February 2013 LSAT Study Group Forum

[natashka85]

Hey guys,

reviewing PT49, I have a q for you. It is from LR1, q 7, the sufficient assumption question.

Here is how I diagrammed it:

Finf---> R

Fins --> ~Finf

Fins --> STOE

I understand that (E) is right because Fins --> ~Finf --> STOE and that this is the "missing link" of the sufficient assumption q.

However, what about ~R ---> ~Finf? Does it not follow that

~R --> ~Finf --> STOE

Maybe I've been LSATing for too many hours today. I got the question right but found (B) interesting.

As a general aside: how many of you diagram SA qs?

I never diagram things,u will get lost w your diagramming,dont do that.

[TERS]

Castro, I’m not sure what your issue is.

(B) is wrong because the conclusion does not necessarily follow when (B) is added as a premise.

Is it correct to say that if one thing implies two other things, one of those things necessarily implies the other? No, it’s not. For example, "all apples are red and all apples are edible” does not imply that all red things are edible, nor does it imply that all edible things are red. A --> B and A --> C implies neither B --> C nor C --> B.

[natashka85]

Castro, I’m not sure what your issue is.

(B) is wrong because the conclusion does not necessarily follow when (B) is added as a premise.

Is it correct to say that if one thing implies two other things, one of those things necessarily implies the other? No, it’s not. For example, "all apples are red and all apples are edible” does not imply that all red things are edible, nor does it imply that all edible things are red. A --> B and A --> C implies neither B --> C nor C --> B.

i dont like your explanation,instead i would look at the new element in the conclusion which is `` safe to eat``,then 2nd I would try to connect not infected to safe to eat ,cause in the conclusion safe to eat appears as a necessary part ,so E is the one that has safe to eat as a necessary element,also B is wrong cause the argument has a statement of a positive form not a negative form with rotten,thats why B is out,I personally get the right answer intuitively,not by diagramming or doing all those things.

[TERS]

I haven't decided yet if you're a troll or just really fucking stupid. Probably you're just really stupid.

[Jcastro1]

Thanks Ters for your explanation.

I got the question right, but circled it during the PT to review later.

I think my brain is just fried.

[natashka85]

I haven't decided yet if you're a troll or just really fucking stupid. Probably you're just really stupid.

We aLll are here to learn and not to criticize each other.so be nice to people.

[dingbat]

I haven't decided yet if you're a troll or just really fucking stupid. Probably you're just really stupid.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1#p6240231

[natashka85]

I haven't decided yet if you're a troll or just really fucking stupid. Probably you're just really stupid.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1#p6240231

dont start again,lol.

[chickpea]

Checking in! I took the test in December (and October) but just decided to re-take one last time in February. I'm trying to go from a 168 to a 170+. Looking forward to using this thread for test prep and moral support.

I'm planning on focusing on LR question types since I feel like I've largely ignored this in the past. I'll be drilling LR by type and doing a bunch of Logic Games. Probably won't spend too much time on LR.

[TheMostDangerousLG]

Finally back in the game!

Stuck at home without my books (they're all in my apartment back at school), so I've just been printing practice tests and doing those, then thoroughly reviewing. Appear to finally be over the 170 wall (yay!), so it seems to be working. Finally seems like there's hope of mid-170s (although god knows how test day will go..); hopefully I keep making progress with this method.

Took a test at the beginning of the week (blanking on the number... 42, I think?) and got a 167 (accidentally didn't bubble a q, so stupid!). That was disappointing.

Taken three since:

PT 39 (1/3/13): LG -1, LR1 -2, RC -6 (yikes!), LR2 -2 = 171 (RS: 90)
PT 46 (1/4): RC -3, LR1 -4, LR2 -1, LG -0 = 171 (RS: 91)
PT 47 (1/5): LR1 -1, RC -5 (boo..), LR2 -1, LG -0 = 173 (RS: 93)

Super excited about that last score, highest non-SuperPrep score, and excited to finally have two -0 LG sections in a row. Also glad LR appears to be having the kinks worked out, but super frustrated at how unpredictable RC remains.. ugh.

Anyway, sorry for the long update. Hope everyone else is coming along! If anyone wants to discuss any particular PT together, please send a PM!

[Instinctive]

My Recent PTs:

Forget which one, but it's pre June07: 169
June 07: 161 (I was really tired, but still...disappointing)
PT 52: 169

On June07 I had a really rough LR, but I've been drilling LR and LG, and I went from 8 missed LR to 3 missed.

My issue on Games is never missing questions, but that I simply cannot seem to get to 2 questions or so every time I do four games in a row. When I do an individual game, I can keep it under 8:45, but for some reason, I can't seem to do four back to back like that.

Most of my issues come on games with multiple slots for variables, over/under balanced. I haven't gotten to serious drilling and setups on those in the LG Bible, so I'm currently assuming that will solve my issue (in the next week or so). Anyone have any (potentially contrary) advice?

I'm shooting for 180, realistically 175+.

[steel_shot]

I'm starting to panic a bit, and need some advice. For background, I was scoring between 168-172 before October, UPS lost my centre's tests, and I had a shitty make up in November which I only got 161 on. I decided to follow Noodley's guide, and I stupidly neglected RC (my weakest section) to do LR drills and Manhattan for the last few months. I just finished the MLSAT RC book and still went -7 on that section (an improvement, but still disappointing). I didn't even get a chance to finish drilling LR, and school starts again in a few days. Should I just PT/drill RC on off days until February, or should I follow some other strategy? I'm going to retake 59 tomorrow and hopefully end up scoring well, or else I'm going to consider June.

I'm Canadian as well, so I really just need to be in my range on test day to have a good chance at anywhere in the country.

[perplexedconfused]

Does anyone have advice on how not to get burned out? I have not even started taking the 5 section tests, but on the lasted PT I took (PT 57), I got a 159!! My brain just gives up by the time I get to the second LR section. My first LR I got -4 and the second was -8. I really need to get in the mid 160's.

[griffin.811]

Looking like it might be about that time...time to go to the June thread LR is devious! cant get consistently better than -6 per section. The worst part is when I review, the answers are so simple!!! I may just be moving too quickly, either that or I cant read.

[TheMostDangerousLG]

Just a friendly reminder that the registration deadline for the February LSAT is tomorrow.

I nearly forgot myself, just registered!

[griffin.811]

Thanks, I was just hoping to be performing better than I am before I registered.

[perplexedconfused]

Looking like it might be about that time...time to go to the June thread LR is devious! cant get consistently better than -6 per section. The worst part is when I review, the answers are so simple!!! I may just be moving too quickly, either that or I cant read.

I feel the same way but not giving up on February yet! I am HOPING I can improve on this between now and 2/9. Anyone have advice on how to overcome this? I also see my errors when I review and the questions do not seem that difficult, but my mind just goes on vacation when I am doing an actual PT.

[gobosox]

After way too long of a break, I'm back. Been drilling with Noodleyone's method, with some success.

PT 30- 96/101, 178
EXP (LR) -1
LR1 -1
LG -0
LR2 -0
RC -4

My former PTs were all around the 170 range. Either this was an easy test, or my drilling has paid off. Anyone else do PT 30? Was it easier for you?

Obviously RC continues to be my bane... Going to drill that mercilessly this week.

[gobosox]

Looking like it might be about that time...time to go to the June thread LR is devious! cant get consistently better than -6 per section. The worst part is when I review, the answers are so simple!!! I may just be moving too quickly, either that or I cant read.

I feel the same way but not giving up on February yet! I am HOPING I can improve on this between now and 2/9. Anyone have advice on how to overcome this? I also see my errors when I review and the questions do not seem that difficult, but my mind just goes on vacation when I am doing an actual PT.

Both of you need to drill question types. LR is very easy to improve on once you drill Q types. Review the Manhattan LR section first and then drill a whole "10 LSAT" book of one q-type. Use the one you're missing most on.

And for reference, my diagnostic was 158. I got a 178 on my last PT. Improvement is possible.

[griffin.811]

Looking like it might be about that time...time to go to the June thread LR is devious! cant get consistently better than -6 per section. The worst part is when I review, the answers are so simple!!! I may just be moving too quickly, either that or I cant read.

I feel the same way but not giving up on February yet! I am HOPING I can improve on this between now and 2/9. Anyone have advice on how to overcome this? I also see my errors when I review and the questions do not seem that difficult, but my mind just goes on vacation when I am doing an actual PT.

Both of you need to drill question types. LR is very easy to improve on once you drill Q types. Review the Manhattan LR section first and then drill a whole "10 LSAT" book of one q-type. Use the one you're missing most on.

And for reference, my diagnostic was 158. I got a 178 on my last PT. Improvement is possible.

Really appreciate this

[Instinctive]

Can someone direct me to "noodleyone" 's method?

[natashka85]

Guys I feel the same way,lets drill till jan 19th,and if we get better we shall stay for feb if not then we shall move to June thread ,but by drilling i know from my experience its possible to get better ,timing just kills,burns us ,so let`s not to time and just drill.

[gobosox]

Can someone direct me to "noodleyone" 's method?

The search function at the bottom of the page.

[natashka85]

Can someone direct me to "noodleyone" 's method?

7 sage method for blind review is good too,i dont use his other things but that review video is good too,u may wanna look at that.

[steel_shot]

After way too long of a break, I'm back. Been drilling with Noodleyone's method, with some success.

PT 30- 96/101, 178
EXP (LR) -1
LR1 -1
LG -0
LR2 -0
RC -4

My former PTs were all around the 170 range. Either this was an easy test, or my drilling has paid off. Anyone else do PT 30? Was it easier for you?

Obviously RC continues to be my bane... Going to drill that mercilessly this week.

Congrats! I used Noodley's method as well and have seen some big improvements. I'm willing to bet it's improvement on your part.

Anyways, retook 59 today for a 176, beating my previous best by four points! I made a few stupid mistakes in LR and need to work on RC still, but I'm feeling good about Feb. How much do you guys think my score was inflated? I took 59 about five months ago.