong suit.

[Greenteachurro]

Bit of a fall from grace today

171: PT 77

LR1: -3
LR2:-3
RC:-2
LG:-2

This one kind of sucks because I bet it could have been a 173 because the two LG mistakes were totally dumb mistakes. I'm pretty pleased with my RC's recent improvement though, I'm actually starting to get really comfortable with RC so that's reassuring, the only questions I'm missing are either dumb mistakes or questions that have some difficult inferences.

yep I went from 177 to 170 on PT77 as well, I thought LR1 was really weird but RC was fair wouldn't mind having something like that in December.

taking 72 once the noise dies down a little, drilled RC earlier felt good went like -2.

Yeah rc felt super easy so that was good, but LR was super hard for some reason. Some of those questions had really difficult answer choices. Lg felt good, drilling some of the really early games helped a lot with that weird one on 77 so I think I might run through more of those going up to test day.

[Greenteachurro]

How do you generally review RC? I haven't really seen much improvement in RC, so I'm concerned I'm not reviewing correctly.

I have The Trainer, and I'm trying to make it a habit to read for reasoning structure. I generally miss detail Q's (especially inference ones). Do you guys have any particular techniques/strategies for answering detail Q's in RC?

I just like to go back look at what I got wrong find proof for the right answer in the text, and then redo any passages I messed up on like an hour later. Over time I've gone from like a -7 average to like -2.5 on my ten most recent pt's

[cherrygalore]

I just did PT 79 (Sept 2016) and got a 177. I had taken the test in September, but cancelled my score. I never looked at it again or reviewed it before taking it today. How much do you think taking a test again, even without reviewing the first attempt, is easier than the first take? I didn't remember any specifics other than that the lacquer RC and virus LG were hard.

[dj9i27]

.

[cherrygalore]

I just did PT 79 (Sept 2016) and got a 177. I had taken the test in September, but cancelled my score. I never looked at it again or reviewed it before taking it today. How much do you think taking a test again, even without reviewing the first attempt, is easier than the first take? I didn't remember any specifics other than that the lacquer RC and virus LG were hard.

give me ur pt79 score because that's Monday for me and I have barely even looked at it since September as well.

also none, I think that the environment you take the test in has 90% to do with your performance at the level you're at

I took it at a loud Starbucks as the man next to me watched a Turkish gameshow on loud with no headphones for about 2 hours. Hoping if I can focus during that I can focus during anything.

Speaking of which... I have a funny story. So I live in LA and study at a Starbucks near my house most of the time. On Monday, I was taking a timed PT and really in the zone. I always try to sit close to people and distractions to try to challenge myself. So I took the first three sections and then on my 15 min break I get up to go to the bathroom and as I'm waiting I hear the people at the table next to mine talking about Kim Kardashian and I kind of listen because they didn't seem like people who would be talking about her and I'm nosey. They see that I'm looking at them and they say to me, "How crazy was that?". I'm like, "What?" and they say "You didn't notice? Kim Kardashian was standing next to you for like 10 minutes and asked her friend what you were doing. He told her it looked like you were studying for the LSAT and Kim said 'good for her' ". So basically, I'm hoping if I don't get distracted by Kim Kardashian standing over me, nothing can faze me on test day haha

[dontsaywhatyoumean]

Hahahaha, that's an incredible story.

[dj9i27]

.

[cherrygalore]

I just did PT 79 (Sept 2016) and got a 177. I had taken the test in September, but cancelled my score. I never looked at it again or reviewed it before taking it today. How much do you think taking a test again, even without reviewing the first attempt, is easier than the first take? I didn't remember any specifics other than that the lacquer RC and virus LG were hard.

give me ur pt79 score because that's Monday for me and I have barely even looked at it since September as well.

also none, I think that the environment you take the test in has 90% to do with your performance at the level you're at

I took it at a loud Starbucks as the man next to me watched a Turkish gameshow on loud with no headphones for about 2 hours. Hoping if I can focus during that I can focus during anything.

Speaking of which... I have a funny story. So I live in LA and study at a Starbucks near my house most of the time. On Monday, I was taking a timed PT and really in the zone. I always try to sit close to people and distractions to try to challenge myself. So I took the first three sections and then on my 15 min break I get up to go to the bathroom and as I'm waiting I hear the people at the table next to mine talking about Kim Kardashian and I kind of listen because they didn't seem like people who would be talking about her and I'm nosey. They see that I'm looking at them and they say to me, "How crazy was that?". I'm like, "What?" and they say "You didn't notice? Kim Kardashian was standing next to you for like 10 minutes and asked her friend what you were doing. He told her it looked like you were studying for the LSAT and Kim said 'good for her' ". So basically, I'm hoping if I don't get distracted by Kim Kardashian standing over me, nothing can faze me on test day haha

Two things I took away from this:

1. I am a huge wuss because I take my PTs on the quiet floor of the library or in my apartment when my roommate isn't being a total dickhead; while you take it in an LA Starbucks and pull a 177 lol.

2. I also am not as hyperfocused as you because if someone of fame or stature was around me I'd probably be a little shellshocked for a minute or two.

In September, I got super distracted at every little thing during the test. I knew I didn't do as well as I wanted to and I cancelled it. I realized my problem wasn't the material (I had been PTing at the same level then as I am now), but it was staying focused. So I decided the best thing I could do between then and December was to take tests in distracting environments so no matter what happens on the actual day, I can stay in the zone. I think my mistake before Sept was PTing in super quiet, stress-free places. Albeit I have terrible ADD so this might be more important for me than others, but I would recommend giving it a shot at least once or twice.

[dj9i27]

.

[StopLawying]

I just did PT 79 (Sept 2016) and got a 177. I had taken the test in September, but cancelled my score. I never looked at it again or reviewed it before taking it today. How much do you think taking a test again, even without reviewing the first attempt, is easier than the first take? I didn't remember any specifics other than that the lacquer RC and virus LG were hard.

give me ur pt79 score because that's Monday for me and I have barely even looked at it since September as well.

also none, I think that the environment you take the test in has 90% to do with your performance at the level you're at

I took it at a loud Starbucks as the man next to me watched a Turkish gameshow on loud with no headphones for about 2 hours. Hoping if I can focus during that I can focus during anything.

Speaking of which... I have a funny story. So I live in LA and study at a Starbucks near my house most of the time. On Monday, I was taking a timed PT and really in the zone. I always try to sit close to people and distractions to try to challenge myself. So I took the first three sections and then on my 15 min break I get up to go to the bathroom and as I'm waiting I hear the people at the table next to mine talking about Kim Kardashian and I kind of listen because they didn't seem like people who would be talking about her and I'm nosey. They see that I'm looking at them and they say to me, "How crazy was that?". I'm like, "What?" and they say "You didn't notice? Kim Kardashian was standing next to you for like 10 minutes and asked her friend what you were doing. He told her it looked like you were studying for the LSAT and Kim said 'good for her' ". So basically, I'm hoping if I don't get distracted by Kim Kardashian standing over me, nothing can faze me on test day haha

Two things I took away from this:

1. I am a huge wuss because I take my PTs on the quiet floor of the library or in my apartment when my roommate isn't being a total dickhead; while you take it in an LA Starbucks and pull a 177 lol.

2. I also am not as hyperfocused as you because if someone of fame or stature was around me I'd probably be a little shellshocked for a minute or two.

In September, I got super distracted at every little thing during the test. I knew I didn't do as well as I wanted to and I cancelled it. I realized my problem wasn't the material (I had been PTing at the same level then as I am now), but it was staying focused. So I decided the best thing I could do between then and December was to take tests in distracting environments so no matter what happens on the actual day, I can stay in the zone. I think my mistake before Sept was PTing in super quiet, stress-free places. Albeit I have terrible ADD so this might be more important for me than others, but I would recommend giving it a shot at least once or twice.

I kind of changed that up too, TC distractions weren't that much of a factor for me; it was sickness and extreme anxiety. I think I got like ~2 hours of sleep the night before and the morning of I felt terrible (tbh it did get a little better once i was in the TC) but after LG1 which was experimental for me all I could think of was how I bombed my perfect section and how I would be taking in december. My theory is that my mind shut off on both LR's which is why they were my worst sections by far.

Yeah, that's why its so important to get off to a good start. A good start on the first section can really help you gain confidence and kill the rest of the test, whereas a bad one can really derail everything. Thats why I love having LR first. I took the Monday test in Sep and RC was incredibly hard, but at least it was my 3rd section. If I had that first I would've tanked even more.

Just did both LR's from 73 and went -3 total. Some really tough questions in LR 2. I'll spend the rest of the night writing my optional georgetown essay, and then get back to prepping tomorrow.

[dj9i27]

.

[180orDie]

Somehow only getting worse with each subsequent PT. Climbed until I hit the low 170's a few times, now I'm not getting anywhere close and haven't for quite a few PTs now. Don't know what's going on but it has me on the brink of a mental breakdown.