JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread Forum

[isuperserial]

Just jumping on board here, don't mind me.

[SteelPenguin]

Checking in as well. Hoping for a 5ish point jump to get me into the 170s. It would be a lot easier to sit out a cycle knowing that Cornell, Duke, and Michigan would be likely to accept me.

Currently PTing around a 171-172 average.

[patfeeney]

Question:

So I took Preptest 24 last night and I didn't do so hot.
Regardless, there was a question type that I don't believe I've seen before.
Sec. 2 Question 16, a double-question, had a question stem that asked which of the following questions would, if answered, would contribute most to an evaluation of the argument. The answers were five unanswered questions in themselves.
I've seen this style once before, but I've become intrigued since I've always gotten them wrong and I feel like I should at least know whether or not I should worry about them, or pass them over. I have never seen such questions on later preptests.

[patfeeney]

Question:

So I took Preptest 24 last night and I didn't do so hot.
Regardless, there was a question type that I don't believe I've seen before.
Sec. 2 Question 16, a double-question, had a question stem that asked which of the following questions would, if answered, would contribute most to an evaluation of the argument. The answers were five unanswered questions in themselves.
I've seen this style once before, but I've become intrigued since I've always gotten them wrong and I feel like I should at least know whether or not I should worry about them, or pass them over. I have never seen such questions on later preptests.

It was an LR section, forgot to mention that.

[The-Specs]

Question:

So I took Preptest 24 last night and I didn't do so hot.
Regardless, there was a question type that I don't believe I've seen before.
Sec. 2 Question 16, a double-question, had a question stem that asked which of the following questions would, if answered, would contribute most to an evaluation of the argument. The answers were five unanswered questions in themselves.
I've seen this style once before, but I've become intrigued since I've always gotten them wrong and I feel like I should at least know whether or not I should worry about them, or pass them over. I have never seen such questions on later preptests.

They are called "Evaluate the Argument" questions (original, I know), at least according to the PS Bible. There was one on PT 45 which i took yesterday so I think they still come around. The easiest way to handle them is to think of extreme answers to the evaluative questions (the questions that are answer choices). So, for example, if the argument is numerical the answer to the evaluative question might be 1,000 and 0. Or if it is a simple yes or no question then it will be yes and no (that is as extreme as you can get in those cases). The correct answer will always be the evaluative question is that could turn the outcome of the argument one way or the other with the extreme answers.

That may not makes sense, lets look at this question specifically:

Authors examine the question of whether an impending mass wave of extinctions will take place in the next 100 years.
These authors say there is no evidence that the rate of extinction is now accelerating.
Our conclusion is that these authors are wrong, that there is evidence. We are given data on subspecies of North American fishes where we are shown that they are indeed increasingly becoming more extinct.

However, the question is whether this fact of subspecies of North American fishes collapsing is representative of animal species becoming extinct.

If it were true that it was unrepresentative, then this argument is ruined. The evidence would be irrelevant to the concept of animal species.

If it were representative, then the argument makes a great point. The extinction rate would be increasing.

In other words find the evaluative question that makes you say, yes, it is representative or no, it is not. This will be the right answer.

Hope that made some semblance of sense.

[objection_your_honor]

Hey everyone, I've been slowed down considerably in my study up until the last week, but wanted to post here to get some input on my progress. I've been going through the PS LG Bible and just finished the chapter on linear games. I did 6 practice games of varying difficult and got anywhere from -0 on the easy ones to -3, but my average was probably about -2. Is that a realistic spot to be at after only going through this chapter or should I be getting more right than I am?

Thanks!

Timing is an important metric, as well — basic linear games should be finished in 5-6 mins. If you're not there yet, you will get there with time. It's a realistic spot to be at after only finishing the chapter, but I think with under two months to go, you should be looking at October (not June) if you really want to maximize your score.

[dubster101]

Took PT #29 today after a cumulative total of six hours studied (all Powerscore Logic Games bible); results:

LR1 -4
RC -5
LG -1
LR2 -4

Raw: 87
Scaled: 169

Had a lot of the ones I missed on LR/RC narrowed down to two choices (one of them being the correct answer), and ended up picking the wrong one. Haven't started studying for LR/RC yet though, so feel that there is a lot of room for improvement.

Planning to take PT #30 on Sunday.

[lsatyolo]

PT 26 LR section 1 question 12


Can anyone explain how the correct answer actually weakens the argument in the stimulus?

[mindarmed]

PT 26 LR section 1 question 12


Can anyone explain how the correct answer actually weakens the argument in the stimulus?

The conclusion of the argument discusses reducing fat intake to reduce cancer. But is fat intake the only cause of cancer?

Answer choice D tells us that those countries with high fat intake also have high amounts of environmental pollution. Environmental pollution is an alternative explanation for the cause of cancer

[CardozoLaw09]

PT 26 LR section 1 question 12


Can anyone explain how the correct answer actually weakens the argument in the stimulus?

High levels of environmental pollution can cause cancer ie) lung cancer as a result of poor air pollution, so what D is trying to get at is weakening the causal relationship in the stim between fat intake and cancer by providing an additional explanation for the cause of cancer ie) high levels of pollution.

Edit: Scooped

[lsatyolo]

Much appreciation to both of y'all. I need to go back and review LRB for sure.

[wtrc]

Just completed PT 56:

LG: 0
LR1: -1 (17)
LR2: -1 (15)
RC: -3 (17,19,24)
Experimental: RC from PT 34: 0

Raw: 95, scaled: 176

I realized after the second RC passage that I had already taken almost 20 minutes, and really rushed the third (comparative) passage. Surprised by my experimental section. Still, happy to be seeing progress and have been finally hitting my goal. I took this in a library and this is the first time in a while that I did an extra section with break after 3- really mentally exhausting.

Now off to review...

[CardozoLaw09]

Just completed PT 56:

LG: 0
LR1: -1 (17)
LR2: -1 (15)
RC: -3 (17,19,24)
Experimental: RC from PT 34: 0

Raw: 95, scaled: 176

I realized after the second RC passage that I had already taken almost 20 minutes, and really rushed the third (comparative) passage. Surprised by my experimental section. Still, happy to be seeing progress and have been over 170 the last 5 PTs. Now off to review...

Awesome work Weathercoins

[mindarmed]

Just completed PT 56:

LG: 0
LR1: -1 (17)
LR2: -1 (15)
RC: -3 (17,19,24)
Experimental: RC from PT 34: 0

Raw: 95, scaled: 176

I realized after the second RC passage that I had already taken almost 20 minutes, and really rushed the third (comparative) passage. Surprised by my experimental section. Still, happy to be seeing progress and have been finally hitting my goal. I took this in a library and this is the first time in a while that I did an extra section with break after 3- really mentally exhausting.

Now off to review...

bro props to you, prepping with an extra RC section is the fucking absolute worst

[RhymesLikeDimes]

169-174-176-177-169 over my last five PTs. This is getting worrisome. A <170 on test day would literally kill me.

[mindarmed]

169-174-176-177-169 over my last five PTs. This is getting worrisome. A <170 on test day would literally kill me.

relax bro, you hit 173+ three times. you'll be fine.

[wtrc]

169-174-176-177-169 over my last five PTs. This is getting worrisome. A <170 on test day would literally kill me.

Have you been taking in varying conditions?

You've got 2 months, and you clearly have the skills to score almost perfectly. On test day, you'll get the extra adrenaline boost. You got this.

[MKX]

While I have yet to review Logic Games at all, and I only went through Must be True and Main Idea in the LR PS bible, I just did my first self PT and boy am I disappointed. Logic Games was somehow my best section yet I never read one thing about them. LR section 1 was just pathetic, but section 2 improved. RC is still lacking but most of my wrong answers on that come on the same passage.

PT 40 for those wondering. Would rather not post my score because it's pretty sad...

Edit: Just entered in my score on LsatQA and the positive note is the 2 LR sections (as well as Point of Issue which I have no reviewed) I went through in Powerscore I got a 100% on those questions, but of course those are the easiest.

[wtrc]

While I have yet to review Logic Games at all, and I only went through Must be True and Main Idea in the LR PS bible, I just did my first self PT and boy am I disappointed. Logic Games was somehow my best section yet I never read one thing about them. LR section 1 was just pathetic, but section 2 improved. RC is still lacking but most of my wrong answers on that come on the same passage.

PT 40 for those wondering. Would rather not post my score because it's pretty sad...

Edit: Just entered in my score on LsatQA and the positive note is the 2 LR sections (as well as Point of Issue which I have no reviewed) I went through in Powerscore I got a 100% on those questions, but of course those are the easiest.

You have the right idea, and know what you have to do. Don't be embarrassed by a score at this point- we all started with scores that needed work. When do you plan on taking?

[mvonh001]

just finishe drilling weakening question. by far my worst section, according to LSATqa. Anyway, i only got -2 out of 38, granted they were all level 1's but it is still nice to see that it is will below 1/10 wrong. On my last PT LR section i got 3/4 wrong.

[MKX]

While I have yet to review Logic Games at all, and I only went through Must be True and Main Idea in the LR PS bible, I just did my first self PT and boy am I disappointed. Logic Games was somehow my best section yet I never read one thing about them. LR section 1 was just pathetic, but section 2 improved. RC is still lacking but most of my wrong answers on that come on the same passage.

PT 40 for those wondering. Would rather not post my score because it's pretty sad...

Edit: Just entered in my score on LsatQA and the positive note is the 2 LR sections (as well as Point of Issue which I have no reviewed) I went through in Powerscore I got a 100% on those questions, but of course those are the easiest.

You have the right idea, and know what you have to do. Don't be embarrassed by a score at this point- we all started with scores that needed work. When do you plan on taking?

Signed up June (currently a junior in UG). October is my back up plan, but my motivation is I want to take this once and be done with it lol. Oh well back to the drawing board I guess. In RC, the suggested/implied questions absolutely killed me (I got 6 out of 7 wrong...), what is the best way to improve upon these?

[Vaulter]

I know there are a lot of posters scoring in the 160's and 170's but if there is anybody hitting around 150 to 160 I went from a 151 to a 167 (both real lsac administered tests). I started a thread for any questions at:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=207533

[mqt]

About to take PT 53, let's go!

[Fianna13]

Finally got done with midterms and stuff. Taking 62 today.

[mqt]

PT 53:

LR1: -2
LG: -1
LR2: -1
RC: -4

Raw: 92
Scaled: 173


Absolutely breezed through LG, having 17 minutes to complete the fourth game, then in a moment of pure stupidity, didn't check the very last problem and got it wrong. Otherwise, my concern was a poor RC section fueled by just not getting the point of the 2nd passage on Common Law. Disappointed in myself, but not discouraged.