JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread Forum

[griffin.811]

Cambridge drilling and an RC section:

RC: PT 12, first two passages untimed, second two timed, using my watch, I got curious after the second passage, (about 17 minutes for passages 3 and 4), -3, #9, 16, 17. Number 16 was a stupid mistake, one I can't believe I let myself do. RC I'm coming at you hard.

Games: Undetermined Assignment, level 3
p20, (7:05), -0
p21, (8:18), -0
p22, (6:18), -0
p23, (7:38), -0

Check out p21, it gave me some time trouble, PT 32, S3, G1

Flaw: 75 questions, levels 1, 2, and 3, -3, #101, #176, #185, (85:58)

Is this your first time working through Flaw?

[Daily_Double]

.

[griffin.811]

@DD

I'm doing the same thing, just wondering how much of the progress is from famialiarity with the questions v. actual progress.

This time through I'm writing out the flaws before looking at the answers, trying to guage how quickly I can pick up on the issues in the argument.

[Daily_Double]

.

[wtrc]

Just finished Manhattan LG. timing is still an issue but starting to improve. Would y'all recommend drilling now or doing the Powerscore Bible? Also starting the LRB now.

[crazyrobin]

You misunderstood me, it would appear that you interpreted that to mean that I had read/finished all of the flaw questions, multiple times. This is my fourth time drilling flaws from Cambridge but I have not repeated any problems yet. Your strategy sounds really good though, good luck.

I feel like DD is going to kick some ass in the coming June.
Man, I'll try my best to catch up.

[crazyrobin]

Just finished Manhattan LG. timing is still an issue but starting to improve. Would y'all recommend drilling now or doing the Powerscore Bible? Also starting the LRB now.

I used PS bible solely, so I can't really comment on MLG, I only skimmed through MLG and go directly into drilling.

You may want to go ahead drilling and see what really happens. Then go back to either MLG or LGB to reinforce your strategy or set up/inference skill.

[griffin.811]

You misunderstood me, it would appear that you interpreted that to mean that I had read/finished all of the flaw questions, multiple times. This is my fourth time drilling flaws from Cambridge but I have not repeated any problems yet. Your strategy sounds really good though, good luck.

I feel like DD is going to kick some ass in the coming June.
Man, I'll try my best to catch up.

Same, just trying to keep pace...

[Daily_Double]

.

[Striderite3]

I'm getting the feeling that a non-trivial amount of people are tackling one section (LG/LR/RC) at a time. I had just came to accept that it was most beneficial to tackle each of them 1/3,1/3,1/3. I am pretty weak in all of the areas so I think the best approach would still be to stick to a pithypike-esque study plan and slowly build on all three sections. Do you guys agree? Honestly the idea of tackling one section at a time appeals to me more, but I want to use my prep time efficiently. Thanks!

[griffin.811]

I'm getting the feeling that a non-trivial amount of people are tackling one section (LG/LR/RC) at a time. I had just came to accept that it was most beneficial to tackle each of them 1/3,1/3,1/3. I am pretty weak in all of the areas so I think the best approach would still be to stick to a pithypike-esque study plan and slowly build on all three sections. Do you guys agree? Honestly the idea of tackling one section at a time appeals to me more, but I want to use my prep time efficiently. Thanks!

I think you're spot on in your assessment of 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. I tried focusing on one section at a time and felt that I lost the gains I had made in other areas due to lack of practice.

I will say once you start to see yourself struggling in some areas more than others you may want to adjust to something similar to 2/5, 2/5, 1/5 etc...

Matter of preference though

[lawsat]

So after doing a little bit more digging, I have found this reply, which both criticizes TLS members for creating new threads for RC tips and offers RC tips for TLS members. As you can tell, my copy and pasting abilities, due to laziness mostly, are not up to par for this website, so in the spirit of full disclosure, the above was posted by Kurst. Thanks Kurst and CardozoLaw09, I'm going to focus on RC for the next three days, then review everything, and hopefully start timed PTs the first week of January. Good luck guys

Hi Daily_Double,

As a ETS taker (GRE) I found LSAT RC to be extremely challenging, let alone English is not my first language. But I found Manhattan RC guide to be extremely helpful by breaking down every paragraphs. I took PT 1 RC two months ago and got -10..... Now I can consistently gouge -5 or -4 on PTs ( 1-20 mostly, not the 50-60). I know I still have a lot to go, but for me RC is more like a balance between real understanding and timing. Voyager's note taking is superb, with his/her approach, I managed to save a lot of time when I have to go back to the passage to look for details.

I also found one piece of advice on Manhattan LSAT forum to be extremely helpful. It's about reading slowly and carefully, which I think is paramount importance for me to digest the passage, it may take a bit longer, but when you pick up your pace, you should be able to attack questions within the time constraint.

This is posted by one of Manhattan LSAT instructors Patrick, http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/rc- ... 01c09eb275

Yes, when reviewing (or when practicing an RC passage untimed), I think you should try to find line references to support your chosen answer and you should try to identify the words in each incorrect answer choice that break it (pick as few words as possible ... almost half the time, there's just one word breaking an answer choice).

In terms of better retention, there's no easy fix for that. That's what makes some people "better readers" than others (and why LSAC chooses to test us on this). I'm not saying we're innately a certain kind of reader, but through good/bad habits over many years, we are definitely not all on a level playing field when it comes to reading/retention ability.

I think you'll find that you can improve a lot at your retention if you really start with an enthusiastic blank slate and read slowly enough that you give your brain time to understand every sentence.

Some sentences are awkward and confusing: re-read them.

Sometimes you lose your focus and don't know what you just read: re-read it.

Sometimes you're unclear about how the current sentence relates to stuff you just: go back and re-read the stuff before the current sentence to make sure you understand it.

Many people reading this will probably say, "Hey, won't that take too much time?"

Yes? No? It depends.

For me, reading slowly enough to fully comprehend the material means that I will be able to get through questions much more quickly.

For others, it could be that reading this slowly take more time and barely increases their retention, in which case the extra time wasn't worth it.

You'll have to experiment with your reading habits to see whether it would behoove you to read something more closely.

As a (fun?) experiment for yourself, try reading an RC passage TWICE, yes - twice! - before you go to the questions.

Theoretically, reading it twice should give you pretty good comprehension. (And on the second read, you'll probably skim the sentences you remember well, but dig into the sentences you didn't really get the first time -- or suddenly understand their relevance to the big picture)

If you find that answering the questions is easier and more accurate after having this augmented understanding, then you'll see the payoff of better retention and maybe be able to try to make your first read more like a 1st/2nd read put together (i.e. only re-reading the parts you need to for optimal comprehension).

Good luck!

Thank for the input. I have a very similar situation as yours, with RC being my worst section. I hope we can get it improved, and we should keep posting the new thoughts on how to make that happen, best luck!!

[crazyrobin]

Quick question, do you guys verify answer choices when doing game?
E.g when doing could be true questions, do you just shoot and go or you eliminate the must be false one?

[CardozoLaw09]

Quick question, do you guys verify answer choices when doing game?
E.g when doing could be true questions, do you just shoot and go or you eliminate the must be false one?

By shoot and go I assume you mean draw out hypos for each answer choice starting with A). I do the latter way (eliminate must be false ones first), it's a lot more efficient and less time consuming and if you have your diagram set up with the right inferences they can be easy to eliminate so you only would have to draw out a couple hypos at most for the remaining answer choices

[kendradh]

Okay, dumb question time: what are you all using for drills? Everyone mentions Cambridge bundles, but when I look them up on Amazon or whatnot, I'm not sure exactly what people are using. Is it the "All XX number of analytical reasoning questions from preptests X-XX," etc.? I plan on taking 30 PTs, but I obviously want to avoid repeat questions, at least as much as I can, and it seems people are drilling from resources other than PTs.

Again, please excuse the dumb question. I feel like I've spent half the time so far prepping for LSAT just deciphering acronyms and figuring out study group shorthand.

[TheMostDangerousLG]

Okay, dumb question time: what are you all using for drills? Everyone mentions Cambridge bundles, but when I look them up on Amazon or whatnot, I'm not sure exactly what people are using. Is it the "All XX number of analytical reasoning questions from preptests X-XX," etc.? I plan on taking 30 PTs, but I obviously want to avoid repeat questions, at least as much as I can, and it seems people are drilling from resources other than PTs.

Again, please excuse the dumb question. I feel like I've spent half the time so far prepping for LSAT just deciphering acronyms and figuring out study group shorthand.

http://www.cambridgelsat.com/problem-sets/

[crazyrobin]

http://www.cambridgelsat.com/problem-sets/

Is RC by type worth investment? Or I guess my underlying question is will attack different types ( humanity, law, science etc ) of RC passages help me to improve on RC?

[Balthy]

Do any of you badass LSAT-killas live in Houston? I'm looking for people to occasionally study with.

[Balthy]

http://www.cambridgelsat.com/problem-sets/

Is RC by type worth investment? Or I guess my underlying question is will attack different types ( humanity, law, science etc ) of RC passages help me to improve on RC?

It really depends on whether you have more difficulty with a specific type or not. Despite being a big science reader, the science passages used to intimidate me (all those big words made my brain derp uncontrollably, even when the passages were quite easy). After drilling a bunch of science passages, the malady was cured and I derped no more.

[A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A]

http://www.cambridgelsat.com/problem-sets/

I never noticed the writing sample prompts. That's pretty hardcore.

[TheMostDangerousLG]

http://www.cambridgelsat.com/problem-sets/

I never noticed the writing sample prompts. That's pretty hardcore.

I can't imagine who does them, let alone who would pay to do them.

[BlaqBella]

Okay, dumb question time: what are you all using for drills? Everyone mentions Cambridge bundles, but when I look them up on Amazon or whatnot, I'm not sure exactly what people are using. Is it the "All XX number of analytical reasoning questions from preptests X-XX," etc.? I plan on taking 30 PTs, but I obviously want to avoid repeat questions, at least as much as I can, and it seems people are drilling from resources other than PTs.

Again, please excuse the dumb question. I feel like I've spent half the time so far prepping for LSAT just deciphering acronyms and figuring out study group shorthand.

http://www.cambridgelsat.com/problem-sets/

True, if you want to spend more than you should or wish to specifically focus on one question/game/passage type.

Bundle sets are below:

http://www.cambridgelsat.com/bundles/

[mindarmed]

Did some light RC drilling today and, ended up going -4 on PT 32's RC section. I am very pleased with this result especially given I was interrupted twice, and the bros next to me have been blasting music throughout the duration of my drilling. Heading to lunch with Dad in a little bit then I'll be back to drill flaw questions.

[ready4180]

Just checking in...LSAT studying this week has been lackluster due to sickness. But I'm still making my way through MLSAT (in chapter 6 now) and redoing LG drills. I've now done simple ordering from PTs 1-38 twice, relative ordering from 1-38 just once, and started on complex ordering from 1-38 today.

So far:
PT14-S1-G2 (5:38) -1
PT31-S1-G1 (8:18) -0
PT26-S1-G1 (6:17) -0
PT7-S2-G4 (9:27) -0 [difficulties with inferences, but eventually figured it out]
PT25-S3-G4 (9:33) -1 [need to 7sage #21 bc still can't see how to arrive to the correct answer in an efficient manner]
PT37-S3-G2 (7:00) -0
PT8-S2-G3 (5:27) -3 [DISASTER!]

Going to try to get some more in here at work. Good luck to everyone with studying over the weekend!

[Daily_Double]

.