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

[Mikey]

Does anybody have advice on how to approach LR?

My RC is usually between -3 to -5
LG -1 to -3
and LR will be -4 to -7. Each section

I got a 166 on June's LSAT and am aiming for 170 for Sept, but I just can't seem to improve my LR. TIA!!

Are they specific question types? If so drill those. Are they usually the harder questions or scattered in the section?

[Alexandros]

I wish I took CC classes over the summer every summer while I was in UG so my GPA would be higher (not that it's low, but still)

I've been considering that. My CC has 4.3s, which my undergrad doesn't, which would be really helpful. But I don't want it to look like I'm obviously trying to pad my gpa with a bunch of unnecessary, easy CC classes.

doooo it. adcoms probably won't care but you can post in the Spivey Consulting thread and ask!

I think if you took certain classes that were gen-ed requirements for your major at a CC--I don't think it would look like padding even if you strategically took them there because its easier..

You think? I thought about it then I started googling it a bit and most people discouraged it as not worth it, (even though like there *is* a difference between a 3.79 and 3.85 ://) so I discarded the idea, but I'm gonna look into it again.

They wouldn't be gen-ed requirements, just random additional classes. Although I can't imagine the adcoms know every school's gen-ed requirements, so it might look like it? (as they'd prob be language.) and tbh I mean, in the unlikely event that they actually looked that deep into my transcript, I think it would be difficult to fault me for taking too many easy electives, as I've taken literally one elective. but I dunno...

I meant just 1 or 2 classes...Im pretty sure on my transcript it says what the credit counts towards. Might be different at different schools, but that was the case for me.

I feel like they are more inclined to reward a slightly lower transcript with harder classes that care about too much of padding unless you are a 4.0 and then they look into it. Who knows though.. just some of my thoughts..

Ah yeah my official transcript after I graduate very well might, didn't think of that. Yeah, I feel like that makes sense! I'm gonna look into what the procedure is for extra courses. Thanks!

[Deardevil]

does "an assumption that the argument requires" still mean a necessary assumption in the recent pts or is it something different? i find this q confusing in that regard, 76.lr2.24

[+] Spoiler

it asks for a necessary assumption but "none" in the credited choice D is more than necessary. That the students who are least enthusiastic about science and who received the passing grade are not the most committed is necessary. But choice D says that students who are least enthusiastic are not the most committed is necessary. So the choice D is a superset of what is indeed necessary.

It should be. Can't think of anything else that absolutely needs an assumption to complete an argument.

[Mikey]

Alex why are you looking for an easy way out. I don't mean your CC GPA boost either, I mean the fact that you have close ties to adcomms at Cooley and will use that to your advantage. SMFH.

[Alexandros]

Alex why are you looking for an easy way out. I don't mean your CC GPA boost either, I mean the fact that you have close ties to adcomms at Cooley and will use that to your advantage. SMFH.

It's true. While you all are at wit's end struggling to get the numbers that will please the Cooley adcoms, I'm sitting here smugly, confident in my everlasting bonds of friendship with the admissions coordinators of the Western Michigan University cooley law school, which I am reminded of every time I stream a youtube video.

Sorry, guys. Can't help that I'm popular. :/

[Mikey]

Alex why are you looking for an easy way out. I don't mean your CC GPA boost either, I mean the fact that you have close ties to adcomms at Cooley and will use that to your advantage. SMFH.

It's true. While you all are at wit's end struggling to get the numbers that will please the Cooley adcoms, I'm sitting here smugly, confident in my everlasting bonds of friendship with the admissions coordinators of the Western Michigan University Cooley Law School, which I am reminded of every time I stream a youtube video.

Sorry, guys. Can't help that I'm popular. :/

lololololol Cooley Class of 2032 here we come (failed 1L several times so, ye).

[20170322]

Just went -0 on PT 46 LG, 27 minutes!

We're back in business

[YupSports]

Took PT 71 this morning:

LR1: -2
LG: -5
LR2: -7
RC: -4

167

Haven't really looked at the test to uncover any trends, but it looks like a I missed about 6 LR in a row again.

Ran out of time on LG for the last question - not sure what happened - I'll have to take a look.

[theothercat]

Remember to stay sharp on every section!

I was doing awesome on RC, then ignored it for two weeks to focus on LR. Felt like I had backslid a lot, from -1 to -4/5. I'm gonna rework my strategy to make sure I'm drilling every section a few times a week, no matter what I'm focusing on.

I don't really slack on LG, though, because it's actually fun...

[theothercat]

Does anybody have advice on how to approach LR?

My RC is usually between -3 to -5
LG -1 to -3
and LR will be -4 to -7. Each section

I got a 166 on June's LSAT and am aiming for 170 for Sept, but I just can't seem to improve my LR. TIA!!

What materials have you used to prepare? I used the Powerscore LR Bible for my Feb. 2013 test (169), and now I'm using the Manhattan LR Guide. Really, really liking the Manhattan. It helps you break down what your process for each question should be, and create a much more efficient and effective strategy in general and for specific questions types. It helped me really zero in on my weaknesses and gave me better tools to break bad habits.

[20170322]

Just went -0 on each of the three different sections I did this morning. Feeling much better about this test. Let's do this!

[YupSports]

Just went -0 on each of the three different sections I did this morning. Feeling much better about this test. Let's do this!

I wish it were here already!

[Mikey]

Just went -0 on each of the three different sections I did this morning. Feeling much better about this test. Let's do this!

Dope!

HE'S BACK EVERYBODY!!!

I still got that 180 buckaroos on you getting a 180 next month. anyone who feels otherwise, FITEEe MmEe

[StopLawying]

Does anybody have advice on how to approach LR?

My RC is usually between -3 to -5
LG -1 to -3
and LR will be -4 to -7. Each section

I got a 166 on June's LSAT and am aiming for 170 for Sept, but I just can't seem to improve my LR. TIA!!

What materials have you used to prepare? I used the Powerscore LR Bible for my Feb. 2013 test (169), and now I'm using the Manhattan LR Guide. Really, really liking the Manhattan. It helps you break down what your process for each question should be, and create a much more efficient and effective strategy in general and for specific questions types. It helped me really zero in on my weaknesses and gave me better tools to break bad habits.

Hope you got the newest edition of Manhattan LR. They really expanded on their flaw chapter, and added some extra drills. Really worth paying $40, even to switch from the 4th to 5th edition.
I'm a huge fan of Manhattan LR and RC, and I feel like the books don't get enough love here. They teach you how to approach the test intuitively, unlike Powerscore.

[Deardevil]

Hope you got the newest edition of Manhattan LR. They really expanded on their flaw chapter, and added some extra drills. Really worth paying $40, even to switch from the 4th to 5th edition.
I'm a huge fan of Manhattan LR and RC, and I feel like the books don't get enough love here. They teach you how to approach the test intuitively, unlike Powerscore.

I'm thinking of getting the RC book. How helpful is it?

[StopLawying]

Hope you got the newest edition of Manhattan LR. They really expanded on their flaw chapter, and added some extra drills. Really worth paying $40, even to switch from the 4th to 5th edition.
I'm a huge fan of Manhattan LR and RC, and I feel like the books don't get enough love here. They teach you how to approach the test intuitively, unlike Powerscore.

I'm thinking of getting the RC book. How helpful is it?

I loved the book, but Blueprint's is also good. If you want a more intuitive approach then go with Manhattan. Blueprint approaches the section mechanically.

[Justice4Birdperson]

I may be going to Mexico for a few months for work now. Going to have to go international with these LSAT books.

[34iplaw]

Finished BR...

Dec 08...

Act: LG[-2]; LR1[-2]; LREXP[-2]; LR2[-5]; RC[-5]; -14; 86/100; 167
BlR: LG[-0]; LR1[-1]; LREXP[-0]; LR2[-2]; RC[-2]; -5; 95/100; 176

[theothercat]

Does anybody have advice on how to approach LR?

My RC is usually between -3 to -5
LG -1 to -3
and LR will be -4 to -7. Each section

I got a 166 on June's LSAT and am aiming for 170 for Sept, but I just can't seem to improve my LR. TIA!!

What materials have you used to prepare? I used the Powerscore LR Bible for my Feb. 2013 test (169), and now I'm using the Manhattan LR Guide. Really, really liking the Manhattan. It helps you break down what your process for each question should be, and create a much more efficient and effective strategy in general and for specific questions types. It helped me really zero in on my weaknesses and gave me better tools to break bad habits.

Hope you got the newest edition of Manhattan LR. They really expanded on their flaw chapter, and added some extra drills. Really worth paying $40, even to switch from the 4th to 5th edition.
I'm a huge fan of Manhattan LR and RC, and I feel like the books don't get enough love here. They teach you how to approach the test intuitively, unlike Powerscore.

I have the 4th edition, thanks for freaking me out! Flaw has been a bit of struggle for me too... But I'm drilling the shit out of it so I feel okay.

But yeah, I love Manhattan LR and RC. My big fuck-up during my first LSAT was RC, and it was because I barely prepared. So I got the Manhattan RC this time and am very happy with their approach. It feels much more natural to read now. The constant reminders to actually engage with the passage, and to stop reading every paragraph or so to mentally explain back to myself what I just read, rather than rushing through, were surprisingly powerful for me.

[Alexandros]

Successfully woke up at 5am this morning! Not the most pleasant thing but it should be fine once I get used to it + getting to sleep earlier.
This morning - 52 LG and 17 RC (and two random other passages), half-asleep: 0 and -1. (and then went for a run, got nauseous and had to stop )

Feeling ok about everything except LR and my testing abilities. Printing out all of the newer LG that I've done to drill with, and I think I should be able to get back in swing wrt LG before long. Full-time work ends this Friday, then hopefully I can really ramp up prep for the last few weeks - work on testing, get LR back into an ok state, and smooth out RC and LG.

WE GOT THIS Y'ALL

[Alexandros]

I think I need to start looking up explanations on RC. I seem to finish in time, but almost always get 1 or 2 wrong, usually for reasons other than misreading.

Also - Anyone have tips on pure sequencing games with a lot of conditional logic? ie 52.4, 73.1. I seemed to get turned around on those a lot.

[Mikey]

i wish lsac would just give me an entire LR section of sufficient assumption questions with shifts in the conclusion. sigh.

[appind]

20 RC

-3 in 35 min

found p3 to be bit tough. i had less than 5 min for p4 but was saved as it had only 5 questions. concerned that in new rc i will miss much more than this.

[34iplaw]

I think I need to start looking up explanations on RC. I seem to finish in time, but almost always get 1 or 2 wrong, usually for reasons other than misreading.

Also - Anyone have tips on pure sequencing games with a lot of conditional logic? ie 52.4, 73.1. I seemed to get turned around on those a lot.

Not sure which one those are, but, typically, those type of games the conditionals typically force the game to boil down to two or, at most, four possible sequencing 'tree' diagrams.

Basically, a lot of the conditional logic they use, typically, in those (unless I haven't seen this type yet) are just obscenely convoluted ways of saying some ordering rule (or something in effect becomes an ordering rule when subject to other constraints.)

The other key I think (that you may be missing or not thinking of) is that if items can't stack/there are no ties, A - B -> C - D means that if you know D - C -> B - A... if ties, you need to be a little more careful... basically, it's sort of like an in out in that the contrapositive always tells you something that must be true rather than a must be false.

[theboringest]

Was feeling pretty good about LR before prep test 59 kicked my ass- -14 curve so not surprising it was tough but wow, went -8 across the two sections. On the plus side went -0 for RC.