The Official September 2014 Study Group Forum

Clyde Frog · Post by **Clyde Frog** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:13 am

dardardelight wrote:
Clyde Frog wrote:I have a question for those that took the lsat for the first time yesterday, did any of you exhaust every pt and are retaking?
Clyde Frog, this is me. I maybe have PT's 39 to 44 fresh for me to take, but I've used up almost every prep test for drilling and PT'ing : /

Does anybody know how to go about (re)studying in this type of circumstance. I'm optimistic in that my avg PT was in the low 170's going into June and that I have all summer to reinforce my skills and maybe better master LR and/or RC . Pretty sure I botched the test and got into the mid-high 160's though.

On the other hand, I don't know what to freekin do with my PT schedule... I'm thinking of just reprinting every one I have and just taking/reviewing it regardless whether some questions may look familiar to me. Any tips or personal anecdotes and success stories would be much appreciated!

I can't find the old post of a member on here who exhausted all his material too. He got like a 168 or something on the first take and like a 178 on the second. On his retakes he was averaging 178-180, which was closely matched with his score on gameday. I don't think it would hurt you at all from retaking old tests. The only questions I can remember the answer to without working out the problem are those like fish, dioxin ect. I'd suggest going through the MLSAT books again to see if you may have missed something/reinforce skills then start taking PTs again after scores are released if you need to retake.

cavalier2015 · Post by **cavalier2015** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:42 pm

for those who have been drilling or drilled Necessary Assumption and Strengthen/Weaken questions, do you care to share some strategies and answer choice patterns who have found that help you guys?

kbrizz · Post by **kbrizz** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:20 pm

Feeling really discouraged.

I know I shouldn't rely on anything to be a magic bullet but....

LG was my weakest section.

I got my LG powerscore in the mail and have been working through it. It has absolutely helped a ton but I just feel like there's not way that I will ever get through a game with enough time. I know I shouldn't be worrying about this now, but it's extremely hard not to.

Anyway, any tips for time improvement? Also, I just finished chapter three on linear games. Is it best to just drill those games now, or work through powerscore LGB in totality and then start drilling?

flash21 · Post by **flash21** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:27 pm

kbrizz, just keep pushing . I used to feel the same way. literally toook me 45 minutes or more to do a game when i first started, and would get almost all of them wrong anyways sometimes.

you need to put in more time enforcing good habits, being thorough in review. don't give up yet. logic games are pretty foreign to you like they were to me but you'll catch on soon. don't skip any steps in the book, it'll only make you develop bad habits, be patient!

kbrizz · Post by **kbrizz** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:28 pm

flash21 wrote:kbrizz, just keep pushing . I used to feel the same way. literally toook me 45 minutes or more to do a game when i first started, and would get almost all of them wrong anyways sometimes.

you need to put in more time enforcing good habits, being thorough in review. don't give up yet. logic games are pretty foreign to you like they were to me but you'll catch on soon. don't skip any steps in the book, it'll only make you develop bad habits, be patient!

Thank you for your response! To me, this says, keep working through powerscore and don't start drilling while I'm sloppy?

You guys are amazingly encouraging. Much love.

Foxtrot2013 · Post by **Foxtrot2013** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:50 pm

cavalier2015 wrote:for those who have been drilling or drilled Necessary Assumption and Strengthen/Weaken questions, do you care to share some strategies and answer choice patterns who have found that help you guys?

Am interested in others' input on this too.

I am currently working on Necessary Assumption also (following the Trainer's 12-week schedule). I worked on it for four hours today (probably like two normal hrs, since I have ADHD), but had a hard time trying to get a fundamental understanding on how it is different than any other assumption questions. I was able to narrow down answer choices to two on the questions I worked on, but kept choosing the wrong one at the end. Mike (from Trainer) talks about negation technique to confirm the right answers, but that still screws me up; I have a hard time with structuring the options after negation.

Anyone care to give us some tips?

LegallyBrunette2015 · Post by **LegallyBrunette2015** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 11:26 pm

Feels when prepping for the LSAT

http://www.jwarnerlifestyle.com/2014/06 ... s-usa.html

flash21 · Post by **flash21** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 9:49 am

kbrizz wrote:
flash21 wrote:kbrizz, just keep pushing . I used to feel the same way. literally toook me 45 minutes or more to do a game when i first started, and would get almost all of them wrong anyways sometimes.

you need to put in more time enforcing good habits, being thorough in review. don't give up yet. logic games are pretty foreign to you like they were to me but you'll catch on soon. don't skip any steps in the book, it'll only make you develop bad habits, be patient!

Thank you for your response! To me, this says, keep working through powerscore and don't start drilling while I'm sloppy?

You guys are amazingly encouraging. Much love.

I think most people recommend reading a chapter about a game type (IE: basic linear games) then drilling that type.

LSAT prep books are different than novels in that reading cover to cover isn't necessarily the best way to go. Skills earlier mentioned in the book lay the foundation that you build upon in the latter part of the book, so taking the time to enforce the fundamentals initially is really important.

So, for example, get really good at basic linear games before moving onto advanced linear games, because if you don't advanced games probably will make zero sense to you. I'd reccommend the same for logical reasoning too.

mornincounselor · Post by **mornincounselor** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:40 pm

Post removed.

mornincounselor · Post by **mornincounselor** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:46 pm

Post removed.

cavalier2015 · Post by **cavalier2015** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:58 pm

completed and reviewed: main point, relative ordering, sufficient assumption, and strengthen packets.
need to complete/start: weaken, simple ordering, flaw, complex ordering, and NA packet by the months end.

mornincounselor · Post by **mornincounselor** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:06 pm

Post removed.

DestroyingTheLSAT · Post by **DestroyingTheLSAT** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:24 pm

mornincounselor wrote:
The credited choice to a sufficient assumption question will completely fill the gap left between the support and the conclusion while the correct choice for a required assumption will, if not true, decimate the argument.

Example:

I got a 180 on the LSAT, so I will attend law school.

Sufficient Assumption: All that is required to attend law school is a 180 on the LSATs.
Required Assumption: I don't have items in my past which will prevent me from attending law school.

The negation of the required assumption above would be: I DO have items in my past which will prevent me from attending law school. If this were the case, the argument will be destroyed.

Hey good explanation of SA/NA questions. But I want to point out one thing:

"Sufficient Assumption: All that is required to attend law school is a 180 on the LSATs."

Your argument says "I got a 180 on the LSAT, so I will attend law school." But your SA says all that is "required" to go to law school is a 180. Which implies that even if I get a 180 (and hence I have all the requirements to go to law school), I may choose NOT to go due to personal reasons maybe.To make it completely airtight, I would say...

SA: Anyone who gets a 180 on the LSAT is guaranteed to go to law school.

mornincounselor · Post by **mornincounselor** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:42 pm

Post removed.

Foxtrot2013 · Post by **Foxtrot2013** » Sat Jun 14, 2014 8:38 am

mornincounselor wrote:
DestroyingTheLSAT wrote:
mornincounselor wrote:
The credited choice to a sufficient assumption question will completely fill the gap left between the support and the conclusion while the correct choice for a required assumption will, if not true, decimate the argument.

Example:

I got a 180 on the LSAT, so I will attend law school.

Sufficient Assumption: All that is required to attend law school is a 180 on the LSATs.
Required Assumption: I don't have items in my past which will prevent me from attending law school.

The negation of the required assumption above would be: I DO have items in my past which will prevent me from attending law school. If this were the case, the argument will be destroyed.
Hey good explanation of SA/NA questions. But I want to point out one thing:

"Sufficient Assumption: All that is required to attend law school is a 180 on the LSATs."

Your argument says "I got a 180 on the LSAT, so I will attend law school." But your SA says all that is "required" to go to law school is a 180. Which implies that even if I get a 180 (and hence I have all the requirements to go to law school), I may choose NOT to go due to personal reasons maybe.To make it completely airtight, I would say...

SA: Anyone who gets a 180 on the LSAT is guaranteed to go to law school.
You are correct, good catch. It gets easier, but it never gets easy.

Thanks DestroyingTheLSAT and mornincounselor

Foxtrot2013 · Post by **Foxtrot2013** » Sat Jun 14, 2014 8:51 am

LegallyBrunette2015 wrote:Feels when prepping for the LSAT

http://www.jwarnerlifestyle.com/2014/06 ... s-usa.html

Especially this http://imgur.com/S5TY3Ro

flash21 · Post by **flash21** » Sat Jun 14, 2014 8:59 am

when you guys going to add sections in?

tolopo · Post by **tolopo** » Sun Jun 15, 2014 12:13 am

Hi guys, checking in! Still reading to catch up to the thread. Started prepping last month then had to head to Europe to work for a bit.

I was wondering if someone could explain to me 8 and 13 of PT33 S2 P2 reading comprehension questions. The way I read the question was that the author did not necessarily disagree (lines 23-28), just presented somewhat of an additional comment which makes reluctant agreement seem right to me. Question 13 seems to play with the contents of Question 8 and since the author did not explicitly disagree (nor agree I guess), it seemed, however tacitly, that A fits.

Sorry if this is super obvious, brain's not quite sharp today.
Thanks!

tolopo · Post by **tolopo** » Sun Jun 15, 2014 2:10 am

kbrizz wrote:Feeling really discouraged.

I know I shouldn't rely on anything to be a magic bullet but....

LG was my weakest section.

I got my LG powerscore in the mail and have been working through it. It has absolutely helped a ton but I just feel like there's not way that I will ever get through a game with enough time. I know I shouldn't be worrying about this now, but it's extremely hard not to.

Anyway, any tips for time improvement? Also, I just finished chapter three on linear games. Is it best to just drill those games now, or work through powerscore LGB in totality and then start drilling?

kbrizz, I totally understand, if it makes you feel any better I have had problems with all three sections at varying times. Just when my RC gets better, then LR gets sloppy, suddenly LG goes up, and RC slows down. Really, really annoying, but since they say LG is the relatively easiest to improve on, that is still good motivation.

I'm still on linear games, but I have not started powerscore yet. I'm using The LSAT Trainer and Cambridge bundle for drilling and I just finished the 24 simple ordering games (the names on all of these seem to vary, so I assume simple ordering is the easiest bunch of the linear games). I did 6 a day and finished in four days (do not recommend, but I had a very tight schedule and SO MANY questions to drill). Out of all of the games I would get one or two wrong every other game or so and was pretty happy with the results since I used not even know where to begin for any of the games. For the drilling of the 24 simple ordering games, 1 game could take me anywhere from 8 minutes 45 seconds to 30 minutes, with most of the games taking between 15-20 minutes. For a few games I would have complete diagrams, for other games I would have the diagrams half-complete and work with individual questions. The latter method of course took the most time.

Today, I started reviewing the 24 again and of course I did not remember any of the answers but redoing them gave me a clearer picture of inferences and better diagrams which allowed me to complete most questions around or under 15 minutes. Obviously there is still much need for improvement on time but getting the right diagram with all of the inferences are key, that is the shortcut and to me the only way to save time, and the only way it seems for me to do this is to drill each game (that was confusing or took a lot of time the first time I did it) more than once. Also, watch the 7sage video to see their diagrams/explanations as they have videos for every game available on their website/youtube.

Have you noticed specific issues regarding why you cannot finish the question within the time frame? Can you completely diagram a game, do you see inferences when you are diagramming, or are you working from scratch for each question? For some questions, do you have to try each answer choice or can you immediately eliminate wrong answers because of inferences or familiarity with the parameters of the game? And to answer your question, definitely drill after each section, you'll spend 2x of time if you read everything and then start from the beginning again. You want to be able to apply each section before reading the next one.

Good luck and stay strong!

h3jk5h · Post by **h3jk5h** » Sun Jun 15, 2014 11:35 am

mornincounselor wrote:
cavalier2015 wrote:completed and reviewed: main point, relative ordering, sufficient assumption, and strengthen packets.
need to complete/start: weaken, simple ordering, flaw, complex ordering, and NA packet by the months end.
What is relative and complex ordering?

They are categories that are organized according to the Cambridge LG Drilling Packets.

Simple ordering is just single layer sequencing. Complex ordering is ordering that is not simple ordering and not relative ordering (double layer, twists, hybrids, etc.)

Rexdan · Post by **Rexdan** » Sun Jun 15, 2014 12:03 pm

cavalier2015 wrote:for those who have been drilling or drilled Necessary Assumption and Strengthen/Weaken questions, do you care to share some strategies and answer choice patterns who have found that help you guys?

Necessary Assumption=Find what's required. Not what's important; what's required.
Required means exactly that; it's an assumption that is required in order for the argument to be sound. Don't confuse this with making the conclusion true; that's a different kind of assumption. The easiest way to check if the answer choice is correct is to perform the negation test. Simply negate the answer choice by changing key words (all=not all, none=some, etc) and see if it destroys the argument being made in the stimulus.
For Strengthen/Weaken, they're kinda like Necessary Assumption questions with the idea that if you can pinpoint a flaw in the argument, then either extrapolate on that flaw or make it so that the flaw can't be called a flaw (the author failed to consider alternative possibilities...looks through the AC's for a Strengthen question and sees answer that says there are no other alternatives. Bingo.) Oh, and focus on the relationship between the support and the conclusion. Watch out for answers that bolster one or the other and answers that actually do the opposite of what it is that you want to do.
For the Necessary questions, watch out for answers that actually fills the entire gap. For me, when I'm down to 2 AC's, it's usually because one fills the gap. Once I apply the negation test, I can see why one is the required assumption and the other isn't.

Hope that helps.

kittenmittens · Post by **kittenmittens** » Sun Jun 15, 2014 4:19 pm

Thank you WaltGrace83 for responding to my earlier post and advice regarding strengthen and weaken questions. A cool resource that I found are the Manhattan forums where they break it down into discussion of EACH question from past LSATs. I figured maybe some other people here were not aware of it : --LinkRemoved-- . I believe it's free to view and you can make 2 posts per day as a guest.

I have another specific LR question wondering if anyone here as an explanation . PT52.1.11 . This is the question regarding a lower recovery rate at large urban hospitals vs. small rural hospitals. It seems to me that all of the answers provide an explanation of the difference.

The correct answer is that even though doctors in cities went to more prestigious schools, that does not have an effect on the recovery rates. Doesn't this make it more plausible that the difference in recovery rates exists? You might think the discrepancy makes no sense with urban doctors that went to Harvard Med school, but here this answer explains that the doctors' school does not matter. Thanks for thoughts

Daily_Double · Post by **Daily_Double** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:24 am

Hey guys, I have been teaching and tutoring this test for the past year and wanted to stop by to offer some suggestions. I covered the basic stuff here and I'm going to pull from my library of emails to add anything else you want more information on. So if you have specific questions about basic patterns (Conditional Logic, Causation, the Assumption Family, Inference Questions, RC, etc.) just let me know and I'll throw it in.

Good luck.

mornincounselor · Post by **mornincounselor** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:28 pm

Post removed.

cavalier2015 · Post by **cavalier2015** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 4:00 pm

PT14-2-7. let me take a crack at it.

Conclusion: the stripes on the zebras must serve as some sort of signal for other zebras
Why (premise): the stripes cannot serve as a camouflage
Gap/flaw: the author is assuming: since the stripes don't serve as camouflage, they MUST serve as some sort of signal. author fails to consider other functions, other than signals, the stripes may serve
So, look for an answer choice that addresses this. meaning, look for an answer choice that strengthens the fact that it MUST serve as a signal or that the stripes CANNOT serve any other function
Answer choices:
(a) we are looking for the functions of the stripes, not the characteristics of the zebras that have the stripes. irrelevant
(b) weakens the argument; supports the notion that the stripes serve as camouflage
(c ) change of color seems irrelevant to our argument core
(d) correct; if they have to react faster to moving shapes that have stripes--> it means that these stripes must TELL them something (tell = signal). if the stripes do not tell them something, then their reaction time shouldn't be any different
(e) voice signals? no. out of scope

this was how i thought of the question. hope it helps