June 2011 Study Group Forum

[theaether]

PT57 + 55.3 (LR)
LG: 0
LRe: -2
LR1: -4
RC: 0
LR2: -3
94/101 --> 174

So I encountered the infamous dino game and tough RC sections but did well in those. That's the good part. UNFORTUNATELY... I don't know what's up with my consistency in LR. The past combined totals have been -4 -2 -5 -3 -4 -3 -2, and now suddenly a -7. Boom. My LR and RC are strongly negatively correlated... one goes up the other tanks. frustrating as hellllllllll that i "wasted" this shot at a good modern PT score.

[pkpop]

Just a reminder for everyone still involved that tonight @ 8pm we will be meeting in the room. We'll focus on a game or two as well as some other LR questions we can go over.

[soj]

PT57
LG: -0
LGe (PT23): -0
LR1: -2
LR2: -2
RC: -2
Raw: -6
Scaled: 175

Holy crap, my brain is SO spent right now.

Both games sections were really, really hard. I didn't have time to check over answers in any of them. It worked out find but it shook my confidence a little.

LR1 felt really good, so I'm a little surprised I got -2.
LR2 felt good too, but my pacing was poor. I was forced to make educated guesses in very little time in the last few questions, and I'm lucky to have gotten most of them right.

RC was BAD. Fractals didn't bother me (though I still got -1), but Willa Cather Comparative was ANNOYING. I seriously did not understand shit in either passage. Somehow I lucked out with a -0.

Overall I'm pretty happy, but this PT has exposed some serious flaws in pacing, reading, and stamina that I need to be working on.

[mickeyD]

Great job soj! I am saving the infamous dinos/Willa Cather death mix to take as one of my last PTs. Although you may see it as a bad thing that you were rattled, I think that it's actually great to see that you can still perform at a high level even when you're thrown off your game. That's a great quality to have going in to test day, where things can be unpredictable.

Final exam grades are up, just emailed a professor asking her to bump me from an A- to an A. Damn LSAC. Can't imagine the eyeroll that's going to occur when she reads that thing. Started it off like this:

"Professor,

I can imagine that you get plenty of point-grubbing emails at the end of each semester, and this certainly has the potential to be your most annoying one..."

[soj]

Thanks, it does feel better when you think of it that way.

I lucked out in LR2 and RC, though. My collapse in pacing in LR2 was simply unforgivable. I did 1-15 in 17 minutes, and yet by the time I hit #22, I had 4 minutes left. WTF, how did I manage to do only 6 questions in 14 minutes?!? Did I give myself only 30 minutes by mistake? And I was so unsatisfied with RC that I took extra time after time was up to review my answers in the Willa Cather passage. I ended up changing one of the answers, and of course, my initial answer was right. I gave myself credit for that question since I made the change after time was up, but that's still a question I need to treat as if I got it wrong.

Hopefully I can bounce back with a more confident performance as I usually do the day after the first PT after a break.

I'm so glad I have undergrad over with and I don't have to worry about grades anymore until I get into law school. Good luck with the appeal. I actually turned an A- into an A in my last semester myself by appealing.

[UnamSanctam]

Hey guys, never posted in this thread, but thought I'd drop in to say hello.

Took my first timed PT today. Not looking at it since it's in my car, but I remember the numbers I got on the four sections that count.

PT52
LR1: -2
LG: -5
LR2: -3
RC: -3

Raw: 86 ---> 167

I was feeling alright after that first LR section, actually thought I did worse than I did. Then I went into the LG and thought I had it. I was incredibly angry when I looked at my score. I messed up the inference from the negation of the ~X->Y rule in the Adult-Children game when I wrote down my hypotheticals. That cost me 3 in that game alone, and the other 2 came from really stupid mistakes. I should've had -0 and been above 170. Can't let that happen come test day. Then I missed 2 questions between 7-10 in the LR2 section. On the bright side, this was my first exposure to comparative reading in RC, and I didn't miss any on the dual passage. However, that means I missed 1 on each of the others (and one was a really, really dumb mistake from reading the stem wrong).

I'm planning on retaking in October—at least that's what I tell myself in order to prevent panicking here—so I guess it's alright. I have an abysmal 3.2x GPA, so I need a 170+ to even go to a T30. I'll be alright as long as June doesn't bring a plethora of science/statistics questions. Also, can't make the stupid mistakes I made today. Those errors came at a price of -6. Alas, it was my first PT, so I'm hopeful.

Pax

[99.9luft]

Pissed.

PT 51 -10/171. Got -5 on RC! There goes my -3.1 RC average. Reviewing.

[minnbills]

Hey guys, getting back into the swing of things after finals.

Finishing PT 50 in a few moments, will post my score after dinner.

[mickeyD]

Starting to imagine my "worst-case" and "best-case scenario." Feel free to join in. Take your worst individual LR, LG, and RC performance in your past 10 PTs (so we can be realistic), make a composite score, and put them up against the worst curve in recent history, December 2005.

--LinkRemoved--

Then take your best individual LR, LG, and RC in the past 10 PTs and put them against the most friendly in recent history, December 2009.

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/5549/r ... v5562a.png

Worst Case:
LR: -8
LG: -5
RC: -4
Raw: -17
Scaled: 163

Best Case:
LR -3
LG: 0
RC: 0
Raw: -3
Scaled: 180

..that was less fun that I thought it would be.

[northwood]

if you are going to do that- then take your best and worst 2 LR sections

[jim-green]

PT32
Scaled: 176
Schools finally out, excited to see what kind of progress I can make now that I can put all my efforts into the LSAT.

Congratulations, Coldshoulder and MickeyD, you both tie for the TLS Badass award tonight! It's the first time the judges have not been able to break the tie, because both of you were exceptional today. Enjoy the feeling!

[soj]

Ouch. Though the best case scenario does give me a -0 raw. I got -0 LR on PT22 the other day, only the first time I got -0 on both LR sections since PT16 and 17, which I drilled in March.

I'd love to hit -0 or even -1 raw on a PT before test day. I think PT23 (-0 LG so far despite a very tough LG section) could be it, though the ridiculously generous curve on the test makes it likely to have at least one diabolical LR or RC section.

[OhOkay]

Ok, don't want to be presumptuous but I think I just had an RC breakthrough... So after yesterday's disaster (still demoralized, haha), I tried drilling different ways, varying the amount of time i spent reading the passage vs. referring back during the questions. Didn't make a difference either way, time- or accuracy-wise. What did make a difference? When I decided to treat RC like anything else I read -- just reading to read, not reading to analyze. Suddenly it feels like my focus grew, because my brain stopped being crowded with too many analytical thoughts that kept me from actually comprehending and retaining the words I was reading. Wow. I hope this lasts.

I tried this out after it struck me that RC was my strongest section when I first half-heartedly took PTs (would get -0s on RC), and then it quickly became my worst section. I think I was approaching RC too much like a long LR stimulus. LR is quite often purely about structure, and it is smart to anticipate as much as possible, whereas RC questions are much more often about actual content, and it wastes time to anticipate when the passage is just going to tell you what you need to know. I usually pick wrong answers because I can't remember or confuse subtle details (and am not really effective at absorbing them when I refer back to the passage), and the ACs are designed to catch that and trip you up with red herrings.

Thought I'd share, just on the off-chance it helps someone else.

[soj]

I agree it's possible to overthink and overanalyze RC. I know we're supposed to focus on structure and main argument while reading RC, but my bigger RC weakness is specific questions targeting details that I gloss over because I'm too busy trying to capture the "main idea." I often don't even know where to look for details I missed (duh ... I missed them), so it's often a lost cause if I don't at least cursorily process the small details in a passage.

[OhOkay]

I agree it's possible to overthink and overanalyze RC. I know we're supposed to focus on structure and main argument while reading RC, but my bigger RC weakness is specific questions targeting details that I gloss over because I'm too busy trying to capture the "main idea." I often don't even know where to look for details I missed (duh ... I missed them), so it's often a lost cause if I don't at least cursorily process the small details in a passage.

Yup, those are exactly the kinds of questions I miss too. Glad the thread rockstar agrees

[UnamSanctam]

What helps me most when reading RC is to paraphrase what I'm reading in my head while I'm reading. For less dense passages it means I can paraphrase while reading. For denser passages I have to stop for a second or two after a difficult sentence, but it makes a world of difference. While the only section I really struggle with for time is LG, I usually have all the time in the world with RC due to this strategy. However, my learning style has always been to read something and digest it myself. Thus, I've always been pretty good at reading something once and being able to have a good understanding of it. If your learning style isn't that way, then my method doesn't do a whole lot of good, IMO.

[mickeyD]

Operation LG domination has started off sort of shaky. Plan is to do every LG section ever, twice, between now and gameday. (excluding 4 PTs I am saving in case of retake).

PT#, (Time Completed), Score
PT1: (31:03) -1
PT2: (28:56) -1
PT3: (22:21) 0
PT4: (26:58) -2
PT5: (29:33) 0
PT6: (35:00) 0
PT27: (33:53) 0
PT28: (22:08) 0
PT29: (25:46) 0
PT32: (30:27) 0
PT35: (20:04) 0
PT39: (23:45) 0
PT40: (22:37) 0
PT41: (35:00) 0
PT42: (29:32) -1
PT43: (27:00) -1
PT44: (22:35) 0
PT45: (19:45) 0

In order to compensate for the fact that I've seen many of the games before, I force myself to make all the proper inferences to get to the right answer. I also only give myself one time through, no checking answers. This is based on the assumption that I'm going faster because I've seen the game, and on the real thing I wouldn't have as much time to check answers.

It's unbelievable how many of these mistakes are due to misreading. I think maybe 5 of my 6 wrong answers so far. While a lot of it looks good, sadly I believe PTs 1-6 are the most accurate indication of my ability, since nearly all the games are new to me. I am, however, pretty proud of my performance on PT6 LG, although I took up all the time, I was very flustered on game 1 (took 12 mins, just didn't get it until 5 mins in), but finished it and maintained my composure to come out with the perfect section.

I know most people are trying to fine tune RC or LR right now, but I know that I won't be able to live myself if I get robbed of a good score due to LG.

[99.9luft]

Good strategy, Mickey. I may need to start re-doing LG on days off to keep my brain in tune.

[soj]

I also want to spend some time drilling LG. Nearly all of my mistakes are due to reading, but there's the occasional inference error or "not taking into account every possibility" error. I hate "which is a complete and accurate list" questions.

Based on those scores, you're doing pretty well. Are those first-time numbers, or retake numbers?

I'm considering redoing an LG section everyday (except off days) on top of other prep.

[minnbills]

Alright, PT 50.

RC: -7
LR: -5
LG: -1
LR: -3

Points: 84
Score: 165.

This was the first PT I've taken in about 5 weeks, so not too horrible. I've been drilling logic games for the past month or so during my finals season. I also chose to take a long break- I took the test last october and spent the previous summer and fall studying, and burning myself out.

Game plan for D-day is to take two PTs/week but focus most of my time on review and drilling individual sections.

My goal is 167- a score that should hopefully get me into my target schools: Minnesota and Wisconsin. My biggest concern going into test day is my sleep schedule. I was exhausted last october and nearly fell asleep on the 3rd section, I went -9. PT 50 was similar. I took the 1st section wednesday at 12:30 but had a very difficult time concentrating and retaining what I read, a problem exacerbated by my allergies. Hopefully melatonin and zyrtec can alleviate this. I stopped after the first section, knowing it was a waste to go forward if I was just too tired.
I sat down and took the next three late this afternoon. -5 on LR2 is just too much, -3/-2 would be better. I made a couple of comprehension errors when I was reading the answer choices, and made one bonehead mistake- not reading all the answer choices.

LG on this test were very, very easy. But I'll take a -1 any day. 2nd LR went pretty well, but during review I felt I could have gone -0 if i had been more careful.

I'm going to do extensive review tomorrow on this same test, then drill some LR and take an old RC passage.

[iphone7]

These PTs lately have shown me how important that 0 in LG is, it really takes a huge burden off of you.

Yes, but as the test approaches, do not take the -0 LG for granted. Keep drilling LG, even if you have -0. I feel like its the most volatile section and on test day you want to be ready for anything. I made that mistake in December. I am a lurker from the October thread, Good luck everyone!

I totally agree with this. I took pt 49 today and missed 3 on a relatively easy LG section and 5 on the final LR section-- both because I wasn't giving it due focus.

Pt 49
LRe -1
LG -3
LR -1
RC -1
LR -5
-10=170
One problem I run into is complacency. I rack up a bunch of -0/-1 on LG and LR sections and feel like I don't need to give them as much attention during the test and I need to spend my mental energy where I struggle the most; on RC. It's a terrible mind frame and I think that today's lackluster performance will shake into me the necessity to give every question full attention and take nothing for granted.

[maxpower430]

I also want to spend some time drilling LG. Nearly all of my mistakes are due to reading, but there's the occasional inference error or "not taking into account every possibility" error. I hate "which is a complete and accurate list" questions.

Based on those scores, you're doing pretty well. Are those first-time numbers, or retake numbers?

I'm considering redoing an LG section everyday (except off days) on top of other prep.

i agree with both you and mickey, way too often i just misread something and miss something that upon review is stunningly obvious. that being said, you guys have inspired me and i busted out my old games and have decided i'm going to do 6-7 games on off days and a couple while i'm hanging out at work on pt days haha, hopefully we can drill out those foolish mistakes.

[mickeyD]

Trying to get off that college sleep schedule, woke up at 10 today. (that's early). PT at 12:30 today, hoping to get in a rhythm of waking up at 8 and PTing at 12:30.

[Ginj]

I remember the days when I could sleep past 7. *sigh*

[maxpower430]

haha those were the days, on the bright side, 830 am is more than sleeping in for me now, so that's gotta count for something.

btw if anyone hasn't started prepping using an analog watch, i highly recommend the watch that lsatblog recommends. it's only 15 bucks and has a rotating bezel so that after each section you just need to twist it over, it's really simple and i think much less stressful than resetting the watch after every section or trying to keep track in my head when the section started.