The Official June 2015 Study Group Forum

TheWalkingDebt · Post by **TheWalkingDebt** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 2:51 pm

Seamus887 wrote:
TheWalkingDebt wrote:PT 71 LRs are tough as hell. Barely finished LR2 and genuinely concerned about LR1 being a disaster/shitshow. LG was pretty straightforward though, with only one tougher game.
Yep screw PT71. Went from a 178 on a PT just before to a 171 on PT 71, now we got bad blood.

Haha. Yeah

LR1 -4
LG -2
LR2 -10!!!!!! (I completely fucked up and missed 6 out of the last 10)
RC -4

166. So basically about a 5-6 point drop from my recent average and that -10 is definitely attributable to nothing other than me just not giving things close enough reads because they "felt right" like an idiot.

Generally · Post by **Generally** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 3:12 pm

Post removed.

179orBust · Post by **179orBust** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 3:22 pm

PT6, S3, Q15:
Can someone please help me out by explaining why (A) isn't a NA? If even one of their attempts to develop higher-yielding strains was useful, then wouldn't it be fair to assert that they haven't been concerned with only their own research? And if that's the case then why should they be blamed? Just having a tough time ruling this choice out and would appreciate some help!

Edit: Thinking about it now is (A) out of scope because it talks about current attempts?

TheWalkingDebt · Post by **TheWalkingDebt** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 3:56 pm

Seamus887 wrote:
First let me say I don't think this says anything about your ability or how you will do on Monday, but lol at that LR score. See 71 sucks! Atleast you know why you got it. Whatever you do don't let it kill your confidence this close to game day you got this. I say we are all +170s in this thread

Yeah I haven't had -10 or more on a section since my diagnostic 4 months ago, so I'm not putting any stock into that section, but I am definitely mad at myself for messing up that badly.

NL2424 · Post by **NL2424** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 4:16 pm

Joscellin · Post by **Joscellin** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 4:30 pm

zacboro wrote:Nothing like pulling in a nice 169 (second lowest score in this past month and well below my average) this close to game day am I right?! Yay me. ... But I'm not gonna let it tear me up inside, this is just the LSAT Gods taking me down a few pegs.

I had my lowest in the month the day after my one and only 180. I rationalize it by thinking that it's just the two low percentile outcomes for me, and I think the 180 is more likely than the 168.

Generally · Post by **Generally** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 4:42 pm

Post removed.

msp8 · Post by **msp8** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 5:09 pm

Unfortunately, I have you guys beat.

PT 68 today -- 165.

My last PTs: 173, 175, 176, 180, 171, 176, 175, 173, 172, 178, 173, 171, 175, 176, 172, 176, 173, 173.

Feels pretty awful.

Generally · Post by **Generally** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 5:48 pm

Post removed.

buckiguy_sucks · Post by **buckiguy_sucks** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:10 pm

Post removed.

whacka · Post by **whacka** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:17 pm

TheWalkingDebt · Post by **TheWalkingDebt** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:26 pm

msp8 wrote:Unfortunately, I have you guys beat.

PT 68 today -- 165.

My last PTs: 173, 175, 176, 180, 171, 176, 175, 173, 172, 178, 173, 171, 175, 176, 172, 176, 173, 173.

Feels pretty awful.

At least that stretch of 173+ extends for a really long time.

169, 161, 167, 169, 172, 168, 173, 171, 170, 166.

I've got a long history of up and down performance at a level that is lower than my goal score for the test and only recently have been creeping back above 170+....take solace in the fact that your prior billion scores are all excellent.

Harry_Pluxen · Post by **Harry_Pluxen** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:44 pm

buckiguy_sucks wrote:About to start 72. Fully expecting to get a 145 based on all the nonsense low scoring happening ITT

It's got a tough LG at the end. Hope that doesn't dampen your spirits.

kevgogators · Post by **kevgogators** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:48 pm

Took PT69 (June '13) today....167

LR1: -0
LG: -2
RC: -9

LR2:-4

Just praying for a 170+ on game day...

kevgogators · Post by **kevgogators** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:55 pm

Harry_Pluxen wrote:
buckiguy_sucks wrote:About to start 72. Fully expecting to get a 145 based on all the nonsense low scoring happening ITT
It's got a tough LG at the end. Hope that doesn't dampen your spirits.

Yeah fuck that game ^

Joscellin · Post by **Joscellin** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:57 pm

kevgogators wrote:Took PT69 (June '13) today....167

LR1: -0
LG: -2
RC: -9
LR2:-4

Just praying for a 170+ on game day...

Bout to take PT69 now, away we go......

179orBust · Post by **179orBust** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 7:23 pm

whacka wrote:Shit, time to take a PT and get my low score out of my system. I think someone cursed the thread

179orBust wrote:PT6, S3, Q15:
Can someone please help me out by explaining why (A) isn't a NA? If even one of their attempts to develop higher-yielding strains was useful, then wouldn't it be fair to assert that they haven't been concerned with only their own research? And if that's the case then why should they be blamed? Just having a tough time ruling this choice out and would appreciate some help!

Edit: Thinking about it now is (A) out of scope because it talks about current attempts?
Yeah, A's way out of scope, and in fact goes against the argument. The argument is that the researchers are to blame because they aren't researching new strains and are instead focusing on selfish pursuits. Choice A paints it as though they're trying unsuccessfully. If that were the assumption of the argument, then it would be arguing something completely different.

Thanks, totally get it now. Was an issue with comprehension I guess.

Harry_Pluxen · Post by **Harry_Pluxen** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 7:23 pm

kevgogators wrote:
Harry_Pluxen wrote:
buckiguy_sucks wrote:About to start 72. Fully expecting to get a 145 based on all the nonsense low scoring happening ITT
It's got a tough LG at the end. Hope that doesn't dampen your spirits.

Yeah fuck that game ^

How likely is it that they throw a curve ball like that at us again this june? I know of several people who were completely caught off guard due to that game last year.

NL2424 · Post by **NL2424** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 7:31 pm

nlee10 · Post by **nlee10** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 8:32 pm

zacboro wrote:My schedule for the rest of this week: Thursday off, Friday review old difficult questions, Saturday PT 74.

How about sunday?

buckiguy_sucks · Post by **buckiguy_sucks** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 8:35 pm

Post removed.

JackelJ · Post by **JackelJ** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 8:36 pm

This is the most negative I've seen a study thread before the test. Negativity will kill your score. I'm checking out of TLS until after the test so I stay positive. Good luck to everyone!

bnssweeney · Post by **bnssweeney** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 8:45 pm

Currently reading the instructions that printed out along with my LSAT ticket and it says "Although the overall length of the test can be long-up to 7 hours....."

Can anyone explain to me where they got "7 hours" from....

NL2424 · Post by **NL2424** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:39 pm

Joscellin · Post by **Joscellin** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:51 pm

Well, PT69 is in the books and turned out a 171, which is below my target 172, but I'd be content with it.

RC: -3
LR1: -1
LG: -4
LR2: -2

A couple of those were due to not reading carefully, and one in particular I had to bonk myself on the head for (Game 3, first question... why oh why would it list bottom :: middle :: top... lol.).

I hit a problem I haven't had before, though. One of the RC I missed due to simply mis-bubbling, forgetting to bubble the second to last problem, and shifting the last one up a slot. It should have cost me two points if it hadn't been the same answer, but I'm glad this hit me now.

Be super careful bubbling in, that'd be a really silly reason to drop a few points. If I don't count that question wrong though, I'm right on my target still

Reading the last few posts have me apprehensive about #72, as that's the one I have lined up for tomorrow.