The Official June 2015 Study Group Forum

JackelJ · Post by **JackelJ** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 10:47 am

OhBoyOhBortles wrote:
JackelJ wrote:I'm considering changing my life plans and not going to law school so I can do cool outdoor things and be Internet-less in the wild. But that may be because I'm sick of studying for the LSAT.
Genuinely interested. What are you thinking? Do you have any plans in the works?

My comment was basically just about me being jealous of Rigo. I'm really active and love the outdoors and nature so I want to make sure I have time to do those things in life and not just work 80 hours a week in a law firm. No plans currently in the works and I can pretty much go in any direction with my life. If I don't go to law school I'll still be pretty set because I should have a job pretty much lined up and it'll be an engineering job with flex hours (so more time to enjoy life) but it might be a job where I haven't reached my full potential. I feel like to reach my full potential (intellectually/enjoyment/salary wise) I'l have to go to either law school or get my PhD. And not really digging the PhD option right now. But if I go into law then the job hours probably won't be great (at least not until I could move in-house).

My back-up/yolo plans are to open up a bakery, be an exercise/yoga instructor, or be a ski patrol person. Or a professional photographer that travels the world. Or just a professional world-traveler.

JackelJ · Post by **JackelJ** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 10:48 am

Shakawkaw wrote:
JackelJ wrote:Yeah, I didn't get much done the next day but it was my day off of studying. I've been boringly sober and my friends are planning on taking me out right after the June LSAT. It'll be the Monday of finals week for me but who studies for finals anyway?
I will take you out. We'll get all the boozy ice cream floats we can stomach!

YES! This is why I like you.

Rigo · Post by **Rigo** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 10:56 am

Yolo plans are the best. My dad is a buzzkill and is like "when you're 26 you lose health insurance so you'll need a real job." Jerk.

biggestlawman · Post by **biggestlawman** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 11:13 am

Rigo wrote:Yolo plans are the best. My dad is a buzzkill and is like "when you're 26 you lose health insurance so you'll need a real job." Jerk.

Yolo plans take 10 million dollars. Buzz kill again!

TheWalkingDebt · Post by **TheWalkingDebt** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 1:57 pm

Transferred an answer wrong again on both BR and timed take. Actual score on PT 46: 173/176

PT 46 S3 Q24 is tough.

The manhattan forums definitely did not help me too much on this one. I don't see how you can conditionally diagram AC A as

E --> ~LB

How is not losing belief a necessary condition to existence in this AC? Even if definitely threw me off.

gamerish · Post by **gamerish** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 2:12 pm

Post removed...

whacka · Post by **whacka** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 2:18 pm

TheWalkingDebt · Post by **TheWalkingDebt** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 2:46 pm

whacka wrote: Look at how the argument is structured:

The conclusion: money (presumably its value) doesn't actually exist

Then the guy goes on to talk about how the value of money is entirely speculative and based on peoples' perceptions. However, the author never explains how these beliefs/perceptions are linked to money existing. A is the only answer choice that links up the argument.

Sorry if I didn't explain that very well, I don't use very formal logic when I do LR so when I try to explain answers it's sort of a shitshow.

EDIT: this can better be explained if you look at the Editorialist's second sentence. He says "[the fact that money doesn't exist] is evident from the fact that all that would be needed to make money disappear would be a universal loss in belief of it." What does this tell us about the Editorialist's belief of existence? He obviously thinks that the above quality of money means it does NOT exist. So something that exists cannot be able to disappear just because people don't believe in it. That's exactly what A says.

I don't understand what you're getting at, really. I see the argument as this (and now as I'm typing this out it makes sense to me):

Money disappear if universal loss ---> money does not exist

Universal loss ---> Money disappear --->Money does not exist
(Contrapositive) Money exist ---> Money does not disappear ---> Not universal loss

A) Exist --> Universal loss or not universal loss of belief
basically:
Exist --->Univeral loss
Exist --->Not universal loss

Rigo · Post by **Rigo** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 2:56 pm

gamerish wrote:I swear to god these passages on volcanoes...

Oh you don't encounter eruptions in your daily life?

gamerish · Post by **gamerish** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 3:12 pm

Post removed...

TheWalkingDebt · Post by **TheWalkingDebt** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 3:14 pm

gamerish wrote:I guess I've gotta drill harder.

How are you reading RC passages (time per passage generally, having to re-read? making notes on the side of a paragraph? etc)

biggestlawman · Post by **biggestlawman** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 3:15 pm

Studied only couple hours a day for the last two days. Shameful!

whacka · Post by **whacka** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 3:29 pm

gamerish · Post by **gamerish** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 3:30 pm

Post removed...

gamerish · Post by **gamerish** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 3:31 pm

Post removed...

Rigo · Post by **Rigo** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 3:38 pm

TheWalkingDebt wrote:
gamerish wrote:I guess I've gotta drill harder.
How are you reading RC passages (time per passage generally, having to re-read? making notes on the side of a paragraph? etc)

Whoosh.

TheWalkingDebt · Post by **TheWalkingDebt** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 3:46 pm

Rigo wrote:
TheWalkingDebt wrote:
gamerish wrote:I guess I've gotta drill harder.
How are you reading RC passages (time per passage generally, having to re-read? making notes on the side of a paragraph? etc)
Whoosh.

Sometimes I'm slow to keep up, no lie.

Rigo · Post by **Rigo** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 3:53 pm

TheWalkingDebt wrote:
Rigo wrote:
TheWalkingDebt wrote:
gamerish wrote:I guess I've gotta drill harder.
How are you reading RC passages (time per passage generally, having to re-read? making notes on the side of a paragraph? etc)
Whoosh.
Sometimes I'm slow to keep up, no lie.

This isn't WebMD.

gamerish · Post by **gamerish** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 4:28 pm

Post removed...

TheWalkingDebt · Post by **TheWalkingDebt** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 4:31 pm

gamerish wrote:I've heard people speak highly of Velocity's explanations for LR. Any comments on his approach to weaken questions?

I did not like Velocity, personally. I think the key to strengthen/weaken is just drilling and picking up the patterns for types of answers. They usually use the same subtleties over and over.

whacka · Post by **whacka** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 4:34 pm

Blueprint Ben · Post by **Blueprint Ben** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 4:39 pm

whacka wrote:Taking a PT where I've already seen all of the games - use the LG section anyway since I don't remember them specifically (did them weeks ago) or substitute a different LG section?

Use it anyway. It's always a good idea to redo questions you've done in the past. Especially LG, where your progress is mostly a matter of muscle memory and efficiency of process.

e: And obviously do the other sections you haven't seen before eventually. But for the purpose of this PT, it's totally fine that you've seen the games before.

gamerish · Post by **gamerish** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 4:49 pm

Post removed...

whacka · Post by **whacka** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 6:02 pm

jwelsh · Post by **jwelsh** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 6:16 pm

Today's PT:
LR: -1
LG: -3
LR: -3
RC: -5

It's been a while since I've been very focused on my studies, so I think this reflects that. The mistakes on LG were pretty inexcusable and RC remains a thorn in my side.