The Official September 2014 Study Group Forum

[BillPackets]

I fully support this.

When I was new here, J. Crew made some condescending remark to one of my posts about how I was still -13 on LG, and I told him to watch his tone, and everyone was like, "OMG overreact much?" Like, P.S. look how that one turned out. Just saying.

WHERE R U J CREW

Also yeah idk ppl r condescending about ppl missing Qs it happens all here 2 get better n blow the arms off the LSAT plus there was that 1 time a certain person told me not to cuss and I responded predictably w a lot of words mom Always told me not 2 say and it went unmentioned was pretty funny

[Colonel_funkadunk]

I fully support this.

When I was new here, J. Crew made some condescending remark to one of my posts about how I was still -13 on LG, and I told him to watch his tone, and everyone was like, "OMG overreact much?" Like, P.S. look how that one turned out. Just saying.

WHERE R U J CREW

Also yeah idk ppl r condescending about ppl missing Qs it happens all here 2 get better n blow the arms off the LSAT plus there was that 1 time a certain person told me not to cuss and I responded predictably w a lot of words mom Always told me not 2 say and it went unmentioned was pretty funny

Pretty funny is an understatement

[Gray]

.

[PeanutsNJam]

In retrospect I may have overreacted. A stranger's opinion of my state of preparation (or lack thereof) should have no bearing on anything. I would like any pointers that people have regarding RC accuracy that go beyond:

- Read a lot of stuff
- Learn general strategy
- Annotate the passage

Specifically, I've noticed an approach to acing LR cannot be applied to RC, because they're different sections.

Also, something I've learned:

Pedantic analysis of semantics behind individual words in answer choices/stimulus in LR is only necessary when two answer choices are incredibly similar. In all other cases, a general approach is sufficient, and one needn't look too deep into the question.

[Toby Ziegler]

We're like a highly dysfunctional family where the family members are dispensable.

[BillPackets]

In retrospect I may have overreacted. A stranger's opinion of my state of preparation (or lack thereof) should have no bearing on anything. I would like any pointers that people have regarding RC accuracy that go beyond:

- Read a lot of stuff
- Learn general strategy
- Annotate the passage

Specifically, I've noticed an approach to acing LR cannot be applied to RC, because they're different sections.

idk this may fall under the "general" category but you need to be flexible when going into the Qs in RC...i think typically anywhere from 2-3 Qs all revolve around the MP of the passage and will basically be testing your ability to recognize the MP, or other big ideas, in different words. Similarly, it's a good skill to be able to eliminate wrong answers on those Qs which involves the ability to distinguish between the phrases LSAC rewords correctly, and those that are worded incorrectly. You'll notice these questions...like "what is most strongly supported?" and the right answer will be the MP of the passage just phrased differently.
Also I rarely ever annotate...more so in the comparative passages bc they always ask questions like "what did both authors agree on" "what did both authors disagree on" "what is mentioned in both passages," etc.

[Colonel_funkadunk]

In retrospect I may have overreacted. A stranger's opinion of my state of preparation (or lack thereof) should have no bearing on anything. I would like any pointers that people have regarding RC accuracy that go beyond:

- Read a lot of stuff
- Learn general strategy
- Annotate the passage

Specifically, I've noticed an approach to acing LR cannot be applied to RC, because they're different sections.

Also, something I've learned:

Pedantic analysis of semantics behind individual words in answer choices/stimulus in LR is only necessary when two answer choices are incredibly similar. In all other cases, a general approach is sufficient, and one needn't look too deep into the question.

I once saw someone use the word pedantic 4 times in the same post. R u an alt since u r using this word once in an applicable situation?

[BillPackets]

We're like a highly dysfunctional family where the family members are dispensable.

this is really funny

[Gray]

.

[Colonel_funkadunk]

We're like a highly dysfunctional family where the family members are dispensable.

Toby, you're indispensable.

I wonder if we made a list of the indispensable, would it cause a lot of debate?

[bound]

Peanuts...I hope you are much further along than PT 54. I didn't miss any on some of these old tests for reading comp and miss some on the newer tests. I thought the cake walk was one of the easiest reading sections I did.

As far as LG and LR, those are different, too. I hope you've done a more recent test. I wouldn't gauge the older ones as proof of 180 or 170.

I already got a 170 in Oct of 2012. The difference in difficulty between newer and older PTs is significantly overrated. Your singular anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to invalidate the fact that there is no consistent increase in the curve between PT54-72. I would go so far as to argue that Post 2007 tests are easier because comparative reading is much easier than the classic passage format.

I will give you that if I were more careless and paid less attention to detail, I would have gotten the cake walk questions right. I chose those answers first but eliminated them for the reasons given.

Edit -

I was curious if your condescension was at all justified or warranted, so I went through your post history.

29: 152
30: 154
31: 154
32: 155
33: 156
34: 153
35: 158
36: 157
37: 159
38: 157
52: 157
53: 160
54: 160
55: 160
56: 161
57: 159
58: 164
59: 165
60: 166

Really? Didn't miss any on some RC on the older ones? Really? Did you just go -10 or something on LR and LG? Get off your high horse.

...am I the only one who thinks this caution is warranted? The new tests are very different from the old tests (i.e. RC passages, Passage A vs Passage B, easier LR (imo)). It's less than 3 weeks before the real deal. I don't think his/her advice was meant to come across as snarky at all, and I agree with it, in fact.

[Gray]

.

[sfoglia]

I fully support this.

When I was new here, J. Crew made some condescending remark to one of my posts about how I was still -13 on LG, and I told him to watch his tone, and everyone was like, "OMG overreact much?" Like, P.S. look how that one turned out. Just saying.

WHERE R U J CREW

Also yeah idk ppl r condescending about ppl missing Qs it happens all here 2 get better n blow the arms off the LSAT plus there was that 1 time a certain person told me not to cuss and I responded predictably w a lot of words mom Always told me not 2 say and it went unmentioned was pretty funny

Pretty funny is an understatement

I also supported that. I think everyone should swear more. It's good for the psyche.

[Toby Ziegler]

We're like a highly dysfunctional family where the family members are dispensable.

Toby, you're indispensable.

We're like a highly dysfunctional family where the family members are dispensable.

this is really funny

Thanks, guys. I am glad to use my 500th post to respond to my favorite poster, Bill. No offense to anyone else; I've just known him longer.

Also, I am so nervous about the test -- I am really trying to perfect my LG to where I know I will go -0. Right now I am not at that point, and I don't feel as confident as I would like about the other sections. But here's to working hard through the finish so I will NOT have to retake.

[Colonel_funkadunk]

Peanuts...I hope you are much further along than PT 54. I didn't miss any on some of these old tests for reading comp and miss some on the newer tests. I thought the cake walk was one of the easiest reading sections I did.

As far as LG and LR, those are different, too. I hope you've done a more recent test. I wouldn't gauge the older ones as proof of 180 or 170.

I already got a 170 in Oct of 2012. The difference in difficulty between newer and older PTs is significantly overrated. Your singular anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to invalidate the fact that there is no consistent increase in the curve between PT54-72. I would go so far as to argue that Post 2007 tests are easier because comparative reading is much easier than the classic passage format.

I will give you that if I were more careless and paid less attention to detail, I would have gotten the cake walk questions right. I chose those answers first but eliminated them for the reasons given.

Edit -

I was curious if your condescension was at all justified or warranted, so I went through your post history.

29: 152
30: 154
31: 154
32: 155
33: 156
34: 153
35: 158
36: 157
37: 159
38: 157
52: 157
53: 160
54: 160
55: 160
56: 161
57: 159
58: 164
59: 165
60: 166

Really? Didn't miss any on some RC on the older ones? Really? Did you just go -10 or something on LR and LG? Get off your high horse.

...am I the only one who thinks this caution is warranted? The new tests are very different from the old tests (i.e. RC passages, Passage A vs Passage B, easier LR (imo)). It's less than 3 weeks before the real deal. I don't think his/her advice was meant to come across as snarky at all, and I agree with it, in fact.

IMHO I don't think it's super warranted. I think comparative passages are easy than a traditional one. I also feel like they've moved away from super technical passages. But then again what do I know

[Colonel_funkadunk]

We're like a highly dysfunctional family where the family members are dispensable.

FYI u need to post more

[sfoglia]

In retrospect I may have overreacted. A stranger's opinion of my state of preparation (or lack thereof) should have no bearing on anything. I would like any pointers that people have regarding RC accuracy that go beyond:

- Read a lot of stuff
- Learn general strategy
- Annotate the passage

Specifically, I've noticed an approach to acing LR cannot be applied to RC, because they're different sections.

Also, something I've learned:

Pedantic analysis of semantics behind individual words in answer choices/stimulus in LR is only necessary when two answer choices are incredibly similar. In all other cases, a general approach is sufficient, and one needn't look too deep into the question.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounded like from the other post that you originally had an answer correct but then changed your mind and selected the incorrect one?

I had something similar happen to me last night when I was drilling, where one of the words could fit, and be all-encompassing, and one definitely fit, but felt like it was lacking. The lacking one obviously was the correct choice. I think it was the difference between "compelling" and "guiding," in which guiding was right. But the passage discussed manipulation, so I was leaning toward "compelling." It was "guiding," naturally.

Anyway, my point is, with those kinds of questions, it definitely comes down to semantics and it is incredibly pedantic. But otherwise, you do have to be super general. Case in point: Those MC questions that begin every passage are horrible. They're hardly ever adequate.

Are you using packets to study RC? Do you find you do better in one subject over another?

[BillPackets]

Thanks, guys. I am glad to use my 500th post to respond to my favorite poster, Bill. No offense to anyone else; I've just known him longer.

Also, I am so nervous about the test -- I am really trying to perfect my LG to where I know I will go -0. Right now I am not at that point, and I don't feel as confident as I would like about the other sections. But here's to working hard through the finish so I will NOT have to retake.

yay toby! halfway to 1K! toby and i go way back to the late winter of this year back when i couldnt get a flaw Q right to save my life and i was walking around w 5 copies of each game from 1-38 at all times and doin them all the time
does any1 else remember when you could not do a LG for anything i mean when i first started i was like "HOW!!!!!!!!"

[BillPackets]

IMHO I don't think it's super warranted. I think comparative passages are easy than a traditional one. I also feel like they've moved away from super technical passages. But then again what do I know

if i get an RC that feels harder, then i say yes RC is def harder now then it used to be. if i do one that doesnt feel hard, I saw meh RC is RC. FWIW

[hetookmetoamovie]

Morning, guys! Looks like we had an interesting evening ITT. Melatonin, boobs, fellatio, flames even before my 1st cup of coffee. I like it.

We're like a highly dysfunctional family where the family members are dispensable.

I don't know if any of you guys watched Family Matters (with Steve Urkel) or if that was before your time, but they wrote off one of the Winslow kids (Judy) like midway through the show. She went upstairs one night and never came down again. I was really disturbed by that back in the day.

Okay, your turn. Everyone, tell me your weirdest/scariest/funniest recent dream!

My dream last night definitely had some LSAT undertones. I was watching a tape of security footage over and over again, and I understood that it was my task to look for something weird/understand what was going on in it. But even though I was rewinding and replaying the same tape over and over again, multiple things kept changing, and I was freaking out/frustrated.. not because there was something supernatural going on (dream logic, you know), but that I was unable to complete my task. Bizarre.

[Gray]

.

[sfoglia]

...am I the only one who thinks this caution is warranted? The new tests are very different from the old tests (i.e. RC passages, Passage A vs Passage B, easier LR (imo)). It's less than 3 weeks before the real deal. I don't think his/her advice was meant to come across as snarky at all, and I agree with it, in fact.

IMHO I don't think it's super warranted. I think comparative passages are easy than a traditional one. I also feel like they've moved away from super technical passages. But then again what do I know

It was the way it was worded, I think. "I hope," "I didn't miss any," "easiest reading section I did." I don't know how it was intended but the way in which it was conveyed was less than desirable.

[Gray]

.

[sfoglia]

Okay, your turn. Everyone, tell me your weirdest/scariest/funniest recent dream!

My dream last night definitely had some LSAT undertones. I was watching a tape of security footage over and over again, and I understood that it was my task to look for something weird/understand what was going on in it. But even though I was rewinding and replaying the same tape over and over again, multiple things kept changing, and I was freaking out/frustrated.. not because there was something supernatural going on (dream logic, you know), but that I was unable to complete my task. Bizarre.

Oh man. We should just start keeping a group LSAT dream journal. I had one last night, too.

Colonel's dream about Team LG was the best.

[BillPackets]

I don't know if any of you guys watched Family Matters (with Steve Urkel) or if that was before your time, but they wrote off one of the Winslow kids (Judy) like midway through the show. She went upstairs one night and never came down again. I was really disturbed by that back in the day

thats really funny i mean i used to watch family matters but i wasnt aware enuf at that time to recognize characters being written off but like hey guys the actress who plays judy got a new gig so uhhhhh idk what should we do w her? nbd just have her go in her room n never come out