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

[JessiCAL]

How do you guys handle biconditionals in LG?
Do you basically treat the game as "it's either situation 1 (biconditional), or situation 2 (contrapositive of biconditional)", and split the game board in 2?

[20170322]

How do you guys handle biconditionals in LG?
Do you basically treat the game as "it's either situation 1 (biconditional), or situation 2 (contrapositive of biconditional)", and split the game board in 2?

I write "Blank OR Blank" in the rules, but only split the board if it's connected to some other important rule.

[Alexandros]

How do you guys handle biconditionals in LG?
Do you basically treat the game as "it's either situation 1 (biconditional), or situation 2 (contrapositive of biconditional)", and split the game board in 2?

I draw the entire biconditional out (so like four separate A->/B type diagrams - probably overkill but I've missed things making logic chains when I neglect this) and, assuming it's a in/out grouping game where one of the two must be in and the other must be out, I write A/B in one of the in-slots, and B/A in one of the out slots. I don't usually split the game board unless it's something major - connects significantly to other rules, or changes the number of slots, or something.

[theboringest]

Ahh that sweet feeling of vindication when you pull up the 7sage explanatory video for a game and it's 30 minutes long.

[appind]

I've got a lot left as well. I'm not even gonna try to squeeze them all in since it's not gonna happen. I guess having some fresh material if I need to retake wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

you have been Pting the recent pts for a while now, so how you have many left?

If you have done 74, how did you find its lr?

I think 12. 13 but I had to use a part of 54 for experimental the other day. and I don't think I've seen some of the earlier ones - 51, 40 and 39. So I guess 15.
eta: just of the more recent ones - 66, 67, 69, 70, 76, 77, and 78. so seven.
I didn't find it too bad. There was one question I struggled with, circled, and got wrong, (still have to look at it) but that was the only one.

which one?

i thought lr2.9 was devious as eff.

4.21
Assuming you mean the about the anecdotes, yeah that was a weird question.

i had 4.21 circled too.

with questions like #9 i tend to run out of time.
did you notice something unique about #24 in the same section?

[+] Spoiler

I definitely had to look at 24 a couple of times, because the right answer would only work if the customer was paying the handling fee, and the stim says they are offered for free, so it was a bit weird. but I guess we were to assume the customer pays handling. Other than that I don't think I noticed anything really unusual/unique about? did you notice something?

[+] Spoiler

For 24, there was nothing in the stim that said that it wasn't available for free at stores or only available thru online orders, so handling fee really threw me off balance. This was a change from typical wkn/str qs as you dont really need to make additional assumptions to wkn/str. Very unusual. But the biggest issue with this q is that it negates a premise, which should never happen. The stim grants the premise that if in company's interest then effective. The credited choice impacts this premise which never happens on lsat questions.

how did you do on 76 RC q3 and do you get it? I don't know how to handle it if seeing it fresh.

[Alexandros]

[+] Spoiler

For 24, there was nothing in the stim that said that it wasn't available for free at stores or only available thru online orders, so handling fee really threw me off balance. This was a change from typical wkn/str qs as you dont really need to make additional assumptions to wkn/str. Very unusual. But the biggest issue with this q is that it negates a premise, which should never happen. The stim grants the premise that if in company's interest then effective. The credited choice impacts this premise which never happens on lsat questions.

how did you do on its RC q3 and do you get it? I don't know how to handle it if seeing it fresh.

[+] Spoiler

Yeah, I think I've seen strengthen/weaken questions that effect premises once or twice but they're definitely not very common.
RC q 3 - the one about what "noses" refers to- My reasoning was that noses is paralleled with painters. Painters create their works of art, paintings, "noses" create theirs - perfumes. I wasn't 100% sure what perfumer meant (although it does say it in the text) but out of process of elim I assumed it to be someone who creates perfumes.

[ashrice13]

Ahh that sweet feeling of vindication when you pull up the 7sage explanatory video for a game and it's 30 minutes long.

Yes! I thought I was the only one haha

[ashrice13]

Did PT 61 and I went -6 in games even though I felt really confident??? I searched this thread and realized a few others said the same thing. Maybe it was something weird with this specific LG section?

Also...i was the LEAST confident on the 2nd LR section and I went -2. It was my best section of the test. So odd.

My score was dismal (163) but given all the weirdness I'm gonna blame it on the test to make myself feel better

[Rupert Pupkin]

Ahh that sweet feeling of vindication when you pull up the 7sage explanatory video for a game and it's 30 minutes long.

Yes! I thought I was the only one haha

First thing I do is check the length of the video for reassurance!

[ngogirl12]

Writing a rough draft for PS is much harder than I thought, having a tough time organizing the essay. Don't really wanna do much LSAT today so working on that. Anyone here didn't start PS yet? I'm getting super worried that I started too late.
Also, anyone find PT60 LG really difficult? Found the games super time consuming. Even the first one was just so annoying.

I have the same problem. I have a diversity statement already written which I'll have to make some tweaks to, and a great opening for a PS but I have no idea where to go from there. I actually don't think it's that great anymore, so I really don't know what to do.

Not even thinking about it at this point, but it's a feeling that keeps nagging at me (you need to work on you PS, you need to work on your PS). :/

I told both my recommenders I would send them my PS to give them an idea of my interest in the law and I haven't even written it, now I'm beginning to worry that I should hurry up with that before they get too engrossed in their fall workload and subsequently put my LOR on the backburner.

[ngogirl12]

Still reviewing/writing up explanations for the parallel reasoning questions. It's crazy how long/much time one explanation/question review takes.

[appind]

[+] Spoiler

For 24, there was nothing in the stim that said that it wasn't available for free at stores or only available thru online orders, so handling fee really threw me off balance. This was a change from typical wkn/str qs as you dont really need to make additional assumptions to wkn/str. Very unusual. But the biggest issue with this q is that it negates a premise, which should never happen. The stim grants the premise that if in company's interest then effective. The credited choice impacts this premise which never happens on lsat questions.

how did you do on its RC q3 and do you get it? I don't know how to handle it if seeing it fresh.

[+] Spoiler

Yeah, I think I've seen strengthen/weaken questions that effect premises once or twice but they're definitely not very common.
RC q 3 - the one about what "noses" refers to- My reasoning was that noses is paralleled with painters. Painters create their works of art, paintings, "noses" create theirs - perfumes. I wasn't 100% sure what perfumer meant (although it does say it in the text) but out of process of elim I assumed it to be someone who creates perfumes.

[+] Spoiler

Sorry, meant 76.rc.3. I had fixed it to refer to 76.rc.3 but I guess that was too late.

[Alexandros]

[+] Spoiler

For 24, there was nothing in the stim that said that it wasn't available for free at stores or only available thru online orders, so handling fee really threw me off balance. This was a change from typical wkn/str qs as you dont really need to make additional assumptions to wkn/str. Very unusual. But the biggest issue with this q is that it negates a premise, which should never happen. The stim grants the premise that if in company's interest then effective. The credited choice impacts this premise which never happens on lsat questions.

how did you do on its RC q3 and do you get it? I don't know how to handle it if seeing it fresh.

[+] Spoiler

Yeah, I think I've seen strengthen/weaken questions that effect premises once or twice but they're definitely not very common.
RC q 3 - the one about what "noses" refers to- My reasoning was that noses is paralleled with painters. Painters create their works of art, paintings, "noses" create theirs - perfumes. I wasn't 100% sure what perfumer meant (although it does say it in the text) but out of process of elim I assumed it to be someone who creates perfumes.

[+] Spoiler

Sorry, meant 76.rc.3. I had fixed it to refer to 76.rc.3 but I guess that was too late.

Ah sorry haven't done 76 yet.

[20170322]

Gonna take a 4-section test tomorrow before class. Here's hoping I can maintain the upward trajectory.

[34iplaw]

Writing a rough draft for PS is much harder than I thought, having a tough time organizing the essay. Don't really wanna do much LSAT today so working on that. Anyone here didn't start PS yet? I'm getting super worried that I started too late.
Also, anyone find PT60 LG really difficult? Found the games super time consuming. Even the first one was just so annoying.

I have the same problem. I have a diversity statement already written which I'll have to make some tweaks to, and a great opening for a PS but I have no idea where to go from there. I actually don't think it's that great anymore, so I really don't know what to do.

Not even thinking about it at this point, but it's a feeling that keeps nagging at me (you need to work on you PS, you need to work on your PS). :/

I told both my recommenders I would send them my PS to give them an idea of my interest in the law and I haven't even written it, now I'm beginning to worry that I should hurry up with that before they get too engrossed in their fall workload and subsequently put my LOR on the backburner.

If you need someone to check something out, hit me up, yo.

[appind]

Ahh that sweet feeling of vindication when you pull up the 7sage explanatory video for a game and it's 30 minutes long.

Yes! I thought I was the only one haha

First thing I do is check the length of the video for reassurance!

Why not the target time?

[appind]

edit: double post

[Rupert Pupkin]

Ahh that sweet feeling of vindication when you pull up the 7sage explanatory video for a game and it's 30 minutes long.

Yes! I thought I was the only one haha

First thing I do is check the length of the video for reassurance!

Why not the target time?

I mean I check that too (which is more useful), but when the length of the explanation is longer it typically indicates its a more complex problem. Not necessarily a meaningful habit, but if Im slow or suck at one game, I look at that and am like thank god. I laugh too sometimes because if you look at the Game difficulty and question difficulty it is supposed to be easy, but when you watch the video JY says: "This is the toughest game in the section" or "This is a tough one" or something of that nature and gives a lengthy explanation on how to best attack it.

[JessiCAL]

Hi everyone,
When you are answering Q's in LG, do you check through ALL the answer choices (ie: like in LR)? Or once you find an answer that you like, do you just move on to the next Q? I've seen 7sage advocate just moving on (during some of their LG videos), but I wasn't sure how reliable/dangerous that technique is. (For example, if you check all the ACs, and find 2 that qualify for the Q stem, that can serve as an internal check that you've made a mistake.) Thoughts? TIA!

[proteinshake]

Hi everyone,
When you are answering Q's in LG, do you check through ALL the answer choices (ie: like in LR)? Or once you find an answer that you like, do you just move on to the next Q? I've seen 7sage advocate just moving on (during some of their LG videos), but I wasn't sure how reliable/dangerous that technique is. (For example, if you check all the ACs, and find 2 that qualify for the Q stem, that can serve as an internal check that you've made a mistake.) Thoughts? TIA!

do not go through all the choices, that's a massive waste of time. if you wanna double check later, just circle it and come back if you have time.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Hi everyone,
When you are answering Q's in LG, do you check through ALL the answer choices (ie: like in LR)? Or once you find an answer that you like, do you just move on to the next Q? I've seen 7sage advocate just moving on (during some of their LG videos), but I wasn't sure how reliable/dangerous that technique is. (For example, if you check all the ACs, and find 2 that qualify for the Q stem, that can serve as an internal check that you've made a mistake.) Thoughts? TIA!

do not go through all the choices, that's a massive waste of time. if you wanna double check later, just circle it and come back if you have time.

My strategy as well. If Im not confident, I come back and check the last two later. Saves lots of time. I was going through all of them at first and I shed nearly ~2min overall by just confidently circling an answer as I see it right and moving on.

[appind]

Ahh that sweet feeling of vindication when you pull up the 7sage explanatory video for a game and it's 30 minutes long.

Yes! I thought I was the only one haha

First thing I do is check the length of the video for reassurance!

Why not the target time?

I mean I check that too (which is more useful), but when the length of the explanation is longer it typically indicates its a more complex problem. Not necessarily a meaningful habit, but if Im slow or suck at one game, I look at that and am like thank god. I laugh too sometimes because if you look at the Game difficulty and question difficulty it is supposed to be easy, but when you watch the video JY says: "This is the toughest game in the section" or "This is a tough one" or something of that nature and gives a lengthy explanation on how to best attack it.

for one thing i found some "target times" too less. JY will say this a very tough game, but then go you can do it in like 10 mins, when the explanation is like 22 mins or so. there are somethings in jy's videos that occur much faster than they'd if he was doing the game fresh on paper, e.g. copying/splitting game boards etc. in some cases doing it on paper fresh can't be too much faster than the setup+q explanations in his video.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Ahh that sweet feeling of vindication when you pull up the 7sage explanatory video for a game and it's 30 minutes long.

Yes! I thought I was the only one haha

First thing I do is check the length of the video for reassurance!

Why not the target time?

I mean I check that too (which is more useful), but when the length of the explanation is longer it typically indicates its a more complex problem. Not necessarily a meaningful habit, but if Im slow or suck at one game, I look at that and am like thank god. I laugh too sometimes because if you look at the Game difficulty and question difficulty it is supposed to be easy, but when you watch the video JY says: "This is the toughest game in the section" or "This is a tough one" or something of that nature and gives a lengthy explanation on how to best attack it.

for one thing i found some "target times" too less. JY will say this a very tough game, but then go you can do it in like 10 mins, when the explanation is like 22 mins or so. there are somethings in jy's videos that occur much faster than they'd if he was doing the game fresh on paper, e.g. copying/splitting game boards etc. in some cases doing it on paper fresh can't be too much faster than the setup+q explanations in his video.

Yeah-I noticed that too. When he copies/splits that would ideally help you solve the problem smoothly, but in reality, it would take much longer than the suggested time to complete.

[appind]

Hi everyone,
When you are answering Q's in LG, do you check through ALL the answer choices (ie: like in LR)? Or once you find an answer that you like, do you just move on to the next Q? I've seen 7sage advocate just moving on (during some of their LG videos), but I wasn't sure how reliable/dangerous that technique is. (For example, if you check all the ACs, and find 2 that qualify for the Q stem, that can serve as an internal check that you've made a mistake.) Thoughts? TIA!

do not go through all the choices, that's a massive waste of time. if you wanna double check later, just circle it and come back if you have time.

My strategy as well. If Im not confident, I come back and check the last two later. Saves lots of time. I was going through all of them at first and I shed nearly ~2min overall by just confidently circling an answer as I see it right and moving on.

i actually check all choices and eliminate for the first 2 questions of every game to avoid any misread in rules etc. for other qs i don't eliminate.

Eta: perhaps I need to revisit my approach and not eliminate others after finding the correct one. Noticed that this cost me the easy 1st q which is usually gimme on 77 G3 on the game day




Anyone else just pick the correct one and move on on the first hypo q of each game?

[appind]

[+] Spoiler

For 24, there was nothing in the stim that said that it wasn't available for free at stores or only available thru online orders, so handling fee really threw me off balance. This was a change from typical wkn/str qs as you dont really need to make additional assumptions to wkn/str. Very unusual. But the biggest issue with this q is that it negates a premise, which should never happen. The stim grants the premise that if in company's interest then effective. The credited choice impacts this premise which never happens on lsat questions.

how did you do on its RC q3 and do you get it? I don't know how to handle it if seeing it fresh.

[+] Spoiler

Yeah, I think I've seen strengthen/weaken questions that effect premises once or twice but they're definitely not very common.
RC q 3 - the one about what "noses" refers to- My reasoning was that noses is paralleled with painters. Painters create their works of art, paintings, "noses" create theirs - perfumes. I wasn't 100% sure what perfumer meant (although it does say it in the text) but out of process of elim I assumed it to be someone who creates perfumes.

[+] Spoiler

Sorry, meant 76.rc.3. I had fixed it to refer to 76.rc.3 but I guess that was too late.

Ah sorry haven't done 76 yet.

post once you do that pt