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

[Alexandros]

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.

Sounds wise!

[Alexandros]

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.

I checked and oddly enough actually got this one right first time, but it's a nasty one for sure. I think I kind of get it though.

[+] Spoiler

She'll quit her job *only* if the company finds out, and thus doesn't offer her a leave of absence. If the company DOES allow her a leave of absence, she won't quit her job, and will therefore take a leave of absence. Hence, she'll take a leave of absence if it's allowed. Idk if that makes sense - I'm sure 7sage did a way better and more thorough explanation.

Speaking of nasty questions, I still can't get PT 25.4 Q 23. Any insights?

[+] Spoiler

Seems like simply : Understand architecture -> Comp Sci (U->C), Appreciate advance -> Understand architecture. (A->U), therefore A->U->C, therefore A-> C, which is the conclusion, and there's no flaw. idk

eta: waaaait "only those who A are C" that's not A->C, that's C->A, right? or...? i've officially gotten myself completely confused oh w o w. BACK TO INTRO LOGIC FOR ME
eta again: so the conclusion is "only A are C" A is therefore the necessary condition, C is the sufficient. C->A. it makes so much sense now. god this is embarrassing.

[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

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.

I checked and oddly enough actually got this one right first time, but it's a nasty one for sure. I think I kind of get it though.

[+] Spoiler

She'll quit her job *only* if the company finds out, and thus doesn't offer her a leave of absence. If the company DOES allow her a leave of absence, she won't quit her job, and will therefore take a leave of absence. Hence, she'll take a leave of absence if it's allowed. Idk if that makes sense - I'm sure 7sage did a way better and more thorough explanation.

Speaking of nasty questions, I still can't get PT 25.4 Q 23. Any insights?

[+] Spoiler

Seems like simply : Understand architecture -> Comp Sci (U->C), Appreciate advance -> Understand architecture. (A->U), therefore A->U->C, therefore A-> C, which is the conclusion, and there's no flaw. idk

eta: waaaait "only those who A are C" that's not A->C, that's C->A, right? or...? i've officially gotten myself completely confused oh w o w. BACK TO INTRO LOGIC FOR ME

[+] Spoiler

if understand ---> computer scientist
if understand ----> appreciate
no connection between comp scientists and those who appreciate
yeah this one was confusing, I actually had to diagram it

[Mikey]

Speaking of nasty questions, I still can't get PT 25.4 Q 23. Any insights?

[+] Spoiler

Seems like simply : Understand architecture -> Comp Sci (U->C), Appreciate advance -> Understand architecture. (A->U), therefore A->U->C, therefore A-> C, which is the conclusion, and there's no flaw. idk

eta: waaaait "only those who A are C" that's not A->C, that's C->A, right? or...? i've officially gotten myself completely confused oh w o w. BACK TO INTRO LOGIC FOR ME

[+] Spoiler

I haven't done that one before but I just did it and got down to B and D. But once I thought about it a little more, D can't be the answer because the argument does come to a logical conclusion in which A--> B--> C, therefore A--> C. This is a valid argument, so I got rid of D and checked the answer for B and it was right. But first let me just quickly say why the others are wrong

A. There is a stated relationship between computer scientists and those who appreciate the advancement in technology (A[cs]-->C[ait]).
C. Who cares about the other things that they appreciate? we care about what is in the argument.
D. refer to what I said above
E. everyone understands the architecture? completely out of scope of the argument.

Now for B. So at first I kept this one because I thought back to something I had read about answer choices in flaw questions that said to think of "ignores the possibility of, fails to consider or neglects the possibility" as answer choices that IF TRUE, would weaken the argument. And essentially, flaw questions are weakening the argument because you're (SURPRISE) finding a flaw in it. So B, if true, would weaken the argument because if some of those computer scientists don't appreciate advances in technology, their assumption that ALL of them do (by saying that computer scientists only appreciate it because of they are the only ones who understand the architecture of a personal computer) would fall apart.

I hope this helps, I think I kind of suck at explaining questions but let me know if it's unclear at all.

ETA:

[+] Spoiler

the assumption that they make in the argument about ALL of the computer scientists can be hard to see but if you look closely with the "only's" given, you can see that it's their assumption.

[Alexandros]

Speaking of nasty questions, I still can't get PT 25.4 Q 23. Any insights?

[+] Spoiler

Seems like simply : Understand architecture -> Comp Sci (U->C), Appreciate advance -> Understand architecture. (A->U), therefore A->U->C, therefore A-> C, which is the conclusion, and there's no flaw. idk

eta: waaaait "only those who A are C" that's not A->C, that's C->A, right? or...? i've officially gotten myself completely confused oh w o w. BACK TO INTRO LOGIC FOR ME

[+] Spoiler

I haven't done that one before but I just did it and got down to B and D. But once I thought about it a little more, D can't be the answer because the argument does come to a logical conclusion in which A--> B--> C, therefore A--> C. This is a valid argument, so I got rid of D and checked the answer for B and it was right. But first let me just quickly say why the others are wrong

A. There is a stated relationship between computer scientists and those who appreciate the advancement in technology (A[cs]-->C[ait]).
C. Who cares about the other things that they appreciate? we care about what is in the argument.
D. refer to what I said above
E. everyone understands the architecture? completely out of scope of the argument.

Now for B. So at first I kept this one because I thought back to something I had read about answer choices in flaw questions that said to think of "ignores the possibility of, fails to consider or neglects the possibility" as answer choices that IF TRUE, would weaken the argument. And essentially, flaw questions are weakening the argument because you're (SURPRISE) finding a flaw in it. So B, if true, would weaken the argument because if some of those computer scientists don't appreciate advances in technology, their assumption that ALL of them do (by saying that computer scientists only appreciate it because of they are the only ones who understand the architecture of a personal computer) would fall apart.

I hope this helps, I think I kind of suck at explaining questions but let me know if it's unclear at all.

ETA:

[+] Spoiler

the assumption that they make in the argument about ALL of the computer scientists can be hard to see but if you look closely with the "only's" given, you can see that it's their assumption.

[+] Spoiler

if understand ---> computer scientist
if understand ----> appreciate
no connection between comp scientists and those who appreciate
yeah this one was confusing, I actually had to diagram it

Thank you both!!
I think I may have figured it out:

[+] Spoiler

Only Cs are U = If U, must be C = U->C
Only U are A = If A, must be U = A->U
So: A->U->C
Then the conclusion:
Only A are C = If C, must be A = All Cs are A = C->A. A reversal of the original logic.

I don't why this was so bloody difficult. I literally had to replace A and C and whatnot with apples and oranges to wrap my head around this.
Going to def prioritize reviewing some logic phrasing activities.

[proteinshake]

Speaking of nasty questions, I still can't get PT 25.4 Q 23. Any insights?

[+] Spoiler

Seems like simply : Understand architecture -> Comp Sci (U->C), Appreciate advance -> Understand architecture. (A->U), therefore A->U->C, therefore A-> C, which is the conclusion, and there's no flaw. idk

eta: waaaait "only those who A are C" that's not A->C, that's C->A, right? or...? i've officially gotten myself completely confused oh w o w. BACK TO INTRO LOGIC FOR ME

[+] Spoiler

I haven't done that one before but I just did it and got down to B and D. But once I thought about it a little more, D can't be the answer because the argument does come to a logical conclusion in which A--> B--> C, therefore A--> C. This is a valid argument, so I got rid of D and checked the answer for B and it was right. But first let me just quickly say why the others are wrong

A. There is a stated relationship between computer scientists and those who appreciate the advancement in technology (A[cs]-->C[ait]).
C. Who cares about the other things that they appreciate? we care about what is in the argument.
D. refer to what I said above
E. everyone understands the architecture? completely out of scope of the argument.

Now for B. So at first I kept this one because I thought back to something I had read about answer choices in flaw questions that said to think of "ignores the possibility of, fails to consider or neglects the possibility" as answer choices that IF TRUE, would weaken the argument. And essentially, flaw questions are weakening the argument because you're (SURPRISE) finding a flaw in it. So B, if true, would weaken the argument because if some of those computer scientists don't appreciate advances in technology, their assumption that ALL of them do (by saying that computer scientists only appreciate it because of they are the only ones who understand the architecture of a personal computer) would fall apart.

I hope this helps, I think I kind of suck at explaining questions but let me know if it's unclear at all.

ETA:

[+] Spoiler

the assumption that they make in the argument about ALL of the computer scientists can be hard to see but if you look closely with the "only's" given, you can see that it's their assumption.

[+] Spoiler

if understand ---> computer scientist
if understand ----> appreciate
no connection between comp scientists and those who appreciate
yeah this one was confusing, I actually had to diagram it

Thank you both!!
I think I may have figured it out:

[+] Spoiler

Only Cs are U = If U, must be C = U->C
Only U are A = If A, must be U = A->U
So: A->U->C
Then the conclusion:
Only A are C = If C, must be A = All Cs are A = C->A. A reversal of the original logic.

I don't why this was so bloody difficult. I literally had to replace A and C and whatnot with apples and oranges to wrap my head around this.
Going to def prioritize reviewing some logic phrasing activities.

usually I have an intuitive grasp on flaws but I just don't get it with this one. like I diagrammed it and I was like okay I mean I guess they don't connect but it certainly sounds like they do.

[Alexandros]

Speaking of nasty questions, I still can't get PT 25.4 Q 23. Any insights?

[+] Spoiler

Seems like simply : Understand architecture -> Comp Sci (U->C), Appreciate advance -> Understand architecture. (A->U), therefore A->U->C, therefore A-> C, which is the conclusion, and there's no flaw. idk

eta: waaaait "only those who A are C" that's not A->C, that's C->A, right? or...? i've officially gotten myself completely confused oh w o w. BACK TO INTRO LOGIC FOR ME

[+] Spoiler

I haven't done that one before but I just did it and got down to B and D. But once I thought about it a little more, D can't be the answer because the argument does come to a logical conclusion in which A--> B--> C, therefore A--> C. This is a valid argument, so I got rid of D and checked the answer for B and it was right. But first let me just quickly say why the others are wrong

A. There is a stated relationship between computer scientists and those who appreciate the advancement in technology (A[cs]-->C[ait]).
C. Who cares about the other things that they appreciate? we care about what is in the argument.
D. refer to what I said above
E. everyone understands the architecture? completely out of scope of the argument.

Now for B. So at first I kept this one because I thought back to something I had read about answer choices in flaw questions that said to think of "ignores the possibility of, fails to consider or neglects the possibility" as answer choices that IF TRUE, would weaken the argument. And essentially, flaw questions are weakening the argument because you're (SURPRISE) finding a flaw in it. So B, if true, would weaken the argument because if some of those computer scientists don't appreciate advances in technology, their assumption that ALL of them do (by saying that computer scientists only appreciate it because of they are the only ones who understand the architecture of a personal computer) would fall apart.

I hope this helps, I think I kind of suck at explaining questions but let me know if it's unclear at all.

ETA:

[+] Spoiler

the assumption that they make in the argument about ALL of the computer scientists can be hard to see but if you look closely with the "only's" given, you can see that it's their assumption.

[+] Spoiler

if understand ---> computer scientist
if understand ----> appreciate
no connection between comp scientists and those who appreciate
yeah this one was confusing, I actually had to diagram it

Thank you both!!
I think I may have figured it out:

[+] Spoiler

Only Cs are U = If U, must be C = U->C
Only U are A = If A, must be U = A->U
So: A->U->C
Then the conclusion:
Only A are C = If C, must be A = All Cs are A = C->A. A reversal of the original logic.

I don't why this was so bloody difficult. I literally had to replace A and C and whatnot with apples and oranges to wrap my head around this.
Going to def prioritize reviewing some logic phrasing activities.

usually I have an intuitive grasp on flaws but I just don't get it with this one. like I diagrammed it and I was like okay I mean I guess they don't connect but it certainly sounds like they do.

Same -_- I literally kept screwing up the logic / having to diagram it again while typing this up. Gah.

[proteinshake]

Speaking of nasty questions, I still can't get PT 25.4 Q 23. Any insights?

[+] Spoiler

Seems like simply : Understand architecture -> Comp Sci (U->C), Appreciate advance -> Understand architecture. (A->U), therefore A->U->C, therefore A-> C, which is the conclusion, and there's no flaw. idk

eta: waaaait "only those who A are C" that's not A->C, that's C->A, right? or...? i've officially gotten myself completely confused oh w o w. BACK TO INTRO LOGIC FOR ME

[+] Spoiler

I haven't done that one before but I just did it and got down to B and D. But once I thought about it a little more, D can't be the answer because the argument does come to a logical conclusion in which A--> B--> C, therefore A--> C. This is a valid argument, so I got rid of D and checked the answer for B and it was right. But first let me just quickly say why the others are wrong

A. There is a stated relationship between computer scientists and those who appreciate the advancement in technology (A[cs]-->C[ait]).
C. Who cares about the other things that they appreciate? we care about what is in the argument.
D. refer to what I said above
E. everyone understands the architecture? completely out of scope of the argument.

Now for B. So at first I kept this one because I thought back to something I had read about answer choices in flaw questions that said to think of "ignores the possibility of, fails to consider or neglects the possibility" as answer choices that IF TRUE, would weaken the argument. And essentially, flaw questions are weakening the argument because you're (SURPRISE) finding a flaw in it. So B, if true, would weaken the argument because if some of those computer scientists don't appreciate advances in technology, their assumption that ALL of them do (by saying that computer scientists only appreciate it because of they are the only ones who understand the architecture of a personal computer) would fall apart.

I hope this helps, I think I kind of suck at explaining questions but let me know if it's unclear at all.

ETA:

[+] Spoiler

the assumption that they make in the argument about ALL of the computer scientists can be hard to see but if you look closely with the "only's" given, you can see that it's their assumption.

[+] Spoiler

if understand ---> computer scientist
if understand ----> appreciate
no connection between comp scientists and those who appreciate
yeah this one was confusing, I actually had to diagram it

Thank you both!!
I think I may have figured it out:

[+] Spoiler

Only Cs are U = If U, must be C = U->C
Only U are A = If A, must be U = A->U
So: A->U->C
Then the conclusion:
Only A are C = If C, must be A = All Cs are A = C->A. A reversal of the original logic.

I don't why this was so bloody difficult. I literally had to replace A and C and whatnot with apples and oranges to wrap my head around this.
Going to def prioritize reviewing some logic phrasing activities.

usually I have an intuitive grasp on flaws but I just don't get it with this one. like I diagrammed it and I was like okay I mean I guess they don't connect but it certainly sounds like they do.

Same -_- I literally kept screwing up the logic / having to diagram it again while typing this up. Gah.

OH I get it. the conclusion basically means that becoming a computer scientist is a necessary condition to becoming a computer scientist! that doesn't have to be true based on the premises! I think it was the use of 'only' so many times that messed me up.

[Mikey]

usually I have an intuitive grasp on flaws but I just don't get it with this one. like I diagrammed it and I was like okay I mean I guess they don't connect but it certainly sounds like they do.

Same -_- I literally kept screwing up the logic / having to diagram it again while typing this up. Gah.

[+] Spoiler

Yeah, it was a tough one. I couldn't really think of a flaw in my head after reading it so I dove into the questions and like I said in my other post, i got down to B and D but then looked at the argument's structure of A-->B-->C therefore, A-->C and was able to get rid of D. Then once I had B left, I closely looked at the only statements and realized that the author is implying that all computer scientists appreciate the advances, which made B make more sense because if it were true then his argument would be fucked, lmao.

[Alexandros]

usually I have an intuitive grasp on flaws but I just don't get it with this one. like I diagrammed it and I was like okay I mean I guess they don't connect but it certainly sounds like they do.

Same -_- I literally kept screwing up the logic / having to diagram it again while typing this up. Gah.

[+] Spoiler

Yeah, it was a tough one. I couldn't really think of a flaw in my head after reading it so I dove into the questions and like I said in my other post, i got down to B and D but then looked at the argument's structure of A-->B-->C therefore, A-->C and was able to get rid of D. Then once I had B left, I closely looked at the only statements and realized that the author is implying that all computer scientists appreciate the advances, which made B make more sense because if it were true then his argument would be fucked, lmao.

That's a great way to think about it! Not sure what I picked when I first when through because I just crossed off all the answers but pretty sure it wasn't B

[Alexandros]

Speaking of nasty questions, I still can't get PT 25.4 Q 23. Any insights?

[+] Spoiler

Seems like simply : Understand architecture -> Comp Sci (U->C), Appreciate advance -> Understand architecture. (A->U), therefore A->U->C, therefore A-> C, which is the conclusion, and there's no flaw. idk

eta: waaaait "only those who A are C" that's not A->C, that's C->A, right? or...? i've officially gotten myself completely confused oh w o w. BACK TO INTRO LOGIC FOR ME

[+] Spoiler

I haven't done that one before but I just did it and got down to B and D. But once I thought about it a little more, D can't be the answer because the argument does come to a logical conclusion in which A--> B--> C, therefore A--> C. This is a valid argument, so I got rid of D and checked the answer for B and it was right. But first let me just quickly say why the others are wrong

A. There is a stated relationship between computer scientists and those who appreciate the advancement in technology (A[cs]-->C[ait]).
C. Who cares about the other things that they appreciate? we care about what is in the argument.
D. refer to what I said above
E. everyone understands the architecture? completely out of scope of the argument.

Now for B. So at first I kept this one because I thought back to something I had read about answer choices in flaw questions that said to think of "ignores the possibility of, fails to consider or neglects the possibility" as answer choices that IF TRUE, would weaken the argument. And essentially, flaw questions are weakening the argument because you're (SURPRISE) finding a flaw in it. So B, if true, would weaken the argument because if some of those computer scientists don't appreciate advances in technology, their assumption that ALL of them do (by saying that computer scientists only appreciate it because of they are the only ones who understand the architecture of a personal computer) would fall apart.

I hope this helps, I think I kind of suck at explaining questions but let me know if it's unclear at all.

ETA:

[+] Spoiler

the assumption that they make in the argument about ALL of the computer scientists can be hard to see but if you look closely with the "only's" given, you can see that it's their assumption.

[+] Spoiler

if understand ---> computer scientist
if understand ----> appreciate
no connection between comp scientists and those who appreciate
yeah this one was confusing, I actually had to diagram it

Thank you both!!
I think I may have figured it out:

[+] Spoiler

Only Cs are U = If U, must be C = U->C
Only U are A = If A, must be U = A->U
So: A->U->C
Then the conclusion:
Only A are C = If C, must be A = All Cs are A = C->A. A reversal of the original logic.

I don't why this was so bloody difficult. I literally had to replace A and C and whatnot with apples and oranges to wrap my head around this.
Going to def prioritize reviewing some logic phrasing activities.

usually I have an intuitive grasp on flaws but I just don't get it with this one. like I diagrammed it and I was like okay I mean I guess they don't connect but it certainly sounds like they do.

Same -_- I literally kept screwing up the logic / having to diagram it again while typing this up. Gah.

OH I get it. the conclusion basically means that becoming a computer scientist is a necessary condition to becoming a computer scientist! that doesn't have to be true based on the premises! I think it was the use of 'only' so many times that messed me up.

yeah, C-> A! (I think that's what you meant? ) yeah I think it must have been all those 'only's throwing me off too.

[Mikey]

usually I have an intuitive grasp on flaws but I just don't get it with this one. like I diagrammed it and I was like okay I mean I guess they don't connect but it certainly sounds like they do.

Same -_- I literally kept screwing up the logic / having to diagram it again while typing this up. Gah.

[+] Spoiler

Yeah, it was a tough one. I couldn't really think of a flaw in my head after reading it so I dove into the questions and like I said in my other post, i got down to B and D but then looked at the argument's structure of A-->B-->C therefore, A-->C and was able to get rid of D. Then once I had B left, I closely looked at the only statements and realized that the author is implying that all computer scientists appreciate the advances, which made B make more sense because if it were true then his argument would be fucked, lmao.

That's a great way to think about it! Not sure what I picked when I first when through because I just crossed off all the answers but pretty sure it wasn't B

Hehe, yeah it was a tough one and tbh if I had gotten it on test day under pressure, I might not have been able to spot the flaw quickly. Would've been a time eater or I would've gotten it wrong!

[Alexandros]

Finally ordered PTs 7-18 - Hoping it gets here before I leave to visit family on Thursday. Yay, more drill material!
Going to do one more set of LG then be done for the night.
Tomorrow morning - Manhattan ch. 6, LG set, RC drills of some to-be-determined quantity.

[Barack O'Drama]

Finally ordered PTs 7-18 - Hoping it gets here before I leave to visit family on Thursday. Yay, more drill material!
Going to do one more set of LG then be done for the night.
Tomorrow morning - Manhattan ch. 6, LG set, RC drills of some to-be-determined quantity.

I think we are on similar prep time frames!
Just finished reading up on Conditional logic. On to (Mismatch Ordering) Chapter 6 as well. What chapter are you at around on Manhattan LR/RC?

I just started it on Thursday and am almost done with the chapter 3 on Assumptions. It is definitely taking me a bit longer to get through the MLSAT materials than expected...

[20170322]

Anyone know how to acquire the 2 most recent PT's?

[Barack O'Drama]

Anyone know how to acquire the 2 most recent PT's?

Also wondering about this. I have 1-77 and looking to get the other two to take right before the September exam.

[proteinshake]

Anyone know how to acquire the 2 most recent PT's?

Also wondering about this. I have 1-77 and looking to get the other two to take right before the September exam.

February is never available and June should come out in a few weeks I think.

[Barack O'Drama]

Anyone know how to acquire the 2 most recent PT's?

Also wondering about this. I have 1-77 and looking to get the other two to take right before the September exam.

February is never available and June should come out in a few weeks I think.

I didn't know that! Damn, you really do learn something every day, lol. And sweet, I will be on the look out for June's.

Thanks again

[proteinshake]

happy 4th everyone!

[Mikey]

happy 4th everyone!

You too bro!

[Mikey]

Happy 4th guys! Be safe if you go out today/tonight and have fun!

[Deardevil]

Sup, party people? Hope y'all have a great Independence Day!
Will see where my LR accuracy is later today, then light it up tonight. #july420blazeit

[proteinshake]

finishing up Manhattan LR today and doing some LR/LG drilling. probably gonna do some more drilling tomorrow then take a PT on Wednesday.

[20170322]

Thinking more and more that I'm going to postpone my applications by a year and do the full 4 years of undergrad. Would certainly take some pressure off of the September test.

[Barack O'Drama]

Happy Fourth of July everyone! As Mikey said, have fun and be safe! Don't drink and drive. Even if you've only had one...


Today I am going to push through some more in the Manhattan books. Then I want to drill some Necessary and Sufficient assumption questions from the Cambridge Packets.

And sometime later on, I am going to put together 4 logic game packets and begin to time myself. I can finish a packet of 4 ordering games in about 40-45 minutes comfortably and go -0 to -3, so the potential is there. Just a matter of speed and getting assignment and grouping games down.