December 2011 LSAT Study Group Forum

[tehrocstar]

Yeah... joining the... can't wait til this is over, so I can have a real life sentiment.

I have about 10 days off from work starting the 18th. Going to be studying like mad.

Just pulled a 10 hour session today, my brain hates me right now.... popping advil.

[Olive]

Little disappointed and a lot frustrated. Just finished a PT and timing on LR and RC is absolutely killing my score. Why can't the LSAT be all LGs? Looks like tomorrow is going to be a fun-filled day of drills upon drills...luckily my team doesn't play during the day!

How are you feeling?

About the same. I feel like I'm getting a better and better understanding of the fundamentals and now I need to practice and timing is difficult, especially in RC.

I'm also very nervous about freaking out on LGs and RC during test day. I haven't found a way to practice getting over this. (Thanks to everyone who gave me advice. Any additional tips would be great, guys!).

Finally, I can't seem to concentrate anymore when I study! I don't need any more time off. I think it's going to come down to brutally forcing myself to concentrate and not getting distracted these next three weeks.

Good luck, everyone!

[Eichörnchen]

About 20 days left.

How is everyone feeling?

Why can't the LSAT be all LGs?

[Maye]

About 20 days left.

How is everyone feeling?

Why can't the LSAT be all LGs?

+1

[tmon]

About 20 days left.

How is everyone feeling?

Why can't the LSAT be all LGs?

[Olive]

1. How is June 2012 top of the page over the Dec 2011? lol

2. I was on Lawstudents forum and came across a post where a person did a section by section game plan on how they were going to approach their LSAT. Original link to the post here: LINK

Pretty inspiring in that she went 148, 149, 163. Below is her gameplan - I thought since people mention specific approaches to the test, it was cool seeing a holistic game plan. Who knows, this might help people get over nerves come test day?

LSAT GAME PLAN - this is the final one i used for feb 2011

LOGIC GAMES:
1) Calm down and don’t panic, you know how to do every type of game
2) Start the 1st game 1st
3) Asses other games quickly based on size
4) Lay out the names and spaces like always
5) Games that seem hard often have easy questions
6) If it’s not coming together, adjust diagram
7) Utilize the highlighter to stabilize original diagram
Identify free floating entities
9) Identify valid hypotheticals for future questions
10) If running out of time, do specified questions first
11) Skip substitution questions

READING COMPREHENSION:
1) Biggest one first
2) Parallel passage second
3) Save the lowest numbered passage for last
4) COMPLETE FOCUS
5) Maintain pace
6) Do NOT zone out
7) Stay engaged and interested
Identify the viewpoints
9) If you’re not getting it, don’t keep reading without figuring it out!

LOGICAL REASONING:
1) Quickly glance at question stem
2) Don’t be speedy, don’t be greedy!
3) Focus on the conclusion
4) Prephrase answers where applicable
5) Read the stimulus properly the first time
6) Don’t be so quick to cross of answer choices, make certain that it’s truly wrong
7) Don’t just guess, be 100% confident!
Skip parallel reasoning, hard formal logic/conditional questions, and justify
9) BE ENGAGED and FOCUS
10) Be a critical reader, don’t make stupid mistakes
11) Don’t spend too long on questions that aren’t coming together
12) Watch out for absolute terms in the stimulus, stem, and answer choices
13) Never relax, always examine ALL answer choices
14) One answer is completely correct, the other 4 choices are completely wrong

GENERAL TEST DETAILS:
1) Remember to adjust analog watch before each section and be aware not to pull off markers
2) Remember to mark unfinished questions on bubble sheet, but also remember to erase after
3) Circle and star unfinished questions in booklet, star questions that you are unsure of
4) Don’t make careless errors in bubbling and marking the answers
5) Sharpen pencils at the break
6) Transfer answers one at a time for LR, transfer answers one game/passage at a time for AR/RC
7) Don’t get down because of a bad game or passage, you can still do good
Don’t dwell on past questions
9) Focus on the present and the task at hand, one question at a time
10) Don’t freak out when the proctor calls 5 minutes, but you should bubble in remaining blanks
11) Don’t be distracted by other test takers
12) Arrive at 7:45 and complete 3 games and a page of LR

BIG PICTURE:
1) You have prepared exceptionally well, there is nothing more you could have done to improve your score
2) Regardless of what score you get, you will get into at least one law school
3) This test is not a measure of your intelligence or aptitude for law school
4) Everything happens for a reason
5) Be positive, aggressive and confident. The LSAT rewards confidence
6) Think of how much more preparation and work you have put in as opposed to thousands of other test takers

Thanks for posting this.

[ngogirl]

About 20 days left.

How is everyone feeling?

Why can't the LSAT be all LGs?

Aww there's a little bit of October in this thread!!

[GoldenGloves]

Aww there's a little bit of October in this thread!!

Nope, no October. This is just December, December, December.

[xChiTowNx]

Had a horrible Diagnostic yesterday after PTing 166, 163, 166. PT 56 was 159 - LR killed me after I thought I had made some serious gains. -3 on Games and only thing i got wrong in RC was the frickin' Kin recognition pattern.

Guess it'll keep me focused this week to study hard. Will be taking the weekend off as I have some friends coming into town and probably need a 3 day break to go outside ha ha.

But seriously, why can't the LSAT be flaw questions - 48/50 again on drilling.

@Olive: No problem, I'm starting to tailor my gameplan as well.

[ss3825]

I was reviewing Superprep C and thought that some of the questions from LR1 and RC were quite difficult. I wanted to know what other people thought of the PT.

[sportgirl234]

i hit 166 for the first time this weekend and I am so happy. I am wondering how high i can get that score with 3 more weeks of studying. I lost 3 on lg 8 on lr and 5 on rc ... trying to go perfect on lg and <-3 on rc


getting so excited!!! hard work pays off

[Maye]

still kinda struggling on games. i have the early PTs (29-38). i was thinking of drilling all the games over the next week. those games are a bit harder and i know we're anticipating harder games for dec. thoughts?

[tmon]

still kinda struggling on games. i have the early PTs (29-38). i was thinking of drilling all the games over the next week. those games are a bit harder and i know we're anticipating harder games for dec. thoughts?

Seriously drilling 30s-era games really took my games performance to the next level. I'd absolutely recommend it.

[tmon]

Did some full section LR work today and came across an issue I can't remember having in a while. It's #17 in PT 45, LR2. If anyone has thoughts on it I'd appreciate it.

In a nutshell, I guess I'm misunderstanding what the whole conclusion is. As I read the stimulus I took the first sentence to be premises. Then, the first part of second sentence seemed like the conclusion (that the issues of artwork value and artwork quality are related) followed by another premise explaining how that was the case. I thought the part about being extrinsic and therefore a matter of taste was a premise I should take to be true, which made finding TCR tough. Upon review and checking out Manhattan's forum they're saying that the whole last sentence is the conclusion.

Can anyone explain why the whole last sentence is the conclusion, rather than only the part before the first comma being the conclusion?

[noleknight16]

Took PT 54 today. Did pretty well. -15 but it scores as a 165... rough curve :/

[calidancer2]

Did some full section LR work today and came across an issue I can't remember having in a while. It's #17 in PT 45, LR2. If anyone has thoughts on it I'd appreciate it.

In a nutshell, I guess I'm misunderstanding what the whole conclusion is. As I read the stimulus I took the first sentence to be premises. Then, the first part of second sentence seemed like the conclusion (that the issues of artwork value and artwork quality are related) followed by another premise explaining how that was the case. I thought the part about being extrinsic and therefore a matter of taste was a premise I should take to be true, which made finding TCR tough. Upon review and checking out Manhattan's forum they're saying that the whole last sentence is the conclusion.

Can anyone explain why the whole last sentence is the conclusion, rather than only the part before the first comma being the conclusion?

Hey tmon! just saw this problem a few days ago myself. The way I saw that last sentence was a conclusion surrounding a premise. The premise in that last sentence being the If, Then and the conclusion being the part before that and the "thus..." after it. HOWEVER, all that premise does is distinguish that intrinsic and extrinsic are one or the other (not I, must be E), and then from there the critic extrapolates that to the conclusion of "must be only about taste" or whatever. Does that help at all? When I saw it timed my face went and then I got it down to C and D. That last premise that they take in the second sentence about something being extrinsic and then jumping back into the conclusion as it "MUST" be only a matter of taste made me go huh? and I figured that was the flaw, best represented in C. Does that help at all? What did you pick?

On that test I still thought 19 from that same section was BS, and I reaallllly have to sit there and talk 22 out to myself (even after looking at BOTH of those on manhattan's website). any ideas?

PS- thanks for the 30's LG game rec. Gonna hit some tonight and do a PT tomorrow! That's what I get for taking a 4 hour long nap...oops.

[SA1928]

I was reviewing Superprep C and thought that some of the questions from LR1 and RC were quite difficult. I wanted to know what other people thought of the PT.

I thought Superprep C was pretty tough! Actually, I thought all of the superprep tests were difficult to be honest. I took a few in the late 40s and early 50s now, and feel in comparison to the SP tests, they were easier. Maybe I am just getting better at the test, but I struggled a lot on the SP tests, especially with timing!

[barneytrouble]

Did some full section LR work today and came across an issue I can't remember having in a while. It's #17 in PT 45, LR2. If anyone has thoughts on it I'd appreciate it.

In a nutshell, I guess I'm misunderstanding what the whole conclusion is. As I read the stimulus I took the first sentence to be premises. Then, the first part of second sentence seemed like the conclusion (that the issues of artwork value and artwork quality are related) followed by another premise explaining how that was the case. I thought the part about being extrinsic and therefore a matter of taste was a premise I should take to be true, which made finding TCR tough. Upon review and checking out Manhattan's forum they're saying that the whole last sentence is the conclusion.

Can anyone explain why the whole last sentence is the conclusion, rather than only the part before the first comma being the conclusion?

Hey tmon! just saw this problem a few days ago myself. The way I saw that last sentence was a conclusion surrounding a premise. The premise in that last sentence being the If, Then and the conclusion being the part before that and the "thus..." after it. HOWEVER, all that premise does is distinguish that intrinsic and extrinsic are one or the other (not I, must be E), and then from there the critic extrapolates that to the conclusion of "must be only about taste" or whatever. Does that help at all? When I saw it timed my face went and then I got it down to C and D. That last premise that they take in the second sentence about something being extrinsic and then jumping back into the conclusion as it "MUST" be only a matter of taste made me go huh? and I figured that was the flaw, best represented in C. Does that help at all? What did you pick?

On that test I still thought 19 from that same section was BS, and I reaallllly have to sit there and talk 22 out to myself (even after looking at BOTH of those on manhattan's website). any ideas?

PS- thanks for the 30's LG game rec. Gonna hit some tonight and do a PT tomorrow! That's what I get for taking a 4 hour long nap...oops.

I think you covered 17 well so I'll leave that unless tmon needs more.

On 19, you need to think about possible loopholes. Once every 100 million years doesn't tell us much if ALL of the meteorites struck in a very small window of time. It's similar to saying "we got 365 inches of rain today during that flood, so our town averages 1 inch of rain per day" ... while technically true it doesn't give you a very strong reason to believe there will be 1 inch of rain tomorrow or the next day.

Don't know how to explain 22, the assumption questions should really jump at you. You need to connect a premise element to a conclusion element, so we know that there will be something involving radio and compact disc profitability, which quickly eliminates A B and D. Then just do the negate trick, and when we negate E (turning it into "SOME recordings not played on the radio blah blah blah" by taking its logical negation, the conclusion is ridiculous and nonsensical. So we know E is TCR.

[calidancer2]

I think you covered 17 well so I'll leave that unless tmon needs more.

On 19, you need to think about possible loopholes. Once every 100 million years doesn't tell us much if ALL of the meteorites struck in a very small window of time. It's similar to saying "we got 365 inches of rain today during that flood, so our town averages 1 inch of rain per day" ... while technically true it doesn't give you a very strong reason to believe there will be 1 inch of rain tomorrow or the next day.

Don't know how to explain 22, the assumption questions should really jump at you. You need to connect a premise element to a conclusion element, so we know that there will be something involving radio and compact disc profitability, which quickly eliminates A B and D. Then just do the negate trick, and when we negate E (turning it into "SOME recordings not played on the radio blah blah blah" by taking its logical negation, the conclusion is ridiculous and nonsensical. So we know E is TCR.

Thanks for the help on 19. I didn't think about that with the "average" thing on this question, though normally that's one of the first things I attack if I see it in a question. Oops Your analogy really helps! B is wrong because he DOES think it is affected by whether the event has occurred in a period in which it's expected to occur? If the writers had taken out the "NOT" in B, would that have made it the right answer? Or at least more of a contender?

22 makes more sense. I got it right (think I got lucky though, since the "only" in C made me wary), but trying to negate the double negative was giving me trouble with the timer ticking down. So just switch "no" to "some?"? I see now how that would destroy the conclusion. I feel like another problem with C is that it sounds like the record companies have a hand in deciding what goes on the radio or something. idk, language seems "off."

[barneytrouble]

I think you covered 17 well so I'll leave that unless tmon needs more.

On 19, you need to think about possible loopholes. Once every 100 million years doesn't tell us much if ALL of the meteorites struck in a very small window of time. It's similar to saying "we got 365 inches of rain today during that flood, so our town averages 1 inch of rain per day" ... while technically true it doesn't give you a very strong reason to believe there will be 1 inch of rain tomorrow or the next day.

Don't know how to explain 22, the assumption questions should really jump at you. You need to connect a premise element to a conclusion element, so we know that there will be something involving radio and compact disc profitability, which quickly eliminates A B and D. Then just do the negate trick, and when we negate E (turning it into "SOME recordings not played on the radio blah blah blah" by taking its logical negation, the conclusion is ridiculous and nonsensical. So we know E is TCR.

Thanks for the help on 19. I didn't think about that with the "average" thing on this question, though normally that's one of the first things I attack if I see it in a question. Oops Your analogy really helps! B is wrong because he DOES think it is affected by whether the event has occurred in a period in which it's expected to occur? If the writers had taken out the "NOT" in B, would that have made it the right answer? Or at least more of a contender?

22 makes more sense. I got it right (think I got lucky though, since the "only" in C made me wary), but trying to negate the double negative was giving me trouble with the timer ticking down. So just switch "no" to "some?"? I see now how that would destroy the conclusion. I feel like another problem with C is that it sounds like the record companies have a hand in deciding what goes on the radio or something. idk, language seems "off."

Yeah if you take the "not" out of B, it essentially says the same thing as C. Reverse answer trick I think it is called.

On 22 you should read the LRB chapter on assumption questions because they explain is better than I can. The logical negation for NONE would indeed be SOME though. Definitely drill some formal logic stuff to get used to that, because many people make the mistake of negating it by saying "No recording that is played on the radio..." by just taking out the "not" which doesn't attack the conclusion, it just makes E sound like a ridiculous sentence.

[Manhattan LSAT Noah]

Don't forget there's a strategy session tonight at 8pm ET. Greg is leading. Have fun.

[ss3825]

Don't forget there's a strategy session tonight at 8pm ET. Greg is leading. Have fun.

I am interested in this. How do I attend it?
Also, what all are usually covered in these sessions?

[SA1928]

Don't forget there's a strategy session tonight at 8pm ET. Greg is leading. Have fun.

I am interested in this. How do I attend it?
Also, what all are usually covered in these sessions?

Tonight we are covering: Closed assignment, analyze structure, and extreme passages. Basically we go over a few questions and discuss them to get a feel for how to break down question types. I like them because sometimes hearing the way other people break down problems helps me to create a better plan of attack when I do the questions on my own!

[SA1928]

While we can still use this thread to post our progress and help each other out, Noah at Manhattan LSAT was kind enough to let us start a December study group - feel free to join, it is completely free. As groups are set-up, we'll post the meeting schedules here.

Here is the study schedule for the group: Study Schedule for December group

If you'd like to join the December Study Group, follow these directions:

1. Follow this link to create a profile: https://www.manhattanlsat.com/createaccount.cfm
2. E-mail Manhattan LSAT Noah (noah@manhattanlsat.com). He'll send you the link to the room and give you access to some online resources.



Location of the newest LSAT exams as PDFs:
http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/ls ... nload.html

Dave Hall Thread:
http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 6&t=161914

[tmon]

Did some full section LR work today and came across an issue I can't remember having in a while. It's #17 in PT 45, LR2. If anyone has thoughts on it I'd appreciate it.

In a nutshell, I guess I'm misunderstanding what the whole conclusion is. As I read the stimulus I took the first sentence to be premises. Then, the first part of second sentence seemed like the conclusion (that the issues of artwork value and artwork quality are related) followed by another premise explaining how that was the case. I thought the part about being extrinsic and therefore a matter of taste was a premise I should take to be true, which made finding TCR tough. Upon review and checking out Manhattan's forum they're saying that the whole last sentence is the conclusion.

Can anyone explain why the whole last sentence is the conclusion, rather than only the part before the first comma being the conclusion?

Hey tmon! just saw this problem a few days ago myself. The way I saw that last sentence was a conclusion surrounding a premise. The premise in that last sentence being the If, Then and the conclusion being the part before that and the "thus..." after it. HOWEVER, all that premise does is distinguish that intrinsic and extrinsic are one or the other (not I, must be E), and then from there the critic extrapolates that to the conclusion of "must be only about taste" or whatever. Does that help at all? When I saw it timed my face went and then I got it down to C and D. That last premise that they take in the second sentence about something being extrinsic and then jumping back into the conclusion as it "MUST" be only a matter of taste made me go huh? and I figured that was the flaw, best represented in C. Does that help at all? What did you pick?

On that test I still thought 19 from that same section was BS, and I reaallllly have to sit there and talk 22 out to myself (even after looking at BOTH of those on manhattan's website). any ideas?

PS- thanks for the 30's LG game rec. Gonna hit some tonight and do a PT tomorrow! That's what I get for taking a 4 hour long nap...oops.

Just wanted to make sure to thank you before I forget! Thanks! I had an "ah-ha!" moment last night after looking this over.