June 2011 Study Group Forum

[coldshoulder]

Congrats Micky!
PT 55 for me today.

[jim-green]

Has anyone done the Extra LGs on the LSAT Blog? I did them last week and was totally owned. Could not do 4 in 35 min at all. Is this OK? freaking out.
Your experience and advice?

[minnbills]

Taking PT 51 today. Looking for a 170!

[UnamSanctam]

Taking PT 54 today. Good luck me.

[maxpower430]

Has anyone done the Extra LGs on the LSAT Blog? I did them last week and was totally owned. Could not do 4 in 35 min at all. Is this OK? freaking out.
Your experience and advice?

i wouldn't worry about it too much. as much as he tries to make them as similar to real problems as possible, there are still differences that could easily throw you off(i.e. i found the list questions to be annoying and i remember some questions just being more ridiculous than lsac would typically ask). besides, you may have picked 4 of the difficult games, in which case that wouldn't really simulate a full section anyways.

[99.9luft]

Scheduled to take PT 58 today but had to get up at 5am to drive someone to the hospital. Probably didn't get enough sleep, though I feel ok right now.

To PT or not PT?...that is the question...

Alternatively, I can do drills from PT 35/39 - the two tests I use for experimental sections anyway.

[maxpower430]

i think it depends on how you feel. i was feeling rundown/sick on monday, when i was scheduled to take a pt and decided to delay it. i'm honestly not sure how i would have done, given that i was still tired yesterday (tho much less so) and made a bunch of careless errors. if you feel up to it though, i say go for it, personally i had my highest ever scaled score the day after a horrendous night of sleep, which at least gave me some hope for test day haha, and might give you an indication of how you'd do in that circumstance.

[seancris]

I'm going to start PTs during very inconvenient circumstances in the next couple of days. I don't see the point of taking the test under very comfortable conditions, knowing that the conditions of the actual thing might not be ideal.

It might actually be a good idea to take a PT or two under conditions where you're tired or hungry, have to use the bathroom, in the middle of starbucks where people are talking, etc.

This assuming you're using the time more to practice testing under rough conditions rather than using it as a pure diagnostic.

[Eichörnchen]

Scheduled to take PT 58 today but had to get up at 5am to drive someone to the hospital. Probably didn't get enough sleep, though I feel ok right now.

To PT or not PT?...that is the question...

Alternatively, I can do drills from PT 35/39 - the two tests I use for experimental sections anyway.

Yikes hope everything's OK 99. If you do PT, good luck! And if you don't I sure wouldn't feel guilty (naptime anyone?)

[mickeyD]

What strategies do you guys use for necessary assumption questions? I almost always look for that sneaky answer that "must be true before anything else can be true," but lately I've come across a lot of questions where TCR is sufficient and necessary. For example, if the question is like,

"John is an engineer who loves to write poetry. Therefore he is truly an original person, because only truly original people do things that are considered a waste of time by their peers."

I always find myself looking for an answer like:

"The opinions of other people can relate to determining someone's originality."

instead of the typical

"An engineer who writes poetry would be considered to be wasting time by his peers."

When I come across the second kind of AC, I always second guess myself and think "that's too easy," and then waste time looking for some sneaky answer that isn't there. The fact that it's sufficient makes me think it's wrong. In your opinion, which kind of answer do you find more often, the "must be true" type or the "sufficient and necessary" type, and how do you determine if a sufficient answer isn't too strong or broad to be more than necessary?

And not just the negation test, since in the heat of the moment a lot of wrong answers seem right when negated, for example "Well duh, if rattlesnakes don't molt every year, then you can't really determine their age from how often they molt. Sweet, got it!"

[seancris]

What strategies do you guys use for necessary assumption questions? I almost always look for that sneaky answer that "must be true before anything else can be true," but lately I've come across a lot of questions where TCR is sufficient and necessary. For example, if the question is like,

"John is an engineer who loves to write poetry. Therefore he is truly an original person, because only truly original people do things that are considered a waste of time by their peers."

I always find myself looking for an answer like:

"The opinions of other people can relate to determining someone's originality."

instead of the typical

"An engineer who writes poetry would be considered to be wasting time by his peers."

When I come across the second kind of AC, I always second guess myself and think "that's too easy," and then waste time looking for some sneaky answer that isn't there. The fact that it's sufficient makes me think it's wrong. In your opinion, which kind of answer do you find more often, the "must be true" type or the "sufficient and necessary" type, and how do you determine if a sufficient answer isn't too strong or broad to be more than necessary?

And not just the negation test, since in the heat of the moment a lot of wrong answers seem right when negated, for example "Well duh, if rattlesnakes don't molt every year, then you can't really determine their age from how often they molt. Sweet, got it!"

Your answer seems to me like it would be more applicable for an inference question rather than an assumption question. That answer might be correct for a question that asks "which of the following can be properly inferred from the above statement" or something of that nature.

Unlike a lot of other posters on TLS I don't have a mechanical method for attacking these questions other than simply identifying the disconnect and trying to bridge the gap. In your example the obvious disconnect is that poetry is not established as being considered a waste of time by John's peers. So that must be assumed.

[soj]

Ugh, so pissed right now. It seems like even on a different PT/break schedule, I still underperform every four PTs.

PT47
RCe (PT23): -0
LR1: -4
RC: -5
LR2: -0
LG: -1
Raw: -10
Scaled: 170

Completely melted down in the last five questions of LR1. RCe felt great and RC felt decent, so I'm surprised by the discrepancy. WTF. Maybe what I need is a full day off, not two days off doing other prep.

On the bright side, I'm glad this meltdown is happening now so I can learn from it, but I'm not really sure how. LR1 meltdown happened partly because I realized I didn't have much time left with 6 questions to go and panicked. But today's pacing didn't feel any worse than usual until I saw my watch.

Upon review, I've noticed that I made very dumb errors in LR1. This is why I need to not panic, or better yet, go faster so I don't put myself in a situation that makes me panic. I read "strengthens" as "weakens," "agreeing" as "disagreeing," and "principle" as "parallel" (though the last one miraculously didn't cost me the question). I think a break will do me some good to clear the cookies and start off fresh.

PT23 composite
LG (5/19): -0
LR1 (5/20): -1
LR2 (5/22): -1
RC (5/25): -0
Raw: -2
Scaled: 180

Dominating the 20s doesn't make me feel that good anymore.

[mickeyD]

soj, I found PT47's RC to be problematic as well. For example, despite being a fairly easy read, I thought that the Qs for the Downstate Campaign passage were very difficult, as well as a handful of questions on the Chinese Scar Art Movement and pathogens (like #8 and #25).

[soj]

I agree. One additional problem I had was reading ACs too cursorily and looking for superficial reasons to select or eliminate them rather than considering how they relate meaningfully with the passage. This cost me 6, 11, 24, and 25 in RC. I honestly think I could have gotten those with only a different approach in reading ACs, even without any additional understanding of the passage. (In contrast, #5 was ridiculous and I don't think I could have gotten it without having better understood the passage.) Of course, this seemed to work just fine in RC23.

And then there was the LR1 bomb (got 22, 23, 25, 26 wrong LOL). God, I just keep coming up with problems.

[soj]

I've come up with a study plan for the next two weeks.

Today: 47 review, LR review
5/26: off
5/27: off
5/28: 52/59
5/29: 59/52
5/30: review
5/31: review
6/1: off
6/2: off
6/3: 61/62
6/4: 62/61
6/5: off

[seanPtheB]

Would any of you ballers care to quickly share your reading comp strategies (and by baller I mean anyone)? I just go back and forth on what to do. Right now I'm at the point where I use my pencil only to mark where the author's opinion in the passage appears, because going beyond that just causes me to lose focus. I just retain the information in the passage so much better if I just read it straight through. I do however keep the Manhattan central argument thoughts in mind as I read, so I can read actively and somewhat predictively.

[minnbills]

Just finished PT 51. I struggled all the way through and thought I bombed it. Turned out to match my previous high.

LR -2
RC -1
LR -4
LG -2

Raw: 91
Score: 172.

I don't know how I managed this, I almost ran out of time on the RC and had to fly through the last passage, aced the last three passages somehow. Good sign for sure. LR2 is a bit of a question mark, it's well within my range so not terribly surprising. LG was disappointing, but PT 51 featured two sequencing games, which I despise. I didn't set up a true LGB master diagram for either so I guess I deserved it. Overall I'm a happy man today, my confidence is at an all time high.

If I can be this consistent, and maybe eliminate a few more mistakes, that score could be in elite territory. If I could be scoring in that range going into test day, that would be phenominal.

[coldshoulder]

Nice minnbills!

PT 55
LR: -1
RC: -1
LR: -1
LG: -0
LG: -0(exp)

97, -3, 178

I am entirely happy with my consistency recently, last three tests either -2 or -3.

its weird, I'm missing my LR questions anywhere, from the earliest (literally question 1) to the latest (25).

However, if I can keep this -1 per section thing up ill jizz when I get my score back.

Also, had my gracious mother proctor this one for me.

[mickeyD]

I am entirely happy with my consistency recently, last three tests either -2 or -3.

Really? I beg to differ. 180, 179, 178? You're looking at a serious downward trend.

Jkjkjkjk. Awesome job! I missed Q1 as well a few PTs ago. It's those jitters I get when starting a section- usually the questions at the beginning are so easy that I can get them right even if I'm not focused, but they'll get me once in a blue moon.

Lots of games drilling for me tonight, then a LR section to work on pacing. Soj/Cold, either of you LR pros have any advice on my necessary assumption issues in my previous post?

[jim-green]

I think I caught your bug. Bad throat, weak and heavy head. Took a nap but no good. Not gonna study this evening - maybe some untimed LR. Be careful folks.

i think it depends on how you feel. i was feeling rundown/sick on monday, when i was scheduled to take a pt and decided to delay it. i'm honestly not sure how i would have done, given that i was still tired yesterday (tho much less so) and made a bunch of careless errors. if you feel up to it though, i say go for it, personally i had my highest ever scaled score the day after a horrendous night of sleep, which at least gave me some hope for test day haha, and might give you an indication of how you'd do in that circumstance.

[soj]

Having reviewed all my errors, I'm not so upset anymore. Apart from two of my LR mistakes, one of my RC mistakes, and my single LG mistake, all of my mistakes were preventable silly errors, most commonly misreading. If I had not made those mistakes, I could have gotten -4. (There's no excuse for the LG error. I had all the time in the world to review and still didn't catch it. I made an incorrect local conditional inference.)

I've been prepping a lot recently, so I'm just going to take a break and hope to come back rejuvenated and less vulnerable to silly errors.

As for NA, I find that most of the time when I get NA Qs wrong or nearly wrong, it's because I focused too narrowly on "Which one must be true if the premises and conclusion are true?" and not enough on "Which one is needed to make the argument work?" There's a subtle difference that's hard to express in words. Even if the NA is false, the premises and the conclusion might still be true--you just wouldn't be able to argue that the conclusion is true BECAUSE the premises are true.

[boosk]

Just took Sep. 09 LSAT:

LR1: -4
RC: -2
LG: -4
LR2: -4

Raw: 87
Scaled: 167

Best overall performance by far... 3 missed Q's away from the 170 club! I know I can hit it on June 6

[Strange]

Are the passages on 62 RC just hard or the questions? Makes me scared because I'm gonna be taking 62 this saturday and i've been on an upward trend. Now's not the time to get discouraged

[maxpower430]

well so much for pt 56 being the easy one i guess, very frustrating performance

LG: -3 (misread a rule yet again, cost me two questions. other error was dumb too really. it's just annoying b/c i know these errors are correctable and yet i keep making them, but don't make them while drilling.)
LRe: -1 (solid performance and bounceback from my -4 bomb on LR1 on PT55)
LR1:-3 (went against my prephrase b/c an answer choice was worded differently and had to rush through the byzantine seals question.)
LR2: -2 (Missed questions 9 and 10, went against a prephrase and i guess zoned out b/c i thought i saw the flaw but clearly i missed it)
RC: -0 (felt ok with timing, felt first 2 passages took too long. also the comp section wasn't much fun)

Raw: 92
Scaled: 173

overall not my best, i continue to make frustrating errors in lg, and wish i could be a little more consistent with my LR (esp with the whole first 15 questions thing). but hey can't really complain with a 173 right? just wish i could break into the upper 170s b/c while i know it's theoretically possible i'd like to accomplish it before test day. oh well off to eat dinner and review.

and jim-green yea definitely take it easy, really don't want to risk all the work you've put in thus far by pushing it and getting really sick this close to test day.

[iphone7]

PT 54 today
RC -2
LR -3
LRe (Pt 16.3) -1
LG -0
LR -0

Raw -5
Scaled 176

I'm quite pleased with this score. I made one misread in LR, but the others were able to teach me something. I missed two tough questions in RC and LR, but I'm still happy.

Would any of you ballers care to quickly share your reading comp strategies (and by baller I mean anyone)? I just go back and forth on what to do. Right now I'm at the point where I use my pencil only to mark where the author's opinion in the passage appears, because going beyond that just causes me to lose focus. I just retain the information in the passage so much better if I just read it straight through. I do however keep the Manhattan central argument thoughts in mind as I read, so I can read actively and somewhat predictively.

I don't know if I count as a RC baller but I've recently started using Voyager's RC method which includes writing the main point of each paragraph, boxing names/definitions, and underlining other important factors with some success. I'm still not terribly fast with it and I end up rushing through the final section. It has helped my scores to this point because I understand each passage much better than before. I'm going to keep drilling this method until the test in order to get faster.