The Official February 2015 Study Group Forum

gamerish · Post by **gamerish** » Mon Jan 05, 2015 10:57 pm

Post removed...

NL2424 · Post by **NL2424** » Mon Jan 05, 2015 10:58 pm

peppermint · Post by **peppermint** » Mon Jan 05, 2015 11:00 pm

Li'l Sebastian · Post by **Li'l Sebastian** » Mon Jan 05, 2015 11:06 pm

zacboro wrote:Yes I love studying. Each day I improve is another day I'm making my goal of a T14 more real. And other than RC I like the LSAT questions.

This is exactly how I feel too!

I get big bursts of pride too from knowing I'm putting in the hard work that it takes to accomplishes your dreams!

gamerish · Post by **gamerish** » Mon Jan 05, 2015 11:11 pm

Post removed...

Li'l Sebastian · Post by **Li'l Sebastian** » Mon Jan 05, 2015 11:15 pm

zacboro wrote:Did 4 sectioned PT timed back to back today. Anyone thinks it's a bad idea to do it again tomorrow? Too much? Or not. I feel fine, but just wanna get a consensus

I think that really depends on why you are taking them. That sounds like really good practice. Do you find that you'll spend less time reviewing them if you do it like that?

Personally I've scheduled each test with two days in between, that way I can blind review and focus drill a section while peppering in the other two. That way I can use the tests to track my progress.

stray · Post by **stray** » Mon Jan 05, 2015 11:29 pm

so I have just 2 fresh PT's left (72 & 73). When do you guys think is the ideal time to take?

NL2424 · Post by **NL2424** » Mon Jan 05, 2015 11:31 pm

Big Red · Post by **Big Red** » Mon Jan 05, 2015 11:41 pm

zacboro wrote:The LSAT is just a challenge to me and I love overcoming another part of that challenge every day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

Big Red · Post by **Big Red** » Mon Jan 05, 2015 11:42 pm

DAMMIT I missed 180, there goes hahvad

179orBust · Post by **179orBust** » Mon Jan 05, 2015 11:49 pm

Hi everyone,
Taking the June test but figured I'd post my question here so I can get a quick response My question is regarding a drill in the 3rd edition of the Manhattan LR book, so if anyone has it, I'd really appreciate if you can help. Below is a copy my post that I posted to the Manhattan thread:

On page 105 in the 3rd edition of the LR book, there is an assumption drill about bells and customers.
I negated the third assumption in that example and got the following: "The bell sometimes fails to ring when a customer enters the front door of the store." If that's true, then the conclusion is destroyed since one won't be able to accurately count the customers. I understand that it's a premise booster, but when you negate it, the argument falls apart. So why isn't it considered a NA?
Please let me know what I'm missing out on here. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Love the book so far!

Big Red · Post by **Big Red** » Mon Jan 05, 2015 11:51 pm

179orBust wrote:Hi everyone,
Taking the June test but figured I'd post my question here so I can get a quick response My question is regarding a drill in the 3rd edition of the Manhattan LR book, so if anyone has it, I'd really appreciate if you can help. Below is a copy my post that I posted to the Manhattan thread:

On page 105 in the 3rd edition of the LR book, there is an assumption drill about bells and customers.
I negated the third assumption in that example and got the following: "The bell sometimes fails to ring when a customer enters the front door of the store." If that's true, then the conclusion is destroyed since one won't be able to accurately count the customers. I understand that it's a premise booster, but when you negate it, the argument falls apart. So why isn't it considered a NA?
Please let me know what I'm missing out on here. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Love the book so far!

LOL I did this a few hours ago and wrote WTF next to it in my book - I literally mouthed "premise booster but" as I got it wrong. Would also like some clarification.

ETA: I'm sure you saw the explanation in the book that said something about the ringing being a given from the stim, but since it was 3rd party I just

'd and moved on

JackelJ · Post by **JackelJ** » Mon Jan 05, 2015 11:54 pm

Big Red wrote:DAMMIT I missed 180, there goes hahvad

Or maybe you just get 4 bonus points added to your curve?
I got in on 180 so I should probably quit the forum until test day so I stop using it to procrastinate.

Rigo · Post by **Rigo** » Mon Jan 05, 2015 11:59 pm

179orBust · Post by **179orBust** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:05 am

Big Red wrote:
179orBust wrote:Hi everyone,
Taking the June test but figured I'd post my question here so I can get a quick response My question is regarding a drill in the 3rd edition of the Manhattan LR book, so if anyone has it, I'd really appreciate if you can help. Below is a copy my post that I posted to the Manhattan thread:

On page 105 in the 3rd edition of the LR book, there is an assumption drill about bells and customers.
I negated the third assumption in that example and got the following: "The bell sometimes fails to ring when a customer enters the front door of the store." If that's true, then the conclusion is destroyed since one won't be able to accurately count the customers. I understand that it's a premise booster, but when you negate it, the argument falls apart. So why isn't it considered a NA?
Please let me know what I'm missing out on here. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Love the book so far!
LOL I did this a few hours ago and wrote WTF next to it in my book - I literally mouthed "premise booster but" as I got it wrong. Would also like some clarification.

ETA: I'm sure you saw the explanation in the book that said something about the ringing being a given from the stim, but since it was 3rd party I just 'd and moved on

Thanks, nice to see that I'm not the only one who struggled with this. It's driving me crazy though, hard for me to just move on.

JackelJ · Post by **JackelJ** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:08 am

Dirigo wrote:
JackelJ wrote:
Big Red wrote:DAMMIT I missed 180, there goes hahvad
Or maybe you just get 4 bonus points added to your curve?
I got in on 180 so I should probably quit the forum until test day so I stop using it to procrastinate.
GT quit TLS before his first take and he did poorly.
He shitpoasted a storm before his second take and did amazing.
F'in causation, man.

Shitpoast
Shitpoast
Shitpoast

Rigo · Post by **Rigo** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:13 am

stray · Post by **stray** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:13 am

179orBust wrote:Hi everyone,
Taking the June test but figured I'd post my question here so I can get a quick response My question is regarding a drill in the 3rd edition of the Manhattan LR book, so if anyone has it, I'd really appreciate if you can help. Below is a copy my post that I posted to the Manhattan thread:

On page 105 in the 3rd edition of the LR book, there is an assumption drill about bells and customers.
I negated the third assumption in that example and got the following: "The bell sometimes fails to ring when a customer enters the front door of the store." If that's true, then the conclusion is destroyed since one won't be able to accurately count the customers. I understand that it's a premise booster, but when you negate it, the argument falls apart. So why isn't it considered a NA?
Please let me know what I'm missing out on here. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Love the book so far!

I'm looking at it now and I agree, this is a tough one fore sure. But I think its because it attacking the premise which is not what we are looking to attack (we need to attack the reasoning/assumption). Generally you take the premises as true, and you dont try to weaken them, but rather the assumption/reasoning. But, honestly, there have been a few questions where the premise is attacked so this is pretty damn confusing. I wouldnt dwell on it too much though, I've been going -0 in LR since the early 50's and I cant really remember coming across a NA question thats confusing in this nature.

nlee10 · Post by **nlee10** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:16 am

Tomorrow's studying will be spent doing 2 RC section mixes+ PT 41 re-review day. The RC section of PT 41 kicked my arse 20/26.

stray · Post by **stray** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:19 am

nlee10 wrote:Tomorrow's studying will be spent doing 2 RC section mixes+ PT 41 re-review day. The RC section of PT 41 kicked my arse 20/26.

RC section mix? is that a section of 4 passages of a similar type?

ilikebaseball · Post by **ilikebaseball** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:20 am

Decided to retake in Feb for more scholly money (figured I might as well.. even one point will get me thousands). I messed up LG in December. Usually go -0 literally all the time and I missed freakin 4. Did slightly below average on RC as well. I'm not THAT bad though, so if anyone needs any help please ask

If anyone is wondering, this month I'm going overload. I'm not worried about burn out (seems a tad bit overrated to me, just take a day off the day before the test and you'll be fine). I'm gonna take 4-5 PT's a week in the morning (each section timed at 32 min, LG timed at 30. All using LSAC bubble sheets), go to the gym, get lunch, followed by one more section of RC and then blind review. Starting over in the 20's. The week before the test, I'll do 72 Sunday, 73 Tuesday, and 74 Thursday with my day off Friday.

EDIT: Not that anyone IS wondering though..im sure everyones just fine lol

edit again: but yes, I do like baseball.

stray · Post by **stray** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:23 am

ilikebaseball wrote: EDIT: Not that anyone IS wondering though..im sure everyones just fine lol

edit again: but yes, I do like baseball.

All good, my man. As a matter of fact, I WAS WONDERING. You got this, holmes.

nlee10 · Post by **nlee10** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:24 am

stray wrote:
nlee10 wrote:Tomorrow's studying will be spent doing 2 RC section mixes+ PT 41 re-review day. The RC section of PT 41 kicked my arse 20/26.
RC section mix? is that a section of 4 passages of a similar type?

I made my own mix of 4 RC passages from the Cambridge packets Pt 1-38. Haven't really been doing them....

ilikebaseball · Post by **ilikebaseball** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:25 am

I usually would, at this point, make a pretty educated guess on the curve. This time I won't lol. I'm going in assuming 11. February's are crapshoots

nlee10 · Post by **nlee10** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:31 am

ilikebaseball wrote:I usually would, at this point, make a pretty educated guess on the curve. This time I won't lol. I'm going in assuming 11. February's are crapshoots

-11 means it should be an average test of difficulty.