The Official June 2015 Study Group Forum

[nlee10]

So now you get a notification when someone quotes you... that's new I guess

oh really?

[RZ5646]

So now you get a notification when someone quotes you... that's new I guess

oh really?

Yep... see?

[nlee10]

That's annoying.

[TheWalkingDebt]

That's annoying.

Is it?

[nlee10]

That's annoying.

Is it?

See for yourself.

[TheWalkingDebt]

It is mildly annoying. Taking PT 61 today. I feel good today overall and think I am going to see a bounce back after a couple of lower than hoped for scores. My drilling has been going well today even though it wasn't great yesterday.

[jumbocolumbo]

So how is everyone doing today? What's on the agenda?
With less than a month from test day, I'm feeling a bit antsy and came crawling back to this thread to share in the grind with others. Really, the last week doesn't consist of substantive prep (or so dictates general opinion) so there's 3 weeks left to get into performance shape.
Took PT 65 yesterday and was pretty disappointed:
LR: -3
LG: -5
RC: -6
LR: -3
(Edit: that's a 167 scaled, I really thought I had broken 170, but I also knew I had screwed up on the last game so I don't know why I thought that)
Needless to say I'll be drilling LG and RC sections today.

[msp8]

BRing 1 PT today, then taking another PT.

I've finally broken out of my 169-171 range, and I'm scoring in a wider 172-176 range now. I've finally gained more comfort with RC -- still generally tight on timing, but of the last 7 PTs taken, I've gone 1-2 wrong each time except once (-3). I'm okay with that. Still planning on doing 2 RC passages / day in addition to PTs to keep improving (mostly on time now).

LR is the area of unpredictability now. I go anywhere from 0 to -5 in a single section. If I go -5 in a section, then I go -1 in the other LR. I never get more than 6-7 wrong total in LR, but I'm wanting to cut that to -4 total on a consistent basis, then (hopefully) less than -4. Still, -4 would allow me to get the score I want, given how LG/RC is going.

[jumbocolumbo]

BRing 1 PT today, then taking another PT.

I've finally broken out of my 169-171 range, and I'm scoring in a wider 172-176 range now. I've finally gained more comfort with RC -- still generally tight on timing, but of the last 7 PTs taken, I've gone 1-2 wrong each time except once (-3). I'm okay with that. Still planning on doing 2 RC passages / day in addition to PTs to keep improving (mostly on time now).

LR is the area of unpredictability now. I go anywhere from 0 to -5 in a single section. If I go -5 in a section, then I go -1 in the other LR. I never get more than 6-7 wrong total in LR, but I'm wanting to cut that to -4 total on a consistent basis, then (hopefully) less than -4. Still, -4 would allow me to get the score I want, given how LG/RC is going.

Looking good. How long have you been studying and what did you do to break out of that 169-171 range? I was thinking maybe I was just having timing issues but on my last PT I had time to review on just about every section but LG.

[jumbocolumbo]

Also, a friendly reminder to call your mothers today.

[msp8]

I've been studying for far too long. At least, it feels that way.

I've been inconsistently studying since last summer. Some months have taken off completely.

Breaking out of 169-171 range: just kept pushing. I was in that range for a long time -- it's why I opted not to write in Feb.

Now that I look back...

In late March, I decided to re-take 3 PTs that I had done back in Oct or so. I didn't remember them well, but I scored 173-176 range on them. I then took two fresh PTs and returned to my range (scoring 169 on both). I then took ~10 days away from the test, and re-took another PT from Oct, and scored 180. I then scored a 171, then 176, 175, 172, 174, 173, 172, 178, and the one I'm correcting now *should* be 174-175 by the looks of it.

I think those re-takes helped. I didn't remember the material well. I recognised certain Qs, but that wasn't always a positive; I'd get stuck on the same two ACs and not remember which one I had chosen, then I reminded myself I had to go through the same methods to determine TCR. I'd estimate it took longer on those types of Qs, and some of them I repeated mistakes I had made previously! (shameful)

I'm incorporating 1 re-take / week at least into my schedule because I find them helpful, a little less intense, and good for timing-training.

[jumbocolumbo]

I've been studying for far too long. At least, it feels that way.

I've been inconsistently studying since last summer. Some months have taken off completely.

Breaking out of 169-171 range: just kept pushing. I was in that range for a long time -- it's why I opted not to write in Feb.

Now that I look back...

In late March, I decided to re-take 3 PTs that I had done back in Oct or so. I didn't remember them well, but I scored 173-176 range on them. I then took two fresh PTs and returned to my range (scoring 169 on both). I then took ~10 days away from the test, and re-took another PT from Oct, and scored 180. I then scored a 171, then 176, 175, 172, 174, 173, 172, 178, and the one I'm correcting now *should* be 174-175 by the looks of it.

I think those re-takes helped. I didn't remember the material well. I recognised certain Qs, but that wasn't always a positive; I'd get stuck on the same two ACs and not remember which one I had chosen, then I reminded myself I had to go through the same methods to determine TCR. I'd estimate it took longer on those types of Qs, and some of them I repeated mistakes I had made previously! (shameful)

I'm incorporating 1 re-take / week at least into my schedule because I find them helpful, a little less intense, and good for timing-training.

Thanks, I think people get a little hung up on the fact that a PT has already been taken and overlook the usefulness of a re-take (myself included). However, your reply indicates to me that unless you put up an easy 180 and know why all of your responses are correct, there is still more you can gain from old PT's.
Obviously new material still has its role. Did you feel like the re-takes reinforced the basic process of needling out the relevant info on a new LR Q for example? Was it easier to find when you'd seen the same structures multiple times elsewhere?

I hope that last question makes sense. Good to know old material isn't totally worthless in case I have to take in October.

[msp8]

Actually, even if you score a 180, I don't think a re-take of that PT is worthless (provided enough time has passed). I'm planning on re-taking some PTs that I've gotten 180 on BR.

Basically, until I'm scoring 178ish on fresh PTs, I feel like I have a ton of material to work through. I hope I won't need to do it all (as in, I hope I score well enough in June not to re-take in Oct), but I have plenty to do in the event that I have to re-take!

In answer to your specific Qs: to an extent, yes. I felt more at ease with being methodical in my approach, as opposed to intensely seeking TCR (be it thru POE or whatever). But only marginally so. For the latter Q: I (still) haven't done an adequate amount of drilling, and I suspect that's the area where you start feeling more at ease with structure. Still, I'm far more at ease with structure in LR than I was two months ago. But LR is still my primary weakness.

[jumbocolumbo]

Actually, even if you score a 180, I don't think a re-take of that PT is worthless (provided enough time has passed). I'm planning on re-taking some PTs that I've gotten 180 on BR.

Basically, until I'm scoring 178ish on fresh PTs, I feel like I have a ton of material to work through. I hope I won't need to do it all (as in, I hope I score well enough in June not to re-take in Oct), but I have plenty to do in the event that I have to re-take!

In answer to your specific Qs: to an extent, yes. I felt more at ease with being methodical in my approach, as opposed to intensely seeking TCR (be it thru POE or whatever). But only marginally so. For the latter Q: I (still) haven't done an adequate amount of drilling, and I suspect that's the area where you start feeling more at ease with structure. Still, I'm far more at ease with structure in LR than I was two months ago. But LR is still my primary weakness.

Will June be the first test you sit for? And sorry if this feels like an interrogation but do you have method you'd recommend?
I really appreciate you giving me your perspective on your prep process!

[msp8]

Yeah, first sitting for me.

Method for what? Tackling LR?

Btw, I hope you're not taking anything I say as gospel. There are a number of people in this thread that have either more naturally 'figured out' this test, or who have a better understanding of how to approach it.

[jumbocolumbo]

Yeah, first sitting for me.

Method for what? Tackling LR?

Btw, I hope you're not taking anything I say as gospel. There are a number of people in this thread that have either more naturally 'figured out' this test, or who have a better understanding of how to approach it.

Yes, LR specifically. Or if you have an RC method you particularly like.

No, I'm not. Just being nosey I suppose.

[JackelJ]

I like 7sage's Memory Method for RC. This seems to be the best method for me as I'm not a speed reader. I've gone from taking 10-11 minutes per passage to 7-9 minutes with better accuracy.

& good job msp! Sounds like you're studying is going well

[jumbocolumbo]

I like 7sage's Memory Method for RC. This seems to be the best method for me as I'm not a speed reader. I've gone from taking 10-11 minutes per passage to 7-9 minutes with better accuracy.

& good job msp! Sounds like you're studying is going well

I tried 7sage's memory method and saw a drop initially so I didn't pursue it. Maybe I didn't give it a fair shake, though. It seems like its a method that requires a fair amount of time to develop.

[The Abyss]

I like 7sage's Memory Method for RC. This seems to be the best method for me as I'm not a speed reader. I've gone from taking 10-11 minutes per passage to 7-9 minutes with better accuracy.

& good job msp! Sounds like you're studying is going well

I plan on employing the 7sage memory method in my RC drilling here soon. I need something to help me with RC because is by far my most inconsistent section.

[JackelJ]

Yea, different methods for RC work for different people. Whatever method plays to your strengths is probably best. And some methods can take longer for you to read and answer all the questions at first, but once you get comfortable with it, it can allow you to finish more quickly and accurately.

[biggestlawman]

How's everyone?

[msp8]

Yeah, first sitting for me.

Method for what? Tackling LR?

Btw, I hope you're not taking anything I say as gospel. There are a number of people in this thread that have either more naturally 'figured out' this test, or who have a better understanding of how to approach it.

Yes, LR specifically. Or if you have an RC method you particularly like.

No, I'm not. Just being nosey I suppose.

I don't think I have much of a distinctive method for either. I've spent far too much time reading about others' methods, or from 'professionals' on their methods, that I've wound up with some mishmash.

I do follow the pretty generic attack on LR Qs of determining the argument core, etc., and I'm far quicker at scanning ACs to see quickly dismiss 3 of them in a matter of seconds -- without reading the full sentence. (I note in the margin whenever I select an AC w/o reading any other AC -- relying on just scanning them. So far, I've done this 35ish times and was wrong to have done it only once, and that one time was question #23 on a test. I don't know if this is what most people do, but it's a change I've only recently implemented; in the past, I'd quickly read and dismiss every AC.) So I recognise structure pretty well, and can prephrase much better having done a lot more tests, but that's just practice -- and stuff that you're familiar with already, I'm sure.

On RC: I do try to read for structure a lot more. I rarely underline; only when I'm having concentration issues (which, unfortunately, still happen). I do remind myself to think about why the author is telling me each piece of information, how it relates to the larger argument, and I try to ignore minute details -- I'm good at finding things quickly in the passage when I need to return.

So, yeah, I'm sure this wasn't terribly helpful stuff as it's mostly regurgitated from here/books.

[msp8]

I like 7sage's Memory Method for RC. This seems to be the best method for me as I'm not a speed reader. I've gone from taking 10-11 minutes per passage to 7-9 minutes with better accuracy.

& good job msp! Sounds like you're studying is going well

Thank you! And well done to you on the RC progress!

[ccordero]

I took PT44 today and got the following:
RC: -7
LR: -6
LG: -0
LR: -4

Pretty disappointed in my RC score, but I feel somewhat happy with the story it tells. 5 out of the 7 wrongs in that section was due to the fact that I didn't finish answering the questions for the last passage. I was -2 up until the final passage, which I think is pretty good! If I can keep that up, and just work on speed, I should be golden.

I'm still struggling on LR sections. It looks like I still do poorly on Sufficient/Necessary assumption and Identify the Flaw questions the most. I'm also getting 0% on parallel (flaw) questions. At this point, I might just circle D for these parallel (flaw) questions and move on. They're too time consuming.

LG is surprisingly easy. I usually finish with 1-5 minutes to spare. Not sure what happened, but things are just clicking.

[msp8]

I took PT44 today and got the following:
RC: -7
LR: -6
LG: -0
LR: -4

Pretty disappointed in my RC score, but I feel somewhat happy with the story it tells. 5 out of the 7 wrongs in that section was due to the fact that I didn't finish answering the questions for the last passage. I was -2 up until the final passage, which I think is pretty good! If I can keep that up, and just work on speed, I should be golden.

I'm still struggling on LR sections. It looks like I still do poorly on Sufficient/Necessary assumption and Identify the Flaw questions the most. I'm also getting 0% on parallel (flaw) questions. At this point, I might just circle D for these parallel (flaw) questions and move on. They're too time consuming.

LG is surprisingly easy. I usually finish with 1-5 minutes to spare. Not sure what happened, but things are just clicking.

ccordero, we seem to have similar strengths/weaknesses. What's your process for approaching parallel flaw?