JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread Forum

[Daily_Double]

.

[CardozoLaw09]

Stillllll working on finishing the Manhattan LG Guide. This 3rd edition is the shit. Going to jump into PT land with my first PT sometime this week.

[cause8191]

Is there a significant difference in the 3rd editions of Manhattan books compared to previous ones? - I mean enough to warrant buying the new ones when I still have the old editions.

[shieldofachilles]

For those of you doing pts this week have gone through the bibles already? Just curious..I tried to work today. Did two hours on parallel questions but soooo sick cant focus for shit and prepping like this seems kind of pointless. Can't breathe..switching to menthols for the day didn't help lol

[shieldofachilles]

Is there a significant difference in the 3rd editions of Manhattan books compared to previous ones? - I mean enough to warrant buying the new ones when I still have the old editions.

I'm working from the second editions, but don't have experience with the new ones so take this with a grain of salt. Unless the spelling and grammatical errors in the mlrb for example don't annoy you that much I doubt getting the new editions is worth it. I mean how much could the books change really (btw haven't done mlgb, did ps lgb so my experience with manhattan are only with LR and RC)

[Daily_Double]

.

[CardozoLaw09]

Is there a significant difference in the 3rd editions of Manhattan books compared to previous ones? - I mean enough to warrant buying the new ones when I still have the old editions.

The LG one is literally a bran new book. LR/RC are pretty much the same as the older 2nd edition. I'd definitely recommend buying the 3rd edition of LG individually, but I think you're fine with the older editions for LR and RC.

[shieldofachilles]

Is there a significant difference in the 3rd editions of Manhattan books compared to previous ones? - I mean enough to warrant buying the new ones when I still have the old editions.

The LG one is literally a bran new book. LR/RC are pretty much the same as the older 2nd edition. I'd definitely recommend buying the 3rd edition of LG individually, but I think you're fine with the older editions for LR and RC.

think its worth doing a second bible for lg...done the ps bible already for the most part so would 3rd edition manhattan lg be a god idea to cover?

[TheMostDangerousLG]

Is there a significant difference in the 3rd editions of Manhattan books compared to previous ones? - I mean enough to warrant buying the new ones when I still have the old editions.

The LG one is literally a bran new book. LR/RC are pretty much the same as the older 2nd edition. I'd definitely recommend buying the 3rd edition of LG individually, but I think you're fine with the older editions for LR and RC.

think its worth doing a second bible for lg...done the ps bible already for the most part so would 3rd edition manhattan lg be a god idea to cover?

I haven't finished the third edition yet, but second edition was definitely useful in addition to reading the PS bible. Think I'll finish the third as well- can only help! Definitely recommend checking out multiple sources, might find a technique for a certain game type that you prefer.

ETA: Woops, updated on wrong thread! February taker for now.

[Daily_Double]

.

[TheMostDangerousLG]

I haven't finished the third edition yet, but second edition was definitely useful in addition to reading the PS bible. Think I'll finish the third as well- can only help! Definitely recommend checking out multiple sources, might find a technique for a certain game type that you prefer.

ETA: Woops, updated on wrong thread! February taker for now.

Nice work on PT 47. How did you do in the Superprep book? You implied you scored very well and I'm curious because I've never heard any Superprep feedback.

Thanks! I only took Superprep A & C (I don't remember why I skipped B.. meaning to go back and do that), but I got a 174 on both. Until these three tests [ETA: the ones I reference in the post I moved to February study thread], I had never scored above a 170 on a practice test, so my Superprep scores were sort of bizarre. I've been convinced that they must be easier than "real" practice tests (I know they're real tests, but the weird ease of both made me feel like they didn't count, lol). I haven't been able to find much on what other people think of them, so I don't know what the general consensus is, if one exists.

Anyway, it was almost too bad that my best results were on the Superprep tests, because it meant that I needed few explanations for the tests for which the best explanations exist! Would have been nice if official LSAC explanations were available for those tests I bombed instead. XD

[Miracle]

Did everyone stop using PS bibles, and switch over to Manhattan? I always thought that the general consensus on TLS was that PS Bibles were the best.

[Daily_Double]

.

[Daily_Double]

.

[Miracle]

Did everyone stop using PS bibles, and switch over to Manhattan? I always thought that the general consensus on TLS was that PS Bibles were the best.

Not exactly. I think many people do still use the bibles, furthermore, I'm sure that some find Powerscore's methods to be more than enough conceptual prep. I think that Powerscore's LR and LG bibles are great, specifically LR. Manhattan goes beyond Powerscore in some ways, but does not fall short of Powerscore in any way, except spelling errors. Which is why many people speak higher of them than Powerscore, but I think the bibles are an essential introduction to the LSAT, except for RC. I found Manhattan's RC book far superior to Powerscore's, although I think both are at least good. If what you meant is that people who once used Powerscore have switched to manhattan then maybe, I'll wait for everyone to clear that up. But what I think you were asking is which are better, and that answer depends on how far along you are.

No, I was questioning which one is better. I know from the beginning no one cared for PS RC, but PS LG Bible, and LR Bible were go to prep, now it seems that its all about Manhattan, so I was wondering what is going on. Does TLS now consider Manhattan materials to be go to prep.

[CanILive]

I loved the 2nd edition Manhattan Logic Games book.

Is the new 3rd edition considered a game changer? I have heard that on the recent LSATs there have been new variations on old Logic Games principles. Perhaps this has something to do with the 3rd edition?

[TheMostDangerousLG]

Did everyone stop using PS bibles, and switch over to Manhattan? I always thought that the general consensus on TLS was that PS Bibles were the best.

Not exactly. I think many people do still use the bibles, furthermore, I'm sure that some find Powerscore's methods to be more than enough conceptual prep. I think that Powerscore's LR and LG bibles are great, specifically LR. Manhattan goes beyond Powerscore in some ways, but does not fall short of Powerscore in any way, except spelling errors. Which is why many people speak higher of them than Powerscore, but I think the bibles are an essential introduction to the LSAT, except for RC. I found Manhattan's RC book far superior to Powerscore's, although I think both are at least good. If what you meant is that people who once used Powerscore have switched to manhattan then maybe, I'll wait for everyone to clear that up. But what I think you were asking is which are better, and that answer depends on how far along you are.

No, I was questioning which one is better. I know from the beginning no one cared for PS RC, but PS LG Bible, and LR Bible were go to prep, now it seems that its all about Manhattan, so I was wondering what is going on. Does TLS now consider Manhattan materials to be go to prep.

I obviously don't speak for everybody, but I get the sense that Manhattan LR is now considered the go-to.. although like the poster above, obviously a lot of people still like PS- I just see people frequently preferring Manhattan when asked to pick. So perhaps I should modify my original statement: I don't really think there's necessarily a go-to LR guide anymore, but if you don't have money to drop on both, Manhattan will get the job done. I think most people still recommend starting with the PS LGB though, it's a great introduction. But I think that the general recommendation (or, again, at least mine) would be to check out both.

I personally don't think either of the Manhattan LR or LG guides have made the PS bibles less worth purchasing if you can afford both.

[shieldofachilles]

Did everyone stop using PS bibles, and switch over to Manhattan? I always thought that the general consensus on TLS was that PS Bibles were the best.

Not exactly. I think many people do still use the bibles, furthermore, I'm sure that some find Powerscore's methods to be more than enough conceptual prep. I think that Powerscore's LR and LG bibles are great, specifically LR. Manhattan goes beyond Powerscore in some ways, but does not fall short of Powerscore in any way, except spelling errors. Which is why many people speak higher of them than Powerscore, but I think the bibles are an essential introduction to the LSAT, except for RC. I found Manhattan's RC book far superior to Powerscore's, although I think both are at least good. If what you meant is that people who once used Powerscore have switched to manhattan then maybe, I'll wait for everyone to clear that up. But what I think you were asking is which are better, and that answer depends on how far along you are.

No, I was questioning which one is better. I know from the beginning no one cared for PS RC, but PS LG Bible, and LR Bible were go to prep, now it seems that its all about Manhattan, so I was wondering what is going on. Does TLS now consider Manhattan materials to be go to prep.

I obviously don't speak for everybody, but I get the sense that Manhattan LR is now considered the go-to.. although like the poster above, obviously a lot of people still like PS- I just see people frequently preferring Manhattan when asked to pick. So perhaps I should modify my original statement: I don't really think there's necessarily a go-to LR guide anymore, but if you don't have money to drop on both, Manhattan will get the job done. I think most people still recommend starting with the PS LGB though, it's a great introduction. But I think that the general recommendation (or, again, at least mine) would be to check out both.

I personally don't think either of the Manhattan LR or LG guides have made the PS bibles less worth purchasing if you can afford both.

no joke manhattan lr is the shit...i love that book. coupled with cambridge-->cant beat it. I did the first couple chapters of the PS bible and by no means was it worthless quite the opposite it was pretty good. Dont think its as intuitive as manhattan though. PS is more "follow this check list to get the answer right" where as manhattan is more understanding how to pick apart an argument and recognize patters in the question types.....credit though must be given to Noodleyone bc i wouldnt have even known how to do this shit without that retake guide (even though i wont be losing my lsat virginity till june).

[Daily_Double]

.

[ScottRiqui]

You went -0 on three games in under 17 minutes? Great job!

[steel_shot]

I haven't finished the third edition yet, but second edition was definitely useful in addition to reading the PS bible. Think I'll finish the third as well- can only help! Definitely recommend checking out multiple sources, might find a technique for a certain game type that you prefer.

ETA: Woops, updated on wrong thread! February taker for now.

Nice work on PT 47. How did you do in the Superprep book? You implied you scored very well and I'm curious because I've never heard any Superprep feedback.

Thanks! I only took Superprep A & C (I don't remember why I skipped B.. meaning to go back and do that), but I got a 174 on both. Until these three tests [ETA: the ones I reference in the post I moved to February study thread], I had never scored above a 170 on a practice test, so my Superprep scores were sort of bizarre. I've been convinced that they must be easier than "real" practice tests (I know they're real tests, but the weird ease of both made me feel like they didn't count, lol). I haven't been able to find much on what other people think of them, so I don't know what the general consensus is, if one exists.

Anyway, it was almost too bad that my best results were on the Superprep tests, because it meant that I needed few explanations for the tests for which the best explanations exist! Would have been nice if official LSAC explanations were available for those tests I bombed instead. XD

I've heard the games are much harder, but the other parts are about on par with LSATs from that era. Funny, I broke 170 for the first time on C as well, even going -7 on games. Be proud of yourself, it means you can truly crush the LG section!

[TheMostDangerousLG]

I haven't finished the third edition yet, but second edition was definitely useful in addition to reading the PS bible. Think I'll finish the third as well- can only help! Definitely recommend checking out multiple sources, might find a technique for a certain game type that you prefer.

ETA: Woops, updated on wrong thread! February taker for now.

Nice work on PT 47. How did you do in the Superprep book? You implied you scored very well and I'm curious because I've never heard any Superprep feedback.

Thanks! I only took Superprep A & C (I don't remember why I skipped B.. meaning to go back and do that), but I got a 174 on both. Until these three tests [ETA: the ones I reference in the post I moved to February study thread], I had never scored above a 170 on a practice test, so my Superprep scores were sort of bizarre. I've been convinced that they must be easier than "real" practice tests (I know they're real tests, but the weird ease of both made me feel like they didn't count, lol). I haven't been able to find much on what other people think of them, so I don't know what the general consensus is, if one exists.

Anyway, it was almost too bad that my best results were on the Superprep tests, because it meant that I needed few explanations for the tests for which the best explanations exist! Would have been nice if official LSAC explanations were available for those tests I bombed instead. XD

I've heard the games are much harder, but the other parts are about on par with LSATs from that era. Funny, I broke 170 for the first time on C as well, even going -7 on games. Be proud of yourself, it means you can truly crush the LG section!

Haha, thanks.. but I do remember LG in C being hard! For some reason I feel like I may not have completely finished a game and had to guess for a couple questions.. Pretty sure this test's score benefited from a super easy RC section. Would have to look back to be sure.

[Daily_Double]

.

[ScottRiqui]

You went -0 on three games in under 17 minutes? Great job!

Thanks, although, for these specific games, all of the rules connected, the questions were very straightforward, two games had five questions, and one had six.

Still an accomplishment. I'd be jealous, except that I still have five more months to "get right" with logic games. The accuracy is there, but it's taking me 9-10 minutes on some games. Others are taking me less time, but I don't want to rely on getting four "quick" games on test day. LR and RC are on the back burner for right now, since I usually go -2 or -3 on a section, with about ten minutes left. I'll hit them hard at some point, but I really want to see more improvement in LG first.

[crazyrobin]

Still an accomplishment. I'd be jealous, except that I still have five more months to "get right" with logic games. The accuracy is there, but it's taking me 9-10 minutes on some games. Others are taking me less time, but I don't want to rely on getting four "quick" games on test day. LR and RC are on the back burner for right now, since I usually go -2 or -3 on a section, with about ten minutes left. I'll hit them hard at some point, but I really want to see more improvement in LG first.

Same here, I can complete pure sequencing game within 5 min, basic,balanced linear game within 6 min. But one game kills me, PT 21 Game 4, it takes me 10 min and I got -2 on this game.