June 2011 Study Group Forum

[Strange]

I plan on taking some of the post-56 PT's this weekend, what are some game types I should refresh on before I do so? I heard they are harder

[jim-green]

I plan on taking some of the post-56 PT's this weekend, what are some game types I should refresh on before I do so? I heard they are harder

Sequencing and in/out get harder post PT56.

[Strange]

I plan on taking some of the post-56 PT's this weekend, what are some game types I should refresh on before I do so? I heard they are harder

Sequencing and in/out get harder post PT56.

What's in and out? Used PS and never heard that term

Can't imagine sequencing is any harder than some of these older games I've been drilling

[gaud]

If J is in, G is out.

If G is out, H and Z are in.

Etc.

[jim-green]

I plan on taking some of the post-56 PT's this weekend, what are some game types I should refresh on before I do so? I heard they are harder

Sequencing and in/out get harder post PT56.

What's in and out? Used PS and never heard that term. Can't imagine sequencing is any harder than some of these older games I've been drilling

in/out means grouping variables into 2 groups like birds in a forest. The hardest game on the Feb 2011 LSAT was a complex in/out game having non-obvious inferences. The new sequencing games get harder becuase apart from the sequencing, there are extra rules such as XOR conditions and rule replacements.

[Strange]

I plan on taking some of the post-56 PT's this weekend, what are some game types I should refresh on before I do so? I heard they are harder

Sequencing and in/out get harder post PT56.

What's in and out? Used PS and never heard that term. Can't imagine sequencing is any harder than some of these older games I've been drilling

in/out means grouping variables into 2 groups like birds in a forest. The hardest game on the Feb 2011 LSAT was a complex in/out game having non-obvious inferences. The new sequencing games get harder becuase apart from the sequencing, there are extra rules such as XOR conditions and rule replacements.

Rule replacements are always tricky. How do you guys go about attacking those? Would it be wise to re-do the whole setup as soon as you see a rule-replacement?

I did good on the birds in the forest game the first time around, I feel pretty confident about those game types.

[gaud]

http://www.manhattanlsat.com/equivalent-rule.cfm

This may help

[maxpower430]

I plan on taking some of the post-56 PT's this weekend, what are some game types I should refresh on before I do so? I heard they are harder

Sequencing and in/out get harder post PT56.

What's in and out? Used PS and never heard that term. Can't imagine sequencing is any harder than some of these older games I've been drilling

in/out means grouping variables into 2 groups like birds in a forest. The hardest game on the Feb 2011 LSAT was a complex in/out game having non-obvious inferences. The new sequencing games get harder becuase apart from the sequencing, there are extra rules such as XOR conditions and rule replacements.

hmm that is interesting, what do you mean by XOR though? or is that an abbreviation of except/or? also, i haven't really looked at the lg from oct 10, but were they exceptionally hard or was it more the relative lack of space? or a combo of both (the lack of space is almost comical though, i can't believe lsac would do something like that, i would have thought that my test booklet was messed up or something.)

[mickeyD]

On break from PT49. Games were good, but very unhappy with how LR1 just went. I got caught up on an easy sufficient assumption Q that set me way back, I think I spent 4 minutes on it. It wasn't the standard "If A then B, therefore, If A then C, answer choice if B then C". that usually is found in the 1-10 sufficient assumption Qs.

I usually finish the first 15 Q's in 14-15 mins, but this time I was at around 21, and only had about 8 minutes for the last 6 Q's. There were two long Parallel Reasoning Qs which I just quickly guessed at by matching conclusions and the first premises. Hopefully I could at least get one of the two.

Can't let this happen on the real thing.

[soj]

I usually finish the first 15 Q's in 14-15 mins, but this time I was at around 21, and only had about 8 minutes for the last 6 Q's. There were two long Parallel Reasoning Qs which I just quickly guessed at by matching conclusions and the first premises. Hopefully I could at least get one of the two.

I had the same problem just now on PT23 LR1 but it was because I lost focus and kept having to reread stimuli. Thankfully the last few questions ended up being pretty easy, but the very last question was a little tricky and I would like to have had a little more time to think about it.

[maxpower430]

which question are you referring to? i spent an inordinate amount of time on 17. i also had to guess to in a similar fashion on the last parallel question and got it right, fwiw. my timing was funky on that section too actually, felt like there were trickier than normal questions in the first 10 and it wrecked my momentum.

[gaud]

On break from PT49. Games were good, but very unhappy with how LR1 just went. I got caught up on an easy sufficient assumption Q that set me way back, I think I spent 4 minutes on it. It wasn't the standard "If A then B, therefore, If A then C, answer choice if B then C". that usually is found in the 1-10 sufficient assumption Qs.

I usually finish the first 15 Q's in 14-15 mins, but this time I was at around 21, and only had about 8 minutes for the last 6 Q's. There were two long Parallel Reasoning Qs which I just quickly guessed at by matching conclusions and the first premises. Hopefully I could at least get one of the two.

Can't let this happen on the real thing.

Happened to me as well on PT49 lol there is an entire thread dedicated to it

[Ssushi]

Iv'e noticed that especially in RC and LR, over half the questions i miss i've managed to it down to two possible answer choices. Somehow though i am missing about 80% of the time when I've managed to narrow it down. Any tips on how i can get more questions right once it's been narrowed to two choices? I must be doing something incorrect since if I simply guessed between these two choices i should be getting only 50% wrong.

I'm really getting frustrated with this test because no matter what I do i cant seem to get above 170 consistently.

[boosk]

[/quote]in/out means grouping variables into 2 groups like birds in a forest. The hardest game on the Feb 2011 LSAT was a complex in/out game having non-obvious inferences. The new sequencing games get harder becuase apart from the sequencing, there are extra rules such as XOR conditions and rule replacements.[/quote]

What is an XOR condition? I havent heard of this

[soj]

I'm annoyed with PT23 LR1 Q26. Here it is, paraphrased:

It is because of a lack of basic driving skills that young drivers are responsible for disproportionately many traffic fatalities.

Each of the following weakens the argument EXCEPT:
(A) teenagers drive shittier cars
(B) teenagers are less likely to use seat belts and shoulder straps
(C) teenagers drive more
(D) accidents caused by teenagers are more serious
(E) on average, teenagers drive with more passengers

I quickly narrowed it down to B and D.
Reason to choose B: using seat belts and shoulder straps is a basic driving skill, so not using them indicates a lack of basic driving skills.
Reason to choose D: getting into more serious accidents indicates a lack of basic driving skills.

I ended up choosing B because I thought the connection between poor driving skills and serious accidents was not that good (maybe teenagers just happen to get into more serious accidents because they are more easily hurt or killed in accidents, and the extent of injury and frequency of death determine the seriousness).

Of course, TCR is D. Come on LSAC, how is using seat belts and shoulder straps (btw, wtf even are these? don't all seat belts except the middle seat seat belts come with shoulder straps?) not a basic driving skill? I'm guessing by "skill" they mean motor skills, hand-eye coordination, etc.

Maybe it wasn't considered a basic driving skill in October 1997.

[coldshoulder]

Relatively sure LR is getting vastly more difficult in the 50's. However, I'm also probably suffering from burnout, considering this was my fifth day of testing in a row.

PT 52
LR: -2
LG: -0
LR: -3
RC: -3
-8, 91, 172

I just felt like the answer choices were worded in a very purposefully ambiguous way, with extremely slight semantic differences being the only difference between a few choices. I'm also burned the fuck out, but super pissed at this test.
I'm taking the rest of today off, then just doing review tomorrow, then getting back to it on Sunday.

[Ginj]

Iv'e noticed that especially in RC and LR, over half the questions i miss i've managed to it down to two possible answer choices. Somehow though i am missing about 80% of the time when I've managed to narrow it down. Any tips on how i can get more questions right once it's been narrowed to two choices? I must be doing something incorrect since if I simply guessed between these two choices i should be getting only 50% wrong.

I'm really getting frustrated with this test because no matter what I do i cant seem to get above 170 consistently.

I had this problem for a while, and I really had to slow down and thoroughly examine the last two answers in comparison with the prompt. Usually it comes down to one word that doesn't match the extremity of the conclusion.

For example, on PT 56.2 #20, I had it narrowed down to C and E, and ultimately (and mistakenly) chose C. The key difference that makes E right and C wrong can be found in the subtle vocab. The prompt says that, "This demand is nearly always incompatible." C reads that psychotherapy should not be provided in ANY context, and E reads that the psychotherapy shouldn't be administered in a manner that makes high quality care unlikely. Similarity in scope.

Does that make sense?

[Strange]

If anyone could explain a good setup for PT35 Game 1, I'd appreciate it

[soj]

That's still a good score, cold. -8 is at worst a 170 and could be as high as 176 on the real thing.

I agree, you shouldn't be taking PTs 5 days in a row. Take a well-deserved break.

I'd even recommend getting all the review done today so you can spend tomorrow completely LSAT-free. I personally like to be completely free on off-days, though I don't know if that's more effective than doing some prep (e.g. review).

[coldshoulder]

That's still a good score, cold. -8 is at worst a 170 and could be as high as 176 on the real thing.

I agree, you shouldn't be taking PTs 5 days in a row. Take a well-deserved break.

I'd even recommend getting all the review done today so you can spend tomorrow completely LSAT-free. I personally like to be completely free on off-days, though I don't know if that's more effective than doing some prep (e.g. review).

Thanks man, I've got work the rest of the day, so I think I'll have to do review tomorrow. It works for me though, it's good to have my mind having get at least a little LSAT every day.

[soj]

If anyone could explain a good setup for PT35 Game 1, I'd appreciate it

I wrote out the candidates horizontally like I always do, and I used two additional rows to indicate each person's level of experience and occupation. Then I wrote the rules next to the table: 2g 2r 2i 2e. I also had an in/out table with P/L indicated in the IN column.

Most of the diagramming in this game is done locally, and even then there's not that much to do except more in/out tables.

[Strange]

If anyone could explain a good setup for PT35 Game 1, I'd appreciate it

I wrote out the candidates horizontally like I always do, and I used two additional rows to indicate each person's level of experience and occupation. Then I wrote the rules next to the table: 2g 2r 2i 2e. I also had an in/out table with P/L indicated in the IN column.

Most of the diagramming in this game is done locally, and even then there's not that much to do except more in/out tables.

Thanks, I got all the questions right but it took me awhile to complete this game. Going to try attacking it again in a couple days

[Ssushi]

Iv'e noticed that especially in RC and LR, over half the questions i miss i've managed to it down to two possible answer choices. Somehow though i am missing about 80% of the time when I've managed to narrow it down. Any tips on how i can get more questions right once it's been narrowed to two choices? I must be doing something incorrect since if I simply guessed between these two choices i should be getting only 50% wrong.

I'm really getting frustrated with this test because no matter what I do i cant seem to get above 170 consistently.

I had this problem for a while, and I really had to slow down and thoroughly examine the last two answers in comparison with the prompt. Usually it comes down to one word that doesn't match the extremity of the conclusion.

For example, on PT 56.2 #20, I had it narrowed down to C and E, and ultimately (and mistakenly) chose C. The key difference that makes E right and C wrong can be found in the subtle vocab. The prompt says that, "This demand is nearly always incompatible." C reads that psychotherapy should not be provided in ANY context, and E reads that the psychotherapy shouldn't be administered in a manner that makes high quality care unlikely. Similarity in scope.

Does that make sense?

Yea thanks for the help. I've considered doing this but the issue is how to work it in with timing. A few test ago i tried this strategy and i got slightly more correct but it expended a considerable amount of time. Should i skip over 50 50 ones and then come back and do as many as i can, or should i stop when i encounter such a question and take my time and do it before moving through?

[Ginj]

Iv'e noticed that especially in RC and LR, over half the questions i miss i've managed to it down to two possible answer choices. Somehow though i am missing about 80% of the time when I've managed to narrow it down. Any tips on how i can get more questions right once it's been narrowed to two choices? I must be doing something incorrect since if I simply guessed between these two choices i should be getting only 50% wrong.

I'm really getting frustrated with this test because no matter what I do i cant seem to get above 170 consistently.

I had this problem for a while, and I really had to slow down and thoroughly examine the last two answers in comparison with the prompt. Usually it comes down to one word that doesn't match the extremity of the conclusion.

For example, on PT 56.2 #20, I had it narrowed down to C and E, and ultimately (and mistakenly) chose C. The key difference that makes E right and C wrong can be found in the subtle vocab. The prompt says that, "This demand is nearly always incompatible." C reads that psychotherapy should not be provided in ANY context, and E reads that the psychotherapy shouldn't be administered in a manner that makes high quality care unlikely. Similarity in scope.

Does that make sense?

Yea thanks for the help. I've considered doing this but the issue is how to work it in with timing. A few test ago i tried this strategy and i got slightly more correct but it expended a considerable amount of time. Should i skip over 50 50 ones and then come back and do as many as i can, or should i stop when i encounter such a question and take my time and do it before moving through?

Initially, yes, I would say that it's better to circle difficult ones to come back to and finish the section, assuming they aren't too many. Really, the timing thing came with practice. With enough practice, you get acclimated to both the speed and the reading style. I hope this helps.

[maxpower430]

Iv'e noticed that especially in RC and LR, over half the questions i miss i've managed to it down to two possible answer choices. Somehow though i am missing about 80% of the time when I've managed to narrow it down. Any tips on how i can get more questions right once it's been narrowed to two choices? I must be doing something incorrect since if I simply guessed between these two choices i should be getting only 50% wrong.

I'm really getting frustrated with this test because no matter what I do i cant seem to get above 170 consistently.

I had this problem for a while, and I really had to slow down and thoroughly examine the last two answers in comparison with the prompt. Usually it comes down to one word that doesn't match the extremity of the conclusion.

For example, on PT 56.2 #20, I had it narrowed down to C and E, and ultimately (and mistakenly) chose C. The key difference that makes E right and C wrong can be found in the subtle vocab. The prompt says that, "This demand is nearly always incompatible." C reads that psychotherapy should not be provided in ANY context, and E reads that the psychotherapy shouldn't be administered in a manner that makes high quality care unlikely. Similarity in scope.

Does that make sense?

Yea thanks for the help. I've considered doing this but the issue is how to work it in with timing. A few test ago i tried this strategy and i got slightly more correct but it expended a considerable amount of time. Should i skip over 50 50 ones and then come back and do as many as i can, or should i stop when i encounter such a question and take my time and do it before moving through?

Initially, yes, I would say that it's better to circle difficult ones to come back to and finish the section, assuming they aren't too many. Really, the timing thing came with practice. With enough practice, you get acclimated to both the speed and the reading style. I hope this helps.

i've also had a lot of success circling ones that just aren't clicking and coming back, for two reasons. one, missing a single question isn't going to submarine your score, but if you take way too much time that you have to rush through a lot of other questions, you're risking a lot. i've also found that coming back after a few helps since you have more momentum and you've had some time to subconciously digest it. more than a few times i've come back and had that "a-ha" moment and the right answer jumps out. hth.