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

[Alexandros]

Going hard on LG and LR after work today.

Getting to a consistent -0 on LR and LG if it's the last thing I do, goddammit.

[Alexandros]

Ok guys, I found the post I was talking to you guys about for the harder LR questions. I feel like it's pretty detailed but if Mithun would like to give more advice on it, that would also be great!

What might be more useful to you, however, if you're trying to get good at tackling difficult LR questions in general, is to go through the preptests/practice sections you've finished and start with question 15. As you've probably heard, LR sections increase in difficulty as you get later in the section. I'd say q15/16 onward is where you start to see the upper tier of difficulty - more convoluted stimuli, denser answer choices, knottier arguments to break down.

During my last few weeks of prep, I used to compile the last 10 questions in different LR sections and treat those like individual sections themselves. I think that boosted my confidence and endurance quite a bit. It's easy to get lax when it comes to the easy LR questions, but these "super-sections" forced me to stay hyper-focused the entire time.

You have to be on alert for the smallest details with hard LR questions, but it's useful to have that approach to all LSAT questions in general. It's not easy, but once I switched back from these super sections to regular LR sections, I found them much less taxing to go through.

Thanks for bumping this! I should stress that I only did in the last two or three weeks of my prep, after my PTing and drilling had showed me that the only questions I was getting wrong were numbered 15+.

When you train on regular LR sections, you're conditioning yourself to warm up on the first 10 or so questions, and then up the ante for the later questions. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, as that's exactly what the LSAT is like. However, you might find that you start to dread the later questions, and that the awareness of the impending difficulty is affecting your concentration. Or you might find that you're making careless mistakes on the early questions, because you have a tendency to rush through them, not taking them as seriously as you might.

These sections are difficult, but they're much more even than traditional LR sections. You're forced to completely focus early on in the section, and you have to maintain that throughout. I was able to carry the same mindset over to regular LR sections, and found myself being more attentive to detail, and able to handle the more dense stimuli without much stress.

Thanks for the idea! Glad to hear it was helpful for you! Need to intensify LR prep big time - Definitely planning on trying out this method.

[Mikey]

This talk about NYU averaging scores is getting me slightly paranoid. I know what they say on their website is that they average scores unless provided with an addendum recommending them not to. From what I've seen on TLS and LSN though, NYU tends to take the highest score, but this all is still uncertain to me. If they truly do average scores, then I guess I'm fucked.

[MAPP]

I just took my first PT (PT 43) since my diagnostic of 158 in December and got a 172!! I am very pumped considering all I've been doing the past few months is intensive drilling and thought I'd be somewhere around 164-168 What I'm worried about now is how my RC score will be once I start running into the comparative passages

RC -3
LR1 -3
LR2 -3
LG -1

[proteinshake]

This talk about NYU averaging scores is getting me slightly paranoid. I know what they say on their website is that they average scores unless provided with an addendum recommending them not to. From what I've seen on TLS and LSN though, NYU tends to take the highest score, but this all is still uncertain to me. If they truly do average scores, then I guess I'm fucked.

don't worry about it.

[Deardevil]

I just took my first PT (PT 43) since my diagnostic of 158 in December and got a 172!! I am very pumped considering all I've been doing the past few months is intensive drilling and thought I'd be somewhere around 164-168 What I'm worried about now is how my RC score will be once I start running into the comparative passages

RC -3
LR1 -3
LR2 -3
LG -1

That's impressive!

This talk about NYU averaging scores is getting me slightly paranoid. I know what they say on their website is that they average scores unless provided with an addendum recommending them not to. From what I've seen on TLS and LSN though, NYU tends to take the highest score, but this all is still uncertain to me. If they truly do average scores, then I guess I'm fucked.

I hear ya. Which just makes me wanna get this test over in one try even more.
Oh, how I regret not putting in more work to maintain a better GPA...

In other news, I'm enjoying parallel reasoning questions again (the easy ones, at least).
Sufficient assumption seems a lot more natural to me as well; thanks for the pointer, Mikey!

[Mikey]

This talk about NYU averaging scores is getting me slightly paranoid. I know what they say on their website is that they average scores unless provided with an addendum recommending them not to. From what I've seen on TLS and LSN though, NYU tends to take the highest score, but this all is still uncertain to me. If they truly do average scores, then I guess I'm fucked.

I hear ya. Which just makes me wanna get this test over in one try even more.
Oh, how I regret not putting in more work to maintain a better GPA...

In other news, I'm enjoying parallel reasoning questions again (the easy ones, at least).
Sufficient assumption seems a lot more natural to me as well; thanks for the pointer, Mikey!

No problem! I like sufficient assumption questions, to me even the slightly more difficult ones are somewhat freebies (excluding the one about Ann and her stupid leave of absence, haha).

Also, the bolded bro. I thought we spoke about this, lmao.

[Mikey]

This talk about NYU averaging scores is getting me slightly paranoid. I know what they say on their website is that they average scores unless provided with an addendum recommending them not to. From what I've seen on TLS and LSN though, NYU tends to take the highest score, but this all is still uncertain to me. If they truly do average scores, then I guess I'm fucked.

don't worry about it.

I'll try not to, I just hate how uncertain that whole averaging idea is with NYU.

[34iplaw]

This talk about NYU averaging scores is getting me slightly paranoid. I know what they say on their website is that they average scores unless provided with an addendum recommending them not to. From what I've seen on TLS and LSN though, NYU tends to take the highest score, but this all is still uncertain to me. If they truly do average scores, then I guess I'm fucked.

don't worry about it.

I'll try not to, I just hate how uncertain that whole averaging idea is with NYU.

I dunno. It has the same general foul stench of all the law schools trying to appear more holistic than they actually are. I wouldn't heed it too much attention. Perhaps, it factors in if there is only one seat left and it is you along with someone who has the same GPA and LSAT score. Only difference being they took it once or they had a closer clustering of scores.

All in all, it really sounds like it's not a big deal.

[34iplaw]

Does anyone bother drawing out number lines for relative sequencing and see any benefit? I find these easy, and it seems like the people doing explanations always do but it just seems like a waste of time to me.

I find it pretty easy to see what can go in the first and last slots... I just really don't see the benefit. I think the only time I've ever drawn out a number line was for some local questions for the law firm with hodges question.

[Alexandros]

This talk about NYU averaging scores is getting me slightly paranoid. I know what they say on their website is that they average scores unless provided with an addendum recommending them not to. From what I've seen on TLS and LSN though, NYU tends to take the highest score, but this all is still uncertain to me. If they truly do average scores, then I guess I'm fucked.

don't worry about it.

I'll try not to, I just hate how uncertain that whole averaging idea is with NYU.

I dunno. It has the same general foul stench of all the law schools trying to appear more holistic than they actually are. I wouldn't heed it too much attention. Perhaps, it factors in if there is only one seat left and it is you along with someone who has the same GPA and LSAT score. Only difference being they took it once or they had a closer clustering of scores.

All in all, it really sounds like it's not a big deal.

That's a relief. I hadn't even realized averaging LSAT scores was something a fair amount of law schools still say they do, or at least don't say they don't do, until a few days ago, and was freaking out.

[34iplaw]

This talk about NYU averaging scores is getting me slightly paranoid. I know what they say on their website is that they average scores unless provided with an addendum recommending them not to. From what I've seen on TLS and LSN though, NYU tends to take the highest score, but this all is still uncertain to me. If they truly do average scores, then I guess I'm fucked.

don't worry about it.

I'll try not to, I just hate how uncertain that whole averaging idea is with NYU.

I dunno. It has the same general foul stench of all the law schools trying to appear more holistic than they actually are. I wouldn't heed it too much attention. Perhaps, it factors in if there is only one seat left and it is you along with someone who has the same GPA and LSAT score. Only difference being they took it once or they had a closer clustering of scores.

All in all, it really sounds like it's not a big deal.

That's a relief. I hadn't even realized averaging LSAT scores was something a fair amount of law schools still say they do, or at least don't say they don't do, until a few days ago, and was freaking out.

I don't know if that's actually true, but, based on everything that I have read here and elsewhere, I'm fairly sure it is. It just seems to sort of be a really easy way to be like - yeah, we're holistic - but it'd be hard to prove one way or the other.

[Deardevil]

No problem! I like sufficient assumption questions, to me even the slightly more difficult ones are somewhat freebies (excluding the one about Ann and her stupid leave of absence, haha).

Also, the bolded bro. I thought we spoke about this, lmao.

Couldn't resist lol. Matching has been somewhat of a forté since kindergarten.

Does anyone bother drawing out number lines for relative sequencing and see any benefit? I find these easy, and it seems like the people doing explanations always do but it just seems like a waste of time to me.

I find it pretty easy to see what can go in the first and last slots... I just really don't see the benefit. I think the only time I've ever drawn out a number line was for some local questions for the law firm with hodges question.

I mean, if that works fine, do you.

For me, I always want a foolproof setup so that I don't waste more time on individual questions than I need to.
Some questions may or may not require the number lines, but those that do tend to also include not-laws, which help limit possibilities.
All in all, it depends on the problem. I did notice number lines are essentially useless in some scenarios, so it's vital to read b4 drawing.

[MyNameIsntJames]

Looking for some advice on LSAT prep myself actually.


I'm taking the September LSAT. I haven't taken the LSAT since the middle of my senior year of college (Fall 2014) where I got a 161. Since then, I haven't taken an official timed PT, but I've taken broken up sections (timed LR section, rest, timed LG section, rest) etc., so I'm looking to work on doing a test straight through when the time is right. I was going to take last year's November LSAT and backed out last second because I felt I could do a lot more prepping.

I've more or less been prepping since the summer of 2014 at varying intensities and haven't had a true diagnostic of where I'm at for a few months now. How do yall recommend I proceed? Lately I haven't been doing too many problems, but I've been religiously working through the Powerscore book on LR. I feel fairly confident that I can crush LG if I just take 2-3 weeks to really practice them and drill them out and RC has always been a strong point for me so I'm not too worried about it, but I will spend time on it. LR, by far, would be my biggest weakness on this exam if any. A terrible RC section for me would be -4. Normal is -2 to -0. Could be rusty though. Looking to get 175+, but not sure where I am. I've spent the last few months literally just breaking down each type of individual problem on the LSAT and studying the methodology behind the stems and answers through various sources.

I have access to all the Kaplan, 7sage, Powerscore books plus all of the PT's released by LSAC.

Also, I'm feeling a little anxious about how long I'm studying. I normally try to do a solid 2-3 hours a day, but I feel guilty on the days I skip and even guiltier when those days are weekends when there are literally hours of idle time to do anything with and I end up fucking around.

All suggestions and comments are much appreciated and feel free to PM me w your comments/questions as well. Thanks!

The rust is strong with this one... Kidding!

Judging from your previous post, you sound like you already have a tactical approach to LG.
I also feel confident about that section, but don't let that become a detrimental factor; still drill to make sure you're good at it
because constant, consistent practice is required to ace this exam. Let's assume you got this down; minimal work is needed.
And let's further assume you're good with RC, saving you a bunch of time and making it more viable to take in September.

After you're done with the LRB, immediately drill the heck out of questions, whether by type or via full PT sections (untimed).
This is what I'm doing at the moment to increase accuracy before speed; still getting there, but I'm a lot more confident now.
Like LG, this section also requires repetition and, to an extent, memorization.
You're not necessarily remembering what answer choices are chosen, but rather how you get there, eliminating unfavorable ones.
Once you hit perhaps -2 or -3, you could attempt improving speed. When you're confident in that department, as well as in LG and RC,
it's PrepTest time. Of course, to get to that semifinal stage, you would first need the motivation and focus to begin with.

Two to three hours should be minimum, but definitely aim for 30+ a week, assuming there's no obligatory obstruction.
I'm guilty of procrastinating like crazy (like right now lol)... More than I would prefer, but just think of how much the LSAT matters.
You want a 175 and up, so it clearly means something. In the end, it's what you make it.
You've got the right resources at your disposal; put them to good use!

Thank you for that man! I really appreciate that encouragement and advice and you're absolutely right with everything you're saying. If we continue to stick to our guns and study our asses off we'll be 180 pros in no time

[Mikey]

Couldn't resist lol. Matching has been somewhat of a forté since kindergarten.

hehe, i'm working on some parallel flaw questions and you can kind of just use formal logic on these as you would with parallel reasoning. My issue before was that I sucked at conditional logic unless it was in LG, but for questions like this now, it's somewhat easier for me. But I still fucking hate parallel questions.

[34iplaw]

No problem! I like sufficient assumption questions, to me even the slightly more difficult ones are somewhat freebies (excluding the one about Ann and her stupid leave of absence, haha).

Also, the bolded bro. I thought we spoke about this, lmao.

Couldn't resist lol. Matching has been somewhat of a forté since kindergarten.

Does anyone bother drawing out number lines for relative sequencing and see any benefit? I find these easy, and it seems like the people doing explanations always do but it just seems like a waste of time to me.

I find it pretty easy to see what can go in the first and last slots... I just really don't see the benefit. I think the only time I've ever drawn out a number line was for some local questions for the law firm with hodges question.

I mean, if that works fine, do you.

For me, I always want a foolproof setup so that I don't waste more time on individual questions than I need to.
Some questions may or may not require the number lines, but those that do tend to also include not-laws, which help limit possibilities.
All in all, it depends on the problem. I did notice number lines are essentially useless in some scenarios, so it's vital to read b4 drawing.

That's fair. I guess I feel like relative ordering tends to have so many variables that are effectively floaters [i.e. only one that must follow or one that must lead] that there aren't many not laws you can determine. Either that, or they have so few of these branches that their position is basically determined by where they are in the line.

One game I actually disliked the first time but really love it now is about the ships going into a harbor. I think it's actually a really effective way to learn how to treat some of these items in other games. Basically, the game had two floaters, so *any* ship's position in the line could change by +/- 2. You can basically do this for any other relative ordering game with the semi-floaters... i.e. a variable only constrained by coming before one variable that has to be one of the last two or a variable only constrained by following a variable that must be first or second. Granted, I think I've always done this somewhat in my head, but it's a pretty clear demonstration of the ideas.

[Deardevil]

Thank you for that man! I really appreciate that encouragement and advice and you're absolutely right with everything you're saying. If we continue to stick to our guns and study our asses off we'll be 180 pros in no time

Glad I could be of some use. Let's get that 180!

hehe, i'm working on some parallel flaw questions and you can kind of just use formal logic on these as you would with parallel reasoning. My issue before was that I sucked at conditional logic unless it was in LG, but for questions like this now, it's somewhat easier for me. But I still fucking hate parallel questions.

Parallel flaw should be easier. I recall one question having choices that are valid rather than flawed. I didn't even realize it at the time.
Would've saved some minutes and brain cells from dying haha. And yeah, conditional logic makes me miserable sometimes,
but seek out dem indicators and ye shall pass.

That's fair. I guess I feel like relative ordering tends to have so many variables that are effectively floaters [i.e. only one that must follow or one that must lead] that there aren't many not laws you can determine. Either that, or they have so few of these branches that their position is basically determined by where they are in the line.

One game I actually disliked the first time but really love it now is about the ships going into a harbor. I think it's actually a really effective way to learn how to treat some of these items in other games. Basically, the game had two floaters, so *any* ship's position in the line could change by +/- 2. You can basically do this for any other relative ordering game with the semi-floaters... i.e. a variable only constrained by coming before one variable that has to be one of the last two or a variable only constrained by following a variable that must be first or second. Granted, I think I've always done this somewhat in my head, but it's a pretty clear demonstration of the ideas.

Floaters are almost a given in any scenario. I feel having an original number line setup can produce extra ones to work with,
as opposed to drawing one out of the blue and having to juggle the question at the same time.
Occasionally, later questions will ask for a near-impossible task that can be accomplished if referring to older questions with the "clones."
If you only have a limited number of boards, even better; you can just refer to those without the need to draw any more.

[Mikey]

hehe, i'm working on some parallel flaw questions and you can kind of just use formal logic on these as you would with parallel reasoning. My issue before was that I sucked at conditional logic unless it was in LG, but for questions like this now, it's somewhat easier for me. But I still fucking hate parallel questions.

Parallel flaw should be easier. I recall one question having choices that are valid rather than flawed. I didn't even realize it at the time.
Would've saved some minutes and brain cells from dying haha. And yeah, conditional logic makes me miserable sometimes,
but seek out dem indicators and ye shall pass.

Yeah bro. I'm practicing some parallel flaw questions right now and some answer choices seem like valid arguments so I just ignore them. These questions are taking me quite some time to do (about 3 minutes). But I am going through each answer choice and using conditional logic for each, even if I come across an A/C that I think is correct, I still check the rest. I think on test day (and during PT), for times sake, I will just choose the answer that I believe is correct and move on instead of going through each one. These questions are time suckers, and my 3 minutes is just because I never really learned how to do these properly, but hopefully I get a bit faster with them.

[MyNameIsntJames]

This is probably obvious advice, but if this applies to you and you've had the same issue on LR then hopefully it helps:


I just finished a LR section, timed. First one in a few months and got 21/26 on it, so not really too good. However, when I analyzed the questions I got wrong and the markings I made on it, 3/5 of those wrong questions were a result of me moving from what I initially thought was the right answer to another one that I talked myself into thinking is better.

This has consistently plagued me on LR and I'm getting to the point where I'm about to just say fuck it and as soon as I think I have the answer correct, I'm circling and moving on. I feel like if you look at a LR question long and hard enough, other answers that are clearly wrong start to seem a little more plausible and you start creating arguments for why C might be able to kinda sorta possibly work instead of B and that transforms into 'C is definitely the right answer' and you cross out B and screw yourself out of a point. If it was just this one instance, I probably wouldn't worry but the fact that this has been a consistent theme among LR and even RC sometimes to an extent has convinced me that there's something about your initial impression that you should yield heavy credence to.

Someone tell me if I'm wrong? Or if they've experienced this? I know its conventional test logic to not switch your answer unless you KNOW you fucked up... but this seems to be 20x as true on the LSAT than with anything else

[Deardevil]

Yeah bro. I'm practicing some parallel flaw questions right now and some answer choices seem like valid arguments so I just ignore them. These questions are taking me quite some time to do (about 3 minutes). But I am going through each answer choice and using conditional logic for each, even if I come across an A/C that I think is correct, I still check the rest. I think on test day (and during PT), for times sake, I will just choose the answer that I believe is correct and move on instead of going through each one. These questions are time suckers, and my 3 minutes is just because I never really learned how to do these properly, but hopefully I get a bit faster with them.

It's sometimes wise to skip over them (I imagine there are only, what, two max?)
and go back once your other points are secured.
I'm not really an advocate of skipping in general since it can very well screw up your bubbling,
but parallel reasoning tends to be at the end of the section (or one would hope),
so skipping in this case wouldn't be a terrible idea, especially if you're low on time.
But yeah, keep practicing so that they're less of a pain in the butt.
And maybe you'll start to see the appeal lol.

This is probably obvious advice, but if this applies to you and you've had the same issue on LR then hopefully it helps:


I just finished a LR section, timed. First one in a few months and got 21/26 on it, so not really too good. However, when I analyzed the questions I got wrong and the markings I made on it, 3/5 of those wrong questions were a result of me moving from what I initially thought was the right answer to another one that I talked myself into thinking is better.

This has consistently plagued me on LR and I'm getting to the point where I'm about to just say fuck it and as soon as I think I have the answer correct, I'm circling and moving on. I feel like if you look at a LR question long and hard enough, other answers that are clearly wrong start to seem a little more plausible and you start creating arguments for why C might be able to kinda sorta possibly work instead of B and that transforms into 'C is definitely the right answer' and you cross out B and screw yourself out of a point. If it was just this one instance, I probably wouldn't worry but the fact that this has been a consistent theme among LR and even RC sometimes to an extent has convinced me that there's something about your initial impression that you should yield heavy credence to.

Someone tell me if I'm wrong? Or if they've experienced this? I know its conventional test logic to not switch your answer unless you KNOW you fucked up... but this seems to be 20x as true on the LSAT than with anything else

First of all, that score, imo, IS good TIMED.

Don't move on too quickly if you merely THINK you got the right answer. The LSAT is bombarded with attractive ACs,
and you'd regret it even more if you got something obvious wrong when you could've gotten it right by reading just one more AC.
Even if you're not 100% certain an AC is correct, be 100% sure the rest are wrong, which is a lot easier. This requires reading everything.
I suggest not crossing out something entirely because there's always the chance you crossed out the right answer, so you're ignoring it.
Perhaps underline "suspicious" content in each AC. For example, if the stimulus talks about police,
and an AC refers to firefighters, underline, or even circle, the word(s) that would strengthen your claim that it's indeed incorrect.
This could allow for quick elimination and, at worst, leave some contenders remaining, but by comparing those suspect elements,
one has to outweigh the other, resulting in the correct answer. HTH!

[Mikey]

This is probably obvious advice, but if this applies to you and you've had the same issue on LR then hopefully it helps:


I just finished a LR section, timed. First one in a few months and got 21/26 on it, so not really too good. However, when I analyzed the questions I got wrong and the markings I made on it, 3/5 of those wrong questions were a result of me moving from what I initially thought was the right answer to another one that I talked myself into thinking is better.

This has consistently plagued me on LR and I'm getting to the point where I'm about to just say fuck it and as soon as I think I have the answer correct, I'm circling and moving on. I feel like if you look at a LR question long and hard enough, other answers that are clearly wrong start to seem a little more plausible and you start creating arguments for why C might be able to kinda sorta possibly work instead of B and that transforms into 'C is definitely the right answer' and you cross out B and screw yourself out of a point. If it was just this one instance, I probably wouldn't worry but the fact that this has been a consistent theme among LR and even RC sometimes to an extent has convinced me that there's something about your initial impression that you should yield heavy credence to.

Someone tell me if I'm wrong? Or if they've experienced this? I know its conventional test logic to not switch your answer unless you KNOW you fucked up... but this seems to be 20x as true on the LSAT than with anything else

Yep, going with your gut feeling and second guessing yourself is what you're talking about, and I agree. There are times in which I choose an A/C that I know for sure is the right answer, but there is sometimes another A/C that I just can't eliminate. So during BR, I tend to question myself and sometimes I switch my original correct answer to the one I couldn't get rid of, which is usually wrong. This has become less of a habit for me during actual timed sections though. I guess just being more familiar with trap answer choices and blatantly wrong ones through repetition is key. I may be wrong but this is all I have to explain it in my scenario.

As for choosing an A/C and moving on, you want to be careful with that, especially on the harder questions. I was just talking about this the other day, and for the easier questions, it can be an OK method of just picking an A/C and moving on, but you should at least quickly glance over the remaining A/C's if you're going to do that. With the harder questions, you should read all A/C's since they tend to have more trap/tempting A/C's.I know that's what you want to avoid (not being stuck with 2 or so A/C's and second guessing yourself), but like I said before, become more familiar with wrong/trap/tempting answer choices when you BR. Then as time goes by, you should see this issue becoming less and less of an actual issue.

[Mikey]

And maybe you'll start to see the appeal lol.

Yeeeeeeeah, idk bout that haha.

[proteinshake]

I know a lot of people do their PTs in chronological order but I'm gonna throw in a recent PT every once in a while (something between 60-75) so I don't get any surprises at the end of my prep!

[Mikey]

I know a lot of people do their PTs in chronological order but I'm gonna throw in a recent PT everyone once in a while (something between 60-75) so I don't get any surprises at the end of my prep!

That's a good idea. I saw someones PT schedule a while back and they were doing PT's in a bunch of different orders. It was so nicely organized and planned out for each day and PT#, but I'm too lazy organize stuff like that, haha. Honestly, a lot of people say that LR on more recent PT are harder, but to me I didn't see much of a difference. The only thing different that I noticed was the fact that more recent PT have more of the questions that say "most logically completes the argument" or whatever, as opposed to the older PT.

[Alexandros]

I know a lot of people do their PTs in chronological order but I'm gonna throw in a recent PT everyone once in a while (something between 60-75) so I don't get any surprises at the end of my prep!

That's a good idea. Planning on that too. I've heard there's some 'quirks' in the more recent ones and I want to make sure I have that completely solid.