The Official June 2015 Study Group Forum

biggestlawman · Post by **biggestlawman** » Sat Apr 04, 2015 4:32 pm

Rigo wrote:
biggestlawman wrote:
Rigo wrote:I mean, stay if you want. Nobody is forcing you to leave.
But if he does leave, he should take that pole with him. Please tell him not to leave it behind!
Did his pole not satisfy you BLM?

Dude! Not into that! Just that simple. If you are not, you are not! Forgive the tautology.

You on the other hand, by all means!

But then, it might be dirty as the pole is up his ass!

Rigo · Post by **Rigo** » Sat Apr 04, 2015 4:34 pm

Get your homophones sorted then.

biggestlawman · Post by **biggestlawman** » Sat Apr 04, 2015 4:37 pm

Rigo wrote:Get your homophones sorted then.

Mea culpa. Went with the seemingly obvious connotation. It obviously was not obvious!

biggestlawman · Post by **biggestlawman** » Sat Apr 04, 2015 4:39 pm

msp8 wrote:
Rigo wrote:
biggestlawman wrote:More I study the Trainer LG, more I get the sense that I am finally going to learn LG. And if I can learn LG, I can be above 170! I finally have a hope!
The Trainer LG is working for you? That's a first.
I'm a fan of Trainer LG as well.

Ya, dude!!

Rigo · Post by **Rigo** » Sat Apr 04, 2015 4:49 pm

biggestlawman wrote:
Rigo wrote:Get your homophones sorted then.
Mea culpa. Went with the seemingly obvious connotation. It obviously was not obvious!

Poll*

Tycho · Post by **Tycho** » Sat Apr 04, 2015 4:52 pm

I'm about three hours into studying this aft, with about two to go, taking a short break. Drilled 40 or so total flaw and NA questions (missed one or two) and crushed a couple of complex ordering LGs. I think (I hope) I'm getting better at making inferences; we'll see. May do an RC passage if I feel like it and wrap up with some more LR.

Rigo · Post by **Rigo** » Sat Apr 04, 2015 4:53 pm

Tycho wrote:I'm about three hours into studying this aft, with about two to go, taking a short break. Drilled 40 or so total flaw and NA questions (missed one or two) and crushed a couple of complex ordering LGs. I think (I hope) I'm getting better at making inferences; we'll see. May do an RC passage if I feel like it and wrap up with some more LR.

Go you! I've had no energy to do anything all day.

betterLawyerUP · Post by **betterLawyerUP** » Sat Apr 04, 2015 4:56 pm

biggestlawman wrote:
betterLawyerUP wrote:ill probably have to postpone as well this is overwhelming and I am not making substantial progress. Anybody want to take a look at PT20 S1 Q16? you'll be my bff for life

This is pissing me off because I always end up not accepting the lsat answer. Sometimes the wording strictly applies in a stim and sometimes it doesnt?? Here is what I understood in simple terms:

All stars are hot enough to destroy lithium completely by converting it to helium (except for coolest of brown dwarfs.)
If star has no lithium, it basically means all the lithium it started with was converted, thus the star cannot be a cool brown dwarf.

Now A states we must assume that the coolest brown dwarfs have never been hot enough to destroy lithium. Where in the hell do they get off in this assumption. What if a BD destroys some lithium (NOT destroying COMPLETELY), so it is the case they are hot enough to destroy some lithium, they just cannot destroy all. The absence of the word completely renders A wrong, and usually this keen eye helps me avoid wrong answers. However, once again, I skip this answer and thought I was avoiding a trap only to get the question wrong.

If anyone can answer this in simple terms because I am a simpleton on the verge of psychosis
1. All stars have Li to begin with
2. Only Cool Dwarf cannot burn Li

C: If no Li, then NOT Cool Dwarf, i.e., Cool Dwarf --> No Li

Error: Takes for granted that Cool Dwarf never destroyed/got rid of Li fully.
(Destroyed means its gone, of course!)

Choice A covers for this error.

Your P2 should be "Only Cool Dwarf cannot burn Li completely"

C: If no Li, then not Cool Dwarf, contra: Cool Dwarf--->Li

Thus, Cool Dwarf can get rid of Li, but not completely. If it gets rid of 99% Li, it still has some Li, which fits the conclusion because having some Li would differentiate it from all other stars that contain no Li. I agree with RZ if you do process of elim, but still the answer should be clear and I keep rereading it and the assumption doesnt make sense

betterLawyerUP · Post by **betterLawyerUP** » Sat Apr 04, 2015 5:03 pm

Anytime I get to a science question I stop and reread the first couple sentences because my mind wanders, then I make it about midway through, put my head down in disgusts, go grab some food and watch youtube vids.

biggestlawman · Post by **biggestlawman** » Sat Apr 04, 2015 5:17 pm

betterLawyerUP wrote:
biggestlawman wrote:
betterLawyerUP wrote:ill probably have to postpone as well this is overwhelming and I am not making substantial progress. Anybody want to take a look at PT20 S1 Q16? you'll be my bff for life

This is pissing me off because I always end up not accepting the lsat answer. Sometimes the wording strictly applies in a stim and sometimes it doesnt?? Here is what I understood in simple terms:

All stars are hot enough to destroy lithium completely by converting it to helium (except for coolest of brown dwarfs.)
If star has no lithium, it basically means all the lithium it started with was converted, thus the star cannot be a cool brown dwarf.

Now A states we must assume that the coolest brown dwarfs have never been hot enough to destroy lithium. Where in the hell do they get off in this assumption. What if a BD destroys some lithium (NOT destroying COMPLETELY), so it is the case they are hot enough to destroy some lithium, they just cannot destroy all. The absence of the word completely renders A wrong, and usually this keen eye helps me avoid wrong answers. However, once again, I skip this answer and thought I was avoiding a trap only to get the question wrong.

If anyone can answer this in simple terms because I am a simpleton on the verge of psychosis
1. All stars have Li to begin with
2. Only Cool Dwarf cannot burn Li

C: If no Li, then NOT Cool Dwarf, i.e., Cool Dwarf --> No Li

Error: Takes for granted that Cool Dwarf never destroyed/got rid of Li fully.
(Destroyed means its gone, of course!)

Choice A covers for this error.
Your P2 should be "Only Cool Dwarf cannot burn Li completely"

C: If no Li, then not Cool Dwarf, contra: Cool Dwarf--->Li

Thus, Cool Dwarf can get rid of Li, but not completely. If it gets rid of 99% Li, it still has some Li, which fits the conclusion because having some Li would differentiate it from all other stars that contain no Li. I agree with RZ if you do process of elim, but still the answer should be clear and I keep rereading it and the assumption doesnt make sense

Destruction is defined as conversion to He. You are bringing in what you know about stellar beings outside of the stimulus. You are assuming that conversion has a time dimension.

biggestlawman · Post by **biggestlawman** » Sat Apr 04, 2015 5:27 pm

Rigo wrote:
biggestlawman wrote:
Rigo wrote:Get your homophones sorted then.
Mea culpa. Went with the seemingly obvious connotation. It obviously was not obvious!
Poll*

Oh, that too?! Perhaps that's the reason they don't come fresh and rapid!

gamerish · Post by **gamerish** » Sat Apr 04, 2015 8:20 pm

Post removed...

RZNumbers · Post by **RZNumbers** » Sun Apr 05, 2015 10:28 am

McJimJam wrote:
Rigo wrote:RZ, what's the deal dude? You can't have a dramatic goodbye post and then not leave.
Isn't this like a weekly thing?
But anyways, it's good that you have decided at least, and I'll be there with ya in October. Good luck RZ.

Does this mean I get to OP? I promise to rise to the occasion. BLM will have to tolerate my "poles" though.

Rigo · Post by **Rigo** » Sun Apr 05, 2015 11:41 am

We need a list of confirmed takers. People who aren't gonna postpone.

biggestlawman · Post by **biggestlawman** » Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:59 pm

RZNumbers wrote:
McJimJam wrote:
Rigo wrote:RZ, what's the deal dude? You can't have a dramatic goodbye post and then not leave.
Isn't this like a weekly thing?
But anyways, it's good that you have decided at least, and I'll be there with ya in October. Good luck RZ.
Does this mean I get to OP? I promise to rise to the occasion. BLM will have to tolerate my "poles" though.

biggestlawman · Post by **biggestlawman** » Sun Apr 05, 2015 8:01 pm

Rigo wrote:We need a list of confirmed takers. People who aren't gonna postpone.

You are like a strict headmaster! You really are the OP in many of the threads!

betterLawyerUP · Post by **betterLawyerUP** » Sun Apr 05, 2015 8:30 pm

I am just starting to practice grouping games. I have adopted a strictly horizontal method for previous, i was wondering if people stay that way when they switch to grouping? The LGB and 7sage seem to go vertical but does anyone stay horizontal? I know its weird but I want to know if there is any benefit because I think I am staying horizontal for grouping games as well. RZ chime I know your lurking as a guest

McJimJam · Post by **McJimJam** » Sun Apr 05, 2015 9:02 pm

Post removed.

McJimJam · Post by **McJimJam** » Sun Apr 05, 2015 9:03 pm

Post removed.

Oskosh · Post by **Oskosh** » Sun Apr 05, 2015 9:14 pm

Not *confirmed* (waiting on one school), but this is what I posted in the re-takers thread:

Still in that will-I-won't-I phase of retaking. Plan on testing myself on a recent preptest (73 or 74) around April 28, because the NYU deposit deadline is May 1st. If I score a 168 and above, I'll consider retaking it.

On a positive note, today I timed myself on PT 54 RC. I went -3 on the section, which is something very encouraging given that on the real LSAT (which is 74), I went -7 on that section. This was the most confident I have ever felt on RC, and have felt that when I am actively engaged with the RC (i.e, summarizing paragraphs to myself, consciously looking for vocabulary words, how the text is presented) I am more successful. I went -3 because I spent a significant amount of time (too much) on the second passage, which is the comparative oil drilling mixtures one (11 minutes). I didn't miss any on the passage, but it did limit the amount of time that I had on the other two passages. Unfortunately, it was in those other two passages where I missed the 3 questions, but was proud of myself for being able to complete the 4th passage, which was a long, seven- or eight-question passage (where I only missed one).

I don't know if this particular test was just easy, but overall I felt pretty positive. I've adopted the 8 minute bank strategy that the Manhattan RC book pushes (each passage has eight minutes, with 3 in the bank. Give and take to/from the bank according to how long you take on eah passage), which I feel has given me some structure. Structure is what I need on the RC section and the LG section, because they were my undoing on the last test. With the LR, I feel the "First 10 questions in the first 10 minutes" rule (which I am able to execute to perfection or near perfection almost every time) gives me enough time, so I needed structure for the other 2.

Sorry for the long winded post. Just wanted to post an update on my studying, I suppose lol.

If it were the case that I retested, it would absolutely be in June. I am a teacher, and my workload becomes hectic around September/October, and I'm switching over to 1st grade (haven't taught before). Having already done for kinder the past two years, I don't have to invest as much time as it were. That being said, I'm still pulling late nights and early mornings. Blech.

jwelsh · Post by **jwelsh** » Sun Apr 05, 2015 9:58 pm

Rigo wrote:We need a list of confirmed takers. People who aren't gonna postpone.

I'm definitely going to be taking in June and am comfortable taking it again in September if it doesn't go as well as I'd like.

JackelJ · Post by **JackelJ** » Sun Apr 05, 2015 10:11 pm

Rigo wrote:We need a list of confirmed takers. People who aren't gonna postpone.

I'm 180% not postponing

Rigo · Post by **Rigo** » Sun Apr 05, 2015 10:16 pm

JackelJ wrote:
Rigo wrote:We need a list of confirmed takers. People who aren't gonna postpone.
I'm 180% not postponing

You go Glenn Coco!

tedofsandimas · Post by **tedofsandimas** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 9:08 am

Definitely taking in June and not postponing.

I know my numbers are a little low right now compared to other TLS-ers, but I just decided to take the LSAT not that long ago. My diagnostic (June 2007) was 156, and the next practice test I took (Superprep A) was also a 156. I only missed 4 LG questions on June 2007, but I completely bombed Superprep A games and improved in RC and LR by at least 3 questions each for the grand result of the exact same score. Last night I did Superprep test B and got a 164, with even more progress on LR and RC but not on LG. So I definitely know what I need to focus on. I've bought the Cambridge LG bundle and the MLSAT LG book, but I'm holding off on the LG bible because it's a bit too much money for me right now on top of what I have already spend on the MLSAT ebook guides and practice tests.

longhorn65 · Post by **longhorn65** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 10:22 am

I'm definitely not postponing either as its not really an option for me. Anyone down to be my LSAT buddy and hold me accountable???? (RIGO???) I say you Rigo because I've honestly never seen a more dedicated person to the LSAT