The Official September 2016 Study Group - WAKE ME UP WHEN SEPTEMBER ENDS Forum

[SunDevil14]

I would like some input on materials before I buy them, especially for a person that is retaking the test. I have read some of the guides on this site and considered the following:

Powerscore LGB, RCB, LRB
Manhattan Book MLG MRC MLR
Blue Print Logic Games
Lsat Super Prep 2nd Addition
An Abundance of Lsat PT's especially the most recent test

I threw some of the more recent PT's I took before last test on LsatQA website.
-Logical Reason 90% correct (spent least time on, came naturally to as a philosophy major)
-Reading Comp 75%
-Logic Games 60% (spent most time on likely at the expense of reading comp, score still sucks)

In conclusion I'm sure I'd benefit from a vast amount of LG prep, maybe not so much LR, and RC perhaps a decent amount.

Last time I had enrolled in an online class, I still have some of the material but have completed 2/3rds of it. A lot of the material requires a subscription in order to review. I am not sure the subscription is worth $700 for a retake. (Testmasters)

[34iplaw]

I would like some input on materials before I buy them, especially for a person that is retaking the test. I have read some of the guides on this site and considered the following:

Powerscore LGB, RCB, LRB
Manhattan Book MLG MRC MLR
Blue Print Logic Games
Lsat Super Prep 2nd Addition
An Abundance of Lsat PT's especially the most recent test

I threw some of the more recent PT's I took before last test on LsatQA website.
-Logical Reason 90% correct (spent least time on, came naturally to as a philosophy major)
-Reading Comp 75%
-Logic Games 60% (spent most time on likely at the expense of reading comp, score still sucks)

In conclusion I'm sure I'd benefit from a vast amount of LG prep, maybe not so much LR, and RC perhaps a decent amount.

Last time I had enrolled in an online class, I still have some of the material but have completed 2/3rds of it. A lot of the material requires a subscription in order to review. I am not sure the subscription is worth $700 for a retake. (Testmasters)

I'm pretty sure some of their material comes with some form of guarantee. See if it falls under one of their policies. If not, contact them anyways. Maybe, they'll help out in some way or form... i.e. some form of credit/discount/partial refund/etc.

Sitting in on one of their classes tonight to see if I think I'd benefit. They're pretty easy and relaxed if any of you are interested. I think they do their last lessons in the next week or two, so you probably want to check it out sooner rather than later!

[proteinshake]

I would like some input on materials before I buy them, especially for a person that is retaking the test. I have read some of the guides on this site and considered the following:

Powerscore LGB, RCB, LRB
Manhattan Book MLG MRC MLR
Blue Print Logic Games
Lsat Super Prep 2nd Addition
An Abundance of Lsat PT's especially the most recent test

I threw some of the more recent PT's I took before last test on LsatQA website.
-Logical Reason 90% correct (spent least time on, came naturally to as a philosophy major)
-Reading Comp 75%
-Logic Games 60% (spent most time on likely at the expense of reading comp, score still sucks)

In conclusion I'm sure I'd benefit from a vast amount of LG prep, maybe not so much LR, and RC perhaps a decent amount.

Last time I had enrolled in an online class, I still have some of the material but have completed 2/3rds of it. A lot of the material requires a subscription in order to review. I am not sure the subscription is worth $700 for a retake. (Testmasters)

I like the MLG a lot more than LGB.

[MAPP]

Drilled necessary assumption questions from cambridge packet (included all difficulty levels) and it took forever. Not to mention I got steamrolled by about half of the most difficult questions. What are some of your strategies when doing NA questions? Specifically how to survive the toughest of the tough NA questions?

[34iplaw]

Going through LSAT trainer. Just through the first 100 pages. Anyone have any opinions on the drills they have in these early sections? I find them to be a good deal more frustrating than actual LSAT questions...particularly the matching/double dip things.

Is it more important to just make sure that you are focusing on the same issues from the prompts rather than the specific wording [i.e. takes for granted versus forgets to consider]? I know there is one point where it explicitly states that all these issues can be reworded, but I just feel like some of these drills are kinda crappy.

Overall, it feels like it is helping a little, but the open ended answer drills I find really frustrating...

[SunDevil14]

I just took my first practice test to establish my new baseline before I start studying again. I scored a 162, which is better than my score of 160 on test day 3 months ago. Honestly, I am a bit shocked and curious why I improved by 2 points despite the fact that this is first time I have looked at LSAT questions in 3 months or so.

I'm curious if my experience / situation is common? If anything I thought I would have dropped a few points or so.

[SunDevil14]

As for materials, I ended up ordering:

Powerscore Bible Bundle
Super Prep I and II
Manhattan Bundle
Blue Print Games book
Several Practice Tests from LSAC.

[jeremydc]

I just took my first practice test to establish my new baseline before I start studying again. I scored a 162, which is better than my score of 160 on test day 3 months ago. Honestly, I am a bit shocked and curious why I improved by 2 points despite the fact that this is first time I have looked at LSAT questions in 3 months or so.

I'm curious if my experience / situation is common? If anything I thought I would have dropped a few points or so.

Very common. There are a variety of factors that play in it I'm assuming. A few points either way isn't a big deal.


Great starting point though. You seem to have the foundation for a 170+

[jeremydc]

Drilled necessary assumption questions from cambridge packet (included all difficulty levels) and it took forever. Not to mention I got steamrolled by about half of the most difficult questions. What are some of your strategies when doing NA questions? Specifically how to survive the toughest of the tough NA questions?

I finished the NA portion the other day. I'm in the same boat. The hardest section, I narrowed the answers down to two. When I went against my gut feeling, I chose the right answer.

[SunDevil14]

Drilled necessary assumption questions from cambridge packet (included all difficulty levels) and it took forever. Not to mention I got steamrolled by about half of the most difficult questions. What are some of your strategies when doing NA questions? Specifically how to survive the toughest of the tough NA questions?

I finished the NA portion the other day. I'm in the same boat. The hardest section, I narrowed the answers down to two. When I went against my gut feeling, I chose the right answer.

What exactly is giving you trouble on the NA questions?

[Mikey]

Drilled necessary assumption questions from cambridge packet (included all difficulty levels) and it took forever. Not to mention I got steamrolled by about half of the most difficult questions. What are some of your strategies when doing NA questions? Specifically how to survive the toughest of the tough NA questions?

The answer should connect the evidence to the conclusion. If an answer choice focuses only on evidence, it's wrong. If it focuses only on the conclusion, it's wrong. Once you get rid of ridiculously out of scope/irrelevant answers, negate your remaining answers and which ever one destroys the argument when negated is the answer because of the fact that it relies on it.

[TexasENG]

I would like some input on materials before I buy them, especially for a person that is retaking the test. I have read some of the guides on this site and considered the following:

Powerscore LGB, RCB, LRB
Manhattan Book MLG MRC MLR
Blue Print Logic Games
Lsat Super Prep 2nd Addition
An Abundance of Lsat PT's especially the most recent test

I threw some of the more recent PT's I took before last test on LsatQA website.
-Logical Reason 90% correct (spent least time on, came naturally to as a philosophy major)
-Reading Comp 75%
-Logic Games 60% (spent most time on likely at the expense of reading comp, score still sucks)

In conclusion I'm sure I'd benefit from a vast amount of LG prep, maybe not so much LR, and RC perhaps a decent amount.

Last time I had enrolled in an online class, I still have some of the material but have completed 2/3rds of it. A lot of the material requires a subscription in order to review. I am not sure the subscription is worth $700 for a retake. (Testmasters)

I've only used the Powerscore materials, so I can only really speak to them. I found the LGB to be super helpful. I started at a high point on LGs though, only missing 1-4 a test, but after the bible I go -0 every time.
The LRB was good, but not great. I feel like they focused too much on their "trademark" techniques and I've heard some of the other materials are pretty good.
I felt like the RCB was really not helpful. I'm not really sure that anything in it stuck with me or really improved my performance. People often say this is the hardest section to learn and I felt like the bible didn't really do anything to help me.

Additionally newer tests will be super helpful for you to study. The Powerscore materials pretty much drill on older tests, so they are good to bundle with new tests as you won't have to worry too much about seeing the exact questions from your books on the practice tests you purchase.

[MAPP]

Drilled necessary assumption questions from cambridge packet (included all difficulty levels) and it took forever. Not to mention I got steamrolled by about half of the most difficult questions. What are some of your strategies when doing NA questions? Specifically how to survive the toughest of the tough NA questions?

I finished the NA portion the other day. I'm in the same boat. The hardest section, I narrowed the answers down to two. When I went against my gut feeling, I chose the right answer.

You finished the whole cambridge packet?

But yeah I feel you, when I'm wrong I'm usually down to two. I was near perfect on level 1 and 2 difficulty, level 3 was pretty good, but level 4 difficulty is just unbelievably difficult.

[amta]

Going through LSAT trainer. Just through the first 100 pages. Anyone have any opinions on the drills they have in these early sections? I find them to be a good deal more frustrating than actual LSAT questions...particularly the matching/double dip things.

Is it more important to just make sure that you are focusing on the same issues from the prompts rather than the specific wording [i.e. takes for granted versus forgets to consider]? I know there is one point where it explicitly states that all these issues can be reworded, but I just feel like some of these drills are kinda crappy.

Overall, it feels like it is helping a little, but the open ended answer drills I find really frustrating...

i didn't use the trainer for very long. didn't get past the intro actually, but almost every prompt can be categorized into a set of question types and then you should approach the question type (the issues as you put it) when answering the question. i.e. "takes for granted" and "fails to consider" are common wording in flaw questions. if i came across this wording i would immediately mark the question as a flaw question and then look for a flaw in the stimulus then find the same flaw in the ACs.

[34iplaw]

Going through LSAT trainer. Just through the first 100 pages. Anyone have any opinions on the drills they have in these early sections? I find them to be a good deal more frustrating than actual LSAT questions...particularly the matching/double dip things.

Is it more important to just make sure that you are focusing on the same issues from the prompts rather than the specific wording [i.e. takes for granted versus forgets to consider]? I know there is one point where it explicitly states that all these issues can be reworded, but I just feel like some of these drills are kinda crappy.

Overall, it feels like it is helping a little, but the open ended answer drills I find really frustrating...

i didn't use the trainer for very long. didn't get past the intro actually, but almost every prompt can be categorized into a set of question types and then you should approach the question type (the issues as you put it) when answering the question. i.e. "takes for granted" and "fails to consider" are common wording in flaw questions. if i came across this wording i would immediately mark the question as a flaw question and then look for a flaw in the stimulus then find the same flaw in the ACs.

I just finished the logical reasoning section. I'm trying to figure out if the intro to games will be worth it. It reads fairly quickly. Mike Kim is actually super available and I posed him the same question. In case anyone is wondering about the same thing, this was his response...

"1) As you alluded to, there is a significant difference between understanding a flaw and coming up with a way to describe that flaw. All of the reasoning flaws that appear on the LSAT can be phrased in a variety of ways, and, the more the challenging the problem, the more likely it is that they will describe flaws using different wording than you might expect.

So, (a) it is important to know that there is a difference between understanding the flaw and understanding a way to describe it, (b) you want to work on being flexible in terms of describing flaws, and, as (c) an added benefit, being able to think about flaws from a variety of angles often allows you to see or understand flaws better than you might otherwise. All of this will be described in much greater depth as you get deeper into the book.

2) Yes you are right in thinking that fails to consider and takes for granted can be thought of as two sides of the same coin. There isn’t a right or wrong between the two."

If you are using the trainer, I encourage you to check out his forum as well. He responded to my inquiry in an obscenely prompt fashion. Also answered an issue where I didn't read something as a puzzle!=piece type deal.



As an aside: Just finished a Testmasters sit in, and I actually thought the format could be super helpful. I'm probably going to sign up for the early summer one on Long Island depending on the teacher. The cost of the class is relatively low compared to the materials [$950 for the materials versus $1550 for the course and materials... I guess I'm just looking at it that [if I am considering a tutor] it seems kind of foolish to throw away the class for what would be the same price as like 5 hours of tutoring...esp if class has a good teacher and is small. It's an odd predicament. I think I enjoyed the Blueprint class more and like the feel of their books, but I feel like I gained more from the Testmasters course...could be teachers, the class, etc.

[proteinshake]

just finished up the first set of RC lessons in the Trainer and I actually feel much better about RC compared to when I studied before. hopefully this keeps up

[westtech]

Hopping in this thread for September. I took the LSAT years ago back in October 2012. My actual LSAT is now PT67. I got a 157 and I was practicing around a 160 at the time. After that test I drilled the cambridge packets and worked my way up to a 167 on an untimed test (probably in the PT60's). I can't remember what test it was. Then I decided not to go to law school and just worked for 3 years. I'm back to studying for this test because I decided I do want to get a law degree after all.

LR used to be my worst section by far. I used to go -6 or -7 per section. I created http://lranswers.com as a repository to keep all my explanations to questions I found hard or got wrong from the cambridge packets. Keep in mind I don't post the questions themselves there because I don't want to deal with any copyright issues. Feel free to read the explanations I've written and leave a comment if you have another insight. I will continue to write explanations as I come across questions I find difficult.

I'm running through the LSAT Trainer now but my copy is the original one (it's riddled with typos) but it's still awesome. I just finished the Flaw review in Lesson 9. I'll be taking PT62 tonight as a diagnostic for the upcoming 4 months of studying. I'll report back.

Here's to a productive four months and scores in the 170's. Cheers.

[westtech]

In Lesson 9 of the trainer I got three questions wrong from the Argument Based Question set.

I wrote out some explanations for these questions and I added insights as to WHY I think I got the questions wrong. Imho it's not enough just to understand why the right answer is right and why the wrong answer is wrong. You have to address the process and try to look at what the test writers did to trick you. I'm a huge sucker for their tricks.

Explanations for the three questions I got wrong:
http://lranswers.com/?p=291
http://lranswers.com/?p=308
http://lranswers.com/?p=316

[Pozzo]

Alright, plugging along with Blueprint LG. Currently going through under/overbooked sequencing. I'm actually really liking the approach that emphasizes deductions over hypos. I find it fits better with my natural way of thinking. What do others think? What's worked for you better?

[34iplaw]

In Lesson 9 of the trainer I got three questions wrong from the Argument Based Question set.

I wrote out some explanations for these questions and I added insights as to WHY I think I got the questions wrong. Imho it's not enough just to understand why the right answer is right and why the wrong answer is wrong. You have to address the process and try to look at what the test writers did to trick you. I'm a huge sucker for their tricks.

Explanations for the three questions I got wrong:
http://lranswers.com/?p=291
http://lranswers.com/?p=308
http://lranswers.com/?p=316

edit here since I just checked the question again.

I jumped at the fish one, and I was so aggravated by it. It's frustrating, because it's effectually the same answer as [D] but worded a little more obtusely.

Just finished the LR section. Starting to read through games.

[YupSports]

Drilled RC 57 - finished in 32:30 and missed 2.

Both questions should not have been missed - more drilling tomorrow!

[westtech]

In Lesson 9 of the trainer I got three questions wrong from the Argument Based Question set.

I wrote out some explanations for these questions and I added insights as to WHY I think I got the questions wrong. Imho it's not enough just to understand why the right answer is right and why the wrong answer is wrong. You have to address the process and try to look at what the test writers did to trick you. I'm a huge sucker for their tricks.

Explanations for the three questions I got wrong:
http://lranswers.com/?p=291
http://lranswers.com/?p=308
http://lranswers.com/?p=316

I jumped at the fish one, and I was so aggravated by it. Primarily because explicitly states what I wanted [a] to mean ( I know that they're really opposites from what I recall)... it's really a crummy trap to fall into.

Just finished the LR section. Starting to read through games.

I hear you. I just drilled PT50 S4 LR and went -3. All in the assumption family and mostly difficult strengthen and weaken questions. What usually ends up happening is I miss the shift in subject matter etc.. from the premises to the conclusion and then just take on the answer choices. It's a bad habit. I almost never miss on the other question types. Do you have a science degree or something? Your handle suggests you want to practice IP law.

[34iplaw]

In Lesson 9 of the trainer I got three questions wrong from the Argument Based Question set.

I wrote out some explanations for these questions and I added insights as to WHY I think I got the questions wrong. Imho it's not enough just to understand why the right answer is right and why the wrong answer is wrong. You have to address the process and try to look at what the test writers did to trick you. I'm a huge sucker for their tricks.

Explanations for the three questions I got wrong:
http://lranswers.com/?p=291
http://lranswers.com/?p=308
http://lranswers.com/?p=316

I jumped at the fish one, and I was so aggravated by it. Primarily because explicitly states what I wanted [a] to mean ( I know that they're really opposites from what I recall)... it's really a crummy trap to fall into.

Just finished the LR section. Starting to read through games.

I hear you. I just drilled PT50 S4 LR and went -3. All in the assumption family and mostly difficult strengthen and weaken questions. What usually ends up happening is I miss the shift in subject matter etc.. from the premises to the conclusion and then just take on the answer choices. It's a bad habit. I almost never miss on the other question types. Do you have a science degree or something? Your handle suggests you want to practice IP law.

lol...I kind of realized that. It's basically just random characters and numbers I've used for various forums with "law" smacked on the end of it. Degree / work in business / real estate / investing. I feel like I probably would have found IP law interesting, but, alas...

[proteinshake]

Drilled the RC section from PT 15 -- missed 4 with 10 seconds left. missed 7 on my diagnostic so I'll take it. also, nothing is worse than missing a main point question. it was so easy when I went back and reviewed it! I also started to make little notes at the end of each paragraph of what the point of it was, which seemed to help a lot. I also stopped notating so much, which made me focus on the passage more than every little detail.

[westtech]

I was having printer issues last night so I couldn't print off PT62, so instead I began reviewing LR Section 4 of PT50. I found Q12 to be particularly brutal. http://www.lsatqa.com ranks that question a 5/5 and I think it's a fairly good example of a question that might separate a 170+ test taker from one in the upper 160's. Has anyone else struggled with this question?

http://lranswers.com/?p=322