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

[pleasesendhelp]

Hello!

I've been averaging 173 and ranging from 170-179 on my PTs. I'm wildly inconsistent though... My worst section is LR so I've been reading up on Powerscore's LR bible but I don't think i'll have time to read every last bit of it. For those of you who've read it, any suggestions on to which sections are a MUST?

[PhiladelphiaCollins]

BRing PT 76 right now and wow fuck Question 21 section 4, there's hard questions, then there's absolute bullshit questions like that. I get it after reading the Manhattan post on it but come on.

[+] Spoiler

chess club

[Alexandros]

Legally Blonde is truly the cinematic masterpiece of the twenty-first century.

[StopLawying]

PT77
RC:-4 (found the comparative passage to be ridiculously hard)
LR:-4
LG:-1 (third game wasn't too bad)
LR:-1

171, 179 BR. Highest PT score to date, pumped about that. And thought this was a pretty hard test.

Any NFL fans here? Think I'll take tomorrow off and watch games entire day.

[proteinshake]

PT77
RC:-4 (found the comparative passage to be ridiculously hard)
LR:-4
LG:-1 (third game wasn't too bad)
LR:-1

171, 179 BR. Highest PT score to date, pumped about that. And thought this was a pretty hard test.

Any NFL fans here? Think I'll take tomorrow off and watch games entire day.

congrats! I thought the third passage was hard, but actually thought the questions made it easier.

[appind]

Looking to decompress a little. My school had TestMasters come and they did a mock lsat with PT 73 and an experimental from the 60's. For some reason I was beyond nervous, so nervous that before they administered the test I went to go use the bathroom and pee'd in the boys bathroom and realized when I saw guys shoe's in the stall next to me I ran out so quick so I wouldn't be seen
Ended up grading my test and did

LR - 7
LG - 2
RC - 5
LR - 5

19 wrong which is higher than I usually get wrong making it a 165

I'm really flustered and disappointed ): I usually score a 168/169. I've been trying to break into the 170s and it's been such a struggle. I'm taking the Sept. lsat in 2 weeks. Maybe I was super nervous and it screwed me up? Or maybe I was burnt out from PTing the days before. All I know is that first section I thought I was going to have a heart attack.

Advice on how to stay calm on the actual test day?????????????

That reading comp was GARBAGE IMO.

Expletives removed.

Took that one today too
LG exp -0; went over bubbling twice, double checked a few questions, finished five or so mins early. Proctor looked at me - gave the thumbs up. Didn't bother to BR since I basically did it during the test. Cookie game had one really funkily worded question.
LR1; -4 BR -2.
LR2; -2 BR -0. BR corrected mistakes were one guess and some changed answers from doubt. Didn't get to do warm up questions before this test.
RC; -6 BR -5. Two or three I see. Two or so I think we're garbage questions.
Actual LG -1 BR -0. Got worked up on first game and had to redo the entire thing at end of test. Error was made in third game I think.
170 // 176 I think

the LR was pretty nasty i think. LR1 has some super weird questions like q6.

[+] Spoiler

i thought C could reasonably justify conclusion better than D. We know from the premises that humor is important for comedy. C says that comedies should find their humor in stylistic portrayals.
So stylistic portrayals are very relevant and important for the comedy film Quirks, because that is where comedy is expected to find humor. Thus, criticizing Quirks for being non-realistic is wrong.

[34iplaw]

the LR was pretty nasty i think. LR1 has some super weird questions like q6.

[+] Spoiler

i thought C could reasonably justify conclusion better than D. We know from the premises that humor is important for comedy. C says that comedies should find their humor in stylistic portrayals.
So stylistic portrayals are very relevant and important for the comedy film Quirks, because that is where comedy is expected to find humor. Thus, criticizing Quirks for being non-realistic is wrong.

Yeah... with that one...

[+] Spoiler

Yeah... based on my markings, I got it between C & D and went with D...I wasn't a huge fan, but I kind of didn't think that C did anything to really prove that criticism as misguided ... I also think I didn't know if C totally jives with what was written, as they seemed to indicate that stylistic portrayals may not actually be funny.

In that section, I'm really pissed I missed #21... insanely pissed. I just think I saw B and went through the motions with the others.

As for RC, I thought #4 was kind of garbage. I feel that faired relatively well to flourish is a bit of a bigger jump than most aren't to almost all aren't. #20 I don't really get. #27 I think was kind of I don't know.

Cookies from December 03 may actually be one of my favorite games ever.... I think the rules play together really nicely.

[studyingeveryday]

When you guys do grouping or in/out games with formal logic, do you always connect the formal logic?

[34iplaw]

When you guys do grouping or in/out games with formal logic, do you always connect the formal logic?

I tend to make little trees. I can try to take a picture of one of my set ups tomorrow if interested, but... basically something like...

A -> B

B -> C & E

E -> /D

I connect into a chain like

A->B->C&E
...........|->/D

(hopefully, the diagram translates right... basically, if it branches off of one variable in the chain, I'll do an arrow that hooks up/down into its own branch... ultimately, it's another way of visualizing the logic chain, and it's just a lot cleaner IMO...I'm really not a fan of the logic chain in trying to make it neat but it's definitely effective...)

[Mikey]

When you guys do grouping or in/out games with formal logic, do you always connect the formal logic?

You mean if there's like:

A-->B

B-->C

And chaining it up like A-->B-->C ??

If so, yeah I usually do

[studyingeveryday]

When you guys do grouping or in/out games with formal logic, do you always connect the formal logic?

I tend to make little trees. I can try to take a picture of one of my set ups tomorrow if interested, but... basically something like...

A -> B

B -> C & E

E -> /D

I connect into a chain like

A->B->C&E
...........|->/D

(hopefully, the diagram translates right... basically, if it branches off of one variable in the chain, I'll do an arrow that hooks up/down into its own branch... ultimately, it's another way of visualizing the logic chain, and it's just a lot cleaner IMO...I'm really not a fan of the logic chain in trying to make it neat but it's definitely effective...)

When you guys do grouping or in/out games with formal logic, do you always connect the formal logic?

You mean if there's like:

A-->B

B-->C

And chaining it up like A-->B-->C ??

If so, yeah I usually do

Thanks! I actually only started connecting all the FL in LG recently (not sure how I missed this idea in my year and a half of studying), but even though it's immensely helpful for some games, for others, like for grouping when there are only two groups available, if there are biconditionals or contradicting FL it gets a bit more weird. But I think I just have to get used to it, so I'll stick with it and see how it goes.


EDIT: Basically, I was working on PT 34 G4, but found that splitting into two made the game go sooo much faster than figuring out the chains and using that to solve. Could just be my personal preference for splitting though.

[angelatte]

So I've finally managed to break 170, twice! I'm super happy with my progress. LR used to be my main issue (would get -5/-6 per section) but I've managed to whittle that down. Question - does anyone have advice on breaking 170? I'm averaging about 2-3x per section now, and I need help on narrowing that down even more.... my last three PTs i've been averaging -1/-2 on LG, -3 per section on LR, and -3 on RC.

[floatie]

So I've finally managed to break 170, twice! I'm super happy with my progress. LR used to be my main issue (would get -5/-6 per section) but I've managed to whittle that down. Question - does anyone have advice on breaking 170? I'm averaging about 2-3x per section now, and I need help on narrowing that down even more.... my last three PTs i've been averaging -1/-2 on LG, -3 per section on LR, and -3 on RC.

Congrats! That's awesome

With two weeks to go, I think you can very reasonably aim for -0 on LG. Check to see if there are certain types of games, or certain types of questions that you're struggling with, and get those down solid.

[galeatus]

PT72: RC -6 LR -5 LR -4 LG -3 -18->166
PT56: LG -2 LR -3 LR -2 RC -2 -9->172

Somehow managed to drop from a 174 average to this shit on PT72, I don't even know anymore.
Quick review shows that I managed to fall into pretty much every single trap in LR and that last game also destroyed me, had I not done it as the last section of the 8 it could seriously have done some damage on the sections after it.

Not sure what to do at this point, I would very much like to think this is an outlier but more likely than not there are some gaps skill-wise that I still haven't found. I can drill through everything I've got until test day but I'm definitely feeling a shift in the way they phrase questions from PT71 onwards and drilling questions from before PT69 doesn't seem to help (Drilled around 15 RC passages from PT41-60 yesterday and went either -1 or -0 on pretty much all of them).

[Alexandros]

PT72: RC -6 LR -5 LR -4 LG -3 -18->166
PT56: LG -2 LR -3 LR -2 RC -2 -9->172

Somehow managed to drop from a 174 average to this shit on PT72, I don't even know anymore.
Quick review shows that I managed to fall into pretty much every single trap in LR and that last game also destroyed me, had I not done it as the last section of the 8 it could seriously have done some damage on the sections after it.

Not sure what to do at this point, I would very much like to think this is an outlier but more likely than not there are some gaps skill-wise that I still haven't found. I can drill through everything I've got until test day but I'm definitely feeling a shift in the way they phrase questions from PT71 onwards and drilling questions from before PT69 doesn't seem to help (Drilled around 15 RC passages from PT41-60 yesterday and went either -1 or -0 on pretty much all of them).

One possibility is that you're doing 8 section PTs. you've been getting killer scores on them all the same and props for that, but I can't imagine that it's not affecting your performance. Another possibility is burn-out. Another possibility is you had an off-day. Or a combination of the three.

166 with the scores you're getting is a major statistical outlier. You do have the skills. You don't get the scores you've been getting for the past few months through luck. Don't let it fuck with your confidence.

[galeatus]

One possibility is that you're doing 8 section PTs. you've been getting killer scores on them all the same and props for that, but I can't imagine that it's not affecting your performance. Another possibility is burn-out. Another possibility is you had an off-day. Or a combination of the three.

166 with the scores you're getting is a major statistical outlier. You do have the skills. You don't get the scores you've been getting for the past few months through luck. Don't let it fuck with your confidence.

Thanks for the kind words man .

Burnout is definitely an issue - my brain is way less sharper than when I came back from my last break last week, definitely need to chill tomorrow. Another thing that I found is that the way they word question stems in the 70s PTs really obscured the argument and in a lot of my LR problems I just started trying to use intuition without even understanding the argument at all. Might break PT73 into drills rather than use it as a PT them just to get used to the language.

And yeah I'm probably gonna go back to 6-section PTs from now, had RC-LG-LR-LR-LR-LR-RC-LG today and I guess the 4x LR really didn't help...

[Alexandros]

One possibility is that you're doing 8 section PTs. you've been getting killer scores on them all the same and props for that, but I can't imagine that it's not affecting your performance. Another possibility is burn-out. Another possibility is you had an off-day. Or a combination of the three.

166 with the scores you're getting is a major statistical outlier. You do have the skills. You don't get the scores you've been getting for the past few months through luck. Don't let it fuck with your confidence.

Thanks for the kind words man .

Burnout is definitely an issue - my brain is way less sharper than when I came back from my last break last week, definitely need to chill tomorrow. Another thing that I found is that the way they word question stems in the 70s PTs really obscured the argument and in a lot of my LR problems I just started trying to use intuition without even understanding the argument at all. Might break PT73 into drills rather than use it as a PT them just to get used to the language.

And yeah I'm probably gonna go back to 6-section PTs from now, had RC-LG-LR-LR-LR-LR-RC-LG today and I guess the 4x LR really didn't help...

Taking some time to chill sounds a great plan.

I've been finding the same thing about LR. I'm not sure how much is 'just me' and how much is really the case. regardless, I think it's a matter of training ourselves to pay closer attention to detail, really understand what we're reading and be alert to subtleties in the stimuli. We've gotten this far - I think we can do it.

[Mikey]

I want to practice cookies law.

Cookies have always been there for me so it's my turn to be there for them <3

[appind]

the LR was pretty nasty i think. LR1 has some super weird questions like q6.

[+] Spoiler

i thought C could reasonably justify conclusion better than D. We know from the premises that humor is important for comedy. C says that comedies should find their humor in stylistic portrayals.
So stylistic portrayals are very relevant and important for the comedy film Quirks, because that is where comedy is expected to find humor. Thus, criticizing Quirks for being non-realistic is wrong.

Yeah... with that one...

[+] Spoiler

Yeah... based on my markings, I got it between C & D and went with D...I wasn't a huge fan, but I kind of didn't think that C did anything to really prove that criticism as misguided ... I also think I didn't know if C totally jives with what was written, as they seemed to indicate that stylistic portrayals may not actually be funny.

[+] Spoiler

i think "in this case resulting film is funny" sorta of supports that it's funny due to stylistic portrayals. that's what led me to pick C. this one i really weird because the right answer has an issue that can by itself be a classic flaw question: "a film is successful doesn't mean that it's criticism for not being realistic is misguided"

[appind]

woke at 6 am for the first time today

worried that not enough time to adapt to waking at 5am.

[proteinshake]

woke at 6 am for the first time today

worried that not enough time to adapt to waking at 5am.

I thought I was gonna wake up at 5 like last time, but I'm just gonna wake up at 6. 2.5 hours to shower, eat, and warm up is plenty. plus, waking up at 5 increases the likelihood I won't get adequate sleep.

[Mikey]

school work all day. going to start on one of my papers, and study for 2 exams. netflix will be on all day

might throw in an LG section sometime in the day

[StopLawying]

So pumped for football, nice break from the LSAT. Will be watching all day, then back to PT62 tomorrow

[thatlawlkid]

PT62: 168 (85 raw)
used the second LR from PT 36 for my exp
EXP LR: -2
RC: -9
LR: -2
LG:-3
LR: -3

had an awful time on the RC as evident from the score. No idea what happened, just didn't feel like i really got a good idea of any of the passages and spent the whole time rushing. Didn't get to the last question in LGs, which is something i'll be needing to work on.

Honestly a much better score than i was expecting, but still a bit below my average. Just gotta keep on keep'in on

[StopLawying]

Ok, this is a super weird question but I gotta ask this: what are you guys doing to make sure you won't have to take a crap during the test? Was taking a section this morn and literally had to stop because I needed to take one so badly. If this happened on test day I would've gotten a 120. Yes, I'll obviously try to take one before the test but sometimes I just don't have to go until later.