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

[etramak]

Finally started prepping again this week. Just did the February 1997 RC and couldn't finish. 5 minute warning went off just as I was starting the fourth passage. Maybe I was just being too laid back throughout the whole thing idk. That hasn't happened to me since like late April (and well, the nonexperimental RC on the June 2016 LSAT), so this is pretty disappointing.

[Mikey]

PT23 S3 Q10 makes me feel like an idiot

[Instrumental]

I'm going to give more focus to RC. My LR and AR scores have come together quite nicely for 170+ scores. RC is all that's holding me back from consistently getting there I think.

[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.

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.

Thanks! That's really helpful.

I definitely find splitting the game into the possible diagrams seems to be the best way to go, but still end up turned around/with really messy diagrams way too often. I think I need to practice them more; they don't seem to be too common though, esp. on older games.

[Instrumental]

PT23 S3 Q10 makes me feel like an idiot

Do you need help with it?

[Alexandros]

Finally started prepping again this week. Just did the February 1997 RC and couldn't finish. 5 minute warning went off just as I was starting the fourth passage. Maybe I was just being too laid back throughout the whole thing idk. That hasn't happened to me since like late April (and well, the nonexperimental RC on the June 2016 LSAT), so this is pretty disappointing.

It'll come back with time/practice! Don't beat yourself up.

[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.

Thanks! That's really helpful.

I definitely find splitting the game into the possible diagrams seems to be the best way to go, but still end up turned around/with really messy diagrams way too often. I think I need to practice them more; they don't seem to be too common though, esp. on older games.

No problem - I think the latter part of it is the most important TBH... a contrapositive is far more useful when it tells you something must occur than when it tells you something can't occur.

People in this library are deafeningly loud. It's beyond ridiculous and absurd.

[Mikey]

PT23 S3 Q10 makes me feel like an idiot

Do you need help with it?

If you don't mind, yeah.

Like, i see how all of the other answer choices are wrong by POE, but I still just cannot make any sense of how the right answer is right, even after reading explanations.

[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.

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.

Thanks! That's really helpful.

I definitely find splitting the game into the possible diagrams seems to be the best way to go, but still end up turned around/with really messy diagrams way too often. I think I need to practice them more; they don't seem to be too common though, esp. on older games.

No problem - I think the latter part of it is the most important TBH... a contrapositive is far more useful when it tells you something must occur than when it tells you something can't occur.

People in this library are deafeningly loud. It's beyond ridiculous and absurd.

Yeah - I think I get the logic itself for the most part, it's just that the games always seem more difficult / time-consuming / 'messier' than I feel like they should.

I'm so sorry that you're being inflicted with a loud library. Outrageous. Public?

[appind]

had a PR of sorts in the time to finish a passage plus qs today. 4:25 min on 20.RC.P4 even tho it had only 5 qs.

then 10 lg in 25:55 min. tbf the section seemed easier than 3 stars it has on 7sage.

[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.

Thanks! That's really helpful.

I definitely find splitting the game into the possible diagrams seems to be the best way to go, but still end up turned around/with really messy diagrams way too often. I think I need to practice them more; they don't seem to be too common though, esp. on older games.

No problem - I think the latter part of it is the most important TBH... a contrapositive is far more useful when it tells you something must occur than when it tells you something can't occur.

People in this library are deafeningly loud. It's beyond ridiculous and absurd.

Yeah - I think I get the logic itself for the most part, it's just that the games always seem more difficult / time-consuming / 'messier' than I feel like they should.

I'm so sorry that you're being inflicted with a loud library. Outrageous. Public?

Yeah... blegh. Are there such things as private libraries outside of like unis? I wonder if that is an idea that could take off in some places. Like those old sports clubs of yore but instead a library with a membership fee that is exclusive... I guess that just teeters on social clubs though. Apparently, I looked really irritated, as the person at the other end of the table came to apologize since he thought his music through his headphones was bothering me. I felt a bit bad about that.

I think that they do get messier, but that could, in part, be due to feeling the need to diagram everything whereas not all (TBH, most) questions really call for it. I think being to hellbent on diagramming can really hurt for some of the games with twists.

[appind]

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.

Solid rc seems to be the key to getting a mid to high 170s on this test. I think if RC is worse than like -4 it become very very difficult to get in mid 170s

[Instrumental]

PT23 S3 Q10 makes me feel like an idiot

Do you need help with it?

If you don't mind, yeah.

Like, i see how all of the other answer choices are wrong by POE, but I still just cannot make any sense of how the right answer is right, even after reading explanations.

Hmm, well if you've read explanations already, I'm not sure how much help mine will be, but I'll try. Since you already get why the wrong answers are wrong, I'll just explain why the correct answer is correct:

[+] Spoiler

The person in the prompt states a means of reducing pollution. They claim it can be achieved by suggesting people walk instead of drive. More people walking instead of driving means less people on the road. Less people on the road means less congestion and less congestion means less nonmoving vehicles and since nonmoving vehicles cause pollution, having less of them helps support the person's means of reducing pollution.

The question kind of tries to trip you up by bringing up that the nonmoving vehicles emit half as much pollution as moving vehicles, but it isn't really relevant since by the nature of driving, the car is going to have to move to get to its destination, so until a means of teleportation becomes feasible, reducing the time it's not moving is a reduction in pollution regardless.

[appind]

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.

Thanks! That's really helpful.

I definitely find splitting the game into the possible diagrams seems to be the best way to go, but still end up turned around/with really messy diagrams way too often. I think I need to practice them more; they don't seem to be too common though, esp. on older games.

No problem - I think the latter part of it is the most important TBH... a contrapositive is far more useful when it tells you something must occur than when it tells you something can't occur.

People in this library are deafeningly loud. It's beyond ridiculous and absurd.

Yeah - I think I get the logic itself for the most part, it's just that the games always seem more difficult / time-consuming / 'messier' than I feel like they should.

I'm so sorry that you're being inflicted with a loud library. Outrageous. Public?

Yeah... blegh. Are there such things as private libraries outside of like unis? I wonder if that is an idea that could take off in some places. Like those old sports clubs of yore but instead a library with a membership fee that is exclusive... I guess that just teeters on social clubs though. Apparently, I looked really irritated, as the person at the other end of the table came to apologize since he thought his music through his headphones was bothering me. I felt a bit bad about that.

In my area the only university library has reduced hours until Sept test. Would have loved to find a library that's open all the time.

[Mikey]

PT23 S3 Q10 makes me feel like an idiot

Do you need help with it?

If you don't mind, yeah.

Like, i see how all of the other answer choices are wrong by POE, but I still just cannot make any sense of how the right answer is right, even after reading explanations.

Hmm, well if you've read explanations already, I'm not sure how much help mine will be, but I'll try. Since you already get why the wrong answers are wrong, I'll just explain why the correct answer is correct:

[+] Spoiler

The person in the prompt states a means of reducing pollution. They claim it can be achieved by suggesting people walk instead of drive. More people walking instead of driving means less people on the road. Less people on the road means less congestion and less congestion means less nonmoving vehicles and since nonmoving vehicles cause pollution, having less of them helps support the person's means of reducing pollution.

The question kind of tries to trip you up by bringing up that the nonmoving vehicles emit half as much pollution as moving vehicles, but it isn't really relevant since by the nature of driving, the car is going to have to move to get to its destination, so until a means of teleportation becomes feasible, reducing the time it's not moving is a reduction in pollution regardless.

Thanks. I'm here staring at the stimulus and correct A/C and I see how it's related.

[+] Spoiler

At the time of doing the question, I was skeptical about the whole Nonmoving vehicles thing. But I read the rest and couldn't see to eliminate it because I wasn't sure wtf it was actually saying and how it related to the argument. It's a very subtle answer imo. I see how the more people, the more congestion, etc etc. but although I know now how it adds support to it, I still think it's a tough one to analyze. Might just be because I suck, but idk lmao

[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.

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.

Thanks! That's really helpful.

I definitely find splitting the game into the possible diagrams seems to be the best way to go, but still end up turned around/with really messy diagrams way too often. I think I need to practice them more; they don't seem to be too common though, esp. on older games.

No problem - I think the latter part of it is the most important TBH... a contrapositive is far more useful when it tells you something must occur than when it tells you something can't occur.

People in this library are deafeningly loud. It's beyond ridiculous and absurd.

Yeah - I think I get the logic itself for the most part, it's just that the games always seem more difficult / time-consuming / 'messier' than I feel like they should.

I'm so sorry that you're being inflicted with a loud library. Outrageous. Public?

Yeah... blegh. Are there such things as private libraries outside of like unis? I wonder if that is an idea that could take off in some places. Like those old sports clubs of yore but instead a library with a membership fee that is exclusive... I guess that just teeters on social clubs though. Apparently, I looked really irritated, as the person at the other end of the table came to apologize since he thought his music through his headphones was bothering me. I felt a bit bad about that.

I think that they do get messier, but that could, in part, be due to feeling the need to diagram everything whereas not all (TBH, most) questions really call for it. I think being to hellbent on diagramming can really hurt for some of the games with twists.

Yeah, all I can think of that kind of fitA that description Is like, I dunno, archival reading rooms or something. Library clubs with exclusive membership - I could get behind that. shame they can't keep the noise level down in public libraries, though, because I mean it's still a library.

Oh no! Don't feel too bad - I'm sure I've offended scores with my library death-glare.

Got the games from 53, 65, 55, 68, 72, 63, 57, 62, 64, 71, and 73 printed. Lezz go.

[34iplaw]

Anyone have tips on RC for someone that can typically get most right but quite frequently gets tripped up by what they view as judgement calls or not being positive between choices? I'm reading through the Blueprint RC question methods and it doesn't really seem to help. It comes across as relatively commonsensical to me.

I feel like I'm just spinning my wheels in a -4 to -6 territory.

[rated_char]

.

[Mikey]

Hi, newbie to TLS here- at this stage, I'm wondering if it's worth augmenting taking full tests with drilling on just one section. I'm getting -4 or less on all 3, and it seems like LG would be the easiest to boost. What are others honing in on at this point?

Currently focusing on tougher strengthen/weaken questions and RC. I put off a PT to do so, lol.

[rated_char]

.

[Mikey]

Hi, newbie to TLS here- at this stage, I'm wondering if it's worth augmenting taking full tests with drilling on just one section. I'm getting -4 or less on all 3, and it seems like LG would be the easiest to boost. What are others honing in on at this point?

Currently focusing on tougher strengthen/weaken questions and RC. I put off a PT to do so, lol.

If you don't mind me asking, what's your target score/how close are you to it? I'm within two points of mine so I'm trying to what I had thought was the optimal tactic to get the most points. Those final RC points have always seemed nearly impossible to get for me at least, lol.

In theory, I suppose the goal for everyone should be a 180, lol. But realistically, I'd be content with a low 170's score. As to how close I am, that depends on my next PTs. I've only PTed once since starting to study again since I took in June, but I feel like it wasn't that representative because I wasn't focused much during it (159 with a BR score of 173). I was supposed to do PT 70 today, but decided to do some area focus instead and push it to Friday.

[StopLawying]

Really pissed. Took 65 and don't feel good about it at all, probably practiced way below my average. Thought it was much tougher than 64, a test I got a 170 on. RC and Games sucked + I had tons of trouble with timing on this one. So discouraged right now.

[proteinshake]

did the first half of PT 46 today (fresh):

RC -2 (5/5 difficulty) -- didn't find it that hard tbh, had about 10 mins for the final passage so that helped a bunch.
LR -2 (4/5 difficulty) -- missed a Parallel Flaw question I definitely should have gotten right and a Weaken question that is supposedly really easy but I still need to review.

[Alexandros]

4 LG sets today: 52, 71, 65, 53 -> 0, 0, -1, 0.
Really need to do more LR but I'm tired and my attention span's shot. This is a struggle.
Going to do 10 more of these questions then hopefully actually work on LR tomorrow, at long last.

[ngogirl12]

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 highly recommend the book, I went through it slowly and took notes while I was reading.

It also has chapters on what to do if you don't understand what your reading, or if you are running out of time on the RC section.