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

[20170322]

Took my first PT in over a month today. Results

PT 39, 5 section, timed conditions in Starbucks.

LG: -1
LR: -3
RC: -2
LR2: -1
Raw: 94
Scaled: 175


I should note, though, that I had seen the RC before (I did not know this until I was taking the test). So, probably subtract a point or two.

The -3 LR is unacceptable. I didn't do any LR warmup, so I'm guessing that's why. Hoping to bump this score up by at least 2 points by test day.

Still a solid score for not studying in a while. Curious, what's the lowest score you're willing to accept?

I'd probably apply with anything above a 172, though I would also probably retake a 172 or 173.

I'm mainly uncomfortable with this because I had seen the RC, so it's not an indicative score. Need to take more PT's in the next few weeks.


ETA: I realized this was confusing after. I would apply with a 172 if that was the lowest I got. However, if I get a 172 or 173, I will almost certainly do an extra year of UG and retake the LSAT.

I see. So if you were to get an outcome with that 172/173 that you really like, then you wouldn't reapply? Correct?

Yeah, but I would retake. So, like, if I get a 172/173, I'll take in December and apply next year. If I don't get a better score, though, I'd still apply.

Idk, I'm trying to keep my mind open to retaking, especially since I'm planning on spending next year abroad.

Oooooo where to??

I'm thinking Prague! Gonna do a year there, studying Czech, and then maybe apply for a Fulbright ETA in the Czech Republic.

[34iplaw]

Dec 09 LG (-0); LR (-5 ick); LR (-2) RC; (-5) LG[EXP] (-2)

89/101 RAW ; 171

Literally shocked on the experimental LG that it was -2... I found that to be a really hard LG section even though I had definitely seen a game before (turns out that was from the Sep 98 test)

BR wasn't really any better, as I didn't actually recognize the questions that I had missed... except for three, one of which I didn't get. I'll have to be more diligent in how I BR... when you BR... do you do the entire test or just the questions you circled going through it?

the q about manufacture samples in the second LR section was dumb.

You mean section 2 / first LR section? The one with the quality control investigator?

Apparently, I misbubbled that one so... 172... sort of?

oh right, the first LR section. I missed numbers 20, 22, 25. should've gotten 25 right.

Yeah - that question was a crappy one. I only picked [D] as it was one of those 'Well, [D] is basically more directly stating what is insinuating.'

[proteinshake]

Speaking of difficult LR, anyone want to flesh out the right answer for Q22 in PT57 Section 3? I got it right from process of elimination but I'm not confident I understand the reasoning.

[+] Spoiler

suppose I want to run for election as Communist. would the fact that there are wealthy sponsors who could fund me if they are equally dispersed across all the political parties mean I wouldn't have to compromise my views? if there is no Communist Party or a party that has a similar ideology to Communists, then no! as a Communist, I would most likely have to compromise my views to get funded by a wealthy person.

[proteinshake]

Yeah - that question was a crappy one. I only picked [D] as it was one of those 'Well, [D] is basically more directly stating what is insinuating.'

yeah I was debating between B and D, but chose B.

[Deardevil]

3.2.14

Pamela argues that physicians devote 36 hours with no rest, affecting their decision-making process during the last bit of their shifts.
Quincy is like, "Nah, fam; this is how it's always been done, so why fix what's not broken?" We're tasked to weaken his argument.

(A) is not it; if responsibilities did not change, it seems to bolster his point.
(C) also strengthens his claim because these patients need physicians caring for them for 24+ hours.
(D) essentially says nothing; who cares if the workload is different?
(E) is, like a previous choice, helping Quincy's case because physicians need to be looking after patients for 36+ hours.

(B) says "Because medical reimbursement policies now pay for less recuperation time in hospitals,
patients in hospitals are, on the average, more seriously ill during their stays than in the past."

Remember Quincy mentioning the PAST? Sure, something might have worked back then,
but NOWADAYS, something changed; patients are no longer getting as much recovery time.
If people in 2005 recuperate more quickly, even when physicians are tired, they at least got treatment in hospitals.
Fast-forward to 2016; physicians are still tired, but patients will be probably need a helluva lot more time to recover.
Quincy is saying, "Oh, flip phones do their jobs just fine; why do we need smartphones?"
Well, perhaps because they're much more convenient for keeping track of current events? Or that flip phones have no access to Snapchat?
So his argument is not debunked, but it's at least a little suspect.

Apologies if I sound all over the place. Might chime in later on the other two.

[34iplaw]

Yeah - that question was a crappy one. I only picked [D] as it was one of those 'Well, [D] is basically more directly stating what is insinuating.'

yeah I was debating between B and D, but chose B.

I kind of want to set a more rigid schedule for these next couple weeks, but I think that being someone fluid has worked for me thus far. I am more than able to keep myself focused on this for 4-8 hours a day. I think I'll just keep switching between PTs and days of supplemental sections and such.

Oh, and other app components.

[Instrumental]

Speaking of difficult LR, anyone want to flesh out the right answer for Q22 in PT57 Section 3? I got it right from process of elimination but I'm not confident I understand the reasoning.

[+] Spoiler

suppose I want to run for election as Communist. would the fact that there are wealthy sponsors who could fund me if they are equally dispersed across all the political parties mean I wouldn't have to compromise my views? if there is no Communist Party or a party that has a similar ideology to Communists, then no! as a Communist, I would most likely have to compromise my views to get funded by a wealthy person.

Awesome thanks, that explanation makes sense. For me,

[+] Spoiler

I couldn't even understand why or how a person would think that equal proportion of wealthy people among political parties and the general pop. even made sense as a justification as to why it's not reasonable to believe candidates will compromise their views. Made it a bit difficult to wrap my head around from the jump.

[Alexandros]

Question for those of you that write summaries during timed sections / do the memory method timed - How long are your summaries typically? I'm a slow writer so writing full sentences / anything that encapsulates the point of a paragraph with any degree of completeness is a time sink I can't afford.

[Alexandros]

3.2.14

Pamela argues that physicians devote 36 hours with no rest, affecting their decision-making process during the last bit of their shifts.
Quincy is like, "Nah, fam; this is how it's always been done, so why fix what's not broken?" We're tasked to weaken his argument.

(A) is not it; if responsibilities did not change, it seems to bolster his point.
(C) also strengthens his claim because these patients need physicians caring for them for 24+ hours.
(D) essentially says nothing; who cares if the workload is different?
(E) is, like a previous choice, helping Quincy's case because physicians need to be looking after patients for 36+ hours.

(B) says "Because medical reimbursement policies now pay for less recuperation time in hospitals,
patients in hospitals are, on the average, more seriously ill during their stays than in the past."

Remember Quincy mentioning the PAST? Sure, something might have worked back then,
but NOWADAYS, something changed; patients are no longer getting as much recovery time.
If people in 2005 recuperate more quickly, even when physicians are tired, they at least got treatment in hospitals.
Fast-forward to 2016; physicians are still tired, but patients will be probably need a helluva lot more time to recover.
Quincy is saying, "Oh, flip phones do their jobs just fine; why do we need smartphones?"
Well, perhaps because they're much more convenient for keeping track of current events? Or that flip phones have no access to Snapchat?
So his argument is not debunked, but it's at least a little suspect.

Apologies if I sound all over the place. Might chime in later on the other two.

Thanks so much!
So what my understanding is - Because recuperation time is less, patients are on avg more sick during their stays. Since they're more sick, caring for them is more difficult / demanding. So the fatigued physicians in training serving as medical staff physicians are no longer able to perform as well / make the best medical decisions, because making medical decisions about patients who are more sick is more difficult. Am I off the mark completely? I feel like that's a lot of jumping.

I actually picked D the first time and was hesitating over it again. Reasoning being physicians in training work up to 36 consecution hours - maybe that's the maximum for training in certain medical specialties. And maybe the thousands of physicians now practicing that Q refers to are in a different specialty, so didn't have to work up to 36 hours because different work load, but, like, same regimen. not what LSAC had in mind, clearly.

[Mikey]

I'm thinking Prague! Gonna do a year there, studying Czech, and then maybe apply for a Fulbright ETA in the Czech Republic.

ooooooooo fancy! I hope you have a great time if you end up going!!

[34iplaw]

I'm thinking Prague! Gonna do a year there, studying Czech, and then maybe apply for a Fulbright ETA in the Czech Republic.

ooooooooo fancy! I hope you have a great time if you end up going!!

You can use the pickup line,

"Are you a local? Because I can't help but Czech you out."

That's so clever that it must be original...

[Deardevil]

Thanks so much!
So what my understanding is - Because recuperation time is less, patients are on avg more sick during their stays. Since they're more sick, caring for them is more difficult / demanding. So the fatigued physicians in training serving as medical staff physicians are no longer able to perform as well / make the best medical decisions, because making medical decisions about patients who are more sick is more difficult. Am I off the mark completely? I feel like that's a lot of jumping.

I actually picked D the first time and was hesitating over it again. Reasoning being physicians in training work up to 36 consecution hours - maybe that's the maximum for training in certain medical specialties. And maybe the thousands of physicians now practicing that Q refers to are in a different specialty, so didn't have to work up to 36 hours because different work load, but, like, same regimen. not what LSAC had in mind, clearly.

Yeah, you're making the right leaps!

11.2.17

Given two options, Chen's plan is better than Ripley's when it comes to bettering the city. Why?
Because the latter is supported by a company that supported its own interests in the PAST and didn't care about consequences for the city.
Well, that's not a good way of looking at an argument...
Just because an adult used to be a juvenile deliquent, it doesn't mean he/she is a troublemaker TODAY.

YAY, parallel reasoning!

(A) says Centreville should OPPOSE a plan rather than FAVORING one over a second, which is never mentioned;
furthermore, where does the stimulus ever talk about city interests?
(B) is like the first choice in that it does not give any mention to an alternative.
(C) looks REALLY good; the mayor's proposal is to be preferred because it addresses city needs, BUT
the other side, the city council, is protecting its interests of TODAY, whereas Smith Stores protected interests in the PAST.
(D) pits Nomura against Miller, but we know nothing about why the other person isn't a better candidate for presidency.

(E) says "The planned light-rail system will clearly serve suburban areas well since its main opponent is the city government,
which has always ignored the needs of the suburbs and sought only to protect the interests of the city."

This BETTER be right because the first four are wrong!
And it is! The light-rail system is better than whatever plan the city government proposed.
It serves suburban areas well, just as Chen's plan betters the city as a whole.
Furthermore, the city government doesn't give a crap about suburbs, only caring about its own interests. Perfect match, I'd say!

I'll come back after dinner for the last one.

[Mikey]

I'm thinking Prague! Gonna do a year there, studying Czech, and then maybe apply for a Fulbright ETA in the Czech Republic.

ooooooooo fancy! I hope you have a great time if you end up going!!

You can use the pickup line,

"Are you a local? Because I can't help but Czech you out."

That's so clever that it must be original...

Bro, lol

[20170322]

I'm learning more and more that I do better after a LOOONNNGGGGGG warmup. I may do a full 3 section warmup on test day.


Gonna do 2 4-section tests back to back tomorrow to see if this is a good strategy.

[20170322]

I'm thinking Prague! Gonna do a year there, studying Czech, and then maybe apply for a Fulbright ETA in the Czech Republic.

ooooooooo fancy! I hope you have a great time if you end up going!!

You can use the pickup line,

"Are you a local? Because I can't help but Czech you out."

That's so clever that it must be original...

Bro, lol

My Fulbright application:

Czech yourself before you wreck yourself.

Czech please!

Czech-mate.

[Mikey]

I'm learning more and more that I do better after a LOOONNNGGGGGG warmup. I may do a full 3 section warmup on test day.


Gonna do 2 4-section tests back to back tomorrow to see if this is a good strategy.

O.O with just one 4-section or 5-section test my brain is fried! But I guess you're building endurance by doing that.

I've heard good things about 6 section PTs as well. But obviously not to overkill and just do 2 6-section PTs a week at max. Seems like an interesting approach to build endurance and getting the reviewing of 12 sections.

[Alexandros]

Thanks so much!
So what my understanding is - Because recuperation time is less, patients are on avg more sick during their stays. Since they're more sick, caring for them is more difficult / demanding. So the fatigued physicians in training serving as medical staff physicians are no longer able to perform as well / make the best medical decisions, because making medical decisions about patients who are more sick is more difficult. Am I off the mark completely? I feel like that's a lot of jumping.

I actually picked D the first time and was hesitating over it again. Reasoning being physicians in training work up to 36 consecution hours - maybe that's the maximum for training in certain medical specialties. And maybe the thousands of physicians now practicing that Q refers to are in a different specialty, so didn't have to work up to 36 hours because different work load, but, like, same regimen. not what LSAC had in mind, clearly.

Yeah, you're making the right leaps!

11.2.17

Given two options, Chen's plan is better than Ripley's when it comes to bettering the city. Why?
Because the latter is supported by a company that supported its own interests in the PAST and didn't care about consequences for the city.
Well, that's not a good way of looking at an argument...
Just because an adult used to be a juvenile deliquent, it doesn't mean he/she is a troublemaker TODAY.

YAY, parallel reasoning!

(A) says Centreville should OPPOSE a plan rather than FAVORING one over a second, which is never mentioned;
furthermore, where does the stimulus ever talk about city interests?
(B) is like the first choice in that it does not give any mention to an alternative.
(C) looks REALLY good; the mayor's proposal is to be preferred because it addresses city needs, BUT
the other side, the city council, is protecting its interests of TODAY, whereas Smith Stores protected interests in the PAST.
(D) pits Nomura against Miller, but we know nothing about why the other person isn't a better candidate for presidency.

(E) says "The planned light-rail system will clearly serve suburban areas well since its main opponent is the city government,
which has always ignored the needs of the suburbs and sought only to protect the interests of the city."

This BETTER be right because the first four are wrong!
And it is! The light-rail system is better than whatever plan the city government proposed.
It serves suburban areas well, just as Chen's plan betters the city as a whole.
Furthermore, the city government doesn't give a crap about suburbs, only caring about its own interests. Perfect match, I'd say!

I'll come back after dinner for the last one.

I'm starting to notice that there's a significant difference between pure parallel reasoning and parallel flaw questions - I didn't look much at E because the conclusions are so dissimilar (the stim says that of the two, one is better, whereas E says this plan will do something well.) But the flaws are the same, and that's what matters here.

I think I had an insight on 14 - The conc of Quincys argument is "Why should what worked in the past be changed now?" In her counter to that argument, Pamela's responding to that question specifically - giving a reason why the circumstances are different, not just trying to reinforce her previous point.

totally unrelated, but my wifi has been absolutely terrible these past few days. Idk what's going on.

[Deardevil]

I'm starting to notice that there's a significant difference between pure parallel reasoning and parallel flaw questions - I didn't look much at E because the conclusions are so dissimilar (the stim says that of the two, one is better, whereas E says this plan will do something well.) But the flaws are the same, and that's what matters here.

I think I had an insight on 14 - The conc of Quincys argument is "Why should what worked in the past be changed now?" In her counter to that argument, Pamela's responding to that question specifically - giving a reason why the circumstances are different, not just trying to reinforce her previous point.

totally unrelated, but my wifi has been absolutely terrible these past few days. Idk what's going on.

Hm... Not really seeing the difference myself. I think it has to boil down to abstracts.
I recall an AC that has "most" in it, but the stimulus only talks about "some," and we all know the latter doesn't imply the former.
Yet that AC happens to be correct because it's not necessarily about similarity in terms of language, but about the parallelism of logic.

Right; Pam just has to punch a hole in Quincy's argument, not make her stance stronger because it could still fall short.

1.3.18

Oh, this question... Want the (D)? Yeah, that's wrong.

SO what is it that we have to resolve?
In the glorious nation of Murika, we have the same amount of oil we had 10 years ago, but no new oil fields have been found...
How could that be? And on top of that, MORE oil is being consumed. What is going on here? Let's see if any AC sheds some light.

(A) says, in these 10 years, IMPORTED oil is being used more quickly than our DOMESTIC oil;
that ain't right on several levels: no one cares about foreign oil and, furthermore,
it still does not explain why more of domestic oil is being consumed when no new oil fields have been found!
(B) suggests we are using less oil since we're conserving, but using it would still decrease the original amount, no?
(C) says oil exploration is lagging, so that could explain why we're not discovering new fields, but how is our oil still dropping?
(D) is what I originally chose because I thought
"Well, if gas went from $3 to 25 cents a gallon, then everybody would be pulling through those stations!"
Alas, while more people might be inclined to purchase gas, it STILL does not explain how we are retaining that original amount!
(E) HAS to be right... Right?

"Due to technological advances over the last decade, much oil previously considered unextractable is now considered extractable."

Kind of tough to wrap one's head around this, but it all comes down to this.
So in these 10 years, oil that was thought to be unextractable are ACTUALLY extractable.
Problem solved!
So let's say we had a 100% capacity of oil in 2006. It'd make sense that, in 2016, it's no longer 100%.
However, there's oil from KNOWN oil fields that were previously unextractable, but they're now extractable.
If we consume 20% over this past decade, but these fields contribute 40% of surplus, then there we go.
Explains why we can retain that 100% capacity without drilling from NEW fields, but from OLD ones instead.

[Alexandros]

I'm starting to notice that there's a significant difference between pure parallel reasoning and parallel flaw questions - I didn't look much at E because the conclusions are so dissimilar (the stim says that of the two, one is better, whereas E says this plan will do something well.) But the flaws are the same, and that's what matters here.

I think I had an insight on 14 - The conc of Quincys argument is "Why should what worked in the past be changed now?" In her counter to that argument, Pamela's responding to that question specifically - giving a reason why the circumstances are different, not just trying to reinforce her previous point.

totally unrelated, but my wifi has been absolutely terrible these past few days. Idk what's going on.

Hm... Not really seeing the difference myself. I think it has to boil down to abstracts.
I recall an AC that has "most" in it, but the stimulus only talks about "some," and we all know the latter doesn't imply the former.
Yet that AC happens to be correct because it's not necessarily about similarity in terms of language, but about the parallelism of logic.

Right; Pam just has to punch a hole in Quincy's argument, not make her stance stronger because it could still fall short.

1.3.18

Oh, this question... Want the (D)? Yeah, that's wrong.

SO what is it that we have to resolve?
In the glorious nation of Murika, we have the same amount of oil we had 10 years ago, but no new oil fields have been found...
How could that be? And on top of that, MORE oil is being consumed. What is going on here? Let's see if any AC sheds some light.

(A) says, in these 10 years, IMPORTED oil is being used more quickly than our DOMESTIC oil;
that ain't right on several levels: no one cares about foreign oil and, furthermore,
it still does not explain why more of domestic oil is being consumed when no new oil fields have been found!
(B) suggests we are using less oil since we're conserving, but using it would still decrease the original amount, no?
(C) says oil exploration is lagging, so that could explain why we're not discovering new fields, but how is our oil still dropping?
(D) is what I originally chose because I thought
"Well, if gas went from $3 to 25 cents a gallon, then everybody would be pulling through those stations!"
Alas, while more people might be inclined to purchase gas, it STILL does not explain how we are retaining that original amount!
(E) HAS to be right... Right?

"Due to technological advances over the last decade, much oil previously considered unextractable is now considered extractable."

Kind of tough to wrap one's head around this, but it all comes down to this.
So in these 10 years, oil that was thought to be unextractable are ACTUALLY extractable.
Problem solved!
So let's say we had a 100% capacity of oil in 2006. It'd make sense that, in 2016, it's no longer 100%.
However, there's oil from KNOWN oil fields that were previously unextractable, but they're now extractable.
If we consume 20% over this past decade, but these fields contribute 40% of surplus, then there we go.
Explains why we can retain that 100% capacity without drilling from NEW fields, but from OLD ones instead.

Thank you!
I'm not sure I'm totally 100% on that one yet, but I see what you're saying. I'm gonna look at it again when I'm fresher. Calling quits for tonight.

[Deardevil]

Thank you!
I'm not sure I'm totally 100% on that one yet, but I see what you're saying. I'm gonna look at it again when I'm fresher. Calling quits for tonight.

Anytime!

Some questions from these older tests are pretty tricky;
I still don't get a couple, but it helps reinforce understanding by going over them.
I'd be happy to provide more explanations for everything before PT 19. It's a nice break from RC.

[34iplaw]

Learning some Ruby as a break... a lot more familiar / easy than react.js (it's basically english like VBA)... I think I'll do another RC passage or two before bed. Weirdly enough, I think this is actually helping me... that I'm learning something that is different (TBH... a little related in terms of having to pay attention to structure/punctuation/etc.) rather than just like rewatching Futurama or The League (god knows how many times I've seen those shows).

I really want some medians and 25/75ths for T14 to come out. Granted, I should just focus on getting those last few points. A 173-174 is quite different than a 171 for the sake of a splitter. I know that I have that in me.

[StopLawying]

Knew I didn't do well on PT65, RC was really difficult on this one and so was the last LG.

PT65:
RC:-6 BR:-3
LR:-6 BR:-2
LG:-7 BR:-0
Timed: 166, BR:178

The blackmail passage was incredibly difficult, even during BR had a really tough time with the questions. And in real time I found it to be impossible. Went -3 on this passage alone. Then the last passage had 8 questions and I only had around 7 min left so I went -2 on this one. RC is just so damn tough, went -3 on my last PT so was hoping for the same here.

And then LG, that last game. In real time I didn't really know how to approach it so had to basically guess on 6 questions. Got every single one wrong. Absolutely sucks.

So I need some advice here, there seems to be a few things going on with PTs and I need some help. I've been in the 166-170 range over my last 5 tests and I wanna break out of this funk. It seems like every test I'm not able to solve the hardest game in the set. This happened to me on my last test where I went -5 on games (bike game pt 64) and now on this test with the TV game where I went -6. These games singlehandedly prevent me from reaching the 170s, unless the hardest games have like 5 questions and I'm able to guess on a few. Also I'm not confident in real-time with my LR. So when I'm finished a section on the test I think I bombed but it turns out that I do well. Like on this test I thought I bombed LR #1 and it affected me the rest of the test. Turns out though I only went -1. But I never know this until I finish marking the test. How do I make sure to just keep moving and not worry about past questions/sections? And then lastly, my RC timing is off and I only have like 7 min when I get to the last passage. This results in getting a few wrong at the back end of RC, but I'm worried if I try going faster I'll lose some of my accuracy in the first half. Any advice would be appreciated, would love to get out of this range by the Sep test. If I could hit 168 on the real thing in Sep I'd be so freakin happy. Have a great GPA so this is the only thing holding me back right now.

[StopLawying]

And I got the mastermind watch today. Seems very durable, but it's really difficult to see the minute lines since the colors obscure them. I can see when I'm at the 5,10 min mark but it's hard to see exactly where you're at when in between. I got the white one, does anyone know if the black model is clearer?

[34iplaw]

And I got the mastermind watch today. Seems very durable, but it's really difficult to see the minute lines since the colors obscure them. I can see when I'm at the 5,10 min mark but it's hard to see exactly where you're at when in between. I got the white one, does anyone know if the black model is clearer?

That's kind of frustrating. I think I'm mainly getting one of these to properly keep track of the last 5 minutes. At this point, I don't really think that I actually *need* a watch. I just need to be able to keep track of the final minute from the last five. edit: got white, so I can't help you there.

[ngogirl12]

Question for those of you that write summaries during timed sections / do the memory method timed - How long are your summaries typically? I'm a slow writer so writing full sentences / anything that encapsulates the point of a paragraph with any degree of completeness is a time sink I can't afford.

My summaries are pretty short. I'll look at my RC binder and type up a summary I wrote. (I have a RC binder that I separated by type, and I put all my corrected RC passages in there to keep track of my progress and see changes for when I repeat them).

Some are really short and others are more detailed, I also use > and < as signs for comparative relationships i.e. countries are recognizing merit in HI>GDP


Social Science Passage
1) New look at Rembrandt's ptgs
2) Critique of intent economic reasons
3) Authors rebuttal to critique
MP: Although R may have had economic interests his work for aesthetic reasons needs to be acknowledged.

MP stands for main point

HTH!