June 2011 Study Group Forum

[Eichörnchen]

Ugh looks like I won't be hanging in the room tonight - this no-wifi at my apartment thing is lame as hell. OhOkay we need to make a swap- my comfort with RC for yours in games I have to say when it comes to RC I prefer simplicity. My "strategy" can literally be boiled down to the following:
1. Stay interested. If you're not, fake it.
2. Underline viewpoint and put "V" beside the line, or "Av" for author's view and "CV" for if it's a passage that talks about specific critics' viewpoints. That way if I need to track viewpoints for a question it just takes a quick scan.
3. Box names
4. If it's an unusually hard passage to follow (ie painfully boring and overwrought or comparing 5 scientific theories) I write a few key words after each paragraph. It helps keep me involved in the evolution of the passage and allows me to reference info quickly

bing bang boom you're done. Although my RC is admittedly not perfect (average of -3 over my 11 PTs although I have a random -9 from a bad interruption that is dragging that avg down a bit haha) I will worry about refining it if I ever slay the hideous beast that is LG. Ugh. I still take ~10 minutes for a game and often still get -1 on it I just don't know how to get faster. Not to mention that I'm terrified of getting a game that I'm unsure of how to approach (as still sometimes happens).

[FloridaCoastalorbust]

--ImageRemoved--

Busy studying in my manor in Tulsa, OK today. Life is tough with such a shack - I'm hoping a solid score will give me a shot at biglaw so I can expand the west wing

[Eichörnchen]

--ImageRemoved--

Busy studying in my manor in Tulsa, OK today. Life is tough - I'm hoping a solid score will give me a shot at biglaw so I can expand the west wing

If I flunk the LSAT I'm moving in

[Strange]

Just did another timed RC section, this one Section 1 from PT22. Scored a -3, which is close to where I want to be. This is my third RC section since finishing the ATLAS guide, and I think I'm making progress towards being an "active" reader. I've noticed I have a lot of trouble with the synthesis "main point" questions, as far as scope - this seems like something I tend to miss a lot. Also, author tone questions seem to come down to eliminating wrong answers more than ever, questions 7 and 13 are perfectly examples of this. The "right" answers for those are not intuitive at all

[mickeyD]

Just did another timed RC section, this one Section 1 from PT22. Scored a -3, which is close to where I want to be. This is my third RC section since finishing the ATLAS guide, and I think I'm making progress towards being an "active" reader. I've noticed I have a lot of trouble with the synthesis "main point" questions, as far as scope - this seems like something I tend to miss a lot. Also, author tone questions seem to come down to eliminating wrong answers more than ever, questions 7 and 13 are perfectly examples of this. The "right" answers for those are not intuitive at all

Am I the only one who thinks the newer RC are way harder than the earlier ones? I was slaying the sub 40 PTs (-0/1) and have gone -3 back to back on newer ones (47 and 55).

[Strange]

Just did another timed RC section, this one Section 1 from PT22. Scored a -3, which is close to where I want to be. This is my third RC section since finishing the ATLAS guide, and I think I'm making progress towards being an "active" reader. I've noticed I have a lot of trouble with the synthesis "main point" questions, as far as scope - this seems like something I tend to miss a lot. Also, author tone questions seem to come down to eliminating wrong answers more than ever, questions 7 and 13 are perfectly examples of this. The "right" answers for those are not intuitive at all

Am I the only one who thinks the newer RC are way harder than the earlier ones? I was slaying the sub 40 PTs (-0/1) and have gone -3 back to back on newer ones (47 and 55).

Well right now I'm individually drilling RC sections from before PT 43, but after PT 43 I've averaged -4 on the 6 PT's I've taken. I'm hoping the ATLAS guide will help me improve, I still have to work on comparative reading. As a whole though, I don't really notice a difference in difficulty, but my exposures been limited so far.

[soj]

Am I the only one who thinks the newer RC are way harder than the earlier ones? I was slaying the sub 40 PTs (-0/1) and have gone -3 back to back on newer ones (47 and 55).

The opposite for me, though the sample size of newer PTs I've done is so small that I can't be too excited about this yet.

[rubydandun]

Guys...just chiming in here.

Is it true that the LG get much easier after PT39? I can currently do most of the games in about 10-11 minutes, but every once in a while i'll have a WTF moment on some of the games from the mid-late 90's.

I haven't cracked into the newer games yet (e.g., PT 40+). True that they're easier? If so, how?

Thanks and gl to everyone.

[99.9luft]

PT 45 (-12/170). Could have been a -7/-8 easily. Need to do warm-up qs before PTing. As punishment for my mediocre performance, tomorrow I plan to take indiv. sections from PT 35/36 otherwise known as...

DRILL BABY DRILL!

[Strange]

Guys...just chiming in here.

Is it true that the LG get much easier after PT39? I can currently do most of the games in about 10-11 minutes, but every once in a while i'll have a WTF moment on some of the games from the mid-late 90's.

I haven't cracked into the newer games yet (e.g., PT 40+). True that they're easier? If so, how?

Thanks and gl to everyone.

I've read they get easier, than harder as you get into the later 50's. I believe the ones in the 30's are the hardest though

[tmon]

Not enough time this week; doing so much at work that I'm left brain dead and exhausted by the time I get home. I forced myself to keep up the RC practice though, since that's my area of most significant need. Trying to take the success I've had in the other two sections and apply that in any ways I can to RC.

This means:
1--looking for the subtle distinctions among ACs
2--pushing through easier material (passages)
3--thorough, critical and interested reading.


Did two sections and intense review:

RC 33: -6
wasn't pleased with this result (duh) but also not completely surprised. Upon review noticed that I misunderstood 2 questions for sure, and mistook a key part of the thrust of the argument in the third passage. Timing was decent though, which is a bonus, as I've been feeling like I short change the last passage. There were 28 questions too, so that was encouraging.

RC 34: -2
Felt "on" while going through this section. Underlining/circling felt natural, and the passages mostly seemed genuinely interesting, or like I had some background knowledge on them. Maybe that's because I was interested in some of the topics (blues music genre, UN Politics) and did have some background knowledge (Lamarck evolution theories). Still, I felt like I was applying what I learned from 33 about careful reading and distinguishing between ACs.

-2 is the best timed RC score I think I've earned, and only got -3 maybe two or three times. Very hopeful that I can sustain this. Will do two more passages tomorrow, and two (in-test and experimental) on Thursday. Almost getting excited to hold on to this. Let's hope!

[soj]

PT50
LRe (PT21 S2): -0
RC: -1
LR1: -2
LG: -0
LR2: -0
Raw: -3
Scaled: 179

Lots of interesting things happened:
- This is the first time I've ever gotten -1 on RC. I've hit -0 once before and all other times I had -2 or worse. Riddled basins of attraction (-0) ain't got nothin' on me, baby!
- Broke the curse of generally underperforming at night. Of course, I won't be taking the exam at night so this is irrelevant, but it still feels good!
- Game 3 messed me up good. Couldn't quickly get what should have been easy inferences. I needed every last second to finish the section.
- I made a change on Q24 in LR2. My original answer was right; the new answer was wrong. However, I was already 15 seconds too late when I did it. It's a tough call because theoretically I wouldn't be able to make that change on the real LSAT, which justifies my decision to give myself -0, but realistically, a generous proctor might have decided to give me 15 extra seconds, in which case I would have gotten -1 (and thus 177). Whatever. I'm going to review that question as if I got it wrong (since I ultimately did), but I'm still giving myself that raw point. It's only fair because I haven't been giving myself points for answers I got right only shortly after time was up.
- Fun fact: I've never gotten worse than -2 RC on a post-PT44 (chronological by original administration, not mine) exam. Of course, I've only done five such PTs (45, 49, 50, 51, 51.5), so it's premature to conclude my brain is somehow better equipped to handle recent RCs.

Feeling very good with how I've been doing after the PT44 disappointment. I hope I can keep this up.

[mickeyD]

PT50
LRe (PT21 S2): -0
RC: -1
LR1: -2
LG: -0
LR2: -0
Raw: -3
Scaled: 179

If the TLS user is MickeyD, then he is jealous.

[Eichörnchen]

PT50
LRe (PT21 S2): -0
RC: -1
LR1: -2
LG: -0
LR2: -0
Raw: -3
Scaled: 179

If the TLS user is MickeyD, then he is jealous.

Ugh me too Hey Soj if you can pass for a young female, could you drop by and take the LSAT for me real quick come test day? I will provide the wig.

[jim-green]

Soj if you can pass for a young female, could you drop by and take the LSAT for me real quick come test day? I will provide the wig.

Soj, congratulations! This is awesome.

[gaud]

Guys...just chiming in here.

Is it true that the LG get much easier after PT39? I can currently do most of the games in about 10-11 minutes, but every once in a while i'll have a WTF moment on some of the games from the mid-late 90's.

I haven't cracked into the newer games yet (e.g., PT 40+). True that they're easier? If so, how?

Thanks and gl to everyone.

I've read they get easier, than harder as you get into the later 50's. I believe the ones in the 30's are the hardest though

They get much easier in my opinion, but I also REALLY enjoy doing LG. The 30's and earlier would sometime trick me causing me to miss one or two but in the past 8 tests (mixture between 40's and 50's) I've yet to miss a problem. They seem to be easier in that there are less 'variables' and/or the diagramming is easier. Like so instead of days of the week, doctors, patients, and times; they are usually just like days, doctor, and time. Lol I'm sure my example is pretty bad but I hope that helps summarize it better. Inferences seem to be easier as well.

[jim-green]

This is where u live?!?! Why do you want to go to law school? Are you BFFs with Toby Keith? he's from Oklahoma too.

--ImageRemoved--

[jim-green]

Mixed-rules appear more often now. Hybrid games. And two rules that can give you 4 different diagrams. LSAC has realized that everyone knows the basic types, so they want to know if you can put them together and understand how many different combinations there can be. See PT C G2.

They get much easier in my opinion, but I also REALLY enjoy doing LG. The 30's and earlier would sometime trick me causing me to miss one or two but in the past 8 tests (mixture between 40's and 50's) I've yet to miss a problem. They seem to be easier in that there are less 'variables' and/or the diagramming is easier. Like so instead of days of the week, doctors, patients, and times; they are usually just like days, doctor, and time. Lol I'm sure my example is pretty bad but I hope that helps summarize it better. Inferences seem to be easier as well.

[OhOkay]

OhOkay we need to make a swap- my comfort with RC for yours in games I have to say when it comes to RC I prefer simplicity. My "strategy" can literally be boiled down to the following:
1. Stay interested. If you're not, fake it.
2. Underline viewpoint and put "V" beside the line, or "Av" for author's view and "CV" for if it's a passage that talks about specific critics' viewpoints. That way if I need to track viewpoints for a question it just takes a quick scan.
3. Box names
4. If it's an unusually hard passage to follow (ie painfully boring and overwrought or comparing 5 scientific theories) I write a few key words after each paragraph. It helps keep me involved in the evolution of the passage and allows me to reference info quickly

bing bang boom you're done. Although my RC is admittedly not perfect (average of -3 over my 11 PTs although I have a random -9 from a bad interruption that is dragging that avg down a bit haha) I will worry about refining it if I ever slay the hideous beast that is LG. Ugh. I still take ~10 minutes for a game and often still get -1 on it I just don't know how to get faster. Not to mention that I'm terrified of getting a game that I'm unsure of how to approach (as still sometimes happens).

Thanks, Eich! I haven't been tracking author point-of-view specifically, that is smart, and probs super helpful for Main Point q's, which I tend to suck at. And I'm really going to have to get better about this faking being interested business

Have you tried categorizing the games you've already done (done well, as in done a 2nd or 3rd time, as efficiently as possible) based on diagram strategy? What I mean is, a while ago I went back over a bunch of the games I did and looked for patterns in how I diagrammed, and then sorted them based on that. Then I tried looking at what was similar in the game rules that made those particular diagramming strategies the most efficient. Admittedly, I didn't do this thoroughly and quit by the time I got to basic grouping games, but I plan on doing this with the rest of the game types by the end of the week. It really helped me figure out when it's more efficient to try to do templates, when to look for what sort of inferences, etc. Anyway, just a thought

[gaud]

Mixed-rules appear more often now. Hybrid games. And two rules that can give you 4 different diagrams. LSAC has realized that everyone knows the basic types, so they want to know if you can put them together and understand how many different combinations there can be. See PT C G2.

They get much easier in my opinion, but I also REALLY enjoy doing LG. The 30's and earlier would sometime trick me causing me to miss one or two but in the past 8 tests (mixture between 40's and 50's) I've yet to miss a problem. They seem to be easier in that there are less 'variables' and/or the diagramming is easier. Like so instead of days of the week, doctors, patients, and times; they are usually just like days, doctor, and time. Lol I'm sure my example is pretty bad but I hope that helps summarize it better. Inferences seem to be easier as well.

+1

[OhOkay]

--ImageRemoved--

Busy studying in my manor in Tulsa, OK today. Life is tough with such a shack - I'm hoping a solid score will give me a shot at biglaw so I can expand the west wing

Can we have our LSAT after-party here?

[tiniestdancer7]

that house is gorgeous! pt 49 today, fun fun.

[jim-green]

Soj and Gev, you mentioned you thought PT42 S2 was hard, right? i am paging back in the thread to find your comments. I am doing the PT today and found S2 really hard. Finished S2 with a sec to spare.

[Ssushi]

Mixed-rules appear more often now. Hybrid games. And two rules that can give you 4 different diagrams. LSAC has realized that everyone knows the basic types, so they want to know if you can put them together and understand how many different combinations there can be. See PT C G2.

They get much easier in my opinion, but I also REALLY enjoy doing LG. The 30's and earlier would sometime trick me causing me to miss one or two but in the past 8 tests (mixture between 40's and 50's) I've yet to miss a problem. They seem to be easier in that there are less 'variables' and/or the diagramming is easier. Like so instead of days of the week, doctors, patients, and times; they are usually just like days, doctor, and time. Lol I'm sure my example is pretty bad but I hope that helps summarize it better. Inferences seem to be easier as well.

+1

Any tips for creating inferences then? I'm working through the Logic Games Bibles and i understand the diagramming and everything, i just never have a complete diagram because i fail to recognize certain inferences.

[Manhattan LSAT Noah]

One idea: After you play a game, figure out the inferences you wish you had figured out. Replay it immediately. Then, a week later replay the same game. rinse and repeat.