The Official September 2014 Study Group Forum

[jmjm]

Also I refuse to believe that Saturday marks 4 more weeks. It HAS to be longer.

I'm gettin into 5 or 6 PT a week mode (every time I take them, I do 2 a day)

Gotta ramp up...

My biggest fear on the REAL LSAT, is that they are brand new questions.... like I just have a sneaking suspicion that I've done SO much drilling for months and months, that when I PT sometimes I remember the questions, which may reflect my score on it a little. But when the LSAT comes, NEW PASSAGES, NEW LR, and NEW GAMES.

I feel like I'll do alright, but I'd be lying if I didnt say this didnt bother me. Especially cuz sometimes I know I'll recognize a stimulus and say "Oh I already know what this is talking about" and just go right to the answer choices

To be honest, when you've done as much drilling as you imply that you have, even the new questions feel like nothing but an exact re-wording of another that you've done. Especially with LR, there were a few times on the June LSAT when I remember thinking "this is exactly like a question I did but with the names changed to protect the innocent." It's hilarious, but after a while you see they just repeat themselves over and over and over with slight changes. This is especially true of the common flaw types... How many ways can you write an ad hominem fallacy before you are just reorganizing where the information comes in the passage rather than doing anything substantially different? Even the weirdo last game from June is almost exactly like some of the older games from the mid-90s, one in particular.

I had some older PTs where I had seen several of the games/passages/LRs and my scores were not any different than my other PTs where I had seen none of the questions. Once I got to the last 10 exams where I'd seen almost none of the stuff before the scores were the same. I wouldn't worry about it too much. A bigger concern would be if you see a question for the second time and still miss it for the same reason. That's a huge cause of concern bc you're not reviewing and internalizing concepts. This is why I recommend redoing PTs where you score poorly, or sections where you miss too many questions (once you've had a little time to forget), because you need to know you are making progress on the specific skills. There's much to be learned from redoing exams/sections. By the end, they should all feel like redos to an extent.

what you said about retake of PT or remembering the questions not having much effect on the score may not apply to everyone imo. even though the concepts are reworded and recycled into newer questions, those rewordings are new and fresh on test day for the test taker. a lot of times one may get a question right in retake of a PT because one may have come across the exact same wording before and internalized it even though he doesn't consciously remember doing the question. On a fresh test, it may happen some times but likely not as often as a retake.

there may not be much of a difference between retake of a PT and fresh PT score for those who don't have timing issues. but those who run very close to the time limit taking almost 34-35 mins for an LR section however hard they may push to go faster, imo will get a skewed representation of their scores on PT retakes.

[jmjm]

Let me just say that its not a bad concept. I remember playing baseball (pitched in college) whenever we had scrimmages, the coach would put runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs to start the inning. Our job was to pitch out of it. All the while he had the other half of the team and himself in the dugout yelling at every moment. The thing he was trying to accomplish was to make a practice environment much more pressure packed than a game environment.

Similar with the LSAT. Of course, when we are PTing, its hard to say in our minds "okay, getting these last 5 answers will put me in law school." So you have to find other ways to make your practice environment more pressure. Common ways are to sit in an area full of distractions, have 30 question sections, have 30 minute sections, etc. Anyway you can make your PT environment a little more stressful will only make it seem easier and more calming on game day.

there was a post sometime ago about baseball doughnut analogy iirc. you practice on much harder questions and the real thing feels easy. i think many would agree that after doing lsat rc, any other standardized tests' rc would be cake, which wouldn't have seemed possible before being exposed to lsat rc.

are there any extremely hard rc/lr exercises or tests anywhere or in books or law school curriculum that one could point to?

tls advise is against doing princeton review/barron tests that have fake questions but there are clear examples where some 180ers began with princeton review tests which are harder and fake and the real lsat questions seemed easy to them after.

[parisian]

Anyone here is taking the test in Europe? Have you started to practice in the afternoon?

[ilikebaseball]

Let me just say that its not a bad concept. I remember playing baseball (pitched in college) whenever we had scrimmages, the coach would put runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs to start the inning. Our job was to pitch out of it. All the while he had the other half of the team and himself in the dugout yelling at every moment. The thing he was trying to accomplish was to make a practice environment much more pressure packed than a game environment.

Similar with the LSAT. Of course, when we are PTing, its hard to say in our minds "okay, getting these last 5 answers will put me in law school." So you have to find other ways to make your practice environment more pressure. Common ways are to sit in an area full of distractions, have 30 question sections, have 30 minute sections, etc. Anyway you can make your PT environment a little more stressful will only make it seem easier and more calming on game day.

there was a post sometime ago about baseball doughnut analogy iirc. you practice on much harder questions and the real thing feels easy. i think many would agree that after doing lsat rc, any other standardized tests' rc would be cake, which wouldn't have seemed possible before being exposed to lsat rc.

are there any extremely hard rc/lr exercises or tests anywhere or in books or law school curriculum that one could point to?

tls advise is against doing princeton review/barron tests that have fake questions but there are clear examples where some 180ers began with princeton review tests which are harder and fake and the real lsat questions seemed easy to them after.

Cambridge has "Most Difficult Passages" that you can buy

[Learn_Live_Hope]

Off topic-

My friend and I are watching the Mock Admissions Panel hosted by Kaplan. The panel is represented by admission counselors/deans from GW, Boston, UVA, and NYU. Let me just say-I'm scared.

If it was anything like the one from last year, then I know it was brutal. The way they go off on tangents and assumptions from applicant information gives me chills. I can only imagine the evisceration of applicants that goes on behind the closed doors of adcomms and I'm about to subject myself to this admissions guantlet...

Also that HLS rep was pretty hesitant during the last panel so I don't find it a coincidence that HLS didn't participate this go round.

That's exactly it!!!!

[BJS]

One month!!! I can't believe it. While I still desperately need more drilling and stamina-building PTs, I wish it were this weekend. I love the suggestion from earlier in this thread to do 6 section or 8 section PTs to build stamina. I am going to try a 6 section Saturday.

[BillPackets]

I mean starting with conditions that are difficult (such as 2 on, no outs, know gtfo of this miss) is credited. But that's something that can actually occur. When I played tennis we would do drills where we started a service game down 0-30, and had to dig ourselves out. Again, though, this can occur IRL.

In no situation will the LSAT ever be 30 minutes long.

[Superstaranonymous]

.

[Colonel_funkadunk]

Sup w the sports analogies? I played 5th grade basketball and had to ride the bench. Will there ever be a situation where you get waitlisted to take the LSAT that I could relate this to?

[Gray]

.

[BillPackets]

Sup w the sports analogies? I played 5th grade basketball and had to ride the bench. Will there ever be a situation where you get waitlisted to take the LSAT that I could relate this to?

LOL

In no situation will the LSAT ever be 30 minutes long.

I think the idea is that if you are at the point where you can hit your target score doing 6 sections at 30 minutes, then you are going to walk into the actual thing and feel like it's easy AF.

I'm not at this point yet. I've finished sections in 30 minutes, but never intentionally.

Right right ok it works for some people I'm sure some top scorers didn't prep like that. This on topic discussion has lasted too long. A

[Superstaranonymous]

.

[gnomgnomuch]

Well, finally took PT 47, and I'm beyond disappointed.

Raw score 82.
Scaled score 163.

First LR - 23/26, 1 absolutely stupid mistake, 1 question where I narrowed it down and chose incorrectly, and 1 question that I just didn't know.

RC - 20/26, Absolutely dismal. Every single question I got wrong, was because I chose wrong when I narrowed it down to two questions.

Second LR - 20/25, 2 stupid mistakes and 3 mistakes where I was down to 2 choices and picked wrong.

LG - 19/22. Went -1 on each of the first three games, and then perfect on the final game. Considering I usually get -8 on LG, I'm happy, though after reviewing the games, I shouldn't have made those mistakes in the first place.

So, out of the 18 questions I got wrong, 10 of those because I narrowed it down, and chose incorrectly. TEN! That would have brought me up from an 82 (163) to a 92 (172)!

All I've managed to do the past 2 months have move myself from high 150's to mid 160's. Anyone else here experiencing the same frustration?

What's your study schedule been like?

Unfortunately, its kinda non existent right now. The past summer I interned, had a job and took classes while studying. Now that my semester is starting I'll be working 2 jobs and taking 15-18 credits. I feel like if i had a month or two to just buckle down and have the time to treat the LSAT like a full time job then I could get over this hump.

I'm getting about ~10 hours in a week, but when I made my biggest improvement (150-160 between tests) I was studying about 3 hours a day for about a month straight.

[gnomgnomuch]

Well, finally took PT 47, and I'm beyond disappointed.

Raw score 82.
Scaled score 163.

First LR - 23/26, 1 absolutely stupid mistake, 1 question where I narrowed it down and chose incorrectly, and 1 question that I just didn't know.

RC - 20/26, Absolutely dismal. Every single question I got wrong, was because I chose wrong when I narrowed it down to two questions.

Second LR - 20/25, 2 stupid mistakes and 3 mistakes where I was down to 2 choices and picked wrong.

LG - 19/22. Went -1 on each of the first three games, and then perfect on the final game. Considering I usually get -8 on LG, I'm happy, though after reviewing the games, I shouldn't have made those mistakes in the first place.

So, out of the 18 questions I got wrong, 10 of those because I narrowed it down, and chose incorrectly. TEN! That would have brought me up from an 82 (163) to a 92 (172)!

All I've managed to do the past 2 months have move myself from high 150's to mid 160's. Anyone else here experiencing the same frustration?

We've all been through the choosing between two answers thing. But there is a mindset you have to take from now on if you want to get over it:

The test maker has an incredible burden. They have to create 1 and only 1 answer that is responsive to the questions posed. There cannot be any possibility that another answer choice is better or even close to as good, because then they would have to put up with tons of challenges as to the strength of the credited answer choice versus the attractive wrongs. They have to be able to provide 100% proof why they are right if challenged. This is a HUGE psychometric burden.

So, they have to design 4 answer choices that are ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE (i.e. not responsive to the question posed, or in a very small minority of questions clearly 100% beyond a doubt worse than the correct). If an answer is even a little bit off, partially out-of-scope, or even one small changed word causes it to be wrong, then you have to see that it is TERRIBLE. Not close, not a contender, just 100% wrong... The logical opposite of correct is .0001% wrong or more. They are all equally horrible.

Obviously in the moment it's hard to do this, but you shouldn't be narrowing down to two answer choices on 10 questions EVER. No more than 3 or so should be a situation where you have to really decide between two really attractive answers (when you go back and study the question untimed). For the other 98 questions there should be an absolutely clear winner with 100% certainty. Only when you review questions and study them in blind review to the point where you see this will you have any hope of getting over this issue in timed conditions.

A lot of bad prep companies (Kaplan) advocate strategies where you narrow it down to 2 and then pick between them. There is a reason why most top scorers on here don't use their methods.

Study the patterns in the wrong answer choices and you'll get better and better at elimination. That's the key skill to not getting caught in traps. It's much better to occasionally accidentally eliminate 5 answers (maybe 3 times per exam) and to have to go back to prove how an answer could possibly be correct then it is to choose between "contenders." The wrong answers are designed as snake traps for people that take the test the "choose between contenders" way. It's an aggressive attacking mindset... I'm looking to destroy 4 equally terrible answer choices and only let 1 live to make it to the answer sheet.

This is excellent advice, THANK YOU! I'm going to go over PT 47 later today, and focus on only those questions where I got wrong, and look for where I went wrong on each answer.

Any advice on this:

For LR I'll usually go 14/15 on the first 15 questions - and I'll breeze by them. I'm timing myself in terms of the first 15, and I did them in just over 12 minutes yesterday. Is this just a function of me trying to breeze through the questions and missing something obvious?

[BillPackets]

On another note I took PT 37 and I'm definitely a little worried now

RC -7
LR -8
LG -1

Raw: 85
Scaled: 166

I think the curve may have been a little tough as I've gotten the same raw score before and had a 168 but I I'm starting to see a recurring trend.

RC: It's kicking my ass and I cannot stay below -5. There is always one particular passage that I get through and can't determine the scope concretely enough. I usually have go to the next passage and come back and answer the global questions so I don't miss out on easy points from other passages. I've tried drilling difficult passages but I'm starting to think it's my process that's hurting me.

LR: I like to skip the parallel reasoning because they tend to be lengthy and require a lot of timely reading and I wasn't able to get back to one. Three misses were due to the infamous narrow down to two and chose incorrectly. One miss was due to a scantron transfer error. The last three were ones during blind review that I easily recognized the correct answer. I'm a sucker for shell game answers sometimes and I'm really working on that.

LG: It was a grouping game and when I diagrammed all the possible hypotheticals, I forgot one that cost me.

I think I can iron out the LR and LG mistakes but my RC may need some more serious work. I guess I can't complain too much as I've only been studying for two months but I don't know if my RC problems will go away so easily.

Anyone else still having these RC issues?

LR and LG look good, imo, only if you can get the RC down. What's your process like? Typically at least 2, sometimes as many as 4, questions an any given passage are "universal" or "big picture" questions, so understanding the purpose of any passage is very helpful going into the Qs. The more specific inference questions or "what does the passage state" questions typically just use synonyms of words in the passage to throw you off.

[Toby Ziegler]

Did PT 9 today.
RC -7 (I really need to study/drill RC)
LR1 -11 (not sure what in the actual fuuuu happened here...)
LG -2
LR2 -6

163

Pretty disappointed with this LR performance. Going to drill the problem area questions. I also need to get faster at LG, spent way too much time on the first and second game.

What kinds of LR Qs did u miss? Also the old tests are pretty similar to current tests, but they're weirdly different.

I feel like I miss out on all of the good ish that happens in this thread, since I don't get on at night. I am pretty sure I am the only one who doesn't know what Grey looks like.

Anyways. I missed MSS, Paradox, Weaken, and a few principle questions, oh and one cannot be true. I haven't drilled any of those question types, so that is what I will do today. It gives me confidence knowing that I am not practiced in the areas I missed and that I am consistently doing well on the questions types I have drilled. I also got hyper lucky on LG, I just need to drill TF out of them and I haven't yet.

Also for the Colonel, timing wasn't an issue at all. I had ~3 mins left in every section except the bad LR, which I just felt blah about the whole time.

[gnomgnomuch]

On another note I took PT 37 and I'm definitely a little worried now

RC -7
LR -8
LG -1

Raw: 85
Scaled: 166

I think the curve may have been a little tough as I've gotten the same raw score before and had a 168 but I I'm starting to see a recurring trend.

RC: It's kicking my ass and I cannot stay below -5. There is always one particular passage that I get through and can't determine the scope concretely enough. I usually have go to the next passage and come back and answer the global questions so I don't miss out on easy points from other passages. I've tried drilling difficult passages but I'm starting to think it's my process that's hurting me.

LR: I like to skip the parallel reasoning because they tend to be lengthy and require a lot of timely reading and I wasn't able to get back to one. Three misses were due to the infamous narrow down to two and chose incorrectly. One miss was due to a scantron transfer error. The last three were ones during blind review that I easily recognized the correct answer. I'm a sucker for shell game answers sometimes and I'm really working on that.

LG: It was a grouping game and when I diagrammed all the possible hypotheticals, I forgot one that cost me.

I think I can iron out the LR and LG mistakes but my RC may need some more serious work. I guess I can't complain too much as I've only been studying for two months but I don't know if my RC problems will go away so easily.

Anyone else still having these RC issues?

Was the grouping game one where you CAN reliably map out all the hypo's? I tend to make a master diagram, and redraw it based on each question, since they usually come loaded with conditional rules.

If your goal is to break 170, I'd focus on perfecting LR and LG. If you can get those combined to like a -3 or so, even a -6 shouldn't hurt you too bad on your overall score.

[BillPackets]

Did PT 9 today.
RC -7 (I really need to study/drill RC)
LR1 -11 (not sure what in the actual fuuuu happened here...)
LG -2
LR2 -6

163

Pretty disappointed with this LR performance. Going to drill the problem area questions. I also need to get faster at LG, spent way too much time on the first and second game.

What kinds of LR Qs did u miss? Also the old tests are pretty similar to current tests, but they're weirdly different.

I feel like I miss out on all of the good ish that happens in this thread, since I don't get on at night. I am pretty sure I am the only one who doesn't know what Grey looks like.

Anyways. I missed MSS, Paradox, Weaken, and a few principle questions, oh and one cannot be true. I haven't drilled any of those question types, so that is what I will do today. It gives me confidence knowing that I am not practiced in the areas I missed and that I am consistently doing well on the questions types I have drilled. I also got hyper lucky on LG, I just need to drill TF out of them and I haven't yet.

Also for the Colonel, timing wasn't an issue at all. I had ~3 mins left in every section except the bad LR, which I just felt blah about the whole time.

I can't remember the last time I saw a cannot be true Q in LR. Those are very sparse, fwiw.

I have a hard time with principle justify qs for some reason...there will usually be two answer choices that look like they could work, and one will contain a term/scope change that kills it, while the other will be perf (for example, the stimulus might talk about one person, and an answer choice might talk about people).

[Toby Ziegler]

Did PT 9 today.
RC -7 (I really need to study/drill RC)
LR1 -11 (not sure what in the actual fuuuu happened here...)
LG -2
LR2 -6

163

Pretty disappointed with this LR performance. Going to drill the problem area questions. I also need to get faster at LG, spent way too much time on the first and second game.

What kinds of LR Qs did u miss? Also the old tests are pretty similar to current tests, but they're weirdly different.

I feel like I miss out on all of the good ish that happens in this thread, since I don't get on at night. I am pretty sure I am the only one who doesn't know what Grey looks like.

Anyways. I missed MSS, Paradox, Weaken, and a few principle questions, oh and one cannot be true. I haven't drilled any of those question types, so that is what I will do today. It gives me confidence knowing that I am not practiced in the areas I missed and that I am consistently doing well on the questions types I have drilled. I also got hyper lucky on LG, I just need to drill TF out of them and I haven't yet.

Also for the Colonel, timing wasn't an issue at all. I had ~3 mins left in every section except the bad LR, which I just felt blah about the whole time.

I can't remember the last time I saw a cannot be true Q in LR. Those are very sparse, fwiw.

I have a hard time with principle justify qs for some reason...there will usually be two answer choices that look like they could work, and one will contain a term/scope change that kills it, while the other will be perf (for example, the stimulus might talk about one person, and an answer choice might talk about people).

Yeah I grabbed the wrong "10 LSAT" book, so I took a way old test. There was also a game in there that was weird AF. Every single LR question I missed I narrowed down to 2 and selected the wrong answer, yet when I reviewed, it was obvious why the wrong one was wrong and why the right one was right, so I am really trying to train myself to see that during the test. I also have this nasty problem of going down the line of answer choices and seeing one that I think is right and then not reading the remaining answer choices with as much precision.

[BillPackets]

Yeah I grabbed the wrong "10 LSAT" book, so I took a way old test. There was also a game in there that was weird AF. Every single LR question I missed I narrowed down to 2 and selected the wrong answer, yet when I reviewed, it was obvious why the wrong one was wrong and why the right one was right, so I am really trying to train myself to see that during the test. I also have this nasty problem of going down the line of answer choices and seeing one that I think is right and then not reading the remaining answer choices with as much precision.

Yeah I know what you mean. I think when it comes down to it, at least for flaw questions, there will be two attractive answer choices (at least in more difficult questions), but one will just be way too weak to be the right answer. I think this is esp common in principle justify, strengthen, and weaken, where they will write one or more answer choices that seem attractive, but the stimulus actually leaves room for those answer choices.

[Gray]

.

[GreenTee]

.

[Toby Ziegler]

I feel like I miss out on all of the good ish that happens in this thread, since I don't get on at night. I am pretty sure I am the only one who doesn't know what Grey looks like.

The only thing I've shared in this thread is a closeup of my eyebrows. You haven't missed much.

From what people are saying about those eyebrows, we missed something really special.

Yeah, seriously. I feel cheated. How are we supposed to meet at ASW if I can't look for your eyebrows?

[santoki]

Yeah I grabbed the wrong "10 LSAT" book, so I took a way old test. There was also a game in there that was weird AF. Every single LR question I missed I narrowed down to 2 and selected the wrong answer, yet when I reviewed, it was obvious why the wrong one was wrong and why the right one was right, so I am really trying to train myself to see that during the test. I also have this nasty problem of going down the line of answer choices and seeing one that I think is right and then not reading the remaining answer choices with as much precision.

Yeah I know what you mean. I think when it comes down to it, at least for flaw questions, there will be two attractive answer choices (at least in more difficult questions), but one will just be way too weak to be the right answer. I think this is esp common in principle justify, strengthen, and weaken, where they will write one or more answer choices that seem attractive, but the stimulus actually leaves room for those answer choices.

i have that problem too- where i see an answer choice A or B that looks like the ONE...and then end up skimming past the rest of the choices and inadvertently missing the real one. i've gotten in the habit of just ticking off next to the choices that seem to be candidates, even if im almost POSITIVE that a choice is right. having a tick mark next to a choice as opposed to having a choice circled does wonders psychologically as far as reading the rest of the choices intently.

[Toby Ziegler]

Yeah I grabbed the wrong "10 LSAT" book, so I took a way old test. There was also a game in there that was weird AF. Every single LR question I missed I narrowed down to 2 and selected the wrong answer, yet when I reviewed, it was obvious why the wrong one was wrong and why the right one was right, so I am really trying to train myself to see that during the test. I also have this nasty problem of going down the line of answer choices and seeing one that I think is right and then not reading the remaining answer choices with as much precision.

Yeah I know what you mean. I think when it comes down to it, at least for flaw questions, there will be two attractive answer choices (at least in more difficult questions), but one will just be way too weak to be the right answer. I think this is esp common in principle justify, strengthen, and weaken, where they will write one or more answer choices that seem attractive, but the stimulus actually leaves room for those answer choices.

i have that problem too- where i see an answer choice A or B that looks like the ONE...and then end up skimming past the rest of the choices and inadvertently missing the real one. i've gotten in the habit of just ticking off next to the choices that seem to be candidates, even if im almost POSITIVE that a choice is right. having a tick mark next to a choice as opposed to having a choice circled does wonders psychologically as far as reading the rest of the choices intently.

I am going to try that. Has it worked well for you?