The Official June 2014 Study Group Forum

[santoki]

June is not the end all, be all!

Chillax and have fun learning

If we think this going into the test (that June is the only time I can take it), will this negatively effect the score?

Well I think if you build it up in your own mind that this is the one, this is it, and it's super important, you might be prone to panicking on the exam. It's hard to say it'd negatively affect your score, but I think, again, you'll be vulnerable to a mental breakdown that could be key on the exam.

When I took it in October, I couldn't stop thinking about my RC section (4) while taking LR2 (section 5), and I got the last 8 questions of the test wrong. I really think it's because I didn't treat the exam like a PT.

But who knows, really??

What do you mean you didnt treat it like a PT? What was different in the way you treated it? More details please.

The idea of just "treating it like another PT" is that you should treat it like another practice exam. Whatever you might do and however you might feel during a practice exam is how you should take the real thing instead of trying new things.

I felt myself hyping up my exam too much in my own head, to the point where I was double and triple checking answers that I wouldn't have during a PT, which cost me precious minutes. I'm going to trust myself and the preparation I've done moreso the next time I take it. I don't really know how else to explain it...I'm just trying to be more lax about everything while staying diligent in my studies.

On my calendar it says PT72 (or is it 73?) instead of LSAT!!! circled three times. I'm against the whole countdown thing (X number of days left), because it brings on a heightened sense of importance, when really it is just another test.

That's just me though! Everyone can feel differently and prepare themselves mentally in a different way.

[rebexness]

I agree!

My calendar says "PT 72" also. Having the same or very similar routines is another way to reinforce that its "just another PT"- the same thing you have done 30+ times in the last few months.

[myoung7189]

PT 56
LG -1 (simple ordering game that took more than 10 minutes )
EXP 43 LR2 -1
LR1 -2
LR2 -2
RC -2
174

Going back and forth between pleased and upset. I thought I 180ed it after I got through with this one for sure, but maybe next time. On the other hand, I feel like I have firmly entrenched myself in 170 land considering my last 2 pts before this one.

[santoki]

PT 56
LG -1 (simple ordering game that took more than 10 minutes )
EXP 43 LR2 -1
LR1 -2
LR2 -2
RC -2
174

Going back and forth between pleased and upset. I thought I 180ed it after I got through with this one for sure, but maybe next time. On the other hand, I feel like I have firmly entrenched myself in 170 land considering my last 2 pts before this one.

TEECH ME UR WAYZ

[Louis1127]

First PT after drilling.

PT 39:
LG: -14 (holy shit)
LR: -5
LR: -7
RC: -12 (the only section that the result did not surprise me)

Score: 154

On the positives, on LR I felt like I just blazed through the questions, and interestingly the distribution of my misses was scattered throughout the section, which means I got some hard ones right and missed some easy ones that I probably shouldn't have.

The negatives are: I still have alot of work to do on RC, but I am not totally bummed about RC. Games on the other hand, holy shit. All I can say is holy shit.

Overall, I have been drilling since January and while my diag was really low (145 I think) I am honestly disappointed in my score. I felt like I have been putting in the hours and reviewing thoroughly (and honestly I think it shows on LR) but didn't really show on RC and obviously didn't show on games.

Moving forward, I am going to drill games differently than I have been so far (pretty good idea right, haha). Instead of doing every game twice and just kind of blowing through them, I am going to do what JY of 7sage recommends: any game that I do not finish in a solid amount of time, or miss a question, or miss an inference, print out 10 copies and do the game until I can do it perfectly.

Also, while I have used PT 1-39, I'll redo those games (pretty much all of them) and I may redo all the RC passages this summer, even the ones I have already done form PT 1-39, which is about half of them (I seriously doubt I'll remember any answers to any questions).

Hopefully by the time I drill all these games until I can do them perfectly and do RC again, I'll be PTing above 160. If not, well, I'll deal with that when the situation presents itself.

[santoki]

First PT after drilling.

PT 39:
LG: -14 (holy shit)
LR: -5
LR: -7
RC: -12 (the only section that the result did not surprise me)

Score: 154

On the positives, on LR I felt like I just blazed through the questions, and interestingly the distribution of my misses was scattered throughout the section, which means I got some hard ones right and missed some easy ones that I probably shouldn't have.

The negatives are: I still have alot of work to do on RC, but I am not totally bummed about RC. Games on the other hand, holy shit. All I can say is holy shit.

Overall, I have been drilling since January and while my diag was really low (145 I think) I am honestly disappointed in my score. I felt like I have been putting in the hours and reviewing thoroughly (and honestly I think it shows on LR) but didn't really show on RC and obviously didn't show on games.

Moving forward, I am going to drill games differently than I have been so far (pretty good idea right, haha). Instead of doing every game twice and just kind of blowing through them, I am going to do what JY of 7sage recommends: any game that I do not finish in a solid amount of time, or miss a question, or miss an inference, print out 10 copies and do the game until I can do it perfectly.

Also, while I have used PT 1-39, I'll redo those games (pretty much all of them) and I may redo all the RC passages this summer, even the ones I have already done form PT 1-39, which is about half of them (I seriously doubt I'll remember any answers to any questions).

Hopefully by the time I drill all these games until I can do them perfectly and do RC again, I'll be PTing above 160. If not, well, I'll deal with that when the situation presents itself.

As previous people have posted, don't worry because LG is the easiest section to improve upon! 7sage, Trainer, etc., and youll be good to go.

RC gives everyone fits, so focus on that as well (Trainer gave me the most improvements for this section).

Your LR seems to be somewhat stable and now it depends on whether you can drill enough to focus on your problems and get a few less wrong per section.

Good luck! Although it'd be better if we all studied harder to create and ensure our own luck.

[WaltGrace83]

Just got done with my start to Weaken drilling: 25 questions from level 1. I can already tell that this question type is going to be a doozy too. I didn't do badly, just 2 or 3 wrong I think but on Level 1 that is unforgivable. Oh well, I won't look too much into it as I haven't drilled this type yet and I'll get better!

Also, Lou, I would say to worry about your section distributions rather than your overall score. Get that LG up! Going a -0 on that alone will propel you solidly into the 160s. As for RC, I feel your pain. You're LR is looking decent but just needs to be tightened up!

[FuturePanhandler]

I think it's a good idea to watch this video every now and then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhzNSPiqO0M

Hard to get motivated by that video. Kai Greene (bodybuilder in the video) had relations with grapefruit for money...............

[myoung7189]

PT 56
LG -1 (simple ordering game that took more than 10 minutes )
EXP 43 LR2 -1
LR1 -2
LR2 -2
RC -2
174

Going back and forth between pleased and upset. I thought I 180ed it after I got through with this one for sure, but maybe next time. On the other hand, I feel like I have firmly entrenched myself in 170 land considering my last 2 pts before this one.

TEECH ME UR WAYZ

Step 1 love the lsat
Step 2 hate the lsat
Step 3 repeat steps 1 and 2 continuously

caution Beware of intermittent bouts of psychosis if attempted.

[WaltGrace83]

How long did it take you to get there anyway myoung? Just wondering.

[myoung7189]

How long did it take you to get there anyway myoung? Just wondering.

A long time.. I started studying in January of 2013 so I guess about 16 months. It shouldn't take that long for most people but I've procrastinated, wavered, refused to adopt a certain methodology, reviewed my test inappropriately, and pretty much done everything one could do to slow down the process. This is the third go round for me so I've got no excuses and I think that might be necessary for someone like me.

[alexrodriguez]

How many hours a day are most of you studying?

What are you guys focusing in on at this point?

[caguilereri]

DELETED

[rebexness]

How many hours a day are most of you studying?

What are you guys focusing in on at this point?

2-3 hours a day of drilling/book work weekdays
2- 5 section PTs plus review on weekends.

[akechi]

Hello all,

I was hoping someone would be able to help me better understand the distinction between correct Strengthen and Necessary Assumption answer choices. I know that all correct Necessary Assumption answer choices will invariably strengthen an argument, but not all correct Strengthen answer choices will be necessary for that argument.

But, broadly speaking, don't they perform the same roles when we're assessing an argument?

Correct Necessary Assumption answer choices will usually either 1) connect a gap / provide a missing link between premise and conclusion or 2) eliminate a alternative possibility.

Correct Strengthen answer choices will usually: 1) connect a gap / provide a missing link between premise and conclusion, 2) deny and alternative possibility, 3) provide additional evidence to support the conclusion, or 4) reinforce the validity of the evidence for the conclusion (which is unique to Strengthen and Weaken questions).

What is the critical difference that will help me distinguish between answers that merely act as strengtheners and those that serve as necessary assumptions?

In regards to "connecting the gap" for Necessary Assumption questions, I understand that a necessary assumption does not need to fill the entire gap between premise and conclusion, but rather it expresses an assumption that the argument depends on for its validity. Because of this, we get the formulation Valid Argument -> True Assumption and the contrapositive ~True Assumption -> ~Valid Argument. This is why the Negation Test is such a useful way to test the necessity of an presumed assumption, if we negate a supposed necessary assumption, then it follows that the argument is no longer valid. I vaguely understand how this quality of necessary assumptions restricts the importing of outside information. But I am just confused because it seems like some correct necessary assumption answer choices DO bring in extraneous information that was not provided by the argument. To provide a concrete example I will reference PT44,S4,Q20 (view: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=195748&start=200 for my original post and Christine's in-depth response in the MLSAT Geek thread). Christine has been instrumental to further my understanding of Necessary Assumptions, however I am still a bit unclear about the exact difference between the two and I feel like I have bothered Christine enough with my repetitive questions. I sure she is feeling annoyed by now. Was my analysis of answer choice D mistaken in some obvious way that I am not seeing?

I have been on a mad hunt to find an answer to my questions, but I have only succeeded in confusing myself even more. In the PS LRB, it states that for necessary assumption questions "if an answer choice contains..." -edited out- (I am not sure if I am allowed to post direct quotes from prep material) [for those with the PS LRB, its on stated on page 258, the third sentence in the third paragraph]. This is so because, according to PS, the statement MUST be something that author believed when forming the argument. However, in the SuperPrep introduction to LR, under the Necessary Assumptions category, it states that "for the purpose of identifying a necessary assumption..." -edited out- (top of page 31 in SuperPrep, the second bullet point for some points to consider). Are these two contradictory pieces of information?

Any and all help would be deeply appreciated!

[WaltGrace83]

Hello all,

I was hoping someone would be able to help me better understand the distinction between correct Strengthen and Necessary Assumption answer choices. I know that all correct Necessary Assumption answer choices will invariably strengthen an argument, but not all correct Strengthen answer choices will be necessary for that argument.

Very few strengtheners are necessary. Very few.

But, broadly speaking, don't they perform the same roles when we're assessing an argument?

Correct Necessary Assumption answer choices will usually either 1) connect a gap / provide a missing link between premise and conclusion or 2) eliminate a alternative possibility.

Correct Strengthen answer choices will usually: 1) connect a gap / provide a missing link between premise and conclusion, 2) deny and alternative possibility, 3) provide additional evidence to support the conclusion, or 4) reinforce the validity of the evidence for the conclusion (which is unique to Strengthen and Weaken questions).

The biggest thing to keep in mind with strengtheners is the idea of causation. Many strengthen arguments revolve around cause and effect and for that there are pretty clear-cut ways to strengthen the answer choice. You can either: (1) show the same cause in an analogous situation with the same effect; (2) show the absence of the cause leading to the absence of the effect; (3) show that B did not cause A; or (4) rule out another possibility (another cause).

What is the critical difference that will help me distinguish between answers that merely act as strengtheners and those that serve as necessary assumptions?

A simple definition will do this. Think about this. A necessary assumption is just that: necessary. If you deny it, the argument does not follow. A strengthener is just that: it strengthens. It gives ADDITIONAL evidence that the premises DO lead to the conclusion.

In regards to "connecting the gap" for Necessary Assumption questions, I understand that a necessary assumption does not need to fill the entire gap between premise and conclusion, but rather it expresses an assumption that the argument depends on for its validity. Because of this, we get the formulation Valid Argument -> True Assumption and the contrapositive ~True Assumption -> ~Valid Argument. This is why the Negation Test is such a useful way to test the necessity of an presumed assumption, if we negate a supposed necessary assumption, then it follows that the argument is no longer valid. I vaguely understand how this quality of necessary assumptions restricts the importing of outside information. But I am just confused because sometimes it seems like the correct answer choice to necessary assumption questions DO bring in extraneous information that was not provided by the argument. To provide a concrete example I will reference PT44,S4,Q20 (view: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=195748&start=200 for my original post and Christine's in-depth response in the MLSAT Geek thread). Christine has been instrumental to further my understanding of Necessary Assumptions, however I am still a bit unclear about the exact difference between the two and I feel like I have bothered Christine enough with my repetitive questions. I sure she is feeling annoyed by now. Was my analysis of answer choice D mistaken in some obvious way that I am not seeing?

PT44-S4-Q20 is a flaw question.....(?)

[akechi]

PT44-S4-Q20 is a flaw question.....(?)

Right, it is a Flaw question. But the correct answer choices to Flaw questions can be stated as necessary assumptions. Accordingly, my concern with PT44,S4,Q20 is that I don't see how AC D is a necessary assumption. I was under the impression that AC D was a strengthener. That's why I am asking for some help trying to truly understand the difference between the two so I don't make the same mistake again in future questions.

Edit: sorry about that, fixed the previous post to clarify what I meant to say.

[gnomgnomuch]

started at a 146 now at 158-162, but seriously plateaued last couple of weeks......


think its time for
A) Dropping out of the June LSAT, - so not ready for a 170+ score in 50 days and
B) Invest this summer in a Live Course, BP videos are great - though sometimes its a bit hard to sit through the cheesy jokes - but I feel I learn much better in person.

Good luck to the rest of y'all in June, the positivity on this thread is heart warming <3.

[dardardelight]

Good Luck, gnomgnomuch! Keep at it during the summer !

Here's a question for anybody familiar with the new and old MLSAT LR books . Does anybody know how much different the 4th edition (newest) is than the 3rd edition? I guess that goes for the RC books as well . I already have the 3rd edition books, but have honestly not even looked at them yet.. as my foolish overconfident self told me 7sage and the trainer is enough.

Would it be worth the purchase for the new editions?

[rebexness]

Good Luck, gnomgnomuch! Keep at it during the summer !

Here's a question for anybody familiar with the new and old MLSAT LR books . Does anybody know how much different the 4th edition (newest) is than the 3rd edition? I guess that goes for the RC books as well . I already have the 3rd edition books, but have honestly not even looked at them yet.. as my foolish overconfident self told me 7sage and the trainer is enough.

Would it be worth the purchase for the new editions?

From what Christine from MLSAT said, the RC is the only one wih significant changes. If you have the old LR, you probably don't need to repurchase the new edition.

[dardardelight]

Thanks!

[gnomgnomuch]

Good Luck, gnomgnomuch! Keep at it during the summer !

Here's a question for anybody familiar with the new and old MLSAT LR books . Does anybody know how much different the 4th edition (newest) is than the 3rd edition? I guess that goes for the RC books as well . I already have the 3rd edition books, but have honestly not even looked at them yet.. as my foolish overconfident self told me 7sage and the trainer is enough.

Would it be worth the purchase for the new editions?

Thank you VERY much. I'm already very happy with my jump (14 points aint bad).

My breakdown for my most recent LSAT (exactly 160) were as follows

LR: -5
RC: (experimental) -5
LG: -7
LR: -8 (OUCH)
RC: -6

Once I firm up LG ill be solidly mid 160's, and I haven't even started RC prep yet.

In SEPTEMBER, I CONQUER. =)

[dardardelight]

No Problem, Gnomgnomuch!

Just took practice test 50 , and the results reinforced the notion that if I were to thoroughly master my LR, I'd be in happy waters come early July.

PT 50 -- Score: 168

RC -4 (First time I got less than 5 questions wrong in an RC section)
LR -4
LG -0 (Third time in a row with -0 . This helps so much with my overall confidence)
LR -4

Pretty even across the board in terms of number of questions missed.. and I'm glad that I finished all the sections on-time. Hypothetically, if I were to cut my LR sections to -2 each , I'd be looking at a 172 right now (The difference b/w going to Georgetown and NYU) . The plan is to spend the next 10 days not doing any more PT's, but rather reading the manhattan LR book and drilling my ass off with LR. Hopefully, this will get me into consistent 170+ PT scores from May onward. Good luck, everybody! Let me know if I could offer any advice -- and I appreciate all the help y'all have given me so far : )

[BaberhamLincoln]

I find it hard to do anything but the PT on PT days. Do you guys feel that way?

Tomorrow I would like to spend a ton of hours studying, drilling, and taking a PT (with my first blind review). But I worry I won't be able to do anything but the damn test.

[BillPackets]

I find it hard to do anything but the PT on PT days. Do you guys feel that way?

Tomorrow I would like to spend a ton of hours studying, drilling, and taking a PT (with my first blind review). But I worry I won't be able to do anything but the damn test.

I feel like doing a PT+drilling the same day would be like an LSAT 2-a-day, with no real clear benefits. I think there's a point of diminishing returns with LSAT study that set in after PT'ing. That may just be me.

At the least, you should probably split them up. Like drilling in the morning and PT in the evening, or vice versa.