The Official June 2017 Study Group Forum

[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.

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.

I guess I haven't conclusively proven that for myself, but on the last PT I did, I skipped the parallel flaw/match the reasoning questions and saved them for the end. Normally I get all of those right (but it takes more time than other questions), but when I skipped and came back to do them at the end of the section, even though I had about 2.5 minutes per question, I missed both of them.

I think my brain was just done with the section at that point and decided it wasn't going to follow any reasoning patterns.

[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.

I guess I haven't conclusively proven that for myself, but on the last PT I did, I skipped the parallel flaw/match the reasoning questions and saved them for the end. Normally I get all of those right (but it takes more time than other questions), but when I skipped and came back to do them at the end of the section, even though I had about 2.5 minutes per question, I missed both of them.

I think my brain was just done with the section at that point and decided it wasn't going to follow any reasoning patterns.

I see. I usually do a parallel question of it is in the first 10, but if it's in the middle of the section somewhere or end, I usually do
It last. Same goes for long principle questions.

Idk, I've never really heard of something like your situation. Maybe it's just the question itself that would've given you trouble no matter when you chose to do it?

[it's allgood]

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 had a similar problem. What I did was took two LR sections and gave myself 50 minutes (I think it was test 76). When I did this I actually was able to recognize that while the questions I was missing were different, the reason I was missing them was the same. Then I went back to 35 minutes per each section. For me for LR, some questions I can just answer in under a minute, some questions I can quickly pre-answer, and the remaining ones I was missing, I needed to take a few seconds and think about what one possible answer could be before going over the answers (but these were not strict pre-answer type questions).

[Amerision]

Back from my break and ready to take PT 62 later today. Going to try a new strategy in LR -- doing the first fifteen questions, and then going backwards from the last question. We'll see how it goes.

[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 had a similar problem. What I did was took two LR sections and gave myself 50 minutes (I think it was test 76). When I did this I actually was able to recognize that while the questions I was missing were different, the reason I was missing them was the same. Then I went back to 35 minutes per each section. For me for LR, some questions I can just answer in under a minute, some questions I can quickly pre-answer, and the remaining ones I was missing, I needed to take a few seconds and think about what one possible answer could be before going over the answers (but these were not strict pre-answer type questions).

So you just gave yourself less time for 2 LR sections and you're saying you noticed that you were missing questions that took you longer??

[it's allgood]

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 had a similar problem. What I did was took two LR sections and gave myself 50 minutes (I think it was test 76). When I did this I actually was able to recognize that while the questions I was missing were different, the reason I was missing them was the same. Then I went back to 35 minutes per each section. For me for LR, some questions I can just answer in under a minute, some questions I can quickly pre-answer, and the remaining ones I was missing, I needed to take a few seconds and think about what one possible answer could be before going over the answers (but these were not strict pre-answer type questions).

So you just gave yourself less time for 2 LR sections and you're saying you noticed that you were missing questions that took you longer??

So sorry for the lack of clarity--I gave myself 50 minutes per LR section, so 15 additional minutes each section.

[calmike]

I took PT 65 5-section yesterday.

LG: 0
LR1: -4
RC: -6
LR2: -2

Score: 171

For RC, the blackmail passage was really tough and the passage about the weeds was really tough too. I really need to practice RC.

I am really happy with LG since I have been consistently scoring -0 on it.

LR is improving and I am really happy with my score. If I score a 170 on test day then I am golden.

How do you recommend improving?

I took PT 65 today as well. Its funny that I had exactly flipped LR scores. The soil passage was hard, but I didn't find the blackmail passage difficult. Do you typically struggle with comparative passages? If you can knock a couple points off RC you will be in solid 170+ land.

I dont think I struggle with Comparative Passages. I just think that the Blackmail passages were very tough, especially the Roman one. The soil passage was tough too. Sigh

[calmike]

I'm reviewing PT 65 now.

It is pretty crazy how the test punishes prephrasing in the recent tests...

What do you mean?

I actually hate the new format for the logic games. I dont know what to do with all the space! lol

[Mikey]

What do you mean?

I actually hate the new format for the logic games. I dont know what to do with all the space! lol

how could you hate that?? lol

[zkyggi]

I'm reviewing PT 65 now.

It is pretty crazy how the test punishes prephrasing in the recent tests...

What do you mean?

If you look at the AC's on recent tests, there are quite a few questions--particularly easy ones--where an early AC will be very close to your prephrase but it will be wrong because of a small change in the language. It isn't the end of the world, but it forces you to pay closer attention to AC's even when you have a strong prephrase. While frustrating, once you get the hang of it, it isn't a problem.

[calmike]

How do you recommend improving?

First off, congrats on the score. Seems like there is some consensus that PT 65 RC is pretty difficult. As far as improvement, just polish off 65-80 and keep drilling. Now more than ever is the time to really focus in on your weaknesses and review like hell.

Thanks!

I am reviewing the questions that I got wrong and the ones that I though were difficult. I hope thats enough. 7sage analytics states that my priority is to study FLAWS .

[Mint-Berry_Crunch]

We talked about watches but y'all are plebes if you're not using mirado black warrior pencils

[Mint-Berry_Crunch]

I'm in a massive LR rut recently. I've started reviewing PTs but bc I'm reviewing things from a couple weeks ago, she I was doing ok at LR and bad at RC I've only really been reviewing RC. Hopefully that'll level out soon

[calmike]

My PT Scores so far since I began taking them in March

167, 167, 175, 171, 171, 171, 174

I took PT 66 yesterday. It was 5 sections with an experimental section.

I scored a 174.

RC: -1
LR1: -4
LG: 0
LR2: -1

Was PT 66 easier that usual? I feel like it had a low curve.
I actually ran out of time when doing RC. I speed read the last passage and answered the questions with a vague idea of the structure and it worked out. I was actually very surprised I got a -1 on RC.

I actually dont like all the space that these newer tests give for Logic Games haha I feel like I end up missing something.

How do you recommend studying LR to get a nearer score in LR? 7Sage Analytics states that my priority should be studying FLAW and PsuedoSufficient questions.

[sailcar]

It seems like I'm in a similar place to most of you. My last four PT scores from PTs 65-68 were 171, 171, 173, 172. I also found PT 65's RC really difficult! I went -8 on that, the worst I've done. My RC scores have ranged between -0 and -8, with an average -3.4. I've been focusing on LG for the past month or so and got my first -0 on PT 68, so now hoping I can get that consistently.

At this point, I've gotten -0 on each section at one point or another, so I'm trying to hone in on my weaknesses to have a good day on all of the sections at once. Seems like we're all in a good place to get there by June!

[Future Ex-Engineer]

My PT Scores so far since I began taking them in March

167, 167, 175, 171, 171, 171, 174

I took PT 66 yesterday. It was 5 sections with an experimental section.

I scored a 174.

RC: -1
LR1: -4
LG: 0
LR2: -1

Was PT 66 easier that usual? I feel like it had a low curve.
I actually ran out of time when doing RC. I speed read the last passage and answered the questions with a vague idea of the structure and it worked out. I was actually very surprised I got a -1 on RC.

I actually dont like all the space that these newer tests give for Logic Games haha I feel like I end up missing something.

How do you recommend studying LR to get a nearer score in LR? 7Sage Analytics states that my priority should be studying FLAW and PsuedoSufficient questions.

I too have a little trouble on PS questions from time to time, and I used to have problems with FLAW questions, but after finishing up my LSAT Trainer, I haven't missed a single Flaw question in the past 7 LR sections.

For me, the magic bullet with Flaw was to critically evaluate the argument before looking at ACs and decide what was wrong with it. Once I had that, the wrong answers were very easy to eliminate.

[Barry grandpapy]

.

[Mikey]

Idk if this will help but it works for me:

1. I broke through my LR wall of always getting -2 by following a simple "don't overthink it" mantra. Once you're getting less than 4 wrong I think it's easy to actually debate yourself out of the right answer choice.

2. I ALWAYS skip at least 2 questions. You can usually get a read in the first 10 seconds if a question will totally blow and take longer than 2 minutes. When I skip I circle the number and put a 1,2, or 3 next to it. 1 means I want to hit this first after answering all questions, 2 means 2nd etc. This usually gives me a stupid amount of time to answer the two hardest questions which personally helps me quite a bit.

3. I circle EXCEPT, disagree, etc. words in the question stem and I noticed this improved accuracy. There's nothing more annoying than having the only -1 for an LR be from a misread.

Hopefully something I said helps! You got this!

thanks..

I definitely have done #1 lol, plenty of times! haha

for #2, what do you mean by "2 means 2nd etc."? I may sound dumb for not knowing if it's obvious, but yeah what does that mean? lol

#3, yeah I always do this. for every question, I always circle the main part that tells me what Q type it is. probably helps, probably doesn't, but it's habit lol

[Barry grandpapy]

.

[Mikey]

Idk if this will help but it works for me:

1. I broke through my LR wall of always getting -2 by following a simple "don't overthink it" mantra. Once you're getting less than 4 wrong I think it's easy to actually debate yourself out of the right answer choice.

2. I ALWAYS skip at least 2 questions. You can usually get a read in the first 10 seconds if a question will totally blow and take longer than 2 minutes. When I skip I circle the number and put a 1,2, or 3 next to it. 1 means I want to hit this first after answering all questions, 2 means 2nd etc. This usually gives me a stupid amount of time to answer the two hardest questions which personally helps me quite a bit.

3. I circle EXCEPT, disagree, etc. words in the question stem and I noticed this improved accuracy. There's nothing more annoying than having the only -1 for an LR be from a misread.

Hopefully something I said helps! You got this!

thanks..

I definitely have done #1 lol, plenty of times! haha

for #2, what do you mean by "2 means 2nd etc."? I may sound dumb for not knowing if it's obvious, but yeah what does that mean? lol

#3, yeah I always do this. for every question, I always circle the main part that tells me what Q type it is. probably helps, probably doesn't, but it's habit lol

The 1,2,3 is just another distinction to add to circled numbers. I want to answer what I think is "easiest" of the hard questions I'm skipping first and save the absolute hardest question for last.

But this probably isn't much of a magic bullet

ahhhh! alright I see, thanks!

[zkyggi]

Just finished PT 64:

LR1: -2
LG: -2
LR2: -4 (...)
RC: -2

173

I want to see a 175+ on a PT so bad, so the -4 stings a bit, but overall, it feels good to be improving going into the final month.

[Future Ex-Engineer]

Just finished PT 64:

LR1: -2
LG: -2
LR2: -4 (...)
RC: -2

173

I want to see a 175+ on a PT so bad, so the -4 stings a bit, but overall, it feels good to be improving going into the final month.

That's a great PT score! I would be more concerned with a -2 in LG than a fluke -4 on LR though...Are you typically getting -0 on LG? If not, why not?

[zkyggi]

Just finished PT 64:

LR1: -2
LG: -2
LR2: -4 (...)
RC: -2

173

I want to see a 175+ on a PT so bad, so the -4 stings a bit, but overall, it feels good to be improving going into the final month.

That's a great PT score! I would be more concerned with a -2 in LG than a fluke -4 on LR though...Are you typically getting -0 on LG? If not, why not?

The problem is that LR isn't a fluke for me, -2/-4 split seems to be a constant right now. On LG I setup a game wrong and had to redo my diagram so I was rushing. I'm definitely going to work to try and lock in -0 LG by game day.

[Barry grandpapy]

.

[Platopus]

Just finished PT 64:

LR1: -2
LG: -2
LR2: -4 (...)
RC: -2

173

I want to see a 175+ on a PT so bad, so the -4 stings a bit, but overall, it feels good to be improving going into the final month.

Almost my exact breakdown from Saturday. Glad to know I'm not the only one that struggled with LG on this one

PT 42. Felt like doing an older one to mix things up.

LG: -1
LR1: -1
RC: -0
LR 2: -2

177

I screwed up an easy conditional chain on the second LR (question 17) so I'm pretty bummed about that. I've been feeling a lot better about RC recently.

Also don't forget the photo upload deadline is today guys!
*If you're taking it in North America

BEASTMODE! Keep it up