June 2011 Study Group Forum

[mickeyD]

Sat (today): PT 57 + exp

Just took this today with a proctored group, waiting on the results. Let me know how you did! Pretty sure I got worked on RC for the second PT in a row.

EDIT:

PT57
LR1: -3
LG: 0
LGe: 0
RC: -5
LR2: -2
Raw: -10
Scaled: 171

Dinos was so friggin hard! For every single question I had to write all 7 variables out so I could visualize and place what was left. Barely finished in time.

On LR I missed a #1, #3, and a #4 between the two sections. I'm definitely taking the beginning for granted.

RC was an absolute disaster, my worst ever since my diagnostic. I missed 3 straight on the humanism/science synthesis passage, all three of which I changed from TCR.

I guess on a positive note I took some skills regarding Flaw Q's I learned from reviewing my last PT and directly applied them to similar Q's on this one and got them right. At least I'm learning..

[crumpetsandtea]

Taking PT 60 with 59.2 today!!! >_<

[coldshoulder]

Just finished PT56, did it in two sections, one yesterday one today.

PT 56
LR: -1
LG: -0
LR: -0
RC: -1
-2, 98, 180

Yes! Also to mention it, I thought the African folk tales/novels passage was really rough.

[maxpower430]

just took pt 58, you guys were spot on about the reading comp, the legal passage was just killer and my pacing was horrendous, i'm really lucky i only had a -4. on the bright side, i made no dumb errors in LG (saved one for LR really need to read every answer choice carefully, tired of getting ones in the 1st 10 wrong). however that final game was rough, felt like there were just very few inferences to be made and even though i had a decent amount of time ~10 min, still barely finished and missed my only two in that section. also went -0 on my LGe from PT55, nice to finally get back on that saddle haha. i think i'm going to review later tonight and do my best to make tomorrow lsat free and make sure i avoid burnout.

[soj]

Back with a vengeance after two full days of rest.

PT52
LR1: -1
LG: -0
RCe (PT24): -1
LR2: -1
RC: -1
Raw: -3
Scaled: 178

LR1 felt very easy. Pacing was great, a welcome change from the past few LR sections. EDIT: Turns out, the -1 is due to misbubbling. This crap cost me a 180?!? (Raw -2 = 180.) I haven't lost a point to misbubbling in a long time. Annoyed and happy at the same time.

LG started off badly; I misdiagrammed a rule and didn't realize it until Q2, and had to start all over again. In Game 2, I struggled with an extremely obvious question because I didn't diagram a global rule properly. I actually had to skip this question and come back to it at the end. I had basically no time to check over answers, which definitely shouldn't happen in a games section with two pure sequencing games.

RCe was very easy except the fake art passage, which was medium.

LR2 was much harder than LR1. I marked three questions (7, 18, 20) as unsure and barely had time to review them. I changed the answer to one of them, but I actually would have gotten that one right had I not changed it. But I obviously changed my answer for a reason, so I need to study that question carefully.

RC was relatively easy, though passage 1 and 3 had some tough questions. I did pace extremely well (bubbled in the last question with 5 minutes left ). I used all that extra time to review my answers. At the last second I had a sudden insight and decided to read through one of the questions one last time even though time was up. I ultimately changed my answer, and--you guessed it--my original answer was right. So under a generous proctor I would have gotten -2 in this section.

It feels so good to come back on a solid score. I'd lost a lot of confidence in my LR pacing on the last PT so it's good to put that behind me. I now know better than to do review on my off days. When I'm off, I'm off, period. I probably shouldn't even be thinking about the LSAT or visiting the forums.

[pkrtbx]

PT 48 today

LR1 -0
LRe -0
LG -2
RC -3
LR2 -2

Raw 94 Scaled 171

That curve is a bitch. RC passages were not bad but some of those questions just...no.

[minnbills]

Tried to take PT 57 today.

Froze up on Mauve, ended up only finishing the first two questions of the fourth game. I went -2 not including the missed four. At that point I just decided to scrap the test and study that section, given my -0 to -2 roll on LG over the past few months. Once I got things under control, redid my diagrams and all that things sort of came together. So I decided to push on and try the 2nd section: LR. Bombed it going -5.

3 of those mistakes were easily correctable, two were just genuinely difficult questions.

I was so angry I just stopped taking the test. My confidence is blown at this point.

Something similar happened last october before the test. My response was to ramp it up, I ended up succumbing to the stress and bombed the real thing. Not sure what I should do now. I know that I'm capable of getting that 170 but things vary so much. Anyone else going through something similar?

[Strange]

Wow, PT62 lived up to its reputation

RC: -3
LG: -4
LR1: -1
LR2: -6

Total missed: -14
Raw: 88
Scaled: 170

I am really shocked by my horrible score on LR2. I thought I was breezing through it, but maybe I was sacrificing too much accuracy for speed. I finished well ahead of time on it.

The gaming section was the most difficult I've done in awhile. The last couple games in particularly tripped me up. I'll have to drill this one hard and work on improvements. -4 is the worst score I've gotten on any LG section since my diagnostic in March.

Discouraging RC, and it could have been -4 since I practically guessed on the last question. Definitely found this one more difficult than others in the past.

I'm still in the 170's, so I'm not totally discouraged, but I'm hoping to really firm everything up in the next week.

Overall this was a very difficult PT. Anyone else find it hard?

[soj]

Tried to take PT 57 today.

Froze up on Mauve, ended up only finishing the first two questions of the fourth game. I went -2 not including the missed four. At that point I just decided to scrap the test and study that section, given my -0 to -2 roll on LG over the past few months. Once I got things under control, redid my diagrams and all that things sort of came together. So I decided to push on and try the 2nd section: LR. Bombed it going -5.

3 of those mistakes were easily correctable, two were just genuinely difficult questions.

I was so angry I just stopped taking the test. My confidence is blown at this point.

Something similar happened last october before the test. My response was to ramp it up, I ended up succumbing to the stress and bombed the real thing. Not sure what I should do now. I know that I'm capable of getting that 170 but things vary so much. Anyone else going through something similar?

Don't dwell too much on the dino game. It's an anomaly. Besides, thoroughly reviewing the section should make you better prepared for such a difficult game than you were today. Review your LR mistakes, take a day off, and come back strong. Don't let a single aberration undermine your work.

[lakers3peat]

there's a key deduction in the dinosaur game that if you don't get you will absolutely get demolished. .. i cant remember off the top of my head but it has something to do with the limited combinations of mauve dinos, LV TV RV or some shieet like that...

@strange: yes! It was hard man!!

I finally manned up and went over PT 62 again. I didn't score significantly better than I did the first time but I only got 4 hours of sleep and I knew it was a bad idea taking it before I even started it.. On a diff note, I realize that the 4th passage in RC that I thought was so hard in December is actually really really simple and I got -0 taking. The conferences game is also pretty maneagble if time is alright. For some reason I spent 9 minutes on the first game and 6 on the 4th which hurt me because the 2nd game needs at least 10 minutes given that its like 8 questions. There are some key deductions to it that I froze up on but I have to constantly remind myself to not get nervous with time and to stop and think about some of the key deductions instead of just jumping into the game.

On another note, has anybody taken December 2010 who scored really well on the LR? There are a few questions that are absolutely killing me that I was hoping I could talk with somone about. There are no real explanations on Manhattan LSAT forums and I think it would be beneficial to you and me if we could talk these over together? Send me a PM if you want to test your ability to explain/solve LR


edit: Strange, I got the LG game section down strong on 62 if you have any questions. Also powerscore released a nice tidbit on 62's game section. mainly the idea of never forgetting the basics: look for key deductions and focus on numerical distributions. too often we get caught up in the moment and forget about these keys.

[Strange]

Laker how do I get powerscores explanations? And yeah PM me anything you got. -3 and -7 on RC and LR respectively is not totally out of sync with what I'm expecting, but the -4 on LG is really upsetting.

[lakers3peat]

I typed in "conferences lsat game" to see what the heck was going on with the game and why I couldn't figure out what was going on and the first hit was to powerscore's blog from there you can sift to game 2 at the bottom of the page. They are pretty hepful.

As for the LR/RC, I'm re-reviewing over them now since yesterday I was super tired so I'll probably PM you later today with any questions I can't figure out now. Thanks and good luck!

[lakers3peat]

Keep these points in mind(Stolen from the powerscore blog)

1. Know your game types. Basic Linear: Balanced games are typically easier than Grouping: Partially Defined or Advanced Linear: Unbalanced games.

2. Do not simply accept the order of the games as presented by the test makers. Use your knowledge of game types to select the games you feel you will perform best on. Complete the easy games first, and save the more difficult games for the end.

3. Even on LSATs that contain very challenging games, there will be other games that are relatively easier.



This is the sole reason I was able to conquer the december 2010 games when I took them.

I did game 1 in 6-7 minutes, not too great but decently, then by some miracle judgement call I looked for the next easiest game which was the 4th one surprisingly and I finished in 5 minutes.

I looked at my timer and I was barely into the "second game portion" of where I should be when I was already on my 3rd game---how this helped me: CONFIDENCE! I was thinking to myself " FUCK YEAH!! IM DOING SO WELL" then I started on the second game because it had the most questions and it was TOUGH! Long long game, it took me like 12-13 minutes when I did it: I cannot imagine how people felt if they did games 1 - 2 -3 - 4. If I did that, After game two, I'd already be like omfg i am going so slowly then you hit game 3 and you receive no relief. you run out of time on game 4 and you realize in the retrospect that it was so easy and you missed easy points. I don't know if this is your case or not but I am just offering it as general advice for anybody who may be reading this thread:

PICK YOUR BATTLES PEOPLE! Some games are easier than others, get the easy points, get your confidence and brain power flowing then jump into the hard game and I guarantee you will do better

[judgekozinski]

Took PT 59 today at the Princeton Review. I got a 164 and definitely am having a downward trend now in my PTs. My arguments and games sections are subpar. I really think I need to take a break, we have had non-stop homework lately. I was kind of in a Tylenol daze from taking it for allergies the night before, so I am happy this score wasn't any lower. I think it is officially break time.

[lakers3peat]

u taking the june test? probably shouldn't take too long a break if you are.. just grind it out, 1 more week and you're done(hopefully for good). thats the attitude I have right now. all i want to do is go out and party but if i blow it in june then july augus sept are all ruined for me while i prep for october, just 1 more week of hell and i can be done with this test forever.

[Strange]

Reviewing PT62. Passage 4 is where I got the 3 wrong, and it turns out it's the easiest passage. Guess I have to just make sure my timing is right. I only had five minutes to do the last passage and was definitely rushing. But easier said than done, those other passages were pretty tough.

[mickeyD]

Would really appreciate some help with PT57 LR2 #17:

I got it right, but just don't really get how a sufficient assumption can be the answer to a necessary assumption question.

The stimulus says

1. Buy watch at dept. store + use it in intended way + watch stops working ---> Refund
2. ~(buy at department store) + watch stopped working ---> Refund

I selected (C), which said the argument is assuming he did not use it in a way contrary to how it was intended to be used. But that just doesn't make sense to me. How is it necessary that he fulfills this particular course of action to get a refund? I don't see how that combination, while sufficient, is necessary for this argument. Maybe the watch stopped working, and he held a gun up to the cashier's face and got a refund?

My guess, and forgive me if I'm answering my own question here, is that the sentence saying "By this very reasonable standard" qualifies the argument to only be dealing with the conditional that is proposed. So are we to assume that we are supposed to use the "standard" that is given in the premises?

This would make a lot of sense in answering LR1 #25 as well, since I guess the sentence saying "clearly complied with this law" qualifies the argument to refer only to the conditional outlined in the city law.

I'm just confused because in both cases the stimulus is implying that if the sufficient condition doesn't occur, the necessary won't. And now all of a sudden if we say "using this rule" or "by this standard," we can automatically assume that it's essentialy a biconditional?

[Yeshia90]

Any Testmasters buddies in here?

Hit 179 on the 5-section proctored today from June 2009. My best by a long shot. I'd hit 174, but the three I took last week were 169, 172, 171. Just found myself in the zone this morning.

I'm so locked in on LG, I'll probably get -0 on the real thing (come on, mauve dinosaurs wasn't that hard)...but going from -2 or -3 on RC to -0 would be the difference. -3 on LR because, well, I'm not that good--but 2 were dumbass mistakes I can't afford if I'm going to be a little lower in the spectrum.

Feel good. Feel REAL good. Why can't the LSAT be this Monday?

Would really appreciate some help with PT57 LR2 #17:

I got it right, but just don't really get how a sufficient assumption can be the answer to a necessary assumption question.

The stimulus says

1. Buy watch at dept. store + use it in intended way + watch stops working ---> Refund
2. ~(buy at department store) + watch stopped working ---> Refund

I selected (C), which said the argument is assuming he did not use it in a way contrary to how it was intended to be used. But that just doesn't make sense to me. How is it necessary that he fulfills this particular course of action to get a refund? I don't see how that combination, while sufficient, is necessary for this argument. Maybe the watch stopped working, and he held a gun up to the cashier's face and got a refund?

My guess, and forgive me if I'm answering my own question here, is that the sentence saying "By this very reasonable standard" qualifies the argument to only be dealing with the conditional that is proposed. So are we to assume that we are supposed to use the "standard" that is given in the premises?

This would make a lot of sense in answering LR1 #25 as well, since I guess the sentence saying "clearly complied with this law" qualifies the argument to refer only to the conditional outlined in the city law.

I'm just confused because in both cases the stimulus is implying that if the sufficient condition doesn't occur, the necessary won't. And now all of a sudden if we say "using this rule" or "by this standard," we can automatically assume that it's essentialy a biconditional?

Just did this question on the exam. I think it helped that pretty much none of the other answers many any sense, but I saw the argument as a commentary on the return policies of the store as opposed to a department store, and the "should" didn't necessarily mean "should," in the logical "must", but in the practical, "ought to"--in this case, I think you could say it relied on a word with ambiguous meaning. But in order for him to draw that comparison, he'd indeed need to establish that the watch was used in the correct way, or else it would be a clearly spurious argument.

[Yeshia90]

there's a key deduction in the dinosaur game that if you don't get you will absolutely get demolished. .. i cant remember off the top of my head but it has something to do with the limited combinations of mauve dinos, LV TV RV or some shieet like that...

Yup. It was either TV, TL, TU, or LV. Those were the only possible combinations of mauve dinosaurs, and pretty much every question tested whether you grasped that. Since 3 of the dinosaurs were locked into their position--color--and either V or U had to be out at all times, either the green I or the yellow P had to be in at all times, if not both, along with the Red Stegasaurus. Since those were interchangeable, you were only looking at 3 dinosaurs out of 4 to fill the collection, not 5 out of 7, which seriously eased things up.

[lakers3peat]

Would really appreciate some help with PT57 LR2 #17:

I got it right, but just don't really get how a sufficient assumption can be the answer to a necessary assumption question.

The stimulus says

1. Buy watch at dept. store + use it in intended way + watch stops working ---> Refund
2. ~(buy at department store) + watch stopped working ---> Refund

I selected (C), which said the argument is assuming he did not use it in a way contrary to how it was intended to be used. But that just doesn't make sense to me. How is it necessary that he fulfills this particular course of action to get a refund? I don't see how that combination, while sufficient, is necessary for this argument. Maybe the watch stopped working, and he held a gun up to the cashier's face and got a refund?

My guess, and forgive me if I'm answering my own question here, is that the sentence saying "By this very reasonable standard" qualifies the argument to only be dealing with the conditional that is proposed. So are we to assume that we are supposed to use the "standard" that is given in the premises?

This would make a lot of sense in answering LR1 #25 as well, since I guess the sentence saying "clearly complied with this law" qualifies the argument to refer only to the conditional outlined in the city law.

I'm just confused because in both cases the stimulus is implying that if the sufficient condition doesn't occur, the necessary won't. And now all of a sudden if we say "using this rule" or "by this standard," we can automatically assume that it's essentialy a biconditional?

I'm not sure in the first case but in the second, yes you are absolutely right. The keyword in the second one is THIS law. It could have violated other laws but the only one the stimulus was concerned with was the one regarding campaign finance.


As for 17, there are two gaps between the premises and the conclusion. First of all, the conditional concerns department stores and we never really know that Bingham's qualifies as a department store. Secondly, it fails to qualify that the watch fits the "intended use" parameter. The way the argument is structured originally is use as intended + stops working -> refund then the conclusion is stops working-> refund. Well you need to know that the watch was used as intended for the refund to be applicable.

I don't know if that answers your question for 17 but for 24, that single sentence about THIS law is definitely key to understanding.

[Strange]

I'm totally stuck. Can someone explain how to do #11 on LG for PT62?

[coldshoulder]

I think I'm going to take pt 62 tomorrow, I don't want to take a test everyone thinks is difficult and score low as my last test before the real thing.

[99.9luft]

dear lsat bitches, good luck in 1 week and 2 days. signing off tls for good and highly suggest for you all to supplement your PTing with happy, stressless activities.


best,

99

[judgekozinski]

u taking the june test? probably shouldn't take too long a break if you are.. just grind it out, 1 more week and you're done(hopefully for good). thats the attitude I have right now. all i want to do is go out and party but if i blow it in june then july augus sept are all ruined for me while i prep for october, just 1 more week of hell and i can be done with this test forever.

Thanks for the words of encouragement! Yes taking the June test, I hear ya we have come too far to blow it now. It will only be a couple days, and then back to PTing all the way up until the real deal, except the day before.

[lakers3peat]

@strange, you disabled Private messages so I couldn't PM this back to you but here's how solve it, do not read below if you havent done PT 62 yet.































Here's how you solve it or at least how I did


So you know that you have to have more Os than Gs, and based on the first rule(GP), you know that at the minimum you at least 2 Os.

The 3rd rule tells you that if you have Y--> ~g and ~o, and all of the colors need to be used at least once, so you're going to have 2Os, 1G, and then 1Y.

So the first thing I did was start with that: It's always better to keep your pencil moving than to think things threw in your head so start your hypo

GP
O
Y

then from this I knew that the other O had to be in the GP window because it can't be with the Y so it looks like this

GPO
O
Y

Now a natural deduction, though its not tested directly here is that with Y, you're going to have P. Y has to be used, and Y can't be used with G and O and the 4th rule says that when you don't have P, you have O; therefore, if you don't put YP, then you have to put Y O which isn't compatible with the rules so in the above you have to have

GPO
O
YP

This is ALL just extra information though.

from the above hypothetical, the only thing left that you HAVE to place is the rose glasses which have no restrictions on them so I left them out until the very end because they will confuse you from seeing the correct answer which is (A)


As you'll find out in Question 12, purple can be used anywhere so simply toss that purple into your solo orange window and you get

GPO
OP
YP

those two rose glasses, toss those in 1 and 3

GPOR
OP
YPR

and bam there's your final hypothetical that complies with all the rules.