The Official October 2015 Study Group Forum

ltowns1 · Post by **ltowns1** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 11:06 am

somethingelse55 wrote:
ltowns1 wrote:I'm just curious for global questions on grouping games like "which one of the following could be true", do you go ahead and plug in the answers one by one? .I still have a bad habit of getting froze on these questions.
This is kind of hard to explain, but I've gotten a lot better at these kinds of Qs lately and this is what I've been doing:

First of all, you should basically never have to write out a hypothetical for any of the ACs. Second, I've found that its best to actually go through the ACs and mark off four that are incorrect, rather than searching for the one that is correct.

Basically every time, all you will have to do is mentally insert what the Q is asking into your setup. Then, kind of go through all the rules and see how they combine with the situation the question gave you. Basically every single time, the incorrect AC will not work with one or more of the rules in combination with the situation (by situation I mean, e.g., let's say the question is 'If A is third, what could be true?" the situation would be how things would play out if A were third)

Furthermore, on a lot of these questions there will be a pattern to the incorrect ACs. Meaning that the four incorrect ACs will have something in common that the correct AC doesn't have. Sometimes it won't be all four that have something in common, but 2 or 3. Bottom line is that usually you should be able to knock off 2 or 3 ACs extremely quickly, and then use that mental mapping for the last 1 or 2.

TLDR: Process of elimination, do not write out hypotheticals, insert situation into your setup and see how it plays with the rules.

So you're able to simply imagine the hypo for each answer choice?????

Mint-Berry_Crunch · Post by **Mint-Berry_Crunch** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 11:09 am

Post removed...

Mint-Berry_Crunch · Post by **Mint-Berry_Crunch** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 11:10 am

Post removed...

Mint-Berry_Crunch · Post by **Mint-Berry_Crunch** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 11:24 am

Post removed...

Cubank · Post by **Cubank** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 11:24 am

somethingelse55 wrote: This is kind of hard to explain, but I've gotten a lot better at these kinds of Qs lately and this is what I've been doing:

First of all, you should basically never have to write out a hypothetical for any of the ACs. Second, I've found that its best to actually go through the ACs and mark off four that are incorrect, rather than searching for the one that is correct.

Basically every time, all you will have to do is mentally insert what the Q is asking into your setup. Then, kind of go through all the rules and see how they combine with the situation the question gave you. Basically every single time, the incorrect AC will not work with one or more of the rules in combination with the situation (by situation I mean, e.g., let's say the question is 'If A is third, what could be true?" the situation would be how things would play out if A were third)

Furthermore, on a lot of these questions there will be a pattern to the incorrect ACs. Meaning that the four incorrect ACs will have something in common that the correct AC doesn't have. Sometimes it won't be all four that have something in common, but 2 or 3. Bottom line is that usually you should be able to knock off 2 or 3 ACs extremely quickly, and then use that mental mapping for the last 1 or 2.

TLDR: Process of elimination, do not write out hypotheticals, insert situation into your setup and see how it plays with the rules.

Thank you for this, I've been sucking at these lately.

ltowns1 · Post by **ltowns1** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 11:36 am

Okay so for let's say for PT 56 -1-#10. I got this question right because I elminatex (a) and (e), but you guys are able to see why a question like (c) and (d) are incorrect by just the rules. Assuming that (b) was not correct and you moved on to see if those two were correct. I ask because I just tried, and I eliminated (a) and (e) quickly, but I couldn't for those two.

somethingElse · Post by **somethingElse** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 11:39 am

Post removed...

ltowns1 · Post by **ltowns1** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 11:50 am

somethingelse55 wrote:
ltowns1 wrote:
somethingelse55 wrote:
ltowns1 wrote:I'm just curious for global questions on grouping games like "which one of the following could be true", do you go ahead and plug in the answers one by one? .I still have a bad habit of getting froze on these questions.
This is kind of hard to explain, but I've gotten a lot better at these kinds of Qs lately and this is what I've been doing:

First of all, you should basically never have to write out a hypothetical for any of the ACs. Second, I've found that its best to actually go through the ACs and mark off four that are incorrect, rather than searching for the one that is correct.

Basically every time, all you will have to do is mentally insert what the Q is asking into your setup. Then, kind of go through all the rules and see how they combine with the situation the question gave you. Basically every single time, the incorrect AC will not work with one or more of the rules in combination with the situation (by situation I mean, e.g., let's say the question is 'If A is third, what could be true?" the situation would be how things would play out if A were third)

Furthermore, on a lot of these questions there will be a pattern to the incorrect ACs. Meaning that the four incorrect ACs will have something in common that the correct AC doesn't have. Sometimes it won't be all four that have something in common, but 2 or 3. Bottom line is that usually you should be able to knock off 2 or 3 ACs extremely quickly, and then use that mental mapping for the last 1 or 2.

TLDR: Process of elimination, do not write out hypotheticals, insert situation into your setup and see how it plays with the rules.
So you're able to simply imagine the hypo for each answer choice?????
Yes, but not the full hypo though. So let's say that the Q is "If A is third, what could be true?" I would mentally plug A into third and see how that would work with all of the rules. So like let's say one of the rules is that B has to be before A. Then I'll immediately know that an AC such as "B is fourth" is not TCR. Initially I usually quickly scan through all the ACs collectively and see if there's a pattern or rule that really quickly eliminates an AC or two. Usually there will be. Then from there, going through the remaining ACs, Its basically thoughts like "Ok, if A were third, then could B be fourth?" Based on rule 1, no, so eliminate that AC." Now on to answer choice B..."If A were third and C were 6th, then based on rule blah blah blah D would have to be 7th. But D has to be first or last, so that couldn't work. Eliminate." And since in my preliminary scan I already eliminated D and E, C is TCR. Of course I'll check it mentally really quick to make sure I didn't make a stupid mistake as well.

By the way, of this is contingent upon two very crucial things:

1) You've visually represented the game adequately in your setup.
2) You've correctly made all of the up-front deductions.

If you've done both of those, then you shouldn't have to make any hypotheticals for a could be true question unless its just an insanely nasty one. But even then you should for sure be able to knock out 2 or 3 ACs.

No I'm sorry I didn't make it clear, I'm not talking about local questions. "if, then" . I mean purely global questions. Like the example I cited above. "Which of the following could be true"

somethingElse · Post by **somethingElse** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 11:52 am

Post removed...

ltowns1 · Post by **ltowns1** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 12:00 pm

And you did that in your head...wow lol

somethingElse · Post by **somethingElse** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 12:06 pm

Post removed...

ltowns1 · Post by **ltowns1** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 12:10 pm

somethingelse55 wrote:Yeah but all it really was, besides answer choice A which was super easy to eliminate, was seeing who had to go in those final two slots. That immediately allows you to eliminate two more, and then C is a little tough but at the end of the day all it was was rule 2.

BTW, this is something I really think this something that doing Sudoku puzzles can help with. Because in Sudoku you're basically just doing a bunch of, "If this is here, then what can go here" type stuff. I'm talking about easy to moderate puzzles also, not the tougher ones where you have to start writing out what can go in each box.

Ok I see, it was really more so about the fact that two of the three sections are filled.

Yeah I have a Sudoku game for that reason, just haven't played as much since I've been seriously prepping

flash21 · Post by **flash21** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 12:12 pm

just went through and re-did logic games sections from 50-59, and have done 40-49 atleast twice or three times.

I never ever will feel like I've done enough for this test.. its so disturbing.

alpha kenny body · Post by **alpha kenny body** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 12:43 pm

The 1-14, 22-25/26, then 15-21 is a credited method for LR. I feel more comfortable with LR using this method, although, I still have to circle 2 to 3 questions, and then ultimately guess on them, due to time constraints.

Mint-Berry_Crunch · Post by **Mint-Berry_Crunch** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 1:32 pm

Post removed...

RZ5646 · Post by **RZ5646** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 1:41 pm

Mint-Berry_Crunch wrote:
fips tedora wrote:The 1-14, 22-25/26, then 15-21 is a credited method for LR. I feel more comfortable with LR using this method, although, I still have to circle 2 to 3 questions, and then ultimately guess on them, due to time constraints.
This reminds me. So yesterday I had 3LRs. The first I went 1-3 first, then did all parallels, then worked 25-1.
The last two I 1-3 first, then did parallels, then 15-25/6 and 14-3.
Went -1 -2 -2 which is about my average. I think I like the simplicity of just going 25-1.

If anything I'd save parallels for last because they're huge time sinks. I always just go in order though.

pittsburghpirates · Post by **pittsburghpirates** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 1:50 pm

Post removed.

seashell.economy · Post by **seashell.economy** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 3:20 pm

Mint-Berry_Crunch wrote:
seashell.economy wrote:
Mint-Berry_Crunch wrote:Anyone planning on making a test day playlist?
Like music? No. But I am planning on listening to a thinking lsat podcast on my one hour drive to the testing center.
Yeah I meant music. Is that the podcast run by the two guys who run a tutoring company in the San Fran area? I listened to one of their podcasts about the June test, they have some interesting stuff.

One is in SF, the other in DC. I don't agree with everything they say, but most of the advice seems solid and it puts me in the mood to PT when I'm just dreading more lsat practice.

PoopNpants · Post by **PoopNpants** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 4:04 pm

Damn I just had my lowest PT in months, a 162 on PT59. Pretty fucking pissed I'm scoring that low 3 weeks before the test, did completely awful on LR/RC. Looks like I gotta do some heavy drilling tomorrow

flash21 · Post by **flash21** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 4:32 pm

is it just silly for me to be drilling from the cambridge packages for reading comp at this time?

PoopNpants · Post by **PoopNpants** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 5:03 pm

flash21 wrote:is it just silly for me to be drilling from the cambridge packages for reading comp at this time?

I don't see anything wrong with drilling as long as it is to supplement drilling with PTs or at the very least timed sections etc. I just went -7 on a PT so I'm gonna do some drilling tomorrow for sure

flash21 · Post by **flash21** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 5:17 pm

I'm pt'ing + blind review + review of questions wrong after blind review twice a week. I think I'm just scared since I got -12 or -13 on my reading comp on test day last time...

Mint-Berry_Crunch · Post by **Mint-Berry_Crunch** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 5:30 pm

Post removed...

PatriotP74 · Post by **PatriotP74** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 6:05 pm

Post removed...

somethingElse · Post by **somethingElse** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 6:10 pm

Post removed...