June 2011 Study Group Forum

[theaether]

PT53 with PT55.1
LRe: -0
LR1: -1
LG: -0

LR2: -4
RC: -6

89/100-->170

Holy stamina .... where are you? Haven't done a worse RC ever. These modern post-PT50 RCs seem to be harder! Can't figure out why though.

[jim-green]

PT53 with PT55.1
89/100-->170 Holy stamina .... where are you? Haven't done a worse RC ever. These modern post-PT50 RCs seem to be harder! Can't figure out why though.

I do PT53 tomorrow. Hope I can do as well as you.

[jim-green]

Thanks as always JG! You're a big help and motivation. Hope you get a honkin' score for all the encouragement and help you've been giving us this cycle.

Hello everyone! The time is upon is (almost!). Tomorrow night at 8 pm ET we will be meeting up for another great session. At 9 pm ET tomorrow, we will be joined by MLSAT instructor Brian Birdwell to go over any lingering issues, general prep questions, or perhaps some psychological evaluations (the couch won't be provided).

[jim-green]

PT16 RC #26. Ans A is correct because of lines 42-43. It says The decline theory has been exposed.
Ans B says "reveal tenacity of golden age theory." this is wrong, since 42-43 says golden age is wrong. It does not reveal tenacity of golden age. Para 2 reveals tenacity of golden age.

By the way, Kaplan's explanations are horrible. If anyone can explain #26 and why B is wrong on PT16 RC, I'd appreciate it.

[Eichörnchen]

Thanks as always JG! You're a big help and motivation. Hope you get a honkin' score for all the encouragement and help you've been giving us this cycle.

Hello everyone! The time is upon is (almost!). Tomorrow night at 8 pm ET we will be meeting up for another great session. At 9 pm ET tomorrow, we will be joined by MLSAT instructor Brian Birdwell to go over any lingering issues, general prep questions, or perhaps some psychological evaluations (the couch won't be provided).

JG has been really great, I agree. Most people when they first come to a study session assume that he is an MLSAT instructor haha.

And have you heard? Us Oct takers get to enjoy his company a little longer

[jim-green]

On #1, author keeps speaking about public concern and public attention being the main results.
On #3, author describes lines 31-38 to show how different their normal business was from the protests.
On #26, author presents a new way to look at host-parasite relations.

Coldshoulder, which questions? I remember I had a couple of WTF moments with those passages as well, some of the right answers seem to be a stretch.

1, 3, 26
I thought the first passage was surprisingly difficult, because of the ambiguity of the answer choices.

[jim-green]

This was a real HARD one that I got wrong on my first try. I too had never thought a flaw could be that the evidence pointed to too short a time. The flaw says there is no corellation now, so there will be no causation in the future. But there could be causation in the future.

Finally getting around to reviewing my list of LR questions. Most of the questions in here are months old! I found a gem in this list: PT45 S4 Q20. Could. Not. Figure out what the flaw was. I was surprised when I read the question stem and it asked me to find a similar FLAW. I'm just pointing this question out because I've never even seen a flaw based on the time frame of the results being too short to conclusively say anything.

[soj]

First PT since Friday.

PT46
RC: -1
RCe (PT22 S1): -2
LR1: -1
LR2: -2
LG: -0
Raw: -4
Scaled: 176

Rust? What rust?

Got -2 on a single passage (RCe P4) for the first time in a long time. I could have gotten -1 on that passage if I didn't make a last-minute change to my answer to the Main Point question. MP can be deceptively difficult. It's frustrating because I had actually deliberated at length on that question, selected TCR, but ended up changing it at the last minute because of a sudden new "insight."

I continue to do pretty well in recent RCs. There were 5 Qs I was unsure about in RC, but the only one I got wrong was Q14, and that was because I misread the passage, eliminated TCR, and couldn't decide on the best answer among two remaining ACs (duh). So when it comes to selecting between TCR and a single tempting AC, I'm doing pretty well. (Well, except for that MP Q in RCe.)

LR1 had more tough questions, but LR2 had the toughest ones. I knew LR2 Q24 is a tough one so I took it slow and thought I had come up with the right answer, but I still got it wrong. I guess it's infamous for a reason.

Pacing was excellent in all sections, even RC. I did take a little too long (10.5 minutes) on Passage 1 in RCe, but that was partially due to that passage having 8 questions, and I made up for it by going faster in the other passages. In every section, I had more than 3 minutes to look over my answers.

I'm very happy with today's results, though I was hoping to do better in LR after the intense review the past few days. I'll hit another PT tomorrow, possibly in a new location. Maybe somewhere more public.

EDIT: With today's two RC scores, my mean RC score dipped below -3! Yay!

[coldshoulder]

PT47
RC: -3
LR1: -2
LR2: -1
LG: -0
Raw: -6
Scaled: 174

RC went down, but LG is staying stable and LR is getting back on track.

[soj]

This was a real HARD one that I got wrong on my first try. I too had never thought a flaw could be that the evidence pointed to too short a time. The flaw says there is no corellation now, so there will be no causation in the future. But there could be causation in the future.

Finally getting around to reviewing my list of LR questions. Most of the questions in here are months old! I found a gem in this list: PT45 S4 Q20. Could. Not. Figure out what the flaw was. I was surprised when I read the question stem and it asked me to find a similar FLAW. I'm just pointing this question out because I've never even seen a flaw based on the time frame of the results being too short to conclusively say anything.

Is this the one where the stimulus was talking about nine-year-old kids and smoking ads? WTF, I hated that question. I still believe the flaw that I saw (unrepresentative sample) is a legitimate flaw in that question.

I do have to concede that the stimulus parallels TCR in ONE of its flaws. The study established that 9yos can recognize brands, and that the same 9yos don't smoke. But there might be a time lag between recognition and smoking. So to say a certain population has the recognition but doesn't smoke doesn't by itself disprove the existence of the relationship. (A) has an exaggerated version of the same problem. Disproving the existence of short-term effects does not disprove the existence of long-term effects.

[MarineLaw]

Hello!

Taking the June test as well...

I took my first PT, a 153 (PT 21), which was then followed by a 163, 164, 166, and a 170. From there, I've dropped back down to the mid to low 160's (I've taken 10). Has anyone else experienced this spike and gradual decrease to a plateau. Any advice? I guess an increase in the raw score is probably more indicative than the scaled score...? Either way, any advice on plateau busting?

I'm taking the test in Honolulu on the 6th. The next morning I deploy for training to Afghanistan... seriously more nervous about the LSAT. The evening of the 6th should include some good celebratory imbibing.

25 days!

[soj]

I took my first PT, a 153 (PT 21), which was then followed by a 163, 164, 166, and a 170. From there, I've dropped back down to the mid to low 160's (I've taken 10). Has anyone else experienced this spike and gradual decrease to a plateau. Any advice? I guess an increase in the raw score is probably more indicative than the scaled score...? Either way, any advice on plateau busting?

I'm taking the test in Honolulu on the 6th. The next morning I deploy for training to Afghanistan... seriously more nervous about the LSAT. The evening of the 6th should include some good celebratory imbibing.

25 days!

Hey, welcome to the thread. I absolutely agree you should focus more on your raw score than on your scaled score. As for the plateauing, just be diligent about reviewing every question you got wrong (or nearly got wrong) and coming up with alternative lines of thinking that could have allowed you to arrive at the right answer. The drop in scaled score is frustrating, especially this late in the prep cycle, but you should focus on making specific improvements. Get into a consistent rhythm heading into the test so you neither rust nor burn out. Good luck on the LSAT and good luck in Afghanistan!

[jim-green]

First PT since Friday.
PT46
Scaled: 176

Congrats, you really are the BOSS.

[mrwarre85]

Joining the group today. Just started studying today for June but I've taken the test three times so I don't feel bad about not studying too much. Been there done that! First test today was a 164. Will focus on games and try to maintain a positive attitude this time, hopefully will do well with less studying. Its certainly counter intuitive but my problem before on the previous three attempts was test day nerves and the more studying I do the more nervous I am! Hoping for 173ish in June. Good luck everybody.

[geverett]

If you guys could record the session with Brian Birdwell that would rock. Hope everyone is well.

[JG7773]

Thanks as always JG! You're a big help and motivation. Hope you get a honkin' score for all the encouragement and help you've been giving us this cycle.

Hello everyone! The time is upon is (almost!). Tomorrow night at 8 pm ET we will be meeting up for another great session. At 9 pm ET tomorrow, we will be joined by MLSAT instructor Brian Birdwell to go over any lingering issues, general prep questions, or perhaps some psychological evaluations (the couch won't be provided).

JG has been really great, I agree. Most people when they first come to a study session assume that he is an MLSAT instructor haha.

And have you heard? Us Oct takers get to enjoy his company a little longer

You are both far to kind. I just keep you on your toes with my shenanigans.

[Strange]

Did the PT14 RC today.. man I'm exhausted... it's getting harder and harder for me to do this after a long day of work. But the RC improvement is encouraging, only one wrong and it was just a careless mistake, what I'm really happy about is I had enough time to go back to the ones I was struggling with, work on them again, and eventually get the correct answer. I'm hoping to keep sharpening up on these earlier tests and get ready for the tougher sections later.

[Darko86]

Hey everyone. I had a question about the October 94 LR Section 1 question #24. It is the one concerning Johannes Gutenberg and his bible using titanium, which wasn't thought to have not been used that early. It goes on to say that titanium was also found in another bible called B-36. Finally, it says that the use of titanium in these two instances makes it so that the authenticity of a map being from the 15th century that used titanium is not as questionable anymore.

TCR essentially says that the reasoning is flawed because it both assumes that an ingredient was both rare and not rare during the same time period, the 15th century.

Is this reasoning actually saying that 2 instances of titanium ink is rare, but 3 instances is not rare? Or am I missing something else? Thanks for the help guys!

[boosk]

Hey everyone. I had a question about the October 94 LR Section 1 question #24. It is the one concerning Johannes Gutenberg and his bible using titanium, which wasn't thought to have not been used that early. It goes on to say that titanium was also found in another bible called B-36. Finally, it says that the use of titanium in these two instances makes it so that the authenticity of a map being from the 15th century that used titanium is not as questionable anymore.

TCR essentially says that the reasoning is flawed because it both assumes that an ingredient was both rare and not rare during the same time period, the 15th century.

Is this reasoning actually saying that 2 instances of titanium ink is rare, but 3 instances is not rare? Or am I missing something else? Thanks for the help guys!

If I remember this one correctly, the stimulus contradicts itself in that it first implies that the titanium is rare (or not thought to exist at that time) and then gives examples where it was used in that time-frame.

[Ssushi]

So yesterday i did PT 52

LR1 = -1
LG = -3
LR2 = -3
RC = -6
LRe(PT38) = -1
Raw 86
Scaled 167

However, i was working through the Manhattan RC book today and I made a huge discovery. All 6 questions i missed in RC on this last test were Interpritation questions, which apparently are very basic and hopefully should be easy to fix. I just have to double check that my answer is actually supported by the passage (novel idea i know ). I'm sure this will make my timing a little slower but i figure if i can pick up 3 or 4 more on RC, I'm over 170.

BTW the games have gotten infinitely easier in these 50 games. I don't even have to diagram them now and the only reason I got -3 in LG is because i forgot a rule on one game. Thank god those 30's LGs have stopped.

[jim-green]

Starting PT53

[geverett]

Hey everyone. I had a question about the October 94 LR Section 1 question #24. It is the one concerning Johannes Gutenberg and his bible using titanium, which wasn't thought to have not been used that early. It goes on to say that titanium was also found in another bible called B-36. Finally, it says that the use of titanium in these two instances makes it so that the authenticity of a map being from the 15th century that used titanium is not as questionable anymore.

TCR essentially says that the reasoning is flawed because it both assumes that an ingredient was both rare and not rare during the same time period, the 15th century.

Is this reasoning actually saying that 2 instances of titanium ink is rare, but 3 instances is not rare? Or am I missing something else? Thanks for the help guys!

If I remember this one correctly, the stimulus contradicts itself in that it first implies that the titanium is rare (or not thought to exist at that time) and then gives examples where it was used in that time-frame.

Not sure if this is really getting at the heart of the justification for the correct answer. Would love to hear some more opinions on this as well.

[theaether]

fuck YES FU LSAC for making me feel stupid all these months
SuperPrep C with PT23.2 (LR)
LG: -0
LR1: -2
LRe: -2
LR2: -1
RC: 0

98/101 --> 180

it's so good knowing that it's at least within reach, that there isn't some impenetrable barrier

[JG7773]

fuck YES FU LSAC for making me feel stupid all these months
SuperPrep C with PT23.2 (LR)
LG: -0
LR1: -2
LRe: -2
LR2: -1
RC: 0

98/101 --> 180

it's so good knowing that it's at least within reach, that there isn't some impenetrable barrier

Congrats!!

[soj]

Holy shit, congrats! -0 RC and -0 LG in SP C ... dayum, that is no joke.