real The Official December 2016 Waiters Group - Patience is a Virtue Forum

[Deardevil]

Hi all,

I am taking the Dec lsat and am currently working my way through the ps bibles and the lsat trainer. I am aiming for -2/3 on my lr sections, but I am consistently missing around -5/6 a section at the moment, whether I am doing a timed section or not. I am especially bad with assumption/str/wkn questions (I know, trainer should have taught me better lol). Any advice on how you beat these question types and got more time efficient? Any advice appreciated! Thanks

Hey, Connor.

I recommend drilling a couple of each of those weaknesses, as that got me a bit more familiar with how they function.

I used to suck at SA, but I realized they always have conditionality,
so I'd either draw it out or, if it's easy enough, keep it in my head,
then scan the ACs for something that matches the outcome/conclusion.
For example, the stimulus would read something like...
"All Saiyans can enhance their power levels; thus, Vegeta can enhance his power level."
What's missing? Well, if I map this out, it'd turn out to be S -> EPL.
It must be that Vegeta is a Saiyan! That satifies the sufficient condition.

For NA, it is slightly different;
you wanna look for choices that aren't too extreme, something that passes a negation test.
A simple example...
"With two Z-Fighters left, Yamcha has a higher chance than Krillin of physically beating Frieza."
What HAS to be the case? In other words, what NEEDS to be assumed?
Does one have to assume that Yamcha is faster than Krillin? Not really.
Does one have to assume that Frieza will go down with just one more blow? Nope.
Does one have to assume that Yamcha can land a hit on the enemy? Absolutely.
Try negating it; if he cannot even touch Frieza, how in the world would he begin to defeat him physically?

Strengthen and weaken questions are two sides of the same coin.
J.Y. says it best... "You don't ever attack Goku."
Confused? You should be, but it's fun looking at it from that angle.
Think of Goku as the PREMISE, his Kamehameha as the SUPPORT, and whatever he is directing the beam towards is the CONCLUSION.
If the beam is huge, that means there is a lot of support that Goku, the premise, is giving the conclusion, strengthening it.
The smaller it is, the weaker the support. In these question types, you wanna look for something that expands or reduces the beam.
Do not ever pick a choice that goes after a premise or conclusion.
Example...
Piccolo is charging his ultimate move while Goku distracts the foe; therefore, Piccolo must be trying to kill Raditz.
An AC that says "Piccolo never resorts to his strongest ability" or "Piccolo is not a murderer" is WRONG.
An AC that says "Piccolo despises Raditz" strengthens, even by just a little, because that hatred gives him a motive to kill.
An AC that says "Piccolo has no problem with Raditz and loathes Goku" gives doubt that Piccolo wishes to kill Raditz; maybe he's after his partner!
HTH.

PS. If you don't get any of these references, I'm sorry about your childhood.

[Barack O'Drama]

Hi all,

I am taking the Dec lsat and am currently working my way through the ps bibles and the lsat trainer. I am aiming for -2/3 on my lr sections, but I am consistently missing around -5/6 a section at the moment, whether I am doing a timed section or not. I am especially bad with assumption/str/wkn questions (I know, trainer should have taught me better lol). Any advice on how you beat these question types and got more time efficient? Any advice appreciated! Thanks

Hey, Connor.

I recommend drilling a couple of each of those weaknesses, as that got me a bit more familiar with how they function.

I used to suck at SA, but I realized they always have conditionality,
so I'd either draw it out or, if it's easy enough, keep it in my head,
then scan the ACs for something that matches the outcome/conclusion.
For example, the stimulus would read something like...
"All Saiyans can enhance their power levels; thus, Vegeta can enhance his power level."
What's missing? Well, if I map this out, it'd turn out to be S -> EPL.
It must be that Vegeta is a Saiyan! That satifies the sufficient condition.

For NA, it is slightly different;
you wanna look for choices that aren't too extreme, something that passes a negation test.
A simple example...
"With two Z-Fighters left, Yamcha has a higher chance than Krillin of physically beating Frieza."
What HAS to be the case? In other words, what NEEDS to be assumed?
Does one have to assume that Yamcha is faster than Krillin? Not really.
Does one have to assume that Frieza will go down with just one more blow? Nope.
Does one have to assume that Yamcha can land a hit on the enemy? Absolutely.
Try negating it; if he cannot even touch Frieza, how in the world would he begin to defeat him physically?

Strengthen and weaken questions are two sides of the same coin.
J.Y. says it best... "You don't ever attack Goku."
Confused? You should be, but it's fun looking at it from that angle.
Think of Goku as the PREMISE, his Kamehameha as the SUPPORT, and whatever he is directing the beam towards is the CONCLUSION.
If the beam is huge, that means there is a lot of support that Goku, the premise, is giving the conclusion, strengthening it.
The smaller it is, the weaker the support. In these question types, you wanna look for something that expands or reduces the beam.
Do not ever pick a choice that goes after a premise or conclusion.
Example...
Piccolo is charging his ultimate move while Goku distracts the foe; therefore, Piccolo must be trying to kill Raditz.
An AC that says "Piccolo never resorts to his strongest ability" or "Piccolo is not a murderer" is WRONG.
An AC that says "Piccolo despises Raditz" strengthens, even by just a little, because that hatred gives him a motive to kill.
An AC that says "Piccolo has no problem with Raditz and loathes Goku" gives doubt that Piccolo wishes to kill Raditz; maybe he's after his partner!
HTH.

PS. If you don't get any of these references, I'm sorry about your childhood.

Awesome explanation!

[Deardevil]

Drilled 13.

-3 in LG (I had the right answers in mind, but circled the wrong ones #blindasabat), 35 minutes.
-2 in LR (24 was a bit odd, but no complaints), 30 minutes.
-14 in RC (#foreverstuckunderthestrugglebus), 34 minutes.
-4 in LR (stay getting easy ones wrong), 32 minutes.

[Mikey]

Drilled 13.

-3 in LG (I had the right answers in mind, but circled the wrong ones #blindasabat), 35 minutes.
-2 in LR (24 was a bit odd, but no complaints), 30 minutes.
-14 in RC (#foreverstuckunderthestrugglebus), 34 minutes.
-4 in LR (stay getting easy ones wrong), 32 minutes.

What's your RC approach? Annotating or just read/memory?

[Deardevil]

What's your RC approach? Annotating or just read/memory?

Read, try to hold as much as I can, and underline here and there.
No doubt I have an abysmal short-term memory.

[Mikey]

What's your RC approach? Annotating or just read/memory?

Read, try to hold as much as I can, and underline here and there.
No doubt I have an abysmal short-term memory.

I'm the same man.. lol #Short-termMemoryPROBLEMSSSS!!! There's times where I'll feel like I KNOW the passage by memory and do well, but there's times where I'm just like "you wot m8"

[Deardevil]

I'm the same man.. lol #Short-termMemoryPROBLEMSSSS!!! There's times where I'll feel like I KNOW the passage by memory and do well, but there's times where I'm just like "you wot m8"

Honestly, I'll just devote ~10 minutes for the first three passages on my next set and see how shit goes down.
Probably not the best idea, but nothing seems to work... How do people go -0 on these?

[Mikey]

I'm the same man.. lol #Short-termMemoryPROBLEMSSSS!!! There's times where I'll feel like I KNOW the passage by memory and do well, but there's times where I'm just like "you wot m8"

Honestly, I'll just devote ~10 minutes for the first three passages on my next set and see how shit goes down.
Probably not the best idea, but nothing seems to work... How do people go -0 on these?

they're wizards, that's the only explanation.

i've seen advice from JY saying that if you are one of the people who can't finish all 4 passages, to do 3 passages and get 100% accuracy on them. For the fourth passage, if you have a few mins left, try and look for questions that ask for line references and do your best with those. but then again he did warn that you should only do this if you're not aiming for a 170+.. so.. i mean, you can always get lucky and get the ones you guessed on right, but ya know, you don't really want to be betting on luck, but it's up to the person, i guess!

[connordalto]

Hi all,

I am taking the Dec lsat and am currently working my way through the ps bibles and the lsat trainer. I am aiming for -2/3 on my lr sections, but I am consistently missing around -5/6 a section at the moment, whether I am doing a timed section or not. I am especially bad with assumption/str/wkn questions (I know, trainer should have taught me better lol). Any advice on how you beat these question types and got more time efficient? Any advice appreciated! Thanks

Hey, Connor.

I recommend drilling a couple of each of those weaknesses, as that got me a bit more familiar with how they function.

I used to suck at SA, but I realized they always have conditionality,
so I'd either draw it out or, if it's easy enough, keep it in my head,
then scan the ACs for something that matches the outcome/conclusion.
For example, the stimulus would read something like...
"All Saiyans can enhance their power levels; thus, Vegeta can enhance his power level."
What's missing? Well, if I map this out, it'd turn out to be S -> EPL.
It must be that Vegeta is a Saiyan! That satifies the sufficient condition.

For NA, it is slightly different;
you wanna look for choices that aren't too extreme, something that passes a negation test.
A simple example...
"With two Z-Fighters left, Yamcha has a higher chance than Krillin of physically beating Frieza."
What HAS to be the case? In other words, what NEEDS to be assumed?
Does one have to assume that Yamcha is faster than Krillin? Not really.
Does one have to assume that Frieza will go down with just one more blow? Nope.
Does one have to assume that Yamcha can land a hit on the enemy? Absolutely.
Try negating it; if he cannot even touch Frieza, how in the world would he begin to defeat him physically?

Strengthen and weaken questions are two sides of the same coin.
J.Y. says it best... "You don't ever attack Goku."
Confused? You should be, but it's fun looking at it from that angle.
Think of Goku as the PREMISE, his Kamehameha as the SUPPORT, and whatever he is directing the beam towards is the CONCLUSION.
If the beam is huge, that means there is a lot of support that Goku, the premise, is giving the conclusion, strengthening it.
The smaller it is, the weaker the support. In these question types, you wanna look for something that expands or reduces the beam.
Do not ever pick a choice that goes after a premise or conclusion.
Example...
Piccolo is charging his ultimate move while Goku distracts the foe; therefore, Piccolo must be trying to kill Raditz.
An AC that says "Piccolo never resorts to his strongest ability" or "Piccolo is not a murderer" is WRONG.
An AC that says "Piccolo despises Raditz" strengthens, even by just a little, because that hatred gives him a motive to kill.
An AC that says "Piccolo has no problem with Raditz and loathes Goku" gives doubt that Piccolo wishes to kill Raditz; maybe he's after his partner!
HTH.

PS. If you don't get any of these references, I'm sorry about your childhood.

Sounds good, I am going to go through tomorrow and try and isolate my weaknesses more by suf/nec, causality, etc for each of these types to refine my drilling. One of my biggest issues is also choosing between two contenders, sometimes I make dumb mistakes for out of scope answers by rationalizing too much and end up changing from a right to a wrong answer. Have you guys figured out a good system for this yet?

On a side note, where are you guys in prep at this point? I havent really started doing pts yet, planning on devoting november to that, want to make sure my accuracy is good before timing. Glad to have joined in with this group of people who also presumably have no ongoing social lives haha

[WWhitman]

Everyone seems to be talking about this "Cambridge packets" for drilling. Aren't they just simply pdf versions of the PTs? What makes them so special?

[Deardevil]

Everyone seems to be talking about this "Cambridge packets" for drilling. Aren't they just simply pdf versions of the PTs? What makes them so special?

I guess you can say that, except they group by type and difficulty, so it can be convenient for beginners to learn each type by drilling sets.
That's how I found out that I'm best at necessary assumptions and parallel reasoning questions.

[Barack O'Drama]

Everyone seems to be talking about this "Cambridge packets" for drilling. Aren't they just simply pdf versions of the PTs? What makes them so special?

No. The packets were available in both hard copy and PDF when I got mine. though I opted for the PDF for convenience.

They are kind of special because they are organized by type and difficulty as Deardevil says. It is beyond helpful having thousands and thousands of questions organized by type and difficulty laid out for me to drill. If I need to practice Reading Comp and specifically am having issues with Science passages, I can use the Cambridge Science RC Drill Packets and begin with the easier and work my way up to the more challenging.

It is a damn shame they don't sell them anymore due to the PDF ban. Hard copies are still around, but last I saw they were $3000+ to get the entire set hardcopy --which is obviously a rip off.

[Barack O'Drama]

Hi all,

I am taking the Dec lsat and am currently working my way through the ps bibles and the lsat trainer. I am aiming for -2/3 on my lr sections, but I am consistently missing around -5/6 a section at the moment, whether I am doing a timed section or not. I am especially bad with assumption/str/wkn questions (I know, trainer should have taught me better lol). Any advice on how you beat these question types and got more time efficient? Any advice appreciated! Thanks

Hey, Connor.

I recommend drilling a couple of each of those weaknesses, as that got me a bit more familiar with how they function.

I used to suck at SA, but I realized they always have conditionality,
so I'd either draw it out or, if it's easy enough, keep it in my head,
then scan the ACs for something that matches the outcome/conclusion.
For example, the stimulus would read something like...
"All Saiyans can enhance their power levels; thus, Vegeta can enhance his power level."
What's missing? Well, if I map this out, it'd turn out to be S -> EPL.
It must be that Vegeta is a Saiyan! That satifies the sufficient condition.

For NA, it is slightly different;
you wanna look for choices that aren't too extreme, something that passes a negation test.
A simple example...
"With two Z-Fighters left, Yamcha has a higher chance than Krillin of physically beating Frieza."
What HAS to be the case? In other words, what NEEDS to be assumed?
Does one have to assume that Yamcha is faster than Krillin? Not really.
Does one have to assume that Frieza will go down with just one more blow? Nope.
Does one have to assume that Yamcha can land a hit on the enemy? Absolutely.
Try negating it; if he cannot even touch Frieza, how in the world would he begin to defeat him physically?

Strengthen and weaken questions are two sides of the same coin.
J.Y. says it best... "You don't ever attack Goku."
Confused? You should be, but it's fun looking at it from that angle.
Think of Goku as the PREMISE, his Kamehameha as the SUPPORT, and whatever he is directing the beam towards is the CONCLUSION.
If the beam is huge, that means there is a lot of support that Goku, the premise, is giving the conclusion, strengthening it.
The smaller it is, the weaker the support. In these question types, you wanna look for something that expands or reduces the beam.
Do not ever pick a choice that goes after a premise or conclusion.
Example...
Piccolo is charging his ultimate move while Goku distracts the foe; therefore, Piccolo must be trying to kill Raditz.
An AC that says "Piccolo never resorts to his strongest ability" or "Piccolo is not a murderer" is WRONG.
An AC that says "Piccolo despises Raditz" strengthens, even by just a little, because that hatred gives him a motive to kill.
An AC that says "Piccolo has no problem with Raditz and loathes Goku" gives doubt that Piccolo wishes to kill Raditz; maybe he's after his partner!
HTH.

PS. If you don't get any of these references, I'm sorry about your childhood.

Sounds good, I am going to go through tomorrow and try and isolate my weaknesses more by suf/nec, causality, etc for each of these types to refine my drilling. One of my biggest issues is also choosing between two contenders, sometimes I make dumb mistakes for out of scope answers by rationalizing too much and end up changing from a right to a wrong answer. Have you guys figured out a good system for this yet?

On a side note, where are you guys in prep at this point? I havent really started doing pts yet, planning on devoting november to that, want to make sure my accuracy is good before timing. Glad to have joined in with this group of people who also presumably have no ongoing social lives haha

A good system is making sure you really understand conditional logic and can identify the argument core with surgical precision and be able to see the gap in reasoning or the assumption. Also make sure you understand the LSAT meanings of quantifiers like many, most, all, some, etc. They aren't exactly used the same on the LSAT as we do colloquially.

As far as my prep, I am going through the 7Sage curriculum and then going to do other curricula once I finish. Nowhere near full PTS yet myself. Make sure you try to have somewhat of a social life, because the burnout is real, lol. I try to take a day off a week from LSAT prep because I find coming in with a fresh mind makes me do so much better as well.

[CheyenneGarrett17]

Everyone seems to be talking about this "Cambridge packets" for drilling. Aren't they just simply pdf versions of the PTs? What makes them so special?

No. The packets were available in both hard copy and PDF when I got mine. though I opted for the PDF for convenience.

They are kind of special because they are organized by type and difficulty as Deardevil says. It is beyond helpful having thousands and thousands of questions organized by type and difficulty laid out for me to drill. If I need to practice Reading Comp and specifically am having issues with Science passages, I can use the Cambridge Science RC Drill Packets and begin with the easier and work my way up to the more challenging.

It is a damn shame they don't sell them anymore due to the PDF ban. Hard copies are still around, but last I saw they were $3000+ to get the entire set hardcopy --which is obviously a rip off.

I have been looking for these everywhere after reading about their usefulness on here, and was so confused why I wasn't finding them. I guess this answers it. That's really too bad. Just now really getting into studying - how does one 'drill' without resources like that? Is there something similar? Should I just go through previous tests and pick apart by question types?

[Deardevil]

I have been looking for these everywhere after reading about their usefulness on here, and was so confused why I wasn't finding them. I guess this answers it. That's really too bad. Just now really getting into studying - how does one 'drill' without resources like that? Is there something similar? Should I just go through previous tests and pick apart by question types?

I formed my only packets using 7Sage's question bank.
You can find any and every question, as well as its corresponding type and difficulty level.
If you don't wish to go through the trouble, PowerScore also sells books for drilling, though they're not as cheap as their Bible counterparts.

[ngogirl12]

Everyone seems to be talking about this "Cambridge packets" for drilling. Aren't they just simply pdf versions of the PTs? What makes them so special?

No. The packets were available in both hard copy and PDF when I got mine. though I opted for the PDF for convenience.

They are kind of special because they are organized by type and difficulty as Deardevil says. It is beyond helpful having thousands and thousands of questions organized by type and difficulty laid out for me to drill. If I need to practice Reading Comp and specifically am having issues with Science passages, I can use the Cambridge Science RC Drill Packets and begin with the easier and work my way up to the more challenging.

It is a damn shame they don't sell them anymore due to the PDF ban. Hard copies are still around, but last I saw they were $3000+ to get the entire set hardcopy --which is obviously a rip off.

I have been looking for these everywhere after reading about their usefulness on here, and was so confused why I wasn't finding them. I guess this answers it. That's really too bad. Just now really getting into studying - how does one 'drill' without resources like that? Is there something similar? Should I just go through previous tests and pick apart by question types?

PowerScore has these books separated by type. It's kind of expensive, but I think drilling questions especially LR by type is worth it.
https://shop.powerscore.com/?action=pro ... 00O2WCmIAN

Manhattan has something similar on their website under store, but it's around 70$ extra and doesn't say what preptests the material is from.

I have the PT book of 40s-50s and I'm planning on using them for experimentals when I start taking tests.

[WWhitman]

Everyone seems to be talking about this "Cambridge packets" for drilling. Aren't they just simply pdf versions of the PTs? What makes them so special?

No. The packets were available in both hard copy and PDF when I got mine. though I opted for the PDF for convenience.

They are kind of special because they are organized by type and difficulty as Deardevil says. It is beyond helpful having thousands and thousands of questions organized by type and difficulty laid out for me to drill. If I need to practice Reading Comp and specifically am having issues with Science passages, I can use the Cambridge Science RC Drill Packets and begin with the easier and work my way up to the more challenging.

It is a damn shame they don't sell them anymore due to the PDF ban. Hard copies are still around, but last I saw they were $3000+ to get the entire set hardcopy --which is obviously a rip off.

Wow, that does sound amazing!!! When did LSAC ban it and why?!?! I could really use one now lol... It's so overwhelming to go through thousands of questionssssss.

BTW... Anyone on here that is studying in Chicago?

[Barack O'Drama]

Everyone seems to be talking about this "Cambridge packets" for drilling. Aren't they just simply pdf versions of the PTs? What makes them so special?

No. The packets were available in both hard copy and PDF when I got mine. though I opted for the PDF for convenience.

They are kind of special because they are organized by type and difficulty as Deardevil says. It is beyond helpful having thousands and thousands of questions organized by type and difficulty laid out for me to drill. If I need to practice Reading Comp and specifically am having issues with Science passages, I can use the Cambridge Science RC Drill Packets and begin with the easier and work my way up to the more challenging.

It is a damn shame they don't sell them anymore due to the PDF ban. Hard copies are still around, but last I saw they were $3000+ to get the entire set hardcopy --which is obviously a rip off.

I have been looking for these everywhere after reading about their usefulness on here, and was so confused why I wasn't finding them. I guess this answers it. That's really too bad. Just now really getting into studying - how does one 'drill' without resources like that? Is there something similar? Should I just go through previous tests and pick apart by question types?

Don't worry there are tons of other ways to prep and drill out there. I would recommend the Powerscore Drill By Type books. A friend of mine used them and says they are good.

Or you could pick the test apart.


I think the best and easiest way to drill is to get a 7Sage course that gives you all the problem sets you'd need + video explanations. Good stuff.

[Barack O'Drama]

Everyone seems to be talking about this "Cambridge packets" for drilling. Aren't they just simply pdf versions of the PTs? What makes them so special?

No. The packets were available in both hard copy and PDF when I got mine. though I opted for the PDF for convenience.

They are kind of special because they are organized by type and difficulty as Deardevil says. It is beyond helpful having thousands and thousands of questions organized by type and difficulty laid out for me to drill. If I need to practice Reading Comp and specifically am having issues with Science passages, I can use the Cambridge Science RC Drill Packets and begin with the easier and work my way up to the more challenging.

It is a damn shame they don't sell them anymore due to the PDF ban. Hard copies are still around, but last I saw they were $3000+ to get the entire set hardcopy --which is obviously a rip off.

Wow, that does sound amazing!!! When did LSAC ban it and why?!?! I could really use one now lol... It's so overwhelming to go through thousands of questionssssss.

BTW... Anyone on here that is studying in Chicago?

I bought mine in December of 2015. I think they were banned a few months later. April 2016 maybe?

Why did they ban them? The LSAC like any business wants to maximize profits. Also, people were pirating them and sharing them with each other online. Not so much the packets; but the actual PDF versions on the tests as well. So the LSAC banned everything Pdf.

[WWhitman]

Everyone seems to be talking about this "Cambridge packets" for drilling. Aren't they just simply pdf versions of the PTs? What makes them so special?

No. The packets were available in both hard copy and PDF when I got mine. though I opted for the PDF for convenience.

They are kind of special because they are organized by type and difficulty as Deardevil says. It is beyond helpful having thousands and thousands of questions organized by type and difficulty laid out for me to drill. If I need to practice Reading Comp and specifically am having issues with Science passages, I can use the Cambridge Science RC Drill Packets and begin with the easier and work my way up to the more challenging.

It is a damn shame they don't sell them anymore due to the PDF ban. Hard copies are still around, but last I saw they were $3000+ to get the entire set hardcopy --which is obviously a rip off.

Wow, that does sound amazing!!! When did LSAC ban it and why?!?! I could really use one now lol... It's so overwhelming to go through thousands of questionssssss.

BTW... Anyone on here that is studying in Chicago?

I bought mine in December of 2015. I think they were banned a few months later. April 2016 maybe?

Why did they ban them? The LSAC like any business wants to maximize profits. Also, people were pirating them and sharing them with each other online. Not so much the packets; but the actual PDF versions on the tests as well. So the LSAC banned everything Pdf.

LSAC should be a not-for-profit entity. The fact that they're in the business of making $$$ is somewhat alarming if you ask me... oh well...

[Deardevil]

Drilled PT 16.

-4 in LG (finished a game in three minutes, yet still bombed), 35 minutes.
-2 in LR (easy ones again), 29 minutes.
-3 in LR (had to rush), 34 minutes.
-10 in RC (actually thought passages weren't so bad), 28 minutes.

[Deardevil]

PT 18.

-8 in LG (um, those last two games, though #WTF), 34 minutes.
-1 in LR, 29 minutes. :')
-12 in RC, 35 minutes.
-0 in LR (got the one SA question correct #phew), 32 minutes.

Would've been 170 if games were perfect...

[Barack O'Drama]

PT 18.

-8 in LG (um, those last two games, though #WTF), 34 minutes.
-1 in LR, 29 minutes. :')
-12 in RC, 35 minutes.
-0 in LR (got the one SA question correct #phew), 32 minutes.

Would've been 170 if games were perfect...

Dude, you are seriously killing LR! Get LG down and the 170s are yours!

Overall, great job!

[Deardevil]

Dude, you are seriously killing LR! Get LG down and the 170s are yours!

Overall, great job!

-0 on three sections and -10 on RC is looking a lot more feasible than -2.5 on each...
Definitely need to perfect LG and LR and hope I don't completely bomb RC lol.

How goes your studies?

[Barack O'Drama]

Dude, you are seriously killing LR! Get LG down and the 170s are yours!

Overall, great job!

-0 on three sections and -10 on RC is looking a lot more feasible than -2.5 on each...
Definitely need to perfect LG and LR and hope I don't completely bomb RC lol.

How goes your studies?

I feel the same way!

I usually go like -3/-4 on LR and -4 on LG, but RC I miss -8 lol. the good news is I haven't done any actual prep on RC so I am hoping that will get my score down a bit.


My studies are going well. I recently just had a big epiphany with LR. My timing has been good and I'm only missing a couple per section whereas a month ago I would miss at least 5-6. I need to get on your level and get down to -0/-1 for LR so I can make the jump into the high 160s!