October 2013 (re)take Thread Forum

[BFlanagan]

.

[CyanIdes Of March]

I've taken 8 lg sections since I began studying, and I went -0 on the first four. Then, I ended up going -2, -1, -0, -2 on the next four. Trying to improve from a 169, I feel like I am getting discouraged pretty easily because I feel like I'll have such little room to make mistakes when in October. Now that all my PTs have been used at least once, many times twice, I feel like anything below perfection on sections of LGs is failure. Does anyone else feel this way?

Somewhat, but it's been a long time since I've seen any of these, (8 or 9 months). I just took my first 'getting back into it' section. PT 65 LR timed, and I crushed it like I've never crushed it before. -0, 10 minutes left. I didn't feel like I was benefiting from having seen it before, none of the questions or answers felt familiar. I'm hoping this is indicative of my new, stronger abilities.

[Archangel]

Four PTs you may have never seen before within the link below.

--LinkRemoved--

[iditarod]

took my first pt since going through the lg bible (going off noodley's guide, roughly)

pt 40

lr1 -0
lg -1
lr2 -3
rc -2

raw: 95/101
scaled: 174

overall, this felt good. i feel like i've dusted off a lot of my skills for this test. one frustrating thing (that i posed to the october 2013 thread too) is that I misbubbled a Q on LR 2.

I did this on my "diagnostic" a few weeks ago too, and when I prepped the first time, I did it every few tests. Anyone have any thoughts on improving this? (Drilling with answer sheets, trying to be more mindful, only filling after doing a game / lr page, etc.)

thanks.

[iditarod]

Four PTs you may have never seen before within the link below.

--LinkRemoved--

woah.. this legit?

[Archangel]

Yep, but it's easier than those administered in the US. It's made by LSAC so they are similar, but there is no scale and there are fewer questions. Still, its nice for a confidence boost or a light prep day.

Btw click on the black bullet points to open the PDFs .... Lol

[mvonh001]

PT 1 from that website includes questions I have seen before...

[Archangel]

I believe PT 1 is some switched up version of June 07, whereas the others are originals.

[Dr.Zer0]

Just finished the BP LG book and drilling Cambridge LG packets at least twice, reviewing every game using 7sage videos. I drilled them once without time and once with time (spread out of course). Avg -5 to -7 per packet without time then -3 to -5 per packet with time. Took me 3 weeks to do this but I now have a good grasp of LG and will drill a section a day for the next 3-4 weeks as I shift to the LR MLSAT book and drill individual packets then do PT's 50-69 in september. Do you guys think this sounds like a solid plan or should I just review the MLSAT chapters that pertain to my LR weaknesses and drill mercilessly for the next couple of weeks before shifting to PT's in september?

[PatriotP74]

Post removed...

[Dr.Zer0]

For any working through books, about how much of that book/books do you go through in a week/day?

I usually do a chapter a day and then drill the material that corresponds to the chapter I just went over for the rest of the day. That way you get to practice and reinforce what you just learned.

[jk148706]

For any working through books, about how much of that book/books do you go through in a week/day?

I usually do a chapter a day and then drill the material that corresponds to the chapter I just went over for the rest of the day. That way you get to practice and reinforce what you just learned.

Finished MLR and LRB about a month ago. Still missing up to five LR q's on PTs. Considering going back through the books.

[CyanIdes Of March]

How much do yall think your subconscious is helping you? I got a 179 on PT 65 yesterday and, while I don't feel like I remembered any more than 1 or 2 questions, I seemed to soar through sections way faster than I usually had.

[MrBlueSky!]

.

[CyanIdes Of March]

How much do yall think your subconscious is helping you? I got a 179 on PT 65 yesterday and, while I don't feel like I remembered any more than 1 or 2 questions, I seemed to soar through sections way faster than I usually had.

This exact thing happened to me during one of my PTs from June...I dont mean to make a faulty causation/correlation mistake, minimize factors, or generalize from my experience, but I did get the best 2 nights of sleep and had the 2 most relaxed (minimal studying) immediately prior to that occurrence. ...0 anxiety throughout the entire test, i kept looking up to check time out of surprise because i was moving so much faster (yet it felt super laid back) than i had ever before...and scored by far my highest PT score out of 17 5-section, timed tests.

Less is more.

Also, "subconscious" reads to me as "natural." So, as little actual brainy *thinking* as you have to do and as natural as the reasoning in the questions come across to you, the more "subconscious" your experience will feel. ...at least in my opinion. Which I think why there is a science to study for the test a year out. Because even in your patches of not studying, you all of a sudden become the obnoxious brainy logical reasoning guy/gal at parties because of your "new natural" (and potentially socially paralyzing) way of thinking.

While I hope that's the case, what I'm worried about isn't that my sub-conscience is making the right answers feel right, but that my sub-conscience remembers the answers (because I took test already back in November) even though I still have to go through the process of figuring the right question out as I normally would.

[BFlanagan]

Looks good, everyone.

Been drilling some LG sections, an RC, and an LR. Been -0/-1 on all LG, went -1 on RC, and -1 on LR.

We need LG consistent -0, but I'm noticing that daily full sections of LG doesn't really help; it leads to overconfidence and carelessness on my part. I'm trying not to over saturate myself with any section to keep myself hungry - especially with LR and RC.

My LR was around 30 minutes, which is significantly slower than my June peak.
Missed one of those abstract sufficient assumption question towards the end of LR. These ones become common around the 50s, and I'm usually no problem on them. I was really tired, hungry, and thirsty by the time I got to it. So, I'm not down about the -1 or the speed...but no excuses. Although I'm more relaxed, I still need to remind myself that a missed question isn't the end of the world.

We need every section to be -0/-1.

[BFlanagan]

Just finished LR2 from PT 57. Finished in 27 minutes, but -1.

Missed number 7...understand why C is right, but also convinced D could work. Looking back now, I think the key is "MOST help explain."

Happy my timing is coming back, and felt great overall.

[CyanIdes Of March]

176 on PT 64. Missed 3 of the last 7 questions on RC because I had to rush through it. Still, not bad.

[jmjm]

Registered for oct (first lsat) but had prepped a bit for june lsat and see some users here from old june thread. Ive been posting in other oct thread also.

Recently came across a parallel-flaw q5 (pt16 s2 q7) where one is supposed to match the reasoning pattern. Reasoning in B (and D, E) when written in contrapositive form will match the stimulus. As far as I know, for lsat a contrapositive answer choice doesn't make it any less correct. Not sure why B is wrong then?

I have been using lsatqa.com by going to the link that provides breakdown of types of questions. Some types of questions (such as flaw) appear more frequently in a section and the link at lsatgrader->Qtypes only provides cumulative mistakes for each type in a graph with circles representing question types. The link does not show how performance improved for a certain type of question. Any way to track improvement on specific question types?

[vuthy]

Registered for oct (first lsat) but had prepped a bit for june lsat and see some users here from old june thread. Ive been posting in other oct thread also.

Recently came across a parallel-flaw q5 (pt16 s2 q7) where one is supposed to match the reasoning pattern. Reasoning in B (and D, E) when written in contrapositive form will match the stimulus. As far as I know, for lsat a contrapositive answer choice doesn't make it any less correct. Not sure why B is wrong then?

I have been using lsatqa.com by going to the link that provides breakdown of types of questions. Some types of questions (such as flaw) appear more frequently in a section and the link at lsatgrader->Qtypes only provides cumulative mistakes for each type in a graph with circles representing question types. The link does not show how performance improved for a certain type of question. Any way to track improvement on specific question types?

I think you're misunderstanding the argument in the stimulus. It's a mistaken negation: ~A -> B, therefore A -> ~B. Choice C matches that perfectly. The other ones you mentioned are do not match that argument. B is actually way off of that.

[jmjm]

Registered for oct (first lsat) but had prepped a bit for june lsat and see some users here from old june thread. Ive been posting in other oct thread also.

Recently came across a parallel-flaw q5 (pt16 s2 q7) where one is supposed to match the reasoning pattern. Reasoning in B (and D, E) when written in contrapositive form will match the stimulus. As far as I know, for lsat a contrapositive answer choice doesn't make it any less correct. Not sure why B is wrong then?

I have been using lsatqa.com by going to the link that provides breakdown of types of questions. Some types of questions (such as flaw) appear more frequently in a section and the link at lsatgrader->Qtypes only provides cumulative mistakes for each type in a graph with circles representing question types. The link does not show how performance improved for a certain type of question. Any way to track improvement on specific question types?

I think you're misunderstanding the argument in the stimulus. It's a mistaken negation: ~A -> B, therefore A -> ~B. Choice C matches that perfectly. The other ones you mentioned are do not match that argument. B is actually way off of that.

thanks, right that C matches best. But, the pattern of reasoning commonly known as mistaken negation (usually stated in the form X -> Y therefore ~X -> ~Y) is logically same as its contrapositive form in choice B: X (stole money) - > Y (spend conspicuously) therefore Y (spend conspicuous) - > X (stole money)

y -> x is only a contrapositive of ~x -> ~y and the pattern of reasoning does not change even if an argument is stated in a contrapos form.

[vuthy]

I do see what you're saying, but I think there are other problems with choice B that disable it. Both the stim and C have a conditional second sentence (if/therefore). B doesn't have that. B is more of an application of a conditional than a conditional. Relatedly, it moves from "whoever" to "Jones," and from "stole money" to "thief," whereas the stim doesn't have term shifts like that.

Do your contrapos thing to the second sentence and this answer choice. It would read: He isn't the thief, so J must not be spending conspicuously. Does that really seem like the most parallel flaw, given all the things stated above? To be parallel to that flaw, the stim would have to read: The Smith family has been given access, so the bay really smells now. So even if you do your contrapositive move, this doesn't match nearly as well as C.

[jmjm]

I do see what you're saying, but I think there are other problems with choice B that disable it. Both the stim and C have a conditional second sentence (if/therefore). B doesn't have that. B is more of an application of a conditional than a conditional. Relatedly, it moves from "whoever" to "Jones," and from "stole money" to "thief," whereas the stim doesn't have term shifts like that.

Do your contrapos thing to the second sentence and this answer choice. It would read: He isn't the thief, so J must not be spending conspicuously. Does that really seem like the most parallel flaw, given all the things stated above? To be parallel to that flaw, the stim would have to read: The Smith family has been given access, so the bay really smells now. So even if you do your contrapositive move, this doesn't match nearly as well as C.

Agree had marked C as the best choice. There are term shifts in B but there have been some parallel questions a bit of term shift has been acceptable. Although the term shift "Jones" spending money is made somewhat bearable by detective talking about "whoever", it's still a strike against B. But, the issue is how acceptable contrapositives are as E does not have term shifts.

This is a level 1 question and it's easy to pick the right answer if pattern matching. But if one looks at it deeper from the parallel logic pov it raises question why other choices such as E are ruled out considering writing out a choice in contrapos form doesn't take away anything from it's logic in regards with parallel reasoning.

[vuthy]

See if this helps at all:

http://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewto ... =13&t=2693

[jmjm]

See if this helps at all:

http://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewto ... =13&t=2693

Right, and that's is consistent with the issue pointed out in my post. In some cases lsat writers have used contrapos choices similar to E as acceptable answers and there are not sufficient grounds for ruling out E. No?