The Official September 2016 Study Group - WAKE ME UP WHEN SEPTEMBER ENDS Forum

[Mikey]

Lol soooooo, I'm pretty good with sufficient assumption questions. They've always been that question type that I thankfully have positive intuition for when picking the correct A/C quickly. But I just did a very hard one, and then watched the explanation for it by 7sage, and I still don't understand this bitch. Even J.Y said that people scoring in the 170's are smart to skip this question if seen on their test. Well now I feel like a complete idiot because of 1 question, lol thanks LSAT.

The question I'm talking about is PT21 S2 Q20, if anyone cares to try it or has done it and wants to call me an idiot for thinking it's hard ;P

[Mikey]

Did the 7Sage principle and Method of Reasoning sections today.

Did fairly well.

Now, off to the bar!

Nice! I think method of reasoning questions are freebies if they're on the easier side and not some next level difficulty.

[Deardevil]

Lol soooooo, I'm pretty good with sufficient assumption questions. They've always been that question type that I thankfully have positive intuition for when picking the correct A/C quickly. But I just did a very hard one, and then watched the explanation for it by 7sage, and I still don't understand this bitch. Even J.Y said that people scoring in the 170's are smart to skip this question if seen on their test. Well now I feel like a complete idiot because of 1 question, lol thanks LSAT.

The question I'm talking about is PT21 S2 Q20, if anyone cares to try it or has done it and wants to call me an idiot for thinking it's hard ;P

Aw, I'm not quite there yet, but would love to attempt it.
Then again, I don't see myself as that great with SA types to begin with.
And on top of that, I might be in the 0.01% of people who actually like/favor parallel reasoning...

[34iplaw]

Finished first part...off to grab lunch and delve into games. I think the latter half of my schedule may have been ambitious, but, as of now, I'm 78/80 on this HW's MBT [20 to go] and -1 on the first 15 passages. These were focused on accuracy rather than speed.

I was a little hesitant on posting this and getting trucked by the last 3 passages and last 20 MBT.

That's fantastic. Sounds like you're killing those drills. Great job!! Downright inspiring.

Thanks. Well, the last twenty most certainly went worse. All questions missed were in the 22-25 range of questions.

Need to go over in particular a question on milk bottlers (eliminated right answer), bacteria and hydrogen sulfide (picked between right and a wrong answer - picked wrong), why scientists have an astounding success rate (eliminated right answer), scientific laws (picked right answer but wasn't sure as to how strong my reasoning was to eliminate), and one on feudalism.

Out of the 100 MBT, I got 94/100 correct. All six missed I wasn't certain about, and four were questions in that end of section area. I had 12 questions (including the six wrong) that I had *some* question about. Mostly for word definitions to double check and verify my reasoning for picking one of two choices being solid. Overall, fairly happy. I do wish the last 20 went better.

Going to do some games and maybe RC later, but I think my mind is a bit fatigued from that last section of 20 challenging LR questions.

Those are some killer scores! Are you doing them timed?
Realizing MBT/inference/supported by is a weak area for me - always feel a bit unfamiliar and show up surprisingly frequently. I've only done type training to the scale of ~20 qs/type. You're motivating me to get some serious by type drilling in when my books arrive.

Untimed. I'm trusting the Testmasters' process. They said to work solely for accuracy and not time, so that is what I've done. They say that we do tons of timed stuff and endurance sections later in the course. Most questions were definitely done fairly quickly, but some took longer, especially that last set of 20. I can get through sections with time to spare, so it's about making sure I improve accuracy and understand the foundation before I add speed. On my diagnostic, I didn't feel overly crunched for time on RC or LR, but I didn't take the test as assertively as I should. I think, at this point, it is paramount that I focus on accuracy and building confidence. I need to review some definitional stuff and how cause and effect differ from conditional statements.

[Mikey]

Lol soooooo, I'm pretty good with sufficient assumption questions. They've always been that question type that I thankfully have positive intuition for when picking the correct A/C quickly. But I just did a very hard one, and then watched the explanation for it by 7sage, and I still don't understand this bitch. Even J.Y said that people scoring in the 170's are smart to skip this question if seen on their test. Well now I feel like a complete idiot because of 1 question, lol thanks LSAT.

The question I'm talking about is PT21 S2 Q20, if anyone cares to try it or has done it and wants to call me an idiot for thinking it's hard ;P

Aw, I'm not quite there yet, but would love to attempt it.
Then again, I don't see myself as that great with SA types to begin with.
And on top of that, I might be in the 0.01% of people who actually like/favor parallel reasoning...

I don't think we can be acquaintances anymore.

[34iplaw]

Aside from the ridiculously worded stimuli and occasionally tricky ACs, LR isn't so bad (certainly much better than RC).
I've come to see the section as a fusion of analytical reasoning and reading comprehension, as someone had mentioned;
questions can be either fun/easy or dense/frustrating like their respective LG and RC counterparts.
Got through PrepTest B's LR today for the second time;
ecstatic I got everything right, though a timed first-time tomorrow will really determine things at this point.
*breathes heavy sigh of relief and anxiousness*

Also, quote pyramid ftw.

ETA: Oh, you can only quote a maximum of seven? BORING.

LOW ENERGY

It's really frustrating to figure out how to pare it down.

Going back to $SBUX in a bit to do some of the game drills before going out.

[Barack O'Drama]

Lol soooooo, I'm pretty good with sufficient assumption questions. They've always been that question type that I thankfully have positive intuition for when picking the correct A/C quickly. But I just did a very hard one, and then watched the explanation for it by 7sage, and I still don't understand this bitch. Even J.Y said that people scoring in the 170's are smart to skip this question if seen on their test. Well now I feel like a complete idiot because of 1 question, lol thanks LSAT.

The question I'm talking about is PT21 S2 Q20, if anyone cares to try it or has done it and wants to call me an idiot for thinking it's hard ;P

That question just destroyed my brain... I hate this test so much. And Fuck Ann and her leave of absence.

Haha seriously that question was really challenging. It basically gave me an instant headache, lol

[34iplaw]

Did the 7Sage principle and Method of Reasoning sections today.

Did fairly well.

Now, off to the bar!

You've got three years of law school ahead of you before you can do that.

*BAH DUM TSSSSSSSSSS*

[proteinshake]

Lol soooooo, I'm pretty good with sufficient assumption questions. They've always been that question type that I thankfully have positive intuition for when picking the correct A/C quickly. But I just did a very hard one, and then watched the explanation for it by 7sage, and I still don't understand this bitch. Even J.Y said that people scoring in the 170's are smart to skip this question if seen on their test. Well now I feel like a complete idiot because of 1 question, lol thanks LSAT.

The question I'm talking about is PT21 S2 Q20, if anyone cares to try it or has done it and wants to call me an idiot for thinking it's hard ;P

went back to this question in my cambridge back and indeed this was a tough question. I got it right but it was pretty much because of process of elimination and knowing that the correct answer would probably be a numbers issue having to do with the "top-third" part of the q. when I read the correct answer choice I figured it had to be it since this would mean that: same criteria + less people receiving it would imply that the company has more workers and thus, more people passed over for the award.

[Mikey]

Lol soooooo, I'm pretty good with sufficient assumption questions. They've always been that question type that I thankfully have positive intuition for when picking the correct A/C quickly. But I just did a very hard one, and then watched the explanation for it by 7sage, and I still don't understand this bitch. Even J.Y said that people scoring in the 170's are smart to skip this question if seen on their test. Well now I feel like a complete idiot because of 1 question, lol thanks LSAT.

The question I'm talking about is PT21 S2 Q20, if anyone cares to try it or has done it and wants to call me an idiot for thinking it's hard ;P

That question just destroyed my brain... I hate this test so much. And Fuck Ann and her leave of absence.

Haha seriously that question was really challenging. It basically gave me an instant headache, lol

Bruh, when I did it timed, I knew I probably was wrong but went to BR it and still couldn't figure it out so I watched the 7sage vid for it. Even his explanation didn't clear it up for me. But when I really looked at it, you can kind of boil it down to the right answer

[+] Spoiler

A. only if someone informs on her? we don't care about that shit
B. we don't know the REASON she wants the fellowship
C. competitors? we don't know if the place she wants to go are their competitors or not
E. this is false because the first sentence says that she will either quit or have her LOA if she gets the fellowship, so we can't just get outside info about the ONLY way the place will offer her the fellowship, but either way, we don't care about that.

D. doesn't make sense to me still, but is the last one left that doesn't have a reason to go.

Wish I would've thought of it like this when doing it, but oh well lol.

[Deardevil]

Lol soooooo, I'm pretty good with sufficient assumption questions. They've always been that question type that I thankfully have positive intuition for when picking the correct A/C quickly. But I just did a very hard one, and then watched the explanation for it by 7sage, and I still don't understand this bitch. Even J.Y said that people scoring in the 170's are smart to skip this question if seen on their test. Well now I feel like a complete idiot because of 1 question, lol thanks LSAT.

The question I'm talking about is PT21 S2 Q20, if anyone cares to try it or has done it and wants to call me an idiot for thinking it's hard ;P

Aw, I'm not quite there yet, but would love to attempt it.
Then again, I don't see myself as that great with SA types to begin with.
And on top of that, I might be in the 0.01% of people who actually like/favor parallel reasoning...

I don't think we can be acquaintances anymore.

Haha maybe it's because I haven't done enough to consider them a threat.
Whenever I encounter a parallel reasoning question, I'm like, "sweet; I get to challenge myself,"
then realize that the question isn't that grueling, which beats the feeling when I'm overconfident about an easy-looking question,
then end up getting it wrong and confused af as to how I could screw up an easy problem.

[Mikey]

Lol soooooo, I'm pretty good with sufficient assumption questions. They've always been that question type that I thankfully have positive intuition for when picking the correct A/C quickly. But I just did a very hard one, and then watched the explanation for it by 7sage, and I still don't understand this bitch. Even J.Y said that people scoring in the 170's are smart to skip this question if seen on their test. Well now I feel like a complete idiot because of 1 question, lol thanks LSAT.

The question I'm talking about is PT21 S2 Q20, if anyone cares to try it or has done it and wants to call me an idiot for thinking it's hard ;P

went back to this question in my cambridge back and indeed this was a tough question. I got it right but it was pretty much because of process of elimination and knowing that the correct answer would probably be a numbers issue having to do with the "top-third" part of the q.

Yeah!! I just wrote about process of elimination for that question above. Definitely a very hard Q.

[proteinshake]

Lol soooooo, I'm pretty good with sufficient assumption questions. They've always been that question type that I thankfully have positive intuition for when picking the correct A/C quickly. But I just did a very hard one, and then watched the explanation for it by 7sage, and I still don't understand this bitch. Even J.Y said that people scoring in the 170's are smart to skip this question if seen on their test. Well now I feel like a complete idiot because of 1 question, lol thanks LSAT.

The question I'm talking about is PT21 S2 Q20, if anyone cares to try it or has done it and wants to call me an idiot for thinking it's hard ;P

went back to this question in my cambridge back and indeed this was a tough question. I got it right but it was pretty much because of process of elimination and knowing that the correct answer would probably be a numbers issue having to do with the "top-third" part of the q.

Yeah!! I just wrote about process of elimination for that question above. Definitely a very hard Q.

I edited my post so i'm gonna repost it here if you didn't see it: when I read the correct answer choice I figured it had to be it since this would mean that: same criteria + less people receiving it would imply that the company has more workers and thus, more people passed over for the award.

[Deardevil]

ON THE OTHER HAND, how you approach sufficient assumption questions, doe?

[Mikey]

Lol soooooo, I'm pretty good with sufficient assumption questions. They've always been that question type that I thankfully have positive intuition for when picking the correct A/C quickly. But I just did a very hard one, and then watched the explanation for it by 7sage, and I still don't understand this bitch. Even J.Y said that people scoring in the 170's are smart to skip this question if seen on their test. Well now I feel like a complete idiot because of 1 question, lol thanks LSAT.

The question I'm talking about is PT21 S2 Q20, if anyone cares to try it or has done it and wants to call me an idiot for thinking it's hard ;P

went back to this question in my cambridge back and indeed this was a tough question. I got it right but it was pretty much because of process of elimination and knowing that the correct answer would probably be a numbers issue having to do with the "top-third" part of the q.

Yeah!! I just wrote about process of elimination for that question above. Definitely a very hard Q.

I edited my post so i'm gonna repost it here if you didn't see it: when I read the correct answer choice I figured it had to be it since this would mean that: same criteria + less people receiving it would imply that the company has more workers and thus, more people passed over for the award.

I think maybe you have the question mixed up? I don't see anything in this question about awards and such. Or by awards are you referring to the fellowship?

[Barack O'Drama]

Lol soooooo, I'm pretty good with sufficient assumption questions. They've always been that question type that I thankfully have positive intuition for when picking the correct A/C quickly. But I just did a very hard one, and then watched the explanation for it by 7sage, and I still don't understand this bitch. Even J.Y said that people scoring in the 170's are smart to skip this question if seen on their test. Well now I feel like a complete idiot because of 1 question, lol thanks LSAT.

The question I'm talking about is PT21 S2 Q20, if anyone cares to try it or has done it and wants to call me an idiot for thinking it's hard ;P

That question just destroyed my brain... I hate this test so much. And Fuck Ann and her leave of absence.

Haha seriously that question was really challenging. It basically gave me an instant headache, lol

Bruh, when I did it timed, I knew I probably was wrong but went to BR it and still couldn't figure it out so I watched the 7sage vid for it. Even his explanation didn't clear it up for me. But when I really looked at it, you can kind of boil it down to the right answer

[+] Spoiler

A. only if someone informs on her? we don't care about that shit
B. we don't know the REASON she wants the fellowship
C. competitors? we don't know if the place she wants to go are their competitors or not
E. this is false because the first sentence says that she will either quit or have her LOA if she gets the fellowship, so we can't just get outside info about the ONLY way the place will offer her the fellowship, but either way, we don't care about that.

D. doesn't make sense to me still, but is the last one left that doesn't have a reason to go.

Wish I would've thought of it like this when doing it, but oh well lol.

That makes a lot of sense now, but when I just read it that would not have crossed my mind. If I get one of those on test day, I am skipping it without a second thought. I like your reasoning and breakdown of how to get to the answer; very helpful to realize sometimes you just have to trust POE.

[Mikey]

ON THE OTHER HAND, how you approach sufficient assumption questions, doe?

I approach it in kind of a simple way, I think of the A/C as a taken out premise. I try to connect the existing premise and the conclusion. This sounds very unclear but I don't really know how to explain it lol, so here is a half-assed but simple example:

Mikey is a prospective law student. Therefore, he is currently studying for the LSAT.
The correct answer would be something along the lines of "All prospective law students are currently studying for the LSAT". Or some other sentence, idk. But if you put this new sentence ("answer choice") after the existing premise and before the conclusion, it should allow the argument to make sense.

Mikey is a prospective law student. (All prospective law students are currently studying for the LSAT). Therefore, he is currently studying for the LSAT.

[Mikey]

That makes a lot of sense now, but when I just read it that would not have crossed my mind. If I get one of those on test day, I am skipping it without a second thought. I like your reasoning and breakdown of how to get to the answer; very helpful to realize sometimes you just have to trust POE.

Yeah, I usually go with my initial pre-phrase with sufficient assumption questions because like I said, I've always been good at them. But that question had me like HUH

[proteinshake]

I think maybe you have the question mixed up? I don't see anything in this question about awards and such. Or by awards are you referring to the fellowship?

wow lol I was looking at the wrong side of my paper

[+] Spoiler

so I got it down to D by process of elimination but I see how it's correct. so we KNOW that she will take the fellowship because she WILL take a leave of absence or quit her job, and she would only do it if she got offered the fellowship in the first place. if the assumption D is assumed (that she'll take the leave of absence if it is offered) then the only reason she would quit would be if Technocomp found out she was offered the fellowship!

[Mikey]

I think maybe you have the question mixed up? I don't see anything in this question about awards and such. Or by awards are you referring to the fellowship?

wow lol I was looking at the wrong side of my paper

[+] Spoiler

so I got it down to D by process of elimination but I see how it's correct. so we KNOW that she will take the fellowship because she WILL take a leave of absence or quit her job, and she would only do it if she got offered the fellowship in the first place. if the assumption D is assumed (that she'll take the leave of absence if it is offered) then the only reason she would quit would be if Technocomp found out she was offered the fellowship!

[+] Spoiler

Alright damn I actually get it now, haha thanks. So if she takes her LOA, because they allow her to, we can infer that she did not quit her job so they did not find out about the fellowship

[proteinshake]

I think maybe you have the question mixed up? I don't see anything in this question about awards and such. Or by awards are you referring to the fellowship?

wow lol I was looking at the wrong side of my paper

[+] Spoiler

so I got it down to D by process of elimination but I see how it's correct. so we KNOW that she will take the fellowship because she WILL take a leave of absence or quit her job, and she would only do it if she got offered the fellowship in the first place. if the assumption D is assumed (that she'll take the leave of absence if it is offered) then the only reason she would quit would be if Technocomp found out she was offered the fellowship!

[+] Spoiler

Alright damn I actually get it now, haha thanks. So if she takes her LOA, because they allow her to, we can infer that she did not quit her job so they did not find out about the fellowship

[+] Spoiler

right. so I guess the question still leaves open the possibility that she accepts the LOA but 5 minutes later, Tech finds out about the fellowship and revokes her LOA. in this case, she would quit. she quits ONLY IF Tech finds out.

[34iplaw]

I'm going to go socialize.

Gross.

[Mikey]

I'm going to go socialize.

Gross.

Have fun bro

[Mikey]

I think maybe you have the question mixed up? I don't see anything in this question about awards and such. Or by awards are you referring to the fellowship?

wow lol I was looking at the wrong side of my paper

[+] Spoiler

so I got it down to D by process of elimination but I see how it's correct. so we KNOW that she will take the fellowship because she WILL take a leave of absence or quit her job, and she would only do it if she got offered the fellowship in the first place. if the assumption D is assumed (that she'll take the leave of absence if it is offered) then the only reason she would quit would be if Technocomp found out she was offered the fellowship!

[+] Spoiler

Alright damn I actually get it now, haha thanks. So if she takes her LOA, because they allow her to, we can infer that she did not quit her job so they did not find out about the fellowship

[+] Spoiler

right. so I guess the question still leaves open the possibility that she accepts the LOA but 5 minutes later, Tech finds out about the fellowship and revokes her LOA. in this case, she would quit. she quits ONLY IF Tech finds out.

True but still, screw Ann and her LOA lmao.

[proteinshake]

I think maybe you have the question mixed up? I don't see anything in this question about awards and such. Or by awards are you referring to the fellowship?

wow lol I was looking at the wrong side of my paper

[+] Spoiler

so I got it down to D by process of elimination but I see how it's correct. so we KNOW that she will take the fellowship because she WILL take a leave of absence or quit her job, and she would only do it if she got offered the fellowship in the first place. if the assumption D is assumed (that she'll take the leave of absence if it is offered) then the only reason she would quit would be if Technocomp found out she was offered the fellowship!

[+] Spoiler

Alright damn I actually get it now, haha thanks. So if she takes her LOA, because they allow her to, we can infer that she did not quit her job so they did not find out about the fellowship

[+] Spoiler

right. so I guess the question still leaves open the possibility that she accepts the LOA but 5 minutes later, Tech finds out about the fellowship and revokes her LOA. in this case, she would quit. she quits ONLY IF Tech finds out.

True but still, screw Ann and her LOA lmao.

lmao yeah I had to reread the stimulus a few times!