The Official September 2016 Study Group - WAKE ME UP WHEN SEPTEMBER ENDS Forum

[PhiladelphiaCollins]

dltd

[Mikey]

Morning guys! I'm curious to know how some of you approach the RC passages that are just 2 huge paragraphs instead of the typical 4ish. Do you just read them straight through or do you try to split them up to make them more manageable?

[Deardevil]

7Sage's free webinar the other day.

Whoa, thanks a bunch for this!
I attended the webinar, but didn't get everything down; this about covers it.
'Twas a good session. Do you have an idea of what you'll be writing about?

[proteinshake]

having some whole grain toast + peanut butter w/ tea for breakfast, then working on some LG today and doing a full section. hoping to go -0. I just need to adjust to time pressure, I know I can go -0 cause I always do on drills.

[Mikey]

having some whole grain toast + peanut butter w/ tea for breakfast, then working on some LG today and doing a full section. hoping to go -0. I just need to adjust to time pressure, I know I can go -0 cause I always do on drills.

You got this! I was going to do some LG today but decided to spend my day having some quality time with wonderful RC passages.

[Barack O'Drama]

Nice man! I just copied and pasted into a Word Document so I can make sure my PS follows all the tips!

[Alexandros]

I've realized the odds of making my target in September are not too high, so I'm going to give everything I've got for September, then, if I need to, retake Dec or Feb - probably Feb because of finals, but I should have time to see. (I hate to have a fatalistic attitude here - if my target was even low 170s it would probably be different.)

Anyhoww, going to try to escape from the relatives enough tomorrow to do some LG, do some serious LR type training and hopefully read through another chapter of MLSAT, and at least a bit of RC . Starting to repeat RC - went -1 on a section I've done before, probably extremely inflated but w/e.

Alright, bed time - Good night everyone!

Are you applying this cycle or next year?

Next or possibly year after. If it was this cycle, feb would probably out of the picture .

[proteinshake]

if you want to practice your LG diagramming skills ---> PT 1.2.2 (game 2)

I wouldn't have survived if I didn't diagram this correctly

[Pozzo]

.

[gery0n]

Good resource for anyone looking for a logic game challenge!
https://www.powerscore.com/lsat/help/lg ... -games.cfm

[Mikey]

Lul, RC went terrible for me, as usual.

Ugh, whatever. Really hoping I can get this section down like LR and LG.

[proteinshake]

ugh went -3 on this LG section.

missed an acceptable situation question I should have easily gotten right, and got right during BR

missed another q because I misread the question stem

missed the third because I misinterpreted a rule, but only very slightly -- the rule said "if 8 are included, any portion within the 8..." and I misread this as "if 8 are included, then...."

at least I know for sure the potential for -0 is there, just gotta stop being dumb!

[Mikey]

ugh went -3 on this LG section.

missed an acceptable situation question I should have easily gotten right, and got right during BR

missed another q because I misread the question stem

missed the third because I misinterpreted a rule, but only very slightly -- the rule said "if 8 are included, any portion within the 8..." and I misread this as "if 8 are included, then...."

at least I know for sure the potential for -0 is there, just gotta stop being dumb!

The potential for -0 is definitely there, I know you can do it. Little mistakes like that can really screw you on getting over 170, especially LG.

P.S: I fucking hate RC so I'm going to work on some LG instead today

[proteinshake]

ugh went -3 on this LG section.

missed an acceptable situation question I should have easily gotten right, and got right during BR

missed another q because I misread the question stem

missed the third because I misinterpreted a rule, but only very slightly -- the rule said "if 8 are included, any portion within the 8..." and I misread this as "if 8 are included, then...."

at least I know for sure the potential for -0 is there, just gotta stop being dumb!

The potential for -0 is definitely there, I know you can do it. Little mistakes like that can really screw you on getting over 170, especially LG.

P.S: I fucking hate RC so I'm going to work on some LG instead today

lol the answer to one of the questions was 'which pair cannot be included?' I made the inferences and found that L and N cannot be included. which answer did I circle? P and S I think I was looking at a different chart I made for a different problem in the same game when I did that.

[Mikey]

ugh went -3 on this LG section.

missed an acceptable situation question I should have easily gotten right, and got right during BR

missed another q because I misread the question stem

missed the third because I misinterpreted a rule, but only very slightly -- the rule said "if 8 are included, any portion within the 8..." and I misread this as "if 8 are included, then...."

at least I know for sure the potential for -0 is there, just gotta stop being dumb!

The potential for -0 is definitely there, I know you can do it. Little mistakes like that can really screw you on getting over 170, especially LG.

P.S: I fucking hate RC so I'm going to work on some LG instead today

lol the answer to one of the questions was 'which pair cannot be included?' I made the inferences and found that L and N cannot be included. which answer did I circle? P and S I think I was looking at a different chart I made for a different problem in the same game when I did that.

Haha it happens man, you just have to be more alert about it now that you know you can make that kind of mistake. What PT section did you do?

[proteinshake]

ugh went -3 on this LG section.

missed an acceptable situation question I should have easily gotten right, and got right during BR

missed another q because I misread the question stem

missed the third because I misinterpreted a rule, but only very slightly -- the rule said "if 8 are included, any portion within the 8..." and I misread this as "if 8 are included, then...."

at least I know for sure the potential for -0 is there, just gotta stop being dumb!

The potential for -0 is definitely there, I know you can do it. Little mistakes like that can really screw you on getting over 170, especially LG.

P.S: I fucking hate RC so I'm going to work on some LG instead today

lol the answer to one of the questions was 'which pair cannot be included?' I made the inferences and found that L and N cannot be included. which answer did I circle? P and S I think I was looking at a different chart I made for a different problem in the same game when I did that.

Haha it happens man, you just have to be more alert about it now that you know you can make that kind of mistake. What PT section did you do?

20! not gonna lie two of the games were kinda odd. like slightly twisted versions of grouping and ordering games.

[Mikey]

ugh went -3 on this LG section.

missed an acceptable situation question I should have easily gotten right, and got right during BR

missed another q because I misread the question stem

missed the third because I misinterpreted a rule, but only very slightly -- the rule said "if 8 are included, any portion within the 8..." and I misread this as "if 8 are included, then...."

at least I know for sure the potential for -0 is there, just gotta stop being dumb!

The potential for -0 is definitely there, I know you can do it. Little mistakes like that can really screw you on getting over 170, especially LG.

P.S: I fucking hate RC so I'm going to work on some LG instead today

lol the answer to one of the questions was 'which pair cannot be included?' I made the inferences and found that L and N cannot be included. which answer did I circle? P and S I think I was looking at a different chart I made for a different problem in the same game when I did that.

Haha it happens man, you just have to be more alert about it now that you know you can make that kind of mistake. What PT section did you do?

20! not gonna lie two of the games were kinda odd. like slightly twisted versions of grouping and ordering games.

Yeah I just looked at 7sage's thingy thing lol. PT 20 had a "Spatial" game, so I'm just going to assume it's mixed into the category of weird/random games. I need to work on my damn circular games, even though I don't give a crap if 8 people are sitting around a circle shaped picnic table! Are you good with odd games? For example like the one they threw at you guys in December (sorry to bring up that soul crushing game, RIP).

[proteinshake]

ugh went -3 on this LG section.

missed an acceptable situation question I should have easily gotten right, and got right during BR

missed another q because I misread the question stem

missed the third because I misinterpreted a rule, but only very slightly -- the rule said "if 8 are included, any portion within the 8..." and I misread this as "if 8 are included, then...."

at least I know for sure the potential for -0 is there, just gotta stop being dumb!

The potential for -0 is definitely there, I know you can do it. Little mistakes like that can really screw you on getting over 170, especially LG.

P.S: I fucking hate RC so I'm going to work on some LG instead today

lol the answer to one of the questions was 'which pair cannot be included?' I made the inferences and found that L and N cannot be included. which answer did I circle? P and S I think I was looking at a different chart I made for a different problem in the same game when I did that.

Haha it happens man, you just have to be more alert about it now that you know you can make that kind of mistake. What PT section did you do?

20! not gonna lie two of the games were kinda odd. like slightly twisted versions of grouping and ordering games.

Yeah I just looked at 7sage's thingy thing lol. PT 20 had a "Spatial" game, so I'm just going to assume it's mixed into the category of weird/random games. I need to work on my damn circular games, even though I don't give a crap if 8 people are sitting around a circle shaped picnic table! Are you good with odd games? For example like the one they threw at you guys in December (sorry to bring up that soul crushing game, RIP).

I guessed on all 5 of the questions for that game. I'm good with circular and spatial games, but idk how to even categorize the game from December!

[Mikey]

ugh went -3 on this LG section.

missed an acceptable situation question I should have easily gotten right, and got right during BR

missed another q because I misread the question stem

missed the third because I misinterpreted a rule, but only very slightly -- the rule said "if 8 are included, any portion within the 8..." and I misread this as "if 8 are included, then...."

at least I know for sure the potential for -0 is there, just gotta stop being dumb!

The potential for -0 is definitely there, I know you can do it. Little mistakes like that can really screw you on getting over 170, especially LG.

P.S: I fucking hate RC so I'm going to work on some LG instead today

lol the answer to one of the questions was 'which pair cannot be included?' I made the inferences and found that L and N cannot be included. which answer did I circle? P and S I think I was looking at a different chart I made for a different problem in the same game when I did that.

Haha it happens man, you just have to be more alert about it now that you know you can make that kind of mistake. What PT section did you do?

20! not gonna lie two of the games were kinda odd. like slightly twisted versions of grouping and ordering games.

Yeah I just looked at 7sage's thingy thing lol. PT 20 had a "Spatial" game, so I'm just going to assume it's mixed into the category of weird/random games. I need to work on my damn circular games, even though I don't give a crap if 8 people are sitting around a circle shaped picnic table! Are you good with odd games? For example like the one they threw at you guys in December (sorry to bring up that soul crushing game, RIP).

I guessed on all 5 of the questions for that game. I'm good with circular and spatial games, but idk how to even categorize the game from December!

I remember hearing about it and I went to 7sage's video explanation for it and he started off with that whole "Just stay calm, you got this, etc." talk. I was like "oh these poor souls", haha.

Circular games are ehh for me. Tomorrow I'm going to do PT 41's LG section and it has one. I've done the section before but don't remember anything since it was so long ago.

[Pozzo]

.

[appind]

anyone else in a situation where they have like 1 fresh PT left

how are you prepping without no fresh material?

[Alexandros]

ugh went -3 on this LG section.

missed an acceptable situation question I should have easily gotten right, and got right during BR

missed another q because I misread the question stem

missed the third because I misinterpreted a rule, but only very slightly -- the rule said "if 8 are included, any portion within the 8..." and I misread this as "if 8 are included, then...."

at least I know for sure the potential for -0 is there, just gotta stop being dumb!

Feel ya D: just went -3 on one as well and ran out of time (would've gotten the last if I'd have had 15 seconds more jfc) AND I've seen this set before. it's so frustrating being overall pretty good at games but getting shot down by dumb little mistakes here and there.

[20170322]

It finally happened-- NEW HIGH SCORE!!!


PT 58
Conditions: 5 section, 7-sage proctored, taken around 10:30 after a warmup section.

RC: -1
LR1: -1
LG: -0
LR2: -0
Raw: 99

Scaled: 180



So so so pumped. I think taking a longer warmup with questions from all three sections made a huge difference. Also, using the extra time at the end of LG helped me catch two incorrect LG answers, so always go back and check your work!

[Mikey]

It finally happened-- NEW HIGH SCORE!!!


PT 58
Conditions: 5 section, 7-sage proctored, taken around 10:30 after a warmup section.

RC: -1
LR1: -1
LG: -0
LR2: -0
Raw: 99

Scaled: 180



So so so pumped. I think taking a longer warmup with questions from all three sections made a huge difference. Also, using the extra time at the end of LG helped me catch two incorrect LG answers, so always go back and check your work!

BRUH, good shit! You're going to destroy this MF in September!

[proteinshake]

It finally happened-- NEW HIGH SCORE!!!


PT 58
Conditions: 5 section, 7-sage proctored, taken around 10:30 after a warmup section.

RC: -1
LR1: -1
LG: -0
LR2: -0
Raw: 99

Scaled: 180



So so so pumped. I think taking a longer warmup with questions from all three sections made a huge difference. Also, using the extra time at the end of LG helped me catch two incorrect LG answers, so always go back and check your work!

DAMN CONGRATS!