The Official September 2014 Study Group Forum

[hetookmetoamovie]

Thanks everyone for making yesterday 10000x better. Good luck to all PTers today! Hoping the 3-day weekend has cleared out all the basic bitches in your towns.

[bound]

omg. Game 3 in PT68 just threw me for a loop. I haven't done that poorly on LG in forever!!

[Colonel_funkadunk]

Thanks everyone for making yesterday 10000x better. Good luck to all PTers today! Hoping the 3-day weekend has cleared out all the basic bitches in your towns.

Basic bitches

[Superstaranonymous]

.

[BillPackets]

basic bitches

I like u

[Colonel_funkadunk]

Where my sept ppl @

[BJS]

PT65 results are in!

S1 (PT31 LG S1): -2 [Experimental 1]
S2 LR1: -1
S3 LG: -0
S4 RC: -1
S5 (PT31 LR1 S2): -1 [Experimental 2]
S6 LR2: -0

I felt horrible about the RC and LR1, finishing just prior to the time. This was my first six-section PT, so I did not give a shit by S6 LR2 I was just so exhausted. I am definitely doing six section PTs from now on to increase my intellectual stamina. I need to get into a rhythm of doing more warm-ups before the PT. I need to start earlier (8:30 instead of 10:30). I need more LR and RC drills. We're just four weeks away from being done!

[Gray]

.

[hetookmetoamovie]

Haha, studying for the LSAT has made me surlier than I am usually.

BJS, you're a beast!

God, Beyonce's hourglass is out of this world.

On my 15 minute break and I've logged onto TLS. Will I be doing this on test day?

[Gray]

.

[BillPackets]

PT 65:

LR 1: -0
LG: -0
RC: -0
LR 2: -0

Even though I 180ed it didn't feel good. Overall I was very unsure on TWO questions, which really didn't sit well with me. On game day I went to be 100% confident on each question I do, even in the experimental. I'm going to practice the writing section for the remainder of the day.

[flash21]

what is TCR for a reading comprehension book? I have the LSAT trainer and am considering getting Manhattan RC if that is supposed to be a good book. I dunno if I'm just trying to throw books at my bad RC problems though. But damn am I awful at RC.. -9 on the last PT I did

Anyone ? ?

Maybe I should just drill RC more. Feels like the most hopeless section for some reason.

[Gray]

.

[Gray]

.

[Colonel_funkadunk]

PT 65:

LR 1: -0
LG: -0
RC: -0
LR 2: -0

Even though I 180ed it didn't feel good. Overall I was very unsure on TWO questions, which really didn't sit well with me. On game day I went to be 100% confident on each question I do, even in the experimental. I'm going to practice the writing section for the remainder of the day.

......not sure if troll

[BillPackets]

......not sure if troll

See: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... humblebrag

https://mobile.twitter.com/humblebrag

For additional information, also see: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/fa ... d=all&_r=0

[Gray]

.

[Superstaranonymous]

.

[BillPackets]

I meant specifically the writing section.

Come on, grey. think

[BJS]

......not sure if troll

See: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... humblebrag

https://mobile.twitter.com/humblebrag

For additional information, also see: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/fa ... d=all&_r=0

I am sorry!! I was excited about my score and I enjoy posting my results here because it keeps me accountable to PTing. I thought posting PT results here was acceptable. I also know that this doesn't reflect my PT average AT ALL and my average - which is just around 170 - isn't good enough.

[BillPackets]

Haha that's it! It's nbd I just think it's disheartening sometimes when we have a range of scores ITT--from the lower 160s to the mid 170s--to see people saying they felt bad about a section but went -0/-1 on it. Obvs it is for everything LSAT related (despite veering off course from time to time), so we are all here to encourage and support one another while studying/prepping for the test.

Great job, BJS. That's a serious accomplishment and one that very few test takers (like 1 out of 100) ever accomplish.

[Gray]

.

[BillPackets]

OH I GET IT YOU WERE JOKING.

Idfk y that made me laugh so much but I really loled

[jmjm]

I actually eliminated A because I thought that since Penn wasn't eligible, it doesn't fit that well with the conclusion - it's not that he should not receive the award, but that he can't. Still confused.

Per manhattan forum, apparently the first principle in that Q introduces a biconditional. Don't have it in front of me, but I remember the modifier was "but not otherwise." So I guess saying something like "if I'm awarded a trophy, then I won, but not otherwise," is a biconditional statement.

Can you explain this more?

ok, this thread has moved fast in the last couple days but came across this discussion of 63.lr2.22.

it took me 2:30 mins for the question before I picked one and moved on without feeling confident on it. Most of it was between choice A and B. I picked A.

on blind review, one can definitely rule out B. B is clearly wrong because denial of a sufficient condition doesn't necessarily mean denial of necessary condition (should receive award). one can conclude that Penn shouldn't necessarily receive award but not that Penn shouldn't receive award.

I actually eliminated A because I thought that since Penn wasn't eligible, it doesn't fit that well with the conclusion - it's not that he should not receive the award, but that he can't.

that leaves A closest to the right answer but not a good answer. you still have to assume that ineligibility for the award means that penn shouldn't receive the award. imo this gap is too large for an SA question for lsat standards.

[Colonel_funkadunk]

I wonder how GT's celibacy experiment is going.

It prob didn't last