The Official June 2015 Study Group Forum

[washingtonorbust]

Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/LSAT-Trainer-rema ... at+trainer

The LSAT Trainer's website: http://www.thelsattrainer.com/

Just bought it, super excited

[mysojuli]

I just purchased the Powerscore LSAT LG Grouped by Type....

Ughh studying is starting to feel so real. I just spent $65 on Pretest 1-40 grouped by type PDF

Shooting for 170+

I've decided to buy...

Powerscore/Manhattan books....and drilling with past exams!

[Smallville]

So some advice for those just starting to look into buying materials and such.... Look into everything you may possibly end up getting throughout ur prep b4 you start buying... When I first started I ended up buying almost all of the 10 actual tests + trainer and bibles. Then a bit down the road I bought the Cambridge bundle and pretty much got more of stuff I already had. Also if your thinking of getting an online course think about that too... for instance if you buy the cambridge bundle (with drill packets + PT's) then decide to go with 7sage premuim, your repurchasing PT's you have. I have probably spent $2-300 on overlapping materials bc I blindly jumped into buying

[RZ5646]

I have no motivation to study whatsoever. Especially logic games, which are boring as hell.

[YHTLI]

Joining this study group because I need to score a 170+ and I am typically a ridiculous procrastinator. Started working my way through The LSAT Trainer 2 weeks ago.

[washingtonorbust]

What time do you guys find is easiest for you to study? I generally try to wake up earlier and do it in the morning, because right now it's 5:19 and I'm dying

[RZ5646]

What time do you guys find is easiest for you to study? I generally try to wake up earlier and do it in the morning, because right now it's 5:19 and I'm dying

After a long stretch of procrastinating when I finally start to feel my impending doom pressing down on me.

Generally in the afternoon or evening. I'm useless in the morning because my brain operates at 120 level until I'm forced awake by work, class, and/or coffee.

[washingtonorbust]

I should probably just watch this every day to remind myself of my fate if I get a low score, no scholarship $$ and a terrible job.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCocO5M4TiA

In other news my LSAT trainer came in today, gotta go get it from the post office. Impatient.

[mysojuli]

What prep books is everyone here using?~

(Side note: I tend to want to buy every prep-book...but if it results in a 175 who cares )

I will be reading prep-books from November-Mid January.

Note: This list in an ordered list


Logic Game

Powerscore Logic Game Bible

Blueprint Logic Game Book


Logic Reading

Mike LSAT Trainer

Manhattan Logical Reading


Reading Comprehension

Manhattan Reading Comprehension

Drilling
Powerscore LG/LR/RC 1-40 Classified by type.

[washingtonorbust]

3 powerscore bibles and Mike's Trainer, although I don't know how I want them to compliment each other yet

[RZ5646]

What prep books is everyone here using?

I have the Trainer, LG Bible, LSAC Superprep, Manhattan LR, and ~90% of the preptests in pdf format.

I think working directly with the tests is much more valuable than reading prep books, unless you're very bad at a particular section (like I am with LG). A lot of early studiers like us overanalyze things, search for some complicated system to memorize, and end up using the books as an excuse to not practice.

[mysojuli]

I disagree with your statement. I think prep books teach the foundation. If you jump into the PTs with no foundation, you will be wasting exams. The prep books teaches you foundation, and the PTs helps you apply your foundation. Both serve to compliment each other.

Regardless if you have a prep book let's be serious..you will still procrastinate. Like really zD do you want to be doing logic games Friday night??

[RZ5646]

I disagree with your statement. I think prep books teach the foundation. If you jump into the PTs with no foundation, you will be wasting exams. The prep books teaches you foundation, and the PTs helps you apply your foundation. Both serve to compliment each other.

Regardless if you have a prep book let's be serious..you will still procrastinate. Like really zD do you want to be doing logic games Friday night??

You're right... I guess it depends on the individual's starting point. If someone's diagnostic is low he'll probably need to learn the basics from books instead of doing sink or swim.

[afnajjerh]

Hey everyone. A retaker here....except I took my first one back in 2011, so it's like a new start! lol, hoping the best for everyone, lets kill it!!

[Motivator9]

Guys, I just had a huge brain fart. Some help please.

Can you take the contrapositive of Some A is B (A <--s-->B)??

Would it be Some ~B are not ~A (~B<--s-->~S)

This is driving me crazy!!!

[mist4bison]

.

[RZ5646]

Guys, I just had a huge brain fart. Some help please.

Can you take the contrapositive of Some A is B (A <--s-->B)??

Would it be Some ~B are not ~A (~B<--s-->~S)

This is driving me crazy!!!

Is it even possible to do the contrapositive for "some" statements? I thought that was only for conditionals.

In symbolic logic, "all" statements translate to conditionals with universal quantifiers. For example, "all A are B" is ∀x(Ax --> Bx). On the other hand, "some" statements are conjunctions with existential qualifiers: "some A is B" is ∃x(Ax*Bx). With double negation and DeMorgan's law you can convert that conjunction to a conditional, but it will always be inside a negation.

If you do some scribbling you can infer a few things from " Some A is B" in this way, but they're all pretty trivial:
~ (~some A is B) ......... "it is not the case that no A is B"
~(~some B is A) .......... "it is not the case that no B is A"
~(all B are ~A) ............. "not every B is ~A"
~(all A are ~B) ............. "not every A is ~B"

Hopefully that's helpful. If you want, I can post the derivations in detail.

[lawjag2015]

Hey everyone,

Gearing up for my last take, June '15. Prep in full swing from right now!

[lawjag2015]

I disagree with your statement. I think prep books teach the foundation. If you jump into the PTs with no foundation, you will be wasting exams. The prep books teaches you foundation, and the PTs helps you apply your foundation. Both serve to compliment each other.

Regardless if you have a prep book let's be serious..you will still procrastinate. Like really zD do you want to be doing logic games Friday night??

You're right... I guess it depends on the individual's starting point. If someone's diagnostic is low he'll probably need to learn the basics from books instead of doing sink or swim.

I think even if a person's diag isn't low, they probably need to work on fundamentals. If oyu do BR after your diag and get a 180, then wow. Screw books. Just do PTs. If you don't get a 180 on BR, then at least some basic concepts are missing and you need to work on concepts, which makes books come in handy.

Also, someone above mentioned using 90% of the available PTs. I'd suggest not using those all for PTing, but instead for drilling, which is where you'll really learn the concepts and perfect your accuracy.

Mist, good seeing you here!

[mist4bison]

.

[Motivator9]

Guys, I just had a huge brain fart. Some help please.

Can you take the contrapositive of Some A is B (A <--s-->B)??

Would it be Some ~B are not ~A (~B<--s-->~S)

This is driving me crazy!!!

Is it even possible to do the contrapositive for "some" statements? I thought that was only for conditionals.

In symbolic logic, "all" statements translate to conditionals with universal quantifiers. For example, "all A are B" is ∀x(Ax --> Bx). On the other hand, "some" statements are conjunctions with existential qualifiers: "some A is B" is ∃x(Ax*Bx). With double negation and DeMorgan's law you can convert that conjunction to a conditional, but it will always be inside a negation.

If you do some scribbling you can infer a few things from " Some A is B" in this way, but they're all pretty trivial:
~ (~some A is B) ......... "it is not the case that no A is B"
~(~some B is A) .......... "it is not the case that no B is A"
~(all B are ~A) ............. "not every B is ~A"
~(all A are ~B) ............. "not every A is ~B"

Hopefully that's helpful. If you want, I can post the derivations in detail.

Thanks.

Drilling Inferences questions from Cambridge 1-20. Went 49/50 on Must be True difficulty 3 and 4 questions. Feeling good tonight.

[mud415]

Checking in -- any retakers here?

At least we can dull the pain of studying these next 6-7 months with the prospect of knocking this thing out at the earliest possible point in the cycle (before it begins)

[endorphin]

Also got myself registered so I can post. Totally ready to join the freakout study parties.

[RZ5646]

I want a 170 for Christmas.

Four weeks to study - time spent on finals = an ambitious but not unreasonable goal.

[washingtonorbust]

I want a 170 for Christmas.

Four weeks to study - time spent on finals = an ambitious but not unreasonable goal.

What are you at now?
What are most of you guys studying right now and what are your next stepping stones?