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

[34iplaw]

BEAST!!!! Congrats buddy. About to Grade mine from today-- hoping for a similar result *fingers crossed*

good luck man

Good fucking shit!!

Ayyyyy!!!! Fucking get it!!!

nice work! pretty crazy how many people have broken a plateau this past week.

DUDE Congrats!!

Thanks all - this is how I'm feeling right now. Although, I'm kind of frustrated b/c I was two questions away from a 180.



[youtube]4ITLNzPoEqs[/youtube]

Really beyond excited. I've noticed that whenever I feel like the test has limited me I make some huge leap in score... it makes it all feel worth it... Anyone want to hold a bonfire when we are all done with this? I think I've used more notebooks on this than I did in college

[34iplaw]

I will say though that #15 on that second LR is screwing with my head.

BR +2 on RC. On the LR, I just didn't get 15 and 25 I thought I got right.

I dunno if you already figured it out but - Assuming you're talking about 69.4.15:

[+] Spoiler

The linguist said the two sentences are 'identical in meaning.' The philosopher says no, they're not identical, because they're physically different. But the linguist wasn't saying they were identical, just that they were identical physically. Hence D.

I appreciate it... I mean I kind of get it why D can be right...I spent a good minute or two on this question and came back to it and just stared at it for four minutes, I just don't understand in that case that A and C are incorrect.

[+] Spoiler

I think (A) is incorrect because the linguist didn't say they were identical, just that they were identical in meaning.
(C) - yeah, that's tricky. I think - it is restating that they are identical in meaning, but it's not countering the philosopher's objection that they're not identical / ie they share different attributes (are physically not identical.)
I think one way to approach it is to see it as if it were an ID the flaw question. The philosopher is making a pretty major reasoning error - equating identical in meaning with identical in general. And so the best way for the linguist to respond to the philosopher's faulty argument is to point out that it's faulty and why.

I think the one I really struggled with on this one was s4 q20.

I appreciate it - that helps.

Ah that was a kind of crappy question... just since its fresh and if it helps...

[+] Spoiler

I got it mainly thru POE...
a - wrong b/c of largely and we don't know whether it actually did or not... just many scientists thought that it did
b - wrong... sort of an incorrect negation in a way... we don't really know what would have happened sans the nino
c - I feel like this one is kind of appealing...and I was there for a bit but, ultimately, I just said that it's one instance... we don't really know anything about el ninos in general
d - is kind of appealing too... but it's a flawed method of reasoning so it won't be the answer in this type of question... just b/c the scientists believe something doesn't mean they believe in the implications (actual or prescribed) of that belief
e - by poe, it's kind of an annoying answer but it's kind of there... we are told that el nino *did* cause the fires... so... if something contributed to el nino, its reasonable to say it was, in part, caused by the fire.

[Alexandros]

I will say though that #15 on that second LR is screwing with my head.

BR +2 on RC. On the LR, I just didn't get 15 and 25 I thought I got right.

I dunno if you already figured it out but - Assuming you're talking about 69.4.15:

[+] Spoiler

The linguist said the two sentences are 'identical in meaning.' The philosopher says no, they're not identical, because they're physically different. But the linguist wasn't saying they were identical, just that they were identical physically. Hence D.

I appreciate it... I mean I kind of get it why D can be right...I spent a good minute or two on this question and came back to it and just stared at it for four minutes, I just don't understand in that case that A and C are incorrect.

[+] Spoiler

I think (A) is incorrect because the linguist didn't say they were identical, just that they were identical in meaning.
(C) - yeah, that's tricky. I think - it is restating that they are identical in meaning, but it's not countering the philosopher's objection that they're not identical / ie they share different attributes (are physically not identical.)
I think one way to approach it is to see it as if it were an ID the flaw question. The philosopher is making a pretty major reasoning error - equating identical in meaning with identical in general. And so the best way for the linguist to respond to the philosopher's faulty argument is to point out that it's faulty and why.

I think the one I really struggled with on this one was s4 q20.

I appreciate it - that helps.

Ah that was a kind of crappy question... just since its fresh and if it helps...

[+] Spoiler

I got it mainly thru POE...
a - wrong b/c of largely and we don't know whether it actually did or not... just many scientists thought that it did
b - wrong... sort of an incorrect negation in a way... we don't really know what would have happened sans the nino
c - I feel like this one is kind of appealing...and I was there for a bit but, ultimately, I just said that it's one instance... we don't really know anything about el ninos in general
d - is kind of appealing too... but it's a flawed method of reasoning so it won't be the answer in this type of question... just b/c the scientists believe something doesn't mean they believe in the implications (actual or prescribed) of that belief
e - by poe, it's kind of an annoying answer but it's kind of there... we are told that el nino *did* cause the fires... so... if something contributed to el nino, its reasonable to say it was, in part, caused by the fire.

Thanks! That's a really good way of looking at it. Pretty sure I picked D and felt really eh about it (because, as you say, those kinds of answers usually aren't the answer) and didn't really give E proper consideration.

[20170322]

Just went -2 on a fresh logic games packet because I finished in 22 minutes and made stupid errors. Not sure how I should handle time on test day.

[Mikey]

Was going to Do PT 71 tomorrow but I'm going to finish BRing this LR today and take tomorrow off. Just head to class, come home and chill and maybe get some actual school work done.

[appind]

June 2013 new high. All fresh except one of the four RC passages (first/easy one)...

1: RC-2;
2: LR-0;
3: LG exp -0;
4: LG -0;
5; LR -2;

Raw (96/100)
177/180

I added a 6th section (LR) from Feb 96 which was -4. That had some pretty funky questions.

That's very very solid.

[Alexandros]

Just 135 more pages to read by noon tomorrow!

Sometimes doing ok on RC confirmed to be some weird accident. I can't read.

[34iplaw]

Just went -2 on a fresh logic games packet because I finished in 22 minutes and made stupid errors. Not sure how I should handle time on test day.

I think I gave this advice to someone else.

Tick *every* question that you use intuition on, or, alternatively since you have time, just make sure to quickly verify any answer that you get from intuition. OBV, you don't necessarily need to do this for a 'What can't go in the last slot of a six slot ordering game? The thing with a few variables following it dummy.' Also, be careful on min/max questions. IMO - those are the hardest / most likely for errors, esp. for someone that largely uses an understanding of the game mechanics rather than drawing every possible outcome to go through the questions.

[34iplaw]

That's very very solid.

Thanks - going to reward myself with some NARCOS tonight!

[appind]

Just went -2 on a fresh logic games packet because I finished in 22 minutes and made stupid errors. Not sure how I should handle time on test day.

Did you end up taking 77 that you were planning?

[appind]

Just 135 more pages to read by noon tomorrow!

Sometimes doing ok on RC confirmed to be some weird accident. I can't read.

this 135 pages is like some class assignment? no wonder you do well on rc.*

*mistakes a statement by op concluding no causal connection despite correlative evidence to draw an opposite conclusion

[Alexandros]

Just 135 more pages to read by noon tomorrow!

Sometimes doing ok on RC confirmed to be some weird accident. I can't read.

this 135 pages is like some class assignment? no wonder you do well on rc.*

*mistakes a statement by op concluding no causal connection despite correlative evidence to draw an opposite conclusion

Yeeep. well, two classes.

@ footnote. (Tbh I've always felt like I was bad at reading because I tend to seriously struggle to keep up. I think RC might have given me a false sense of security, although RC and 'sense of security' feels like a major oxymoron.)

[20170322]

Just went -2 on RC for PT 49, 30 minutes.


I think test day is going to come down to how LR goes.

[galeatus]

That's very very solid.

Thanks - going to reward myself with some NARCOS tonight!

Just finished the second season last night - sooooooo good, definitely as good as the first season if not better

[Mikey]

PT45 S4 Q19 is complete bullshit and people on 7sage think so as well. It literally makes no damn sense.

[+] Spoiler

How the hell does "in the near future" correspond to the right answer choice (c) with the whole "specific prediction" thing. I'm failing to see what the logic is here. Near future can mean a few years from now, or tomorrow, we don't know so it's ambiguous. Also, wouldn't a SPECIFIC prediction be something like "next fucking Tuesday", and not "oh sometime in the near future bro"?

Like I said, others on 7sage think the same too, it's so dumb.

[Shemp]

PT45 S4 Q19 is complete bullshit and people on 7sage think so as well. It literally makes no damn sense.

[+] Spoiler

How the hell does "in the near future" correspond to the right answer choice (c) with the whole "specific prediction" thing. I'm failing to see what the logic is here. Near future can mean a few years from now, or tomorrow, we don't know so it's ambiguous. Also, wouldn't a SPECIFIC prediction be something like "next fucking Tuesday", and not "oh sometime in the near future bro"?

[+] Spoiler

Specificity is relative. If I were to ask you when you are going to take the LSAT, the implied time range is not very large. I would be expecting an answer within the next year or so, so "in the near future" would not be very specific. If the time scale is in the hundreds of millions of years, "in the near future" is pretty specific.

[galeatus]

8:25 here in Beijing, just finished my coffee, did my warm up and about to do my first 8-section enduro (PT71+PT55)

Turn to section 1, read the instructions, and start working............NOW

[Alexandros]

8:25 here in Beijing, just finished my coffee, did my warm up and about to do my first 8-section enduro (PT71+PT55)

Turn to section 1, read the instructions, and start working............NOW

Good luck!!

[Alexandros]

I think if i end up retaking it's gonna be June.

[20170322]

I think if i end up retaking it's gonna be June.

Lol if I retake I'm gonna do 1 PT between this test and December. Fuck it.

[ashrice13]

I think if i end up retaking it's gonna be June.

Same

[Alexandros]

I think if i end up retaking it's gonna be June.

Lol if I retake I'm gonna do 1 PT between this test and December. Fuck it.

Lol I mean in the extremely unlikely event you end up having to retake it's gonna be due to really, really crap luck, not lack of skill. So that sounds like a solid plan.

[Mikey]

want to be done with this test already. never want to look at another of its questions again, ever.

[Alexandros]

just gonna br LR from 77. Need to figure out wtf happened there.
'Night y'all. Gonna go read until i lose consciousness.

[appind]

anyone find 73.lr1.6 weird?

[+] Spoiler

a film is successful doesn't necessarily mean a criticism of it is misguided. a criticism can be justified even though the film is successful.