February 2013 LSAT Study Group Forum

[natashka85]

^ wow good job man! I'm doing PT 60 on Sunday! Getting closer! Let's kill it!

not really,haven`t started doing 5 section practice tests yet,i guess its time to start,i came to the conclusion that its the quality and not the quantity,i was expecting better accuracy.Still not sure if I should hit this in Feb.lol

[ws81086n]

Do they seriously not allow mechanical pencils? That sucks, since they erase so well. Wtf is wrong with a mechanical pencil?

[chickpea]

Do they seriously not allow mechanical pencils? That sucks, since they erase so well. Wtf is wrong with a mechanical pencil?

Haha I know. I haven't used pencils since like elementary school. Everyone looks at me funny when I sit in my neighborhood coffee shop endlessly sharpening pencils. They probably think it's some kind of anti-mechanical hipster/throwback statement.

[ws81086n]

Haha. I really cannot think of a reason why they don't allow them. Perhaps the incessant clicking? Still, that seems unnecessary. People ought to be focused enough to tune shit like that out.

Also, does anyone have TM's 67 Actual LSAT books and find it exceedingly annoying to have to flip back and forth between the passage and questions in RC (they're on different sides of the same page, unlike on the actual test). I'm fucking steamed after missing two on RC, because I think I would have missed one or none if I hadn't had to fucking flip back and forth 10,000 times while doing the drilling muds CR passages on PT 54.

[gobosox]

Haha. I really cannot think of a reason why they don't allow them. Perhaps the incessant clicking? Still, that seems unnecessary. People ought to be focused enough to tune shit like that out.

Also, does anyone have TM's 67 Actual LSAT books and find it exceedingly annoying to have to flip back and forth between the passage and questions in RC (they're on different sides of the same page, unlike on the actual test). I'm fucking steamed after missing two on RC, because I think I would have missed one or none if I hadn't had to fucking flip back and forth 10,000 times while doing the drilling muds CR passages on PT 54.

#frustratedTLSproblems

[Instinctive]

PT 57 in the books, gonna try for 58 today.

LG: -0
LR1: -2
LR2: -2
RC: -2

175 - and I should have been higher. Ugh.

I evaluated my misses...one of my missed questions on RC was one I spent like 6 minutes on with extra time at the end, trying to decide if I should change my answer from what I went with when I first came upon the question. I had originally narrowed it down to 2 choices, starred the question, debated a minute or so, picked one and moved on.

I picked right, but changed it right as time was expiring. Moron. Don't second guess yourself is a good rule - unless you notice specific evidence or wording you overlooked, simply thinking "Nah, this one sounds better," is a terrible reason to flip answers.

Everything on this test can be proven, it sucks to miss things that you could have proven if you had thought about it differently or had more time to look for something.


I have GOT to get better at LR. It's still Weaken questions that kill me, even after the drilling. I think I'm going to try and drill a bunch of Weaken and look over ALL my PT LR mistakes on the 8th so it is all fresh when gameday comes.

[Jcastro1]

^ I had a similar showing on PT57, though I went -3 and -4 (yikes) on LR for a 172. Mostly stupid mistakes though.

You're absolutely right, everything on the test can be proven AND all the other crap can be negated. I used to struggle with weaken btw but I just trained myself to see the difference between those AC's that have an unclear/neutral bearing on the argument and those that weaken -- when there's a fine line between the two, that's when you know you've got a tough question!

Interestingly enough, when I started study, parallel q's were my bane, now they are a guaranteed point.

[Instinctive]

^ I had a similar showing on PT57, though I went -3 and -4 (yikes) on LR for a 172. Mostly stupid mistakes though.

You're absolutely right, everything on the test can be proven AND all the other crap can be negated. I used to struggle with weaken btw but I just trained myself to see the difference between those AC's that have an unclear/neutral bearing on the argument and those that weaken -- when there's a fine line between the two, that's when you know you've got a tough question!

Interestingly enough, when I started study, parallel q's were my bane, now they are a guaranteed point.

Parallel's are probably my second worst.

Oddly enough, I find Assumption questions to be really easy. You can typically eliminate 2-3 choices right away simply because they're stated in the stimulus - if they're stated as premises...they aren't assumptions!

[ws81086n]

^ I had a similar showing on PT57, though I went -3 and -4 (yikes) on LR for a 172. Mostly stupid mistakes though.

You're absolutely right, everything on the test can be proven AND all the other crap can be negated. I used to struggle with weaken btw but I just trained myself to see the difference between those AC's that have an unclear/neutral bearing on the argument and those that weaken -- when there's a fine line between the two, that's when you know you've got a tough question!

Interestingly enough, when I started study, parallel q's were my bane, now they are a guaranteed point.

What did you for parallels? That's my only weak point in LR, and I really haven't done enough to address it yet.

[Jcastro1]

Honestly, just did them over and over and over. I stopped reading for detail and stared reading for logical structure. For example, if in the stimulus the conclusion is says something like "Therefore, X never happens" I'll right away eliminate answer choices that have words like "probably" or "sometimes" because this is a different logical chain. I'll also really focus on the premise-conclusion relationship and I literally write a big P next to the premise and a big C next to the conclusion and match the correct answer choice to it. Sometimes diagramming helps.

[gobosox]

^ I had a similar showing on PT57, though I went -3 and -4 (yikes) on LR for a 172. Mostly stupid mistakes though.

You're absolutely right, everything on the test can be proven AND all the other crap can be negated. I used to struggle with weaken btw but I just trained myself to see the difference between those AC's that have an unclear/neutral bearing on the argument and those that weaken -- when there's a fine line between the two, that's when you know you've got a tough question!

Interestingly enough, when I started study, parallel q's were my bane, now they are a guaranteed point.

What did you for parallels? That's my only weak point in LR, and I really haven't done enough to address it yet.

Parallel flaw questions: Focus on the specific flaw. Don't try for much else until you're down to one or two ACs.

Regular Parallel: Try not to read too much into structure until there are a couple answer choices left. Usually you can eliminate a few quickly and then you can go point by point on the last couple. I used to overthink them but now generally get them.

[epiphinous7]

Regular Parallel: Try not to read too much into structure until there are a couple answer choices left. Usually you can eliminate a few quickly and then you can go point by point on the last couple. I used to overthink them but now generally get them.

I did the same thing. Helped a lot. Also if its in the last 5 questions I do the others and leave the parallel for last so Im not rushing it.

[ws81086n]

Has anyone ever done the clans game from PT 13? Very difficult and unusual game. Came out with -1, but it took me 14 minutes. It seems like a game like this, or at least one like this with 7 questions, is pretty unlikely on the current iteration of the LSAT. Older LG sections are pretty tough stuff. Always 24 questions, and the games tend to be harder overall, especially the most difficult games on the section. Probably goes some way towards explaining why the older scales were more generous.

[natashka85]

No it's an easy game,u just have to figure out the best way to do that,and for that u need games explanations

[ws81086n]

No it's an easy game,u just have to figure out the best way to do that,and for that u need games explanations

I don't know how you could label that an easy game, but then again LG is my weakest section. I agree that once you make the important deductions and get going, it isn't so bad, but that was pretty hard to do. Seems like almost any game could be labeled 'easy' in retrospect, but when it comes to doing it in the middle of a timed section, especially if one is crunched for time, it's way harder.

[natashka85]

No it's an easy game,u just have to figure out the best way to do that,and for that u need games explanations

I don't know how you could label that an easy game, but then again LG is my weakest section. I agree that once you make the important deductions and get going, it isn't so bad, but that was pretty hard to do. Seems like almost any game could be labeled 'easy' in retrospect, but when it comes to doing it in the middle of a timed section, especially if one is crunched for time, it's way harder.

Look ,there is a pattern for every logic game,if u did that in 14 mins that means u did it in a wrong way,find explanations for that game,for me personally Testmasters gave me all the games explanations before,I like their explanation more than any other company,they teach u pattern for games and once u read the rules u already know which game it looks like,hope it helps

[Jcastro1]

Did PT 59 today, 5 section test w/online proctor.

LG -0
LR1 -2
LR2 -2
RC -4

93/100

175 — a new high for me!

Boy, that RC was tough though especially the sculpture passage. Raw score wise, I've hovered around 90-94 now. Going to try and push that into mid/high 90s these last two weeks!

[ws81086n]

Did PT 59 today, 5 section test w/online proctor.

LG -0
LR1 -2
LR2 -2
RC -4

93/100

175 — a new high for me!

Boy, that RC was tough though especially the sculpture passage. Raw score wise, I've hovered around 90-94 now. Going to try and push that into mid/high 90s these last two weeks!

Friendly curve

[Jcastro1]

I know, I just noticed that my raw score wasn't much higher than the others. Boost of confidence though

[ws81086n]

I know, I just noticed that my raw score wasn't much higher than the others. Boost of confidence though

Oh, well it definitely should be anyway. Just like a 175 on other tests. I can't figure out whether I would prefer a very generous or very tight curve. Most people would be inclined to say generous, but a very generous curve seems to guarantee that there was at least one ridiculously difficult section, or two well above average difficulty sections.

[Jcastro1]

Generous curves are quite forgiving. This one was, what, -12? There was one back in the mid-90s that was -17 (highest ever I believe).

I'd definitely take the easier curve!

[ws81086n]

Haha, true. I suppose if I had an option I would go generous, though maybe not if the LG's were absurdly difficult. What did you think of the difficulty level of 59's games by the way?

[Jcastro1]

That courses game (statistics 9am, statistics 3 pm etc) was definitely the hardest in my opinion. I made sure I carefully diagrammed the rules and contrapositives and ended up going -0. Thankfully, had a lot of time "in the bank" for it too. What'd you think?

[ws81086n]

game 1 was pie, game 2 was also except for the last question, the third game as you said was pretty difficult, and the fourth game was very manageable, though i spent too much time trying to frame at the beginning and so had to guess on one question

[natashka85]

PT60
LR-2
Lr-2
G-2
should have done drilling,was feeling tired cause i worked yesterday till 11 pm,so couldn`t concentrate better