The Official June 2015 Study Group Forum

[Rigo]

Yeah I don't think you can score the same one twice on the same account.

[nlee10]

I can't figure out how to score the same test twice and keep both scores anyway so I think I'll just make a separate account for my BRs so I can keep track of question types I missed more easily.

You can record your true and BR score on 7Sage.

[gamerish]

Post removed...

[TheWalkingDebt]

I think I went -0 on PT 49 in LG. We'll see though. LR did not feel as strongly about. Hopefully though I crossed 170 on this PT. That'd be a nice morale booster.

[TheWalkingDebt]

PT 49:

167 Timed 170 BR.

LG (Sect. 1): -1
LR (Sect. 2): -3
RC (Sect. 3): -3
LR (Sect. 4): -7 (this one is ranked as easier than the first LR section according to 7sage, so I think this is at least partially attributable to me taking a PT at 2am).

I feel pretty good about this score even though it's the same as my previous test. I got one more question right on my raw score, my BR was higher, RC consistency has been maintained despite these being harder sections, LG mistakes cut down. Just the LR section disaster, timing issue in not getting to last question in RC, and cleaning up some small LR issues for specific question types (most strongly supported and parallel reasoning/flaw).

Overall, I feel more hopeful for being ready in time for June.

[Albus Dumbledore]

Did any of you guys try to solve the logic problem that's going viral? I think all this LSAT prep helped me get to the right answer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/scien ... .html?_r=0

[The Abyss]

I'm going to read the Manhattan LR chapter on principle example questions and then drill the corresponding Cambridge packet. I will also do some in/out and grouping games today too. I'm going to a music festival this weekend so I'm trying to get as much studying done as possible today and tomorrow.

[jumbocolumbo]

Did any of you guys try to solve the logic problem that's going viral? I think all this LSAT prep helped me get to the right answer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/scien ... .html?_r=0

I took a crack at this and had no idea where to start. My SO had to kind of point me in the right direction. I agree that LG practice helped me solve it from there though. It was a pretty tough little puzzle!

[biggestlawman]

PT 49:

167 Timed 170 BR.

LG (Sect. 1): -1
LR (Sect. 2): -3
RC (Sect. 3): -3
LR (Sect. 4): -7 (this one is ranked as easier than the first LR section according to 7sage, so I think this is at least partially attributable to me taking a PT at 2am).

I feel pretty good about this score even though it's the same as my previous test. I got one more question right on my raw score, my BR was higher, RC consistency has been maintained despite these being harder sections, LG mistakes cut down. Just the LR section disaster, timing issue in not getting to last question in RC, and cleaning up some small LR issues for specific question types (most strongly supported and parallel reasoning/flaw).

Overall, I feel more hopeful for being ready in time for June.

Pretty good! I will be worried about the BR 170 though! But, it should tell you where you are lacking the required understanding.

[biggestlawman]

Here is something to comment on:

I very, very, frequently, find myself without any inferences while attempting a grouping game, and I just have to brute force my way through it. Is this common? Then I look at the 7 Sage explanations, and they have an inference which is critical. The good thing is that I have just started (only today) grouping games for this time around. The above is my experience (minus the 7 Sage) from a year ago.

I am very interested in what you guys have to say.

[biggestlawman]

Did any of you guys try to solve the logic problem that's going viral? I think all this LSAT prep helped me get to the right answer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/scien ... .html?_r=0

I took a crack at this and had no idea where to start. My SO had to kind of point me in the right direction. I agree that LG practice helped me solve it from there though. It was a pretty tough little puzzle!

I found it easy But I did it. Now only if I can get a -0 in LG.

[TheWalkingDebt]

I always transfer at least one answer wrong to 7sage, either on my timed or BR. This time I transferred 2 wrong on my timed (both were correct, being marked incorrect), which bounced my timed score up to 169. Woo hoo.

[TheWalkingDebt]

Here is something to comment on:

I very, very, frequently, find myself without any inferences while attempting a grouping game, and I just have to brute force my way through it. Is this common? Then I look at the 7 Sage explanations, and they have an inference which is critical. The good thing is that I have just started (only today) grouping games for this time around. The above is my experience (minus the 7 Sage) from a year ago.

I am very interested in what you guys have to say.

I agree with you. Grouping games are harder for me, not sure if specifically inferences, but I have a harder time seeing when to split a game board for some reason.

[biggestlawman]

Is there a benefit in watching and reproducing the 7 sage method for a game? I started drilling grouping today, and I have realized that I still suck at it. Pity that I did not develop any understanding by sleeping over it for a few months.

I am trying to understand how I should go about improving in grouping before I waste a ton of games. I know redoing is useful, but, not having seen these games for so long makes available the benefit of being able to approach them as fresh.

[TheWalkingDebt]

Is there a benefit in watching and reproducing the 7 sage method for a game? I started drilling grouping today, and I have realized that I still suck at it. Pity that I did not develop any understanding by sleeping over it for a few months.

I am trying to understand how I should go about improving in grouping before I waste a ton of games. I know redoing is useful, but, not having seen these games for so long makes available the benefit of being able to approach them as fresh.

You can reuse games from PTs 1-38. It really is just about recognizing patterns of inferences.

[jumbocolumbo]

Hello LSAT beasts!
Edit: PT 57 (Not 53 wow)
173 Timed. Didn't score my BR.

LG: -2
LR: -1
LR: -0
RC: -5

This is the jump I was looking for! Didn't make it to the last 2 Q's on RC though. The two i missed on LG were Q's from the toy dinosaur game that I didn't get to. I had heard about the difficulty of that game, which may have skewed my score because it primed me to allocate my time more effectively to the last game. H/e I was using a time bank method (8min per game) so I can't say for certain.
LR is staying strong. I still have a lot more packets to drill though.
My RC is consistently what needs the most work. I think its gonna be a tough fix.

[Ihasthedumb]

Can someone please help explain Pt 16, S3, q18? It is a weakening question about dinosaurs being warm blooded reptiles. I cannot for the life of me see how E doesn't weaken the argument?

I think the answer is (D) because it allows for the possibility that the dinosaurs did not have to deal with arctic winters because they were continually on the move. Maybe those dinosaurs were in the northern arctic region when the weather wasn't cold, which allows for the possibility that they were cold-blooded. (D) therefore weakens the argument that the dinosaurs had to have been warm-blooded.

(E) is wrong because it actually strengthens the argument. (E) denies the possibility that the region was warm during prehistoric times. What it is basically saying is that the temperature in the region during prehistoric times was as cold as it is today during winter. If the region was cold during prehistoric times, it strengthens the argument that the dinosaurs whose fossils were found in the region were warm-blooded because they would not have survived the frigid winters had they been cold-blooded.

Thank you!!!

[179orBust]

Where is OP?

[Rigo]

Where is OP?

Top-Engineering-Schools.com

[Tycho]

Surprising how much one can learn from studying the LSAT. Just hopped on Wikipedia to read about endosymbiosis after doing an LR problem. Fun stuff.

[The Abyss]

I went 30/30 on the principle example questions, but I feel they are one of the easier question types. Even level 4 questions felt quite easy.

[biggestlawman]

Is there a benefit in watching and reproducing the 7 sage method for a game? I started drilling grouping today, and I have realized that I still suck at it. Pity that I did not develop any understanding by sleeping over it for a few months.

I am trying to understand how I should go about improving in grouping before I waste a ton of games. I know redoing is useful, but, not having seen these games for so long makes available the benefit of being able to approach them as fresh.

You can reuse games from PTs 1-38. It really is just about recognizing patterns of inferences.

So you think that the same patterns repeat themselves?

[biggestlawman]

Hello LSAT beasts!
Edit: PT 57 (Not 53 wow)
173 Timed. Didn't score my BR.

LG: -2
LR: -1
LR: -0
RC: -5

This is the jump I was looking for! Didn't make it to the last 2 Q's on RC though. The two i missed on LG were Q's from the toy dinosaur game that I didn't get to. I had heard about the difficulty of that game, which may have skewed my score because it primed me to allocate my time more effectively to the last game. H/e I was using a time bank method (8min per game) so I can't say for certain.
LR is staying strong. I still have a lot more packets to drill though.
My RC is consistently what needs the most work. I think its gonna be a tough fix.

That's great! You are on track for June. This exam is more work for me than it is for you I suppose. But, I will get there!

[The Abyss]

Is there a benefit in watching and reproducing the 7 sage method for a game? I started drilling grouping today, and I have realized that I still suck at it. Pity that I did not develop any understanding by sleeping over it for a few months.

I am trying to understand how I should go about improving in grouping before I waste a ton of games. I know redoing is useful, but, not having seen these games for so long makes available the benefit of being able to approach them as fresh.

You can reuse games from PTs 1-38. It really is just about recognizing patterns of inferences.

So you think that the same patterns repeat themselves?

Absolutely they do. Repeating games over and over has helped me tremendously. I was terrible at games. Really, really terrible. I still have a lot more work to do and fresh drilling material to get through but my timed sections/PTs have gone from -10 to -2 or -3 consistently. I am a firm believer in JY's fool proof method.

[TheWalkingDebt]

Is there a benefit in watching and reproducing the 7 sage method for a game? I started drilling grouping today, and I have realized that I still suck at it. Pity that I did not develop any understanding by sleeping over it for a few months.

I am trying to understand how I should go about improving in grouping before I waste a ton of games. I know redoing is useful, but, not having seen these games for so long makes available the benefit of being able to approach them as fresh.

You can reuse games from PTs 1-38. It really is just about recognizing patterns of inferences.

So you think that the same patterns repeat themselves?

Yeah for sure. It's the same inferences over and over again. When people told me "eventually you'll stop seeing the content of the conditions and just see the variables and rules quickly" it sounded strange, but it's definitely true. Once you do the same thing over and over again, it's mainly about maintaining consistency and efficiency.