The Official December 2015 Study Group Forum

davey jones · Post by **davey jones** » Mon Nov 30, 2015 3:35 pm

Post removed.

flash21 · Post by **flash21** » Mon Nov 30, 2015 3:50 pm

October LG is making me Realize how pressure makes your thinking process go down the drain. After doing 76 today I was kind of amazed I bombed LG so hard on test day.

roshan07 · Post by **roshan07** » Mon Nov 30, 2015 3:51 pm

slizerd wrote:
Davey Jones wrote:
Shasta McNasty wrote:What are you guys brining as a snack on test day?
water, banana, a packet of those orange cheese crackers with peanut butter. same thing i ate during my october take.
I brought a clif bar during October, but barely ate half of it because some dude kept talking to me during the break about the LS application process. I didn't want to be rude and not respond, and it's hard af to respond with a mouth full of clif bar.

LOL

fishpaste1 · Post by **fishpaste1** » Mon Nov 30, 2015 4:33 pm

Post removed.

Mint-Berry_Crunch · Post by **Mint-Berry_Crunch** » Mon Nov 30, 2015 4:41 pm

Post removed...

Mint-Berry_Crunch · Post by **Mint-Berry_Crunch** » Mon Nov 30, 2015 4:42 pm

Post removed...

cheeseee · Post by **cheeseee** » Mon Nov 30, 2015 4:42 pm

Mint-Berry_Crunch wrote:
cheeseee wrote:Sorry for asking so many 76 questions, but for LR1-22 a tax prep disclaimer question, the gap is
[+] Spoiler
company need legal protection -> email suggest illegal, because the conclusion assumes the "if part"? and we need to connect "email suggest to protection"?
thanks again

[+] Spoiler
sufficient assumption:
ARG: the only purpose for this disclaimer is to provide legal protection. but if the email suggests that the client do illegal things, then this serves no legal protection. therefore this serves no purpose.
well were told one reason why this serves no purpose. could there be others? what happens if the email does not suggest that the client do something illegal does it still offer no legal protection?

key to note: the disclaimer says "should not be construed" which means the recipient should not interpret the information in the email as encouraging naughty behaviour. however, we're given a scenario where the email does suggest illegal activity, meaning that it contains info which could be or is construed as communicating bad things.
what if this disclaimer helps prevent clients from misinterpreting? what if the email contains no mention of bad things, but the client THINKS it does?
thats how we get A as TCR.

B) who cares were already told that if it does say illegal stuff then the company is screwed
C) who cares if the clients ignore it, thats their own problem. the company is trying to save its own skin.
D) similar to C- i would hope they do, but this doesn't help us reach the "this shits useless" conclusion.
E) sure- they might. but we already know what happens if there info in the email, so this is redundant.
hope that helps!

thanks mint again!! I've never approached SA questions like this. Im used to diagramming everything. So, is this argument similar to this?
P: A->B
C: B
(Sufficient Assumption: not A -> B, which shows another explanation?)

Mint-Berry_Crunch · Post by **Mint-Berry_Crunch** » Mon Nov 30, 2015 4:42 pm

Post removed...

Mint-Berry_Crunch · Post by **Mint-Berry_Crunch** » Mon Nov 30, 2015 4:46 pm

Post removed...

cheeseee · Post by **cheeseee** » Mon Nov 30, 2015 4:50 pm

Mint-Berry_Crunch wrote:
cheeseee wrote:
Mint-Berry_Crunch wrote:
cheeseee wrote:Sorry for asking so many 76 questions, but for LR1-22 a tax prep disclaimer question, the gap is
[+] Spoiler
company need legal protection -> email suggest illegal, because the conclusion assumes the "if part"? and we need to connect "email suggest to protection"?
thanks again

[+] Spoiler
sufficient assumption:
ARG: the only purpose for this disclaimer is to provide legal protection. but if the email suggests that the client do illegal things, then this serves no legal protection. therefore this serves no purpose.
well were told one reason why this serves no purpose. could there be others? what happens if the email does not suggest that the client do something illegal does it still offer no legal protection?

key to note: the disclaimer says "should not be construed" which means the recipient should not interpret the information in the email as encouraging naughty behaviour. however, we're given a scenario where the email does suggest illegal activity, meaning that it contains info which could be or is construed as communicating bad things.
what if this disclaimer helps prevent clients from misinterpreting? what if the email contains no mention of bad things, but the client THINKS it does?
thats how we get A as TCR.

B) who cares were already told that if it does say illegal stuff then the company is screwed
C) who cares if the clients ignore it, thats their own problem. the company is trying to save its own skin.
D) similar to C- i would hope they do, but this doesn't help us reach the "this shits useless" conclusion.
E) sure- they might. but we already know what happens if there info in the email, so this is redundant.
hope that helps!
thanks mint again!! I've never approached SA questions like this. Im used to diagramming everything. So, is this argument similar to this?
P: A->B
C: B
(Sufficient Assumption: not A -> B, which shows another explanation?)
Yup, that's sufficient because you're either A or not A. Since we have an A, by establishing a not A -> B were basically saying B exists all the time, which for this question means there's never a purpose.b

slizerd · Post by **slizerd** » Mon Nov 30, 2015 4:53 pm

Mint-Berry_Crunch wrote:
Mint-Berry_Crunch wrote:37
Running out of colors

And time

slizerd · Post by **slizerd** » Mon Nov 30, 2015 5:42 pm

bought my pencils today guys

a_parm · Post by **a_parm** » Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:03 pm

Scared I'm going to miss page 180. I think that might be holding me back from a better score.

Mint-Berry_Crunch · Post by **Mint-Berry_Crunch** » Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:03 pm

Post removed...

Mint-Berry_Crunch · Post by **Mint-Berry_Crunch** » Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:06 pm

Post removed...

Mint-Berry_Crunch · Post by **Mint-Berry_Crunch** » Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:09 pm

Post removed...

davey jones · Post by **davey jones** » Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:14 pm

Post removed.

roshan07 · Post by **roshan07** » Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:23 pm

took PT 75 this morning, feeling very confident about Saturday. Before the October Test I think I was either burnt out extremely nervous this many days before the test and scored a 161 and 163 on my last two PTs. really killing the LR and improving on RC, just need to get the LG together.

Score 169

LR -2
RC -5
LR -1
LG -4

last 5 PT scores: 169, 167, 169, 170, 169

Mint-Berry_Crunch · Post by **Mint-Berry_Crunch** » Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:27 pm

Post removed...

i_wish_i_was_smart · Post by **i_wish_i_was_smart** » Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:31 pm

Post removed...

forum_user · Post by **forum_user** » Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:31 pm

Jeez I go home for ONE long weekend and now I'm like 30 pages behind ITT. Y'all have really picked up the pace, well done.

Took 76 yesterday:
RC: -6
LR1: -7
LG: -0
LR2: -2
168

LR comes back to haunt me once again, but I don't feel quite so bad about it. I take my tests at a public library, and during my first section a homeless guy kept asking me questions which kind of threw me off for a bit.

Planning to do 74 tonight and 75 on Wednesday, then taking it super easy Thursday and Friday. At this point I feel like I've done all I can, and if I end up with a score in the 160s so be it, I'll try again in June.

roshan07 · Post by **roshan07** » Mon Nov 30, 2015 7:19 pm

i_wish_i_was_smart wrote:Anyone else find all prep books useless? They literally taught me nothing. I have Manhattan LR, LG, and RC books. They're all unnecessary. I learned more from free 7sage explanations than from the books.

I'm guessing you're a natural 180 scorer?

Phoenix97 · Post by **Phoenix97** » Mon Nov 30, 2015 7:27 pm

Post removed...

december1205 · Post by **december1205** » Mon Nov 30, 2015 7:32 pm

First world problem: a knot in the back.
I have a full time desk job aka staring at the computer screen. With extra hours of studying, I guess I strained my neck/back too much. Having persistent sharp pain on my neck/shoulder whenever I sit down to take a PT so I went to get a back massage.

Taking it slow this week to not irritate my back/neck. I postponed taking PT 76 to tomorrow, and will be just doing reviews.

Gl to everyone! We got this

GMasters5 · Post by **GMasters5** » Mon Nov 30, 2015 7:49 pm

slizerd wrote:bought my pencils today guys

I bought the exact same ones today and paid $2.44, which I thought was an absolute steal.