The Official June 2015 Study Group Forum

[biggestlawman]

Don't pet the rabbits too hard, biggestlawman.

Hmm...interesting. Rabbits, psychiatrists, and one guy with a stick up his ass!

[santoki]

Post removed.

[ChoboPie]

dont pet me bro

HOLY SHIT. Just realized your tar is a rabbit. For the longest time I thought it was a cat.

[msp8]

dont pet me bro

HOLY SHIT. Just realized your tar is a rabbit. For the longest time I thought it was a cat.

Same. I still think it's a cat.

[biggestlawman]

dont pet me bro

Allergic to cats.

[Rigo]

dont pet me bro

Allergic to cats.

Why is your tar a big cat then?

[biggestlawman]

dont pet me bro

Allergic to cats.

Why is your tar a big cat then?

A big cat? No.

A wolf. Not allergic to them, or at least the domesticated wolf.

[Rigo]

dont pet me bro

Allergic to cats.

Why is your tar a big cat then?

A big cat? No.
A wolf. Not allergic to them, or at least the domesticated wolf.

Idk man. Wolves are generally yellow in color. Pretty sure that's just a cat.

[biggestlawman]

Idk man. Wolves are generally yellow in color. Pretty sure that's just a cat.

And then there is the Grey Wolf, also called the Timber Wolf! This tar is pretty much the first pic that shows up if you google 'grey wolf'.

[Rigo]

Wolf^

Watch Animal Planet, duder.

[TheWalkingDebt]

Idk man. Wolves are generally yellow in color. Pretty sure that's just a cat.

And then there is the Grey Wolf, also called the Timber Wolf! This tar is pretty much the first pic that shows up if you google 'grey wolf'.

I googled that and I got the same pic Rigo just posted. Def. not your avatar pic.

[Rigo]

I googled that and I got the same pic Rigo just posted. Def. not your avatar pic.

I knew I wasn't misinformed on this! If it prowls like a wolf and roars like a wolf, IT'S A WOLF!! (catch that logic!)

[biggestlawman]

Idk man. Wolves are generally yellow in color. Pretty sure that's just a cat.

And then there is the Grey Wolf, also called the Timber Wolf! This tar is pretty much the first pic that shows up if you google 'grey wolf'.

I googled that and I got the same pic Rigo just posted. Def. not your avatar pic.

Aww....you guys..

[biggestlawman]

I googled that and I got the same pic Rigo just posted. Def. not your avatar pic.

I knew I wasn't misinformed on this! If it prowls like a wolf and roars like a wolf, IT'S A WOLF!! (catch that logic!)

Prowling and roaring like a wolf are sufficient to prove that the creature in question is a wolf.

Weakness: Well, prowling and roaring might be two characteristics of a wolf out of possibly many, many more, and there might be one more creature that shares these two characteristics with a wolf to the full extent.

[fundip]

Sorry meant ~time reading each passage.

For LR, it's not surprising that the latter q's take more time. But if you're able to do the first 15 in 15, then I'm getting the sense that something (or things) in those last 10 questions is screwing you. Are there any patterns? Like are you spending an insane amount of time on parallel reasoning vs. flaws, or are you diagramming a shit ton for formal reasoning?

It's possible that

A.) You're fine on fundamentals, but when things get a little bit more complicated on questions in the latter part of the section, you start using inefficient processes or

B.) You're psyching yourself out and over-thinking/going into the last 10 questions unconfident and worried.

It looks like you're in the mindset that you're probably just not going to finish in time, which is really, really detrimental--know that you know your shit (as indicated by your already 170s score), and that even if you can't finish on time yet, that you can and will with some more practice.

For RC, reading each passage takes me around 3:30-4:30 minutes. Like I said, I'm a slow reader, but when I come across an econ passage or science passages with magma or volcanoes, after I finish, I barely remember what I just read. I've been trying to read more lsat-like passages in between breaks at work to reduce that fear factor though--not sure if it's working. The questions that really trip me up on RC are the logical reasoning-like questions on RC--like weaken/strengthen questions--and those "According to the passage/author" questions that require you to find it directly in the passage. I spend too much time looking for the matching text.

For LR, I tend to get stuck on weaken and strengthen questions. And I spend way too much time diagramming conditionals, but these conditionals still aren't that intuitive to me yet.

Oh and I just understood your username

[TheWalkingDebt]

Just finished Manhattan LR. Very helpful I think. Going into LRB and will likely PT monday/tuesday with the june 2007 exam to measure progress. Anyone got PTs coming up? Y'all sticking to that 2/week schedule?

[Smallville]

Just finished Manhattan LR. Very helpful I think. Going into LRB and will likely PT monday/tuesday with the june 2007 exam to measure progress. Anyone got PTs coming up? Y'all sticking to that 2/week schedule?

how'd you read it? straight through? or stopped and drilled a little extra after each type

[Rigo]

Just finished Manhattan LR. Very helpful I think. Going into LRB and will likely PT monday/tuesday with the june 2007 exam to measure progress. Anyone got PTs coming up? Y'all sticking to that 2/week schedule?

Don't be too hard on yourself if you don't do well on June 2007. Its curve is insane.

[ChoboPie]

For RC, reading each passage takes me around 3:30-4:30 minutes. Like I said, I'm a slow reader, but when I come across an econ passage or science passages with magma or volcanoes, after I finish, I barely remember what I just read. I've been trying to read more lsat-like passages in between breaks at work to reduce that fear factor though--not sure if it's working. The questions that really trip me up on RC are the logical reasoning-like questions on RC--like weaken/strengthen questions--and those "According to the passage/author" questions that require you to find it directly in the passage. I spend too much time looking for the matching text.

For LR, I tend to get stuck on weaken and strengthen questions. And I spend way too much time diagramming conditionals, but these conditionals still aren't that intuitive to me yet.

Oh and I just understood your username

Whoa yeah, that is a long time per passage. If you can use that time to get enough of a grasp of the passage to just blaze through the questions, it probably isn't bad. But if not, you might be spending too much time reading parts of the passage that aren't too important and not focusing enough on just getting the main ideas. Econ and science passages are probably the biggest contenders for complicated-sounding jargon and mechanisms. But generally, the passages seem a lot more complicated than they really are. There's usually going to be some theory/underlying mechanism for some phenomenon, and you just have to get a solid grasp of the gist of it.

Don't spend time trying to memorize details--just know where shit is, and if it comes up on a question, go back to it then. Specific questions like these should be really quick--if you're finding yourself skimming through the ENTIRE passage, or a very large chunk of it to find the part of the passage to which the question refers, you've missed the main points of the passage and you need to fix your approach (i.e.: don't read so much for detail, especially, ESPECIALLY if this makes you forget the main points).

I agree that the Logical Reasoning-like questions on RC can be tricky. I don't really know what advice to offer, other than to make the smallest logical leap possible. Read literally, and don't make assumptions--if the question requires you to make at least one, pick the answer that makes the smallest, most acceptable/negligible one.

If strengthen/weaken questions are hurting you a lot, make sure:
1. You know the conclusion, premise, and flaw
2. Find the answer that actually does strengthen or weaken the relationship between the premise(s) and conclusion. If the answer choice just strengthens/weakens the premise, or the conclusion, without making the argument any better, then it's probably not the right answer. Some people advocate visualizing this as strengthening/weakening the "glue" between premise and conclusion, or ask you to picture building a house and making it stronger or weaker, or some other obnoxious shit. But really, just look for the answer that strengthens/weakens how well the premises support the conclusion.

Practice with conditionals will probably help a bit too. Diagramming itself isn't too bad, just make sure you're not doing an excessive amount of it. Keep in mind that diagramming should be a tool that facilitates your understanding of the stim and getting to the right answer. If some part of your diagramming process doesn't do this for you, it's probably best you drop it.

[tedofsandimas]

Just finished Manhattan LR. Very helpful I think. Going into LRB and will likely PT monday/tuesday with the june 2007 exam to measure progress. Anyone got PTs coming up? Y'all sticking to that 2/week schedule?

I've only taken two practice tests so far, the free one from the LSAC's website as my diagnostic and the Superprep test A just now. I had decided to focus on improving my LR score by using the Manhattan LR, because those two sections were my worst on the diagnostic. I only made it through 3 chapters of Manhattan LR before taking Superprep test A and got 6 more questions correct in the LR sections than I did on the first test and felt far more confident in almost all my answers than I did previously. So far I'm really liking the format of the Manhattan LR book.

I was shocked at how poorly I did on the logic games in Superprep A, considering I did so well on the first test. I'm going to give the Manhattan Logic Games book a shot since it's only $10 for the Kindle version and their LR text is working well for me so far.

[TheWalkingDebt]

how'd you read it? straight through? or stopped and drilled a little extra after each type

A mixture of both. I had already been drilling for a bit when I started it, so I didn't have all the question type drill packets available to me. But I definitely did not rush through it. I already had good instincts for LR and it really helped organize my thinking for certain question types. In particular I think it made inference questions a little clearer to me because I had a hard time changing my thinking to those from flaw questions.

Don't be too hard on yourself if you don't do well on June 2007. Its curve is insane.

Appreciate the heads up. I almost stopped mid-PT on Superprep C because I had just gone through the LGB (and felt like I had improved significantly) and felt like the games on C were destroying my world still. Ended up not finishing any section on C except the first LR but scored a 163, so I am going to try to be more patient during the 2007 test.

[TheWalkingDebt]

Just finished Manhattan LR. Very helpful I think. Going into LRB and will likely PT monday/tuesday with the june 2007 exam to measure progress. Anyone got PTs coming up? Y'all sticking to that 2/week schedule?

I've only taken two practice tests so far, the free one from the LSAC's website as my diagnostic and the Superprep test A just now. I had decided to focus on improving my LR score by using the Manhattan LR, because those two sections were my worst on the diagnostic. I only made it through 3 chapters of Manhattan LR before taking Superprep test A and got 6 more questions correct in the LR sections than I did on the first test and felt far more confident in almost all my answers than I did previously. So far I'm really liking the format of the Manhattan LR book.

I was shocked at how poorly I did on the logic games in Superprep A, considering I did so well on the first test. I'm going to give the Manhattan Logic Games book a shot since it's only $10 for the Kindle version and their LR text is working well for me so far.

Yeah all the Superprep LG sections are insane, particularly B and even moreso for C. I did not like MLSAT for LG, I preferred Powerscore. But definitely use the 7sage/Manhattan tree method of diagramming. It's infinitely clearer to understand.

[nv93]

Well, time to hit the books again today after Spring Break. So I was reviewing LG today with Powerscore 2014 books. I noticed my issues on the first LG section on the Feb 2015 test were conditionals, grouping/linear combos, inferences (especially with timing since I need to merge rules together and then diagram and what not), and max/min. Anyone care to share some good strategies they learned? I tried to think of conditionals in the form of dependent and independent variables. The rest I feel like drilling will help. Going to do both self study and a prep class w/ Testmasters and my friend has Kaplan, so he said he can share some of his study materials with me, so that ought to diversify myself along with ordering Cambridge and maybe 7Sage if I can afford it.

[nv93]

What's the general consensus on which company offers the best diagramming techniques? I am probably looking between the following: Power Score, Manhattan, 7Sage, and Test Masters? Or probably others?

[RZ5646]

I use PS notation but also use some things I picked up from 7sage videos. I don't think your diagramming symbols are all that important.