The Official June 2015 Study Group Forum

[msp8]

Work has picked up quite heavily so I haven't had a lot of chance to actually study much lately (or even post here on TLS). Every weekend until June is now a study day.

Today, I managed to get drill through about 150 LR questions. I'm not sure if that's a lot, but I'll need to pick up steam and do more tomorrow as well. It's 2AM and I'm eating pizza trying to relax after a day of studying (lol). I'll probably wake up early and do a section or two before more drilling.

I find 150 LR Qs in a day to be quite a lot (and tiring). Think of it this way: it's the equivalent of 6 LR sections.

[msp8]

I took PT 1 yesterday. It seems to be commonly thought to be too far removed to be that representative. Maybe that's true -- though I didn't find it to be that different.

Anyway, I've seen some of the LR Qs from drilling, but not too many. I think I remembered seeing ~5-6 in one of the sections. I've always wondered what help it was to have some familiarity with a LR question. On the one hand, I can read/break it down faster; on the other, I tend to second guess myself a lot more on them. In the end, out of those ~5-6 Qs I had seen before on that one LR section, I wound up getting 3 (of my total 4) wrong! Small sample size, but seems to dismiss (for me) that familiarity is all that worthwhile. (also disconcerting to get Qs wrong when I'm familiar, but I digress...)

RC: -2
LG: -1 (stupid mistake)
LR: -4
LR: 0

Score: 176

Still frustrated with LR. Really felt like I should have gone -1 on that one. Oh well.

That's my best score yet (on a 'fresh' PT), but it's PT 1. Again, uncertain as to how representative that'll be, but it didn't feel so different.

[ccordero]

What would you guys say the best way to review RC sections would be? It often seems like your performance on the ~6-8 questions following each passage is highly dependent on whether or not you just "get" the passage in the 3-4 minutes you allot to reading it. If you don't get the passage in those 3-4 minutes, it kinda feels like you're either SOL when answering the questions or you'll have to erode away time spent on other passages by re-reading the passage.

[TheWalkingDebt]

What would you guys say the best way to review RC sections would be? It often seems like your performance on the ~6-8 questions following each passage is highly dependent on whether or not you just "get" the passage in the 3-4 minutes you allot to reading it. If you don't get the passage in those 3-4 minutes, it kinda feels like you're either SOL when answering the questions or you'll have to erode away time spent on other passages by re-reading the passage.

Read Wall Street Journal frequently (similar styles/where a lot of passages come from) and drill RC passages out of the Cambridge packet, and also pray, basically seem to be the advice given generally, in that order.


Taking PT 50 today.

[Tycho]

Just finished three hours of grouping games, getting ready to do a couple hours of LR. Did four hours total of mostly LR yesterday, but also reviewed Chapter 5 of the LGB in preparation for drilling grouping. I've made plans for the summer such that I'll be able to study obligation-free in May, which is when I'll be doing most of my PTs and BRs. I anticipate alternating those for half-days, while interspersing drilling and recreation to prevent burnout.

[appind]

What would you guys say the best way to review RC sections would be? It often seems like your performance on the ~6-8 questions following each passage is highly dependent on whether or not you just "get" the passage in the 3-4 minutes you allot to reading it. If you don't get the passage in those 3-4 minutes, it kinda feels like you're either SOL when answering the questions or you'll have to erode away time spent on other passages by re-reading the passage.

those who do consistently score near perfect on RC read faster than spending 3-4 minutes on the passage and consistency seems particularly important in rc imo. if you allot slightly lesser time say 2:30 min for the initial read, then you have a little more time to 'get' the passage while doing questions. the newer rc unlike the older one has questions that will make you go back to the passage. rc is something i am also working to improve on but to me it seems that most of the perfect scorers on RC do the first read very fast. there may also be people who read slower and get near perfect scores in RC sometimes but i am not sure if they do so consistently.

[TheWalkingDebt]

I spent a good chunk of time on NA, strengthen, and flaw questions these last couple of days. Going through my BR stage now before GOT, felt like I cruised through the first LR really easily on PT 50 (worries me a bit that I probably just missed everything). LG did not seem too bad, definitely 1 or 2 though bc of a missed inference. Did not get to last 2 Q's on RC section. 2nd LR was def. much tougher.

[TheWalkingDebt]

faaaaaahk misread a rule on the last game led to 2 questions wrong on it.

[TheWalkingDebt]

So somehow I did terribly on LG on PT 50 (-5). Probably because I've been focusing on LR and just did not shift gears properly. Still hit a high score of 167 with -7 on LG so I feel pretty stoked about that.

I'm a little disconcerted that I didn't pick up my LG mistakes in BR, so I'll definitely start drilling LG again ASAP with LR in conjunction.

ETA Full results:

Timed PT 50 (Curve is -10)
RC (Sect. 1): -3
LR (Sect. 2): -3
LG (Sect. 3): -5
LR (Sect. 4): -3

Even better is I missed 0 NA questions which have been a thorn in my side, so hopefully I can make that a trend. Still struggling oddly enough on strengthen. Also SA and parallel reasoning (PR is my weakest from PT 50)

[msp8]

That's a really good score, actually. The fact that your weakest section was LG is a good sign; more focused drilling on LG will allow you to overcome that. Going -0 on LG would have had you score 171.

Congrats!

[fhdjks]

So somehow I did terribly on LG on PT 50 (-5). Probably because I've been focusing on LR and just did not shift gears properly. Still hit a high score of 167 with -7 on LG so I feel pretty stoked about that.

I'm a little disconcerted that I didn't pick up my LG mistakes in BR, so I'll definitely start drilling LG again ASAP with LR in conjunction.

ETA Full results:

Timed PT 50 (Curve is -10)
RC (Sect. 1): -3
LR (Sect. 2): -3
LG (Sect. 3): -5
LR (Sect. 4): -3

Even better is I missed 0 NA questions which have been a thorn in my side, so hopefully I can make that a trend. Still struggling oddly enough on strengthen. Also SA and parallel reasoning (PR is my weakest from PT 50)

Congrats! Thats a really hopeful score especially with that LG-5.

[Webpolice]

Drilling level 1 LR questions boosted my confidence way too much. Drilled 100 level 1 questions (weaken, strengthen, flaw) and went -2 and then did a single packet (18 questions) of level 2 flaw questions and went -4.

Regardless, I'm taking my first PT tomorrow (June 2011). Scared as hell.

ETA: Should I print out two copies of the test (one for the actual take and one for BR)?

I would print out two scantrons and just use one test to save paper. I cross letters out on the timed and then mark on the right of the AC's on the BR usually.

haha, same, our school take it super easy...haha.....

[TheWalkingDebt]

That's a really good score, actually. The fact that your weakest section was LG is a good sign; more focused drilling on LG will allow you to overcome that. Going -0 on LG would have had you score 171.

Congrats!

Congrats! Thats a really hopeful score especially with that LG-5.

Thanks. I am excited about it, seems like the next leg of my scores is starting to happen. And apparently I ALWAYS mess up transferring my answers over to 7Sage and ended up doing it again with my LG BR answers, so my BR ended up being 169.

[Blueprint Ben]

What would you guys say the best way to review RC sections would be? It often seems like your performance on the ~6-8 questions following each passage is highly dependent on whether or not you just "get" the passage in the 3-4 minutes you allot to reading it. If you don't get the passage in those 3-4 minutes, it kinda feels like you're either SOL when answering the questions or you'll have to erode away time spent on other passages by re-reading the passage.

those who do consistently score near perfect on RC read faster than spending 3-4 minutes on the passage and consistency seems particularly important in rc imo. if you allot slightly lesser time say 2:30 min for the initial read, then you have a little more time to 'get' the passage while doing questions. the newer rc unlike the older one has questions that will make you go back to the passage. rc is something i am also working to improve on but to me it seems that most of the perfect scorers on RC do the first read very fast. there may also be people who read slower and get near perfect scores in RC sometimes but i am not sure if they do so consistently.

My perspective on this: I don't think it's necessarily true. Different people have different reading styles. Some people might be able to go -0 with a crazy fast initial read (2-2:30), but for others it would be a total disaster. After a lot of experimentation, I realized that I scored much higher in RC if I spent a really long time (4-5:00) on the initial read, and rocketed through the questions (without truncating process of elimination, of course). I found that if I effectively memorized the passage, I would be able to solve the questions accurately and quickly without having to look back very much at all. That was the ideal pace for me. I've met a non-negligible number of high scorers who used a similar approach.

RC timing is a delicate dance. IMO, no methods for RC are truly one-size-fits-all. So my best advice would be to experiment with timing strategies and mindset, and find the right fit for your reading style. And obviously drill like a maniac.

[Shakawkaw]

I found that if I effectively memorized the passage, I would be able to solve the questions accurately and quickly without having to look back very much at all.

Did you find yourself doing this for all the passage types, including the science ones?

[Blueprint Ben]

I found that if I effectively memorized the passage, I would be able to solve the questions accurately and quickly without having to look back very much at all.

Did you find yourself doing this for all the passage types, including the science ones?

I always allocated my time that way (4-5ish minutes for the initial read, 2-3ish mins for the questions), but I knew which details I should commit to memory and which ones I could just have a vague idea about their location, and find them later if necessary. Science-y passages tended to have a lot more details that went over my head, but that's just because I have no background in hard science. I would commit the terms to memory in case they showed up in the questions, but I wouldn't struggle so hard to know their exact definitions unless they were central to the structure/argument of the passage.

But yeah generally speaking, I wouldn't change my approach according to the subject matter. As basically everyone knows, RC isn't really about content; it's about reasoning structure. But structure is determined by content (how else?), so the decision about which details you should commit to memory depends entirely on their relationship to each another, and to the main ideas.

A tangentially related note on RC drilling: Subject matter =/= question type. The only meaningful type classifications in RC are structural. Like, a passage that describes a theory, presents a single argument, contrasts 2 view points, synthesizes arguments, author-present vs. author-absent, etc. There aren't any drilling packets that categorize RC structurally (as far as I know), but there should be. Drilling by subject matter isn't really drilling by type.

[Rigo]

TL;DR

[Blueprint Ben]

TL;DR

Loving the irony. Wish we could tl;dr the RC section.

[Shakawkaw]

TL;DR

Loving the irony. Wish we could tl;dr the RC section.

That's essentially the main point/global question. Keep up, BP Ben.

[Blueprint Ben]

TL;DR

Loving the irony. Wish we could tl;dr the RC section.

That's essentially the main point/global question. Keep up, BP Ben.

If only they told us rather than asking us.

[Shakawkaw]

But yeah generally speaking, I wouldn't change my approach according to the subject matter. As basically everyone knows, RC isn't really about content; it's about reasoning structure.

This isn't what I was suggesting. I was wondering how you parsed out which "sciency" things you decided to remember, vs. others. For me, I tend to underline a term and just remember where it was in the passage, versus what the actual definition is. I feel like under the time crunch, it was very easy for me to jumble concepts - which is an error the writers definitely take advantage of with sciency questions, and terms/local questions in general.

[Shakawkaw]

TL;DR

Loving the irony. Wish we could tl;dr the RC section.

That's essentially the main point/global question. Keep up, BP Ben.

If only they told us rather than asking us.

They do tell you. Just indirectly.

[Blueprint Ben]

But yeah generally speaking, I wouldn't change my approach according to the subject matter. As basically everyone knows, RC isn't really about content; it's about reasoning structure.

This isn't what I was suggesting. I was wondering how you parsed out which "sciency" things you decided to remember, vs. others. For me, I tend to underline a term and just remember where it was in the passage, versus what the actual definition is. I feel like under the time crunch, it was very easy for me to jumble concepts - which is an error the writers definitely take advantage of with sciency questions, and terms/local questions in general.

Yeah, that perception probably depends more on your own academic background than on the test writers' intentions. People who read science-y articles all the time don't feel like they're getting whooshed by the details in hard science passages. We feel that way, because we were worthless humanities majors. Granted, the hard science people might feel overwhelmed by the details in the humanities passages. So it evens out.

If you're truly reading for structure, you'll be able to tell which details matter and which ones don't. That holds for every passage you'll encounter on the LSAT, not just the ones loaded with science jargon. So my advice would be to approach them all with the same mindset, but maybe allocate a little more time to sort through the details with science passages, since you're less familiar with the terminology.

[TheWalkingDebt]

I actually think the Law passages are the most difficult, because they tend to be the most nuanced conceptually (other than literature, which was my UG major). I think the science ones are easy as long as you know TECHNICAL TERM X in relation to whatever they are talking about.

ETA: RC was probably the most natural for me to adapt to given my lit/creative writing major and how emphasized reading for structure and points was, though, so take it with a grain of salt.

[TheWalkingDebt]

I've gotta get better at recognizing when to split for grouping games.