The Official June 2016 Study Group Forum

[pretzeltime]

.

[ayylmao]

Just finished PT 77. In a word: trainwreck.

[forum_user]

Just finished PT 77. In a word: trainwreck.

Train wreck is technically two words

[Mikey]

Just finished PT 77. In a word: trainwreck.

[appind]

Just finished PT 77. In a word: trainwreck.

just take a deep breath and take the next half hour off. come back and score the pt. you will be within a few points of your average pt score. it may feel like a trainwreck but the score won't be so.

e: phone autofill typo

[pretzeltime]

Just finished PT 77. In a word: trainwreck.

What aspect of it in particular? The notoriously shitty 3rd game?

I actually found the last passage in RC to be gnarly hard. I tanked it during the real exam and then when I recently retook the test, my overall performance improved everywhere except that passage. Apparently I still don't get it.

[Hennessy]

Oh dang. Yep, NY does have its street pretzels. They're pretty shitty IMO. Suburban mall pretzels have them beat.

You don't hear too many people choose Boston over NY. Well, at least people living in New York. Boston ain't half bad though, especially in the summer.

Fuck NY.

I had an ex-bf who lived in Boston, so I visited him about 6 times a year for two years, and I loved it. Very pretty.

Yeah. Cambridge and Somerville are even lovelier than Boston IMO.

You're just in NY for a job opportunity I take it?

yeah, jobs and significant other.

[Hennessy]

Just finished PT 77. In a word: trainwreck.

fuck i'm not ready

also: do tell

[ayylmao]

Just finished PT 77. In a word: trainwreck.

What aspect of it in particular? The notoriously shitty 3rd game?

I actually found the last passage in RC to be gnarly hard. I tanked it during the real exam and then when I recently retook the test, my overall performance improved everywhere except that passage. Apparently I still don't get it.

That third game was fucking bonkers, yeah. Guessed on just about every question! But I thought some of the LR was verrrry tricky, too. More so than I'm used to. And yeah the last RC passage was tough, though I thought the others were cake.

[forum_user]

Okay guys, rousing game of would you rather:

An unprecedented -7 curve, with like three sequencing games and a grouping game; four softball RC passages, one of which is just the slightest bit dense, but it has five questions anyways so it's not that bad; and standard LR sections with a couple questions you need to spend some time thinking about, but other than that no biggie;

OR

a monstrous, -16 curve with a game type we've never even seen before; four RC passages each written like Nietzsche and Shakespeare had a physicist for a child; and LR sections with 26 questions apiece, littered with parallel flaw and formal logic, without a role or main conclusion question in sight

YOU CAN ONLY CHOOSE ONE

[Mikey]

Okay guys, rousing game of would you rather:

An unprecedented -7 curve, with like three sequencing games and a grouping game; four softball RC passages, one of which is just the slightest bit dense, but it has five questions anyways so it's not that bad; and standard LR sections with a couple questions you need to spend some time thinking about, but other than that no biggie;

OR

a monstrous, -16 curve with a game type we've never even seen before; four RC passages each written like Nietzsche and Shakespeare had a physicist for a child; and LR sections with 26 questions apiece, littered with parallel flaw and formal logic, without a role or main conclusion question in sight

YOU CAN ONLY CHOOSE ONE

Bruh haha. I'd choose the first one lol

[forum_user]

Okay guys, rousing game of would you rather:

An unprecedented -7 curve, with like three sequencing games and a grouping game; four softball RC passages, one of which is just the slightest bit dense, but it has five questions anyways so it's not that bad; and standard LR sections with a couple questions you need to spend some time thinking about, but other than that no biggie;

OR

a monstrous, -16 curve with a game type we've never even seen before; four RC passages each written like Nietzsche and Shakespeare had a physicist for a child; and LR sections with 26 questions apiece, littered with parallel flaw and formal logic, without a role or main conclusion question in sight

YOU CAN ONLY CHOOSE ONE

Bruh haha. I'd choose the first one lol

See, that one seems tempting, but here every question counts for like a point and a half. Missing 6 questions vs missing 8 makes a huge difference. Even if you only go -2 on every section you still don't break 170.

With a -16, if you manage to keep your cool, you can bomb an RC passage, get wrecked by a game, and if you just hold your own on LR you can still walk away with a 170.

[pretzeltime]

Just finished PT 77. In a word: trainwreck.

What aspect of it in particular? The notoriously shitty 3rd game?

I actually found the last passage in RC to be gnarly hard. I tanked it during the real exam and then when I recently retook the test, my overall performance improved everywhere except that passage. Apparently I still don't get it.

That third game was fucking bonkers, yeah. Guessed on just about every question! But I thought some of the LR was verrrry tricky, too. More so than I'm used to. And yeah the last RC passage was tough, though I thought the others were cake.

Yeah the other 3 RC passages were quite easy as I remember.

I agree LR was kind of tough. That third game really isn't that bad if you have enough time to look at it. (Easy for me to say having taken the test a second time, natch I was buggin' when I took the actual test). Ideally if you finish the other 3 games with like 9-12 mins to spare for the third game, you could look at it and see some of the questions are very easy.

(Telling myself this as much as you. Trying to remember this in case I get a weird looking game in 2 weeks!!!)

[pretzeltime]

Okay guys, rousing game of would you rather:

An unprecedented -7 curve, with like three sequencing games and a grouping game; four softball RC passages, one of which is just the slightest bit dense, but it has five questions anyways so it's not that bad; and standard LR sections with a couple questions you need to spend some time thinking about, but other than that no biggie;

OR

a monstrous, -16 curve with a game type we've never even seen before; four RC passages each written like Nietzsche and Shakespeare had a physicist for a child; and LR sections with 26 questions apiece, littered with parallel flaw and formal logic, without a role or main conclusion question in sight

YOU CAN ONLY CHOOSE ONE

First option. For sure. Since the second is unprecedented (I think?) I would be having a meltdown in the test just thinking I'm the one going crazy. And that would make me perform even worse I think.

[Mikey]

Okay guys, rousing game of would you rather:

An unprecedented -7 curve, with like three sequencing games and a grouping game; four softball RC passages, one of which is just the slightest bit dense, but it has five questions anyways so it's not that bad; and standard LR sections with a couple questions you need to spend some time thinking about, but other than that no biggie;

OR

a monstrous, -16 curve with a game type we've never even seen before; four RC passages each written like Nietzsche and Shakespeare had a physicist for a child; and LR sections with 26 questions apiece, littered with parallel flaw and formal logic, without a role or main conclusion question in sight

YOU CAN ONLY CHOOSE ONE

Bruh haha. I'd choose the first one lol

See, that one seems tempting, but here every question counts for like a point and a half. Missing 6 questions vs missing 8 makes a huge difference. Even if you only go -2 on every section you still don't break 170.

With a -16, if you manage to keep your cool, you can bomb an RC passage, get wrecked by a game, and if you just hold your own on LR you can still walk away with a 170.

Yeah, I mean that's true. But 3 sequencing games and 1 grouping game? I'd finish LG in like 20ish minutes and use the extra time to just relax. In the second option, I'd go crazy if a lot of the questions were parallel flaw.

[forum_user]

Okay guys, rousing game of would you rather:

An unprecedented -7 curve, with like three sequencing games and a grouping game; four softball RC passages, one of which is just the slightest bit dense, but it has five questions anyways so it's not that bad; and standard LR sections with a couple questions you need to spend some time thinking about, but other than that no biggie;

OR

a monstrous, -16 curve with a game type we've never even seen before; four RC passages each written like Nietzsche and Shakespeare had a physicist for a child; and LR sections with 26 questions apiece, littered with parallel flaw and formal logic, without a role or main conclusion question in sight

YOU CAN ONLY CHOOSE ONE

First option. For sure. Since the second is unprecedented (I think?) I would be having a meltdown in the test just thinking I'm the one going crazy. And that would make me perform even worse I think.

Apparently PTs 23 and 24 both had -16 curves. So not totally unprecedented, but it hasn't happened for almost two decades. Also, June tests tend to have lower curves--around 10 or 11, with the exception of PT72 (June 2014) which was -13.

[Hennessy]

Okay guys, rousing game of would you rather:

An unprecedented -7 curve, with like three sequencing games and a grouping game; four softball RC passages, one of which is just the slightest bit dense, but it has five questions anyways so it's not that bad; and standard LR sections with a couple questions you need to spend some time thinking about, but other than that no biggie;

OR

a monstrous, -16 curve with a game type we've never even seen before; four RC passages each written like Nietzsche and Shakespeare had a physicist for a child; and LR sections with 26 questions apiece, littered with parallel flaw and formal logic, without a role or main conclusion question in sight

YOU CAN ONLY CHOOSE ONE

the second one, guaranteed
i feel more secure in my ability to outperform my expectations on a hard test than to not carelessly fuck up a little bit on an easy test

[New_Spice180]

Hey guys, what are some of your tricks for spotting correlation/causation flaws? I've found that sometimes I completely overlook them and then when i'm reviewing/ looking at explanations I finally realize a correlation causation flaw exists within the stimulus!

[Hennessy]

Hey guys, what are some of your tricks for spotting correlation/causation flaws? I've found that sometimes I completely overlook them and then when i'm reviewing/ looking at explanations I finally realize a correlation causation flaw exists within the stimulus!

5-10 second prephrase all flaw questions, correlation/causation will be one of the first flaws that usually jumps out at you

[pretzeltime]

Hey guys, what are some of your tricks for spotting correlation/causation flaws? I've found that sometimes I completely overlook them and then when i'm reviewing/ looking at explanations I finally realize a correlation causation flaw exists within the stimulus!

Mmm not sure if all will agree with me, but for the purposes of the LSAT you should always look at ANY assertion of causation with immense skepticism. Really anytime the argument asserts that A causes B, that is going to be the flaw, or the point that needs to be strengthened, etc.

There are few if any times on the LSAT where there is an air-tight argument for causation.

What do others say?

[cantis]

My score will all come down to how I do on RC. I either score -3 or -9/10. It has been that way for my last 5 PTs and for the life of me I can't figure out what I do differently. It doesn't matter if RC is my first or last section. LR and LG are pretty consistent.

[forum_user]

Hey guys, what are some of your tricks for spotting correlation/causation flaws? I've found that sometimes I completely overlook them and then when i'm reviewing/ looking at explanations I finally realize a correlation causation flaw exists within the stimulus!

Mmm not sure if all will agree with me, but for the purposes of the LSAT you should always look at ANY assertion of causation with immense skepticism. Really anytime the argument asserts that A causes B, that is going to be the flaw, or the point that needs to be strengthened, etc.

There are few if any times on the LSAT where there is an air-tight argument for causation.

What do others say?

I definitely agree with you--and this could be expanded to all LR more generally (irrelevant for LG and not so much true for RC). I mean, 80% of the answers you're given HAVE to be wrong, because there is only one right answer. So approach every question with skepticism--one of my biggest problems on LR was giving the stem more credit than it was due. I'd fill in logical holes and that would lead me into trap answers.

A user above mentioned prephrasing; this can also be immensely helpful. Don't even look at the ACs, just try to think of what the answer ought to look like. Eventually you'll get to the point where 60-70% of your prephrases will lead you directly to the correct answer, and this is a great way to fly through the first 10-15 questions.

So, I guess the answer to your question specifically is the same as any other LR question.

Also, if you're noticing things on review that you didn't find the first time around, that probably means you need to slow down a bit the first time through. Though it may feel harmful to go slowly through a section, if you don't understand what the argument is then you stand no chance anyways. You're generally better off spending time up front really understanding what you're given.

[CPAlawHopefu]

I'm averaging -0/-1 on LG and -2/-3 on LR (both sections combined).

RC is what screws me up, I'm still averaging -8/-9. Maybe on a good day, I might pull a very rare -5, but I think this happened maybe twice so far.

What can I do? Please don't tell me to drill RC, I've been doing nothing but drilling RC for a month now from PT 1 all the way to PT 70, and it hasn't doen crap to improve my score. I think there is something fundamentally wrong with my approach.

What are you guys doing or have done to improve your RC score? I prefer to get responses from people who used to struggle in RC but are now doing significantly better.

[forum_user]

I'm averaging -0/-1 on LG and -2/-3 on LR (both sections combined).

RC is what screws me up, I'm still averaging -8/-9. Maybe on a good day, I might pull a very rare -5, but I think this happened maybe twice so far.

What can I do? Please don't tell me to drill RC, I've been doing nothing but drilling RC for a month now from PT 1 all the way to PT 70, and it hasn't doen crap to improve my score. I think there is something fundamentally wrong with my approach.

What are you guys doing or have done to improve your RC score? I prefer to get responses from people who used to struggle in RC but are now doing significantly better.

What's your approach to RC currently? How do you approach the passage, and how do you handle the questions? Lots of re-checking the passage once you get to the questions? Any particular subjects that get you? How are you on timing?

[CPAlawHopefu]

I'm averaging -0/-1 on LG and -2/-3 on LR (both sections combined).

RC is what screws me up, I'm still averaging -8/-9. Maybe on a good day, I might pull a very rare -5, but I think this happened maybe twice so far.

What can I do? Please don't tell me to drill RC, I've been doing nothing but drilling RC for a month now from PT 1 all the way to PT 70, and it hasn't doen crap to improve my score. I think there is something fundamentally wrong with my approach.

What are you guys doing or have done to improve your RC score? I prefer to get responses from people who used to struggle in RC but are now doing significantly better.

What's your approach to RC currently? How do you approach the passage, and how do you handle the questions? Lots of re-checking the passage once you get to the questions? Any particular subjects that get you? How are you on timing?

I don't do many mark-ups. I underline only the main points of each paragraph, square around names, and put asterisks next to the author's opinion. By the time I finish reading the passage, I have a good understanding of the flow of passage and how each paragraph relates to another.

I almost always get Main Point and Main Purpose questions right. I also don't have much problem with context and role questions ("the expression x most clearly refers to...", "The author discusses x primarily in order to..."). But I always struggle with Detail Q's (what is mentioned or identified by the author) and the Inference Qs. I don't think timing is the issue because I get these questions wrong when I do these untimed, so I think there is something I'm missing.

Timing isn't a big issue, I rarely ever struggle to finish any particular passage in time.