The Official September 2014 Study Group Forum

[BJS]

I shoot for 5 min for level 1 and 2 games, 7 min level 3, and level 4 can be a crapshoot if you get snakes and lizards or something. But you buy yourself extra time by blowing through the easy games. And that 8:45 assumes you're bubbling as you go.

Okay. I've been working through the Cambridge Difficult Games packet and I'm still in the level 3s. Do you use a watch while you drill or an electronic timer/stopwatch?

[Colonel_funkadunk]

I shoot for 5 min for level 1 and 2 games, 7 min level 3, and level 4 can be a crapshoot if you get snakes and lizards or something. But you buy yourself extra time by blowing through the easy games. And that 8:45 assumes you're bubbling as you go.

Okay. I've been working through the Cambridge Difficult Games packet and I'm still in the level 3s. Do you use a watch while you drill or an electronic timer/stopwatch?

I just use the stopwatch on my iPad. I know we can't use the digital ones at the actual test, but for drilling I'm not too worried about it.

[BJS]

I just use the stopwatch on my iPad. I know we can't use the digital ones at the actual test, but for drilling I'm not too worried about it.

Good! I use an analog watch for PTs (with the 7sage app or my iPhone timer to keep me honest), but use my iPhone while drilling.

[Louis1127]

PT 54, first PT in a while

162

RC -8
LR combined -7
LG -4

Kind of surprised that my score wasn't higher, given that I didn't bomb a game.

I need to work on comparative passages. this one killed me, and I have not done hardly any comparative passages at all, so at least there's a direction I can go with my prep.

That LR score is decent and you can hit 170s with it. RC is where you really need to clean things up. -8 is horrific and will prohibit you from consistently reaching 170s.

You're exactly right. I just always mess something up in RC. This time it was the comparative passage about drilling oil wells. Last time it was the maize science passage. Basically the science passage just destroys me, eats my time, and tanks my section.

I've been drilling RC for a while, but I'll try and drill more. Maybe more drilling of RC per day will do the trick

[HRomanus]

You're exactly right. I just always mess something up in RC. This time it was the comparative passage about drilling oil wells. Last time it was the maize science passage. Basically the science passage just destroys me, eats my time, and tanks my section.

I've been drilling RC for a while, but I'll try and drill more. Maybe more drilling of RC per day will do the trick

I'm definitely not an RC guy, but from my experience most of science RC passages are just distractions and dense fluff. Drilling RC passages should build up an awareness of what kinds of questions are asked and therefore what information is relevant. Don't let your eyes glaze over when you hit the complicated information and don't get bogged down in it. Know what you need to understand and actively engage the material. The Adrian Monk thread has great suggestions: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=234382

[Colonel_funkadunk]

You're exactly right. I just always mess something up in RC. This time it was the comparative passage about drilling oil wells. Last time it was the maize science passage. Basically the science passage just destroys me, eats my time, and tanks my section.

I've been drilling RC for a while, but I'll try and drill more. Maybe more drilling of RC per day will do the trick

I'm definitely not an RC guy, but from my experience most of science RC passages are just distractions and dense fluff. Drilling RC passages should build up an awareness of what kinds of questions are asked and therefore what information is relevant. Don't let your eyes glaze over when you hit the complicated information and don't get bogged down in it. Know what you need to understand and actively engage the material. The Adrian Monk thread has great suggestions: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=234382

Ha This has to be the most posted thread URL over the last week in different threads , for good reason though

[ilikebaseball]

put in 9 hours today. 100 pages from the trainer, several of the traciela logic games from the yellow book, and than did 12 passages of difficult RC, 125 difficult LR questions, and several difficult games from the cambridge set

i'm a little tired

[Learn_Live_Hope]

put in 9 hours today. 100 pages from the trainer, several of the traciela logic games from the yellow book, and than did 12 passages of difficult RC, 125 difficult LR questions, and several difficult games from the cambridge set

i'm a little tired

[sfoglia]

put in 9 hours today. 100 pages from the trainer, several of the traciela logic games from the yellow book, and than did 12 passages of difficult RC, 125 difficult LR questions, and several difficult games from the cambridge set

i'm a little tired

!!!

Off to yoga and then bed, myself. Have sweet dreams of perfect scores, everyone.

[Toby Ziegler]

Please tell me that questions like #161 in the "flaw" packet are super rare. Flaw questions have come pretty easy to me, but this one was a real a-hole.

I don't have the packet in front of me Toby. What's the gist of the question?

It's the one about the girl's birthday party and her brothers not being invited. TCR is vague AF and I wasn't expecting it to be phrased as it was.

[Toby Ziegler]

Please tell me that questions like #161 in the "flaw" packet are super rare. Flaw questions have come pretty easy to me, but this one was a real a-hole.

If you are referring to the question about Hana's birthday party- I think it's a pretty common tactic for LSAC to force you to describe the flaw in a very general way. Instead of it being "overlooks the fact that her brothers aren't the only ppl who could give her the recording" it says it as "fails to establish that something true of some ppl is only true of those people" which is just another way of rephrasing the former.

Yeah I don't know if this level of vagueness is all that common, at least I haven't found it to be as I went through the packet, hoping this was just one of those hiccups we work out in drilling.

[BJS]

These Cambridge packets are addicting. I have a meeting I have to get up for at 4am (3 hours ) but it's hard to stop working through the LG packets. After I finish one, grade it, and review it, I either did well and feel empowered to keep going or I missed a question and I feel insecure that I'm missing something and need to keep going. Using double-sided is really bad - "I might as well just finish the other side so I can file the sheet in my graded folder..."

[ghostofdreams]

damn, I thought there was a website where folks can post up ads looking for a study partner . . . . Anybody know of any good ones, if there is such a site?

[HRomanus]

I can't believe there are 37 days left to go. On one hand, that seems impossibly soon and I have too much studying left to do. On the other, that seems impossibly far away and I really just want to finish it. In college, I always studied for tests within days of the exam. I'm used to cramming and understanding content, not developing skill proficiencies via long-term studying and repetition.

I took the Oct 2013 LSAT. Last year at this time I was still working through the PS LR Bible and hadn't taken a single PT (I never did, actually). Here's a picture I took on September 14, 2013 when I was studying at a local park: http://imgur.com/eBHnm48 My Instagram caption read: "A beautiful day at [park] is the perfect complement to last-minute studying. #FallisComing #LSATprep #myfutureinmyhands" What a depressing joke that is in retrospect.

[Colonel_funkadunk]

I can't believe there are 37 days left to go. On one hand, that seems impossibly soon and I have too much studying left to do. On the other, that seems impossibly far away and I really just want to finish it. In college, I always studied for tests within days of the exam. I'm used to cramming and understanding content, not developing skill proficiencies via long-term studying and repetition.

I took the Oct 2013 LSAT. Last year at this time I was still working through the PS LR Bible and hadn't taken a single PT (I never did, actually). Here's a picture I took on September 14, 2013 when I was studying at a local park: http://imgur.com/eBHnm48 My Instagram caption read: "A beautiful day at [park] is the perfect complement to last-minute studying. #FallisComing #LSATprep #myfutureinmyhands" What a depressing joke that is in retrospect.

What a poignant picture of some sufficient assumption prep.

[Colonel_funkadunk]

Please tell me that questions like #161 in the "flaw" packet are super rare. Flaw questions have come pretty easy to me, but this one was a real a-hole.

If you are referring to the question about Hana's birthday party- I think it's a pretty common tactic for LSAC to force you to describe the flaw in a very general way. Instead of it being "overlooks the fact that her brothers aren't the only ppl who could give her the recording" it says it as "fails to establish that something true of some ppl is only true of those people" which is just another way of rephrasing the former.

Yeah I don't know if this level of vagueness is all that common, at least I haven't found it to be as I went through the packet, hoping this was just one of those hiccups we work out in drilling.

Yea I'm sure it is. We all have that particular problem that just throws us off, so I'm sure it's nothing to worry about.

[HRomanus]

What a poignant picture of some sufficient assumption prep.

I was all about poignant Instagram pictures last year. Apparently that last minute LR prep worked, though. I went -4 on LR combined, with the real gutpunch coming in -8 RC and -6LG.

[BillPackets]

Please tell me that questions like #161 in the "flaw" packet are super rare. Flaw questions have come pretty easy to me, but this one was a real a-hole.

If you are referring to the question about Hana's birthday party- I think it's a pretty common tactic for LSAC to force you to describe the flaw in a very general way. Instead of it being "overlooks the fact that her brothers aren't the only ppl who could give her the recording" it says it as "fails to establish that something true of some ppl is only true of those people" which is just another way of rephrasing the former.

Yeah I don't know if this level of vagueness is all that common, at least I haven't found it to be as I went through the packet, hoping this was just one of those hiccups we work out in drilling.

Yea I'm sure it is. We all have that particular problem that just throws us off, so I'm sure it's nothing to worry about.

I've done the flaw packet twice, and seen every flaw Q from PTs 39-63. This is definitely a pretty common flaw, and IMHO, this is one of the less cleverly disguised types of this particular flaw. However, sometimes Qs thar are not that hard are for certain people for whatever reason. That's definitely happened to me.

[Toby Ziegler]

I've done the flaw packet twice, and seen every flaw Q from PTs 39-63. This is definitely a pretty common flaw, and IMHO, this is one of the less cleverly disguised types of this particular flaw. However, sometimes Qs thar are not that hard are for certain people for whatever reason. That's definitely happened to me.

Right. I understand the flaw is common, and historically it's been no problem for me to identify and find TCR quickly, but the verbiage in the correct answer on this one was unusual to me. Is the hyper vague language in TCR common with this particular flaw? That's what I was wondering; I knew the flaw itself was common, just not the verbiage of the correct response -- sorry I didn't make that more clear.
And as per usual, Bill, you are a fountain of wisdom and good faith.

[BillPackets]

I've done the flaw packet twice, and seen every flaw Q from PTs 39-63. This is definitely a pretty common flaw, and IMHO, this is one of the less cleverly disguised types of this particular flaw. However, sometimes Qs thar are not that hard are for certain people for whatever reason. That's definitely happened to me.

Right. I understand the flaw is common, and historically it's been no problem for me to identify and find TCR quickly, but the verbiage in the correct answer on this one was unusual to me. Is the hyper vague language in TCR common with this particular flaw? That's what I was wondering; I knew the flaw itself was common, just not the verbiage of the correct response -- sorry I didn't make that more clear.
And as per usual, Bill, you are a fountain of wisdom and good faith.

I'm not sure how many flaw questions you've done, and if you've gotten to the level 4s yet, but the correct answer in this flaw is not very confusingly worded compared to some that LSAC will throw at you. The correct answer in this Q is essentially the NA of the flaw--the NA (that would help fill a gap in the argument) is something like "only Hannah's brothers knew she wanted that gift," or "no one else besides her brothers knew she wanted that gift." So the correct answer is essentially rephrasing what would be a NA of the argument into a flaw.

[Colonel_funkadunk]

I've done the flaw packet twice, and seen every flaw Q from PTs 39-63. This is definitely a pretty common flaw, and IMHO, this is one of the less cleverly disguised types of this particular flaw. However, sometimes Qs thar are not that hard are for certain people for whatever reason. That's definitely happened to me.

Right. I understand the flaw is common, and historically it's been no problem for me to identify and find TCR quickly, but the verbiage in the correct answer on this one was unusual to me. Is the hyper vague language in TCR common with this particular flaw? That's what I was wondering; I knew the flaw itself was common, just not the verbiage of the correct response -- sorry I didn't make that more clear.
And as per usual, Bill, you are a fountain of wisdom and good faith.

I'm not sure how many flaw questions you've done, and if you've gotten to the level 4s yet, but the correct answer in this flaw is not very confusingly worded compared to some that LSAC will throw at you. The correct answer in this Q is essentially the NA of the flaw--the NA (that would help fill a gap in the argument) is something like "only Hannah's brothers knew she wanted that gift," or "no one else besides her brothers knew she wanted that gift." So the correct answer is essentially rephrasing what would be a NA of the argument into a flaw.

You lack credibility until you have an Avi.

[Toby Ziegler]

I've done the flaw packet twice, and seen every flaw Q from PTs 39-63. This is definitely a pretty common flaw, and IMHO, this is one of the less cleverly disguised types of this particular flaw. However, sometimes Qs thar are not that hard are for certain people for whatever reason. That's definitely happened to me.

Right. I understand the flaw is common, and historically it's been no problem for me to identify and find TCR quickly, but the verbiage in the correct answer on this one was unusual to me. Is the hyper vague language in TCR common with this particular flaw? That's what I was wondering; I knew the flaw itself was common, just not the verbiage of the correct response -- sorry I didn't make that more clear.
And as per usual, Bill, you are a fountain of wisdom and good faith.

I'm not sure how many flaw questions you've done, and if you've gotten to the level 4s yet, but the correct answer in this flaw is not very confusingly worded compared to some that LSAC will throw at you. The correct answer in this Q is essentially the NA of the flaw--the NA (that would help fill a gap in the argument) is something like "only Hannah's brothers knew she wanted that gift," or "no one else besides her brothers knew she wanted that gift." So the correct answer is essentially rephrasing what would be a NA of the argument into a flaw.

I've only done through level 2 and will be doing the level 3's today. I think (hoping) that this was just one of those Q's that struck me very peculiarly. At any rate, I have studied it ad nauseum and think I have nailed it down now. Haha

[BillPackets]

You lack credibility until you have an Avi.

tar

[Colonel_funkadunk]

You lack credibility until you have an Avi.

tar

I just wanted to strike your stuff too

[GreenTee]

.