The Official June 2017 Study Group Forum

[zkyggi]

I am actually beginning to get excited for the test now.

Congrats on the progress! Not sure I'll ever actually be excited for the test maybe excited to be done with it, but that's it!

I reckon a goal of UChicago w/ $$$$ will do that to you lol

[Mint-Berry_Crunch]

What does everyone do itt?

Figure might as well get to know people

[Future Ex-Engineer]

PT 60 this evening.

-3 LR1, -0 LG, -2 LR2, -5 RC ( ) for a scaled 171.

Spent most of the day outside in the sun, so I think I got drained from that. Definitely felt tired by the end (ofc it is also almost 9PM here, so that probably plays into it as well). Also thought I bombed the first LR section, so that was playing in the back of my mind the entire test.

At the end of the day if a 'terrible' feeling test is still 170+ I think I'll be okay, but man that was a frustrating RC section.

As for the previously asked question - I'm a full time engineer with a master's level focus on wireless communication theory. I don't really like being around engineering types all the time, so I'm looking to get out and do something new.

Edit:
I have discovered that in RC I'm getting crushed by phrase/word meaning/purpose in context questions (aka more than half of my misses are coming from these) - anyone got suggestions to remedy this? Often it's not having a normal everyday working definition of the word the same as the LSAT meaning/definition, and there being a trap answer that jives with the definition of a particular word as I'm accustomed to using it (and is a legitimate definition of the word - often the first definition listed in the dictionary). For example, the word qualifies - I'm used to it meaning you meet the criteria required for something. A lesser-used definition is: limits/modifies something in a limiting way. According to the RC section of June 2007, qualifies means the second, lesser-used definition, and I definitely didn't choose the AC corresponding to that definition.

IDK, maybe I'll get better with just more practice?

[NavyNuke]

.

[zkyggi]

PT 66 tonight:

RC -8/LR -0/LG -2/LR -3 for a 168.

I have gotten to where I am usually -5 or under on RC, but every once in a while I will bomb an RC section and drop back under 170.

I HATE RC.

HATE IT.

Damn, what is it in RC that is getting you? Speed or accuracy?

[Platopus]

Edit:
I have discovered that in RC I'm getting crushed by phrase/word meaning/purpose in context questions (aka more than half of my misses are coming from these) - anyone got suggestions to remedy this? Often it's not having a normal everyday working definition of the word the same as the LSAT meaning/definition, and there being a trap answer that jives with the definition of a particular word as I'm accustomed to using it (and is a legitimate definition of the word - often the first definition listed in the dictionary). For example, the word qualifies - I'm used to it meaning you meet the criteria required for something. A lesser-used definition is: limits/modifies something in a limiting way. According to the RC section of June 2007, qualifies means the second, lesser-used definition, and I definitely didn't choose the AC corresponding to that definition.

IDK, maybe I'll get better with just more practice?

Hey, 171 ain't bad. Stay positive. For these RC questions, try reading into the context more, and in order to do this properly, go back and reread more of the surrounding text. It's real hard to get a feel for what the author is trying to convey from the sentence or sentences. If you can briefly reread the surrounding 3-5 sentences you'll have a better idea of the context. Also, remember, neither the RC section nor the LSAT authors are using "qualifies" in the 2nd sense, it is the PASSAGE author that is using it in that 2nd sense. Find out WHY.

[Platopus]

What does everyone do itt?

Figure might as well get to know people

I work as an underwriter for a specialty insurance company. The funny thing about insurance is that when you ask people how they got started in insurance they all say the same thing: "HMMM, you know I'm not really sure. It kind of just happened", and the same is true for me Not a bad gig tho, consistent office hours, fair amount of flexibility in terms of what I do and when, and not overly stressful. I basically determine how likely it is that someone/some company is going to be sued, and decide how much to charge they for insurance.

[tada77]

Hey everyone,

Just wanted to check in. I'm hoping to reach my goal score of 172+ for the June LSAT, and wanted to see if I'm on track. Took a proctored PT (June 2013) yesterday for a 169. LR -6 LG -5 RC -2. The week before (PT December 2012), I scored a 167; LR -7 LG -7 RC -2. I definitely feel I could have done better on both LG and LR, so I'm going to continue to drill games and practice. This is up from scoring 161 in early March. Think it's pretty feasible to reach my goal with some hard work and commitment? I'm seeking to go to Stanford, or maybe Harvard.

Thanks!

[Platopus]

Hey everyone,

Just wanted to check in. I'm hoping to reach my goal score of 172+ for the June LSAT, and wanted to see if I'm on track. Took a proctored PT (June 2013) yesterday for a 169. LR -6 LG -5 RC -2. The week before (PT December 2012), I scored a 167; LR -7 LG -7 RC -2. I definitely feel I could have done better on both LG and LR, so I'm going to continue to drill games and practice. This is up from scoring 161 in early March. Think it's pretty feasible to reach my goal with some hard work and commitment? I'm seeking to go to Stanford, or maybe Harvard.

Thanks!

Yes, but you need to sort out LG in a hurry, that's really the only thing keeping you from your target. Drill, drill, drill, drill, drill, and watch 7 sage videos for every game. LG should be your primary focus at this point.

[NavyNuke]

.

[Platopus]

PT 66 tonight:

RC -8/LR -0/LG -2/LR -3 for a 168.

I have gotten to where I am usually -5 or under on RC, but every once in a while I will bomb an RC section and drop back under 170.

I HATE RC.

HATE IT.

Damn, what is it in RC that is getting you? Speed or accuracy?

Originally speed. I almost never got to the last passage but I would answer almost every question right on the questions I did answer. Then I switched my strategy to increase the pace at which I am reading the passages by focusing on reasoning structure and not getting bogged down in the details. Now I finish in time, and I have had many sections where I'm -3 to -5, but every once in a while this happens. I don't know what to do.

What's your notation strategy. I dropped notation all together: no underlining, no circling, nothing, and I improved a lot on RC in recent tests. I haven't missed more than 3 per section in my last 8 PT's

[NavyNuke]

.

[Platopus]

PT 66 tonight:

RC -8/LR -0/LG -2/LR -3 for a 168.

I have gotten to where I am usually -5 or under on RC, but every once in a while I will bomb an RC section and drop back under 170.

I HATE RC.

HATE IT.

Damn, what is it in RC that is getting you? Speed or accuracy?

Originally speed. I almost never got to the last passage but I would answer almost every question right on the questions I did answer. Then I switched my strategy to increase the pace at which I am reading the passages by focusing on reasoning structure and not getting bogged down in the details. Now I finish in time, and I have had many sections where I'm -3 to -5, but every once in a while this happens. I don't know what to do.

What's your notation strategy. I dropped notation all together: no underlining, no circling, nothing, and I improved a lot on RC in recent tests. I haven't missed more than 3 per section in my last 8 PT's

Yea I mark up the passages noting MPs, others' opinions, and the like. I also jot a note off to the side about the role each paragraph plays in the passage.
I'll give it a shot without marking. I can't go -8 on test day.

Yeah, it's worth a shot to at least experiment. If you don't see an improvement, go with what you're more comfortable with.

[Future Ex-Engineer]

Edit:
I have discovered that in RC I'm getting crushed by phrase/word meaning/purpose in context questions (aka more than half of my misses are coming from these) - anyone got suggestions to remedy this? Often it's not having a normal everyday working definition of the word the same as the LSAT meaning/definition, and there being a trap answer that jives with the definition of a particular word as I'm accustomed to using it (and is a legitimate definition of the word - often the first definition listed in the dictionary). For example, the word qualifies - I'm used to it meaning you meet the criteria required for something. A lesser-used definition is: limits/modifies something in a limiting way. According to the RC section of June 2007, qualifies means the second, lesser-used definition, and I definitely didn't choose the AC corresponding to that definition.

IDK, maybe I'll get better with just more practice?

Hey, 171 ain't bad. Stay positive. For these RC questions, try reading into the context more, and in order to do this properly, go back and reread more of the surrounding text. It's real hard to get a feel for what the author is trying to convey from the sentence or sentences. If you can briefly reread the surrounding 3-5 sentences you'll have a better idea of the context. Also, remember, neither the RC section nor the LSAT authors are using "qualifies" in the 2nd sense, it is the PASSAGE author that is using it in that 2nd sense. Find out WHY.

Hah yeah, chin up. 171 is still enough to give me a legitimate shot at the Dillard I've got my eyes on.

That's an interesting distinction for the context questions that I don't think I've made before. I typically end up getting frustrated with LSAC and attribute weird word usage to them (which if the weird word definition is in the AC question, it is on them), but one I missed on today's PT was regarding the word immediacy (as used by the author). Definitely something to consider.

More generally: Thoughts on 180 watches? Don't know if it's actually worth $60, but I think the peace of mind/ease is probably worth it. I'm probably gonna Amazon Prime one tomorrow so I can use it on my next 10-11 PTs before D-Day

[zkyggi]

More generally: Thoughts on 180 watches? Don't know if it's actually worth $60, but I think the peace of mind/ease is probably worth it. I'm probably gonna Amazon Prime one tomorrow so I can use it on my next 10-11 PTs before D-Day

I use an LSAT-specific watch. I'm not sure how much it helps, but there's virtually no downside with respect to the test.

[zkyggi]

Originally speed. I almost never got to the last passage but I would answer almost every question right on the questions I did answer. Then I switched my strategy to increase the pace at which I am reading the passages by focusing on reasoning structure and not getting bogged down in the details. Now I finish in time, and I have had many sections where I'm -3 to -5, but every once in a while this happens. I don't know what to do.

Have you thought about selecting passages based on # of q's, if you don't already? I generally leave 5 question passages to the end. It has helped me.

[Future Ex-Engineer]

More generally: Thoughts on 180 watches? Don't know if it's actually worth $60, but I think the peace of mind/ease is probably worth it. I'm probably gonna Amazon Prime one tomorrow so I can use it on my next 10-11 PTs before D-Day

I use an LSAT-specific watch. I'm not sure how much it helps, but there's virtually no downside with respect to the test.

After reading some reviews online, I ended up ordering a Mastermind Watch. Essentially a newer-high quality version of the 180Watch made by Josh Craven (guy that started lawschooli). Seems like it should do exactly what I want.

[tada77]

Hey everyone,

Just wanted to check in. I'm hoping to reach my goal score of 172+ for the June LSAT, and wanted to see if I'm on track. Took a proctored PT (June 2013) yesterday for a 169. LR -6 LG -5 RC -2. The week before (PT December 2012), I scored a 167; LR -7 LG -7 RC -2. I definitely feel I could have done better on both LG and LR, so I'm going to continue to drill games and practice. This is up from scoring 161 in early March. Think it's pretty feasible to reach my goal with some hard work and commitment? I'm seeking to go to Stanford, or maybe Harvard.

Thanks!

Yes, but you need to sort out LG in a hurry, that's really the only thing keeping you from your target. Drill, drill, drill, drill, drill, and watch 7 sage videos for every game. LG should be your primary focus at this point.

Thank you! Yeah, I've definitely been mainly focused on LG, but I think I need to do more timed sections, and get used to doing four in a row/splitting time. I also made the mistake of not warming up on a couple logic games before my PT, which seems to help. Other than that, drilling and repeats it is

[Platopus]

Edit:
I have discovered that in RC I'm getting crushed by phrase/word meaning/purpose in context questions (aka more than half of my misses are coming from these) - anyone got suggestions to remedy this? Often it's not having a normal everyday working definition of the word the same as the LSAT meaning/definition, and there being a trap answer that jives with the definition of a particular word as I'm accustomed to using it (and is a legitimate definition of the word - often the first definition listed in the dictionary). For example, the word qualifies - I'm used to it meaning you meet the criteria required for something. A lesser-used definition is: limits/modifies something in a limiting way. According to the RC section of June 2007, qualifies means the second, lesser-used definition, and I definitely didn't choose the AC corresponding to that definition.

IDK, maybe I'll get better with just more practice?

Hey, 171 ain't bad. Stay positive. For these RC questions, try reading into the context more, and in order to do this properly, go back and reread more of the surrounding text. It's real hard to get a feel for what the author is trying to convey from the sentence or sentences. If you can briefly reread the surrounding 3-5 sentences you'll have a better idea of the context. Also, remember, neither the RC section nor the LSAT authors are using "qualifies" in the 2nd sense, it is the PASSAGE author that is using it in that 2nd sense. Find out WHY.

Hah yeah, chin up. 171 is still enough to give me a legitimate shot at the Dillard I've got my eyes on.

That's an interesting distinction for the context questions that I don't think I've made before. I typically end up getting frustrated with LSAC and attribute weird word usage to them (which if the weird word definition is in the AC question, it is on them), but one I missed on today's PT was regarding the word immediacy (as used by the author). Definitely something to consider.

More generally: Thoughts on 180 watches? Don't know if it's actually worth $60, but I think the peace of mind/ease is probably worth it. I'm probably gonna Amazon Prime one tomorrow so I can use it on my next 10-11 PTs before D-Day

I have the Perfect Score V3, I believe it's $30, which about half the price of the 180 watch. So far no complaints, it works is real easy to use and is accurate. Event if it does break, I'd buy another, since it'd still shake out to about the same price as the 180 watch

[Barry grandpapy]

.

[Mikey]

Any advice for boiling down my -2/-3 per LR section to around -2/-1 LR combined?

Review helps a ton, which is what got me here now. But I'm looking for something more.. And I don't have a pattern of weakness on a Q type.

[Mint-Berry_Crunch]

I used to have a nice lsat watch (not the 180 one, the $30).


I was PTing around 175 and then I lost it and my PT average went way down.


Obviously it was the watch

[Mikey]

I used to have a nice lsat watch (not the 180 one, the $30).


I was PTing around 175 and then I lost it and my PT average went way down.


Obviously it was the watch

Correlation only? I think not. Causation? Indeed!

[Future Ex-Engineer]

Any advice for boiling down my -2/-3 per LR section to around -2/-1 LR combined?

Review helps a ton, which is what got me here now. But I'm looking for something more.. And I don't have a pattern of weakness on a Q type.

I'm looking for the same magic bullet here Mikey...I typically range from -0 to -3 on each LR at this point. The killer part is it's always like -0,-3 or -1,-2, never -0,-1 or -0,-0.

I have noticed that 'skipping' harder questions and then going back to them actually causes me to do worse accuracy-wise on those questions than if I just spend the extra time up front when I get to them. Surprising result, but can't argue with the facts.

[Mikey]

Any advice for boiling down my -2/-3 per LR section to around -2/-1 LR combined?

Review helps a ton, which is what got me here now. But I'm looking for something more.. And I don't have a pattern of weakness on a Q type.

I'm looking for the same magic bullet here Mikey...I typically range from -0 to -3 on each LR at this point. The killer part is it's always like -0,-3 or -1,-2, never -0,-1 or -0,-0.

I have noticed that 'skipping' harder questions and then going back to them actually causes me to do worse accuracy-wise on those questions than if I just spend the extra time up front when I get to them. Surprising result, but can't argue with the facts.

Yep. Magic bullet please come our way lol. I've only -0'd LR once.

Really tho? That's surprising.. I tend to skip the harder ones if I take too long on them and then depending on how I feel, I may do like 3 questions then go back to it OR I may just finish the section then go back. It's definitely just the really hard ones I get wrong, although when I end up going like -3 on the section it is most likely due to a slip up on an easy question which does happen once in a while.