The Official September 2014 Study Group Forum

sashafierce · Post by **sashafierce** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 5:24 pm

Hi guys,

I am drilling Necessary Assumption questions this week, if anyone wants to discuss questions send me a PM

joeisreallycool wrote:That's a perfectly acceptable way to drill, but you should realize that it doesn't accurately reflect your scoring capacity for a full 35 minute section.

True story, I remember when I started drilling RC and I was like wow, I'm so good at RC, then I released that I was just drilling Level 1 questions

gagewhitneypace · Post by **gagewhitneypace** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 5:45 pm

Hi all,

I'm wondering if there are any September retakers out there? I took the June test but decided to cancel my score, and now I'm trying to figure out the best way to study for September.

I've identified that the biggest obstacle to my score is LG. I'll never know for sure, but if I had to guess I'd say my scores from June were around -2 RC, -4 LR, and -8 LG (consistent with practice tests). The good news is I keep hearing that LG is the easiest section to improve. The bad news is that I drilled LG very hard for about 1.5 months before the June test, and still couldn't crack it.

So my question is: other than continuing to drill LG, which I plan to do, does anyone have any suggestions for improving on this section? I am actually considering picking up Sudoku, a game that also relies on making chains of inferences (as a humanities person, I wonder if I'm just weak at this particular skill). What else should I consider?

Thanks!

WaltGrace83 · Post by **WaltGrace83** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 6:17 pm

gagewhitneypace wrote:Hi all,

I'm wondering if there are any September retakers out there? I took the June test but decided to cancel my score, and now I'm trying to figure out the best way to study for September.

I've identified that the biggest obstacle to my score is LG. I'll never know for sure, but if I had to guess I'd say my scores from June were around -2 RC, -4 LR, and -8 LG (consistent with practice tests). The good news is I keep hearing that LG is the easiest section to improve. The bad news is that I drilled LG very hard for about 1.5 months before the June test, and still couldn't crack it.

So my question is: other than continuing to drill LG, which I plan to do, does anyone have any suggestions for improving on this section? I am actually considering picking up Sudoku, a game that also relies on making chains of inferences (as a humanities person, I wonder if I'm just weak at this particular skill). What else should I consider?

Thanks!

You cancelled with a projected high 160s (edit: perhaps even a 170)?

.....why?

Clyde Frog · Post by **Clyde Frog** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 6:23 pm

WaltGrace83 wrote:
gagewhitneypace wrote:Hi all,

I'm wondering if there are any September retakers out there? I took the June test but decided to cancel my score, and now I'm trying to figure out the best way to study for September.

I've identified that the biggest obstacle to my score is LG. I'll never know for sure, but if I had to guess I'd say my scores from June were around -2 RC, -4 LR, and -8 LG (consistent with practice tests). The good news is I keep hearing that LG is the easiest section to improve. The bad news is that I drilled LG very hard for about 1.5 months before the June test, and still couldn't crack it.

So my question is: other than continuing to drill LG, which I plan to do, does anyone have any suggestions for improving on this section? I am actually considering picking up Sudoku, a game that also relies on making chains of inferences (as a humanities person, I wonder if I'm just weak at this particular skill). What else should I consider?

Thanks!
You cancelled with a projected high 160s (edit: perhaps even a 170)?

.....why?

CardozoLaw09 · Post by **CardozoLaw09** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 6:25 pm

WaltGrace83 wrote:
gagewhitneypace wrote:Hi all,

I'm wondering if there are any September retakers out there? I took the June test but decided to cancel my score, and now I'm trying to figure out the best way to study for September.

I've identified that the biggest obstacle to my score is LG. I'll never know for sure, but if I had to guess I'd say my scores from June were around -2 RC, -4 LR, and -8 LG (consistent with practice tests). The good news is I keep hearing that LG is the easiest section to improve. The bad news is that I drilled LG very hard for about 1.5 months before the June test, and still couldn't crack it.

So my question is: other than continuing to drill LG, which I plan to do, does anyone have any suggestions for improving on this section? I am actually considering picking up Sudoku, a game that also relies on making chains of inferences (as a humanities person, I wonder if I'm just weak at this particular skill). What else should I consider?

Thanks!
You cancelled with a projected high 160s (edit: perhaps even a 170)?

.....why?

Hm, maybe he means -4 per LR section?

Either way, I'm also against cancelling scores; there just seems to be no good reason for anyone to cancel their score unless they completely bombed a section and are sure of it.

DestroyingTheLSAT · Post by **DestroyingTheLSAT** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:03 pm

Does anyone know how "completely" I need to fill out the bubble of the scantron. I know these machines are sensitive, but will the machine read my answer if I make a thick horizontal bold line (instead of completely filling in the circular parts of the bubble). I tried this method out and tends to save about 1 sec per bubble. Which could be the difference between a point on the test. Thanks!

chimera · Post by **chimera** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:19 pm

Unsolicited Advice Ahead: July is fast approaching and September 27 will be here before you know it. If you are a first timer who thinks that nerves will strike on test day then seek out those free simulated LSAT testing events. Also, practice filling out the biographical bubble-section too. I wish I had done this my first go-around.

On another note, I'm almost finished with the Humanities RC packet. I've been working passages in sets of 5, appropriately timed, for that endurance. Two days for each packet, setting aside any I don't -0; then this weekend I'll review/retest the passages I didn't ace. Any thoughts or criticisms on this process?

chimera · Post by **chimera** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:26 pm

DestroyingTheLSAT wrote:Does anyone know how "completely" I need to fill out the bubble of the scantron. I know these machines are sensitive, but will the machine read my answer if I make a thick horizontal bold line (instead of completely filling in the circular parts of the bubble). I tried this method out and tends to save about 1 sec per bubble. Which could be the difference between a point on the test. Thanks!

IMHO You're going to want to fill in the oval more than that. You don't want to be worrying about stuff like that while taking the exam... It will just stress you out during and after. Plus you should be at a point on test day where the confidence/mastery you have in answering questions has afforded you much more time than ~25 seconds, if that makes sense.

mornincounselor · Post by **mornincounselor** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:22 pm

Post removed.

cavalier2015 · Post by **cavalier2015** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:41 am

mornincounselor wrote: Is there any benefit to doing similar subject matter passages together? I've just been going PT by PT.

personally, i've been drilling RC by the Cambridge packets because i have access to them. and in doing so, i've been drilling by similar subject matter.

i don't think it matters which manner you are doing them because all the passages test for reasoning structure and this remains constant over subject matters.

only advantage i can see by drilling as i do is that you can notice if you such at a particular genre of passage so come PTs you spend more time on that than others. but even this is negligible.

DestroyingTheLSAT · Post by **DestroyingTheLSAT** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:43 am

chimera wrote:
DestroyingTheLSAT wrote:Does anyone know how "completely" I need to fill out the bubble of the scantron. I know these machines are sensitive, but will the machine read my answer if I make a thick horizontal bold line (instead of completely filling in the circular parts of the bubble). I tried this method out and tends to save about 1 sec per bubble. Which could be the difference between a point on the test. Thanks!
IMHO You're going to want to fill in the oval more than that. You don't want to be worrying about stuff like that while taking the exam... It will just stress you out during and after. Plus you should be at a point on test day where the confidence/mastery you have in answering questions has afforded you much more time than ~25 seconds, if that makes sense.

True. Thanks for the input.

bondja · Post by **bondja** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:14 am

As a Retaker, I would suggest also circling the answer on the test booklet. Sometimes while in the rush of bubbling you'll fill in C but you'll get part of B as well. Then you get that question wrong which makes you get a 173 instead of a 174 and you don't get that full ride because of the bastard B. However, you know that you circled B because they have a copy of your test booklet on LSAC! You can then dispute that you clearly meant C instead of B, they fix your score, and you still don't get that full ride because Obama.

Seriously, I would 100% recommend circling your answers in the test booklet. I usually circle and then go in and fill in the bubbles once I am done with all the questions.

gagewhitneypace · Post by **gagewhitneypace** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 1:01 pm

WaltGrace83 wrote:
gagewhitneypace wrote:Hi all,

I'm wondering if there are any September retakers out there? I took the June test but decided to cancel my score, and now I'm trying to figure out the best way to study for September.

I've identified that the biggest obstacle to my score is LG. I'll never know for sure, but if I had to guess I'd say my scores from June were around -2 RC, -4 LR, and -8 LG (consistent with practice tests). The good news is I keep hearing that LG is the easiest section to improve. The bad news is that I drilled LG very hard for about 1.5 months before the June test, and still couldn't crack it.

So my question is: other than continuing to drill LG, which I plan to do, does anyone have any suggestions for improving on this section? I am actually considering picking up Sudoku, a game that also relies on making chains of inferences (as a humanities person, I wonder if I'm just weak at this particular skill). What else should I consider?

Thanks!
You cancelled with a projected high 160s (edit: perhaps even a 170)?

.....why?

Well, first of all, I should correct those numbers. A -8 is probably the best I could have done on the June games section. It could have been worse. I'm a bit ashamed to admit this, but I ran out of time to even guess on the questions for the last game. A -12 on that section alone was not out of the question.

As for canceling my scores--let's imagine I would have gone -10 on the games and -16 overall. When grading my PTs, a -16 usually worked out to around a 166/167 (notwithstanding the crowdsourced projected curve for the June exam posted on the June waiters thread, which I wasn't willing to gamble on). With my GPA, a 167 probably won't get me into my target schools. But a 174+ probably will. Given that I (hypothetically) missed well over half of my points on a section that most TLSers learn to dominate, I'm pretty confident that I can hit this higher score with some targeted practice. And I'd rather not have this new score averaged with a lower one that does not represent my best performance.

Thanks for all of your feedback on canceling scores though. I'll keep it in mind for September.

So...thoughts on Sudoku?

joeisreallycool · Post by **joeisreallycool** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 1:28 pm

Anyone here start pretty good in LG? For some reason although I just began my studies I can nail most LG even though I'm not sure on the methodology (which I am learning now), but really struggle with LR. Any experience with this?

Straw_Mandible · Post by **Straw_Mandible** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 1:33 pm

gagewhitneypace wrote: Well, first of all, I should correct those numbers. A -8 is probably the best I could have done on the June games section. It could have been worse. I'm a bit ashamed to admit this, but I ran out of time to even guess on the questions for the last game. A -12 on that section alone was not out of the question.

As for canceling my scores--let's imagine I would have gone -10 on the games and -16 overall. When grading my PTs, a -16 usually worked out to around a 166/167 (notwithstanding the crowdsourced projected curve for the June exam posted on the June waiters thread, which I wasn't willing to gamble on). With my GPA, a 167 probably won't get me into my target schools. But a 174+ probably will. Given that I (hypothetically) missed well over half of my points on a section that most TLSers learn to dominate, I'm pretty confident that I can hit this higher score with some targeted practice. And I'd rather not have this new score averaged with a lower one that does not represent my best performance.

Thanks for all of your feedback on canceling scores though. I'll keep it in mind for September.

So...thoughts on Sudoku?

This makes sense. I entirely support your decision to cancel.

I do not, however, support your decision to use Sudoku as a supplement to drilling logic games. It's seriously not going to help you at all. Sudoku is spatially uniform and predictable (same rules/setup every time). That doesn't mean it's universally easy, but the deductions are not similar to most of those which are required on the LSAT. Success on difficult logic games usually comes down to visualizing a complex/unfamiliar setup and bringing rules together in a way that limits the complexity of the game. Sudoku puzzles do not require you to envision to logical relationships between setup and rules in this way. The deductions, layout, and rules in Sudoku are always the same. The only difference between hard and easy Sudoku puzzles is really just the amount of these identical deductions you have to make.

You said you drilled LG before the June test. Can you share your process with us? TLS has crowd-sourced some potently effective LG drilling practices which might serve you well, if you haven't tried them already.

Louis1127 · Post by **Louis1127** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 2:15 pm

Since I took my last PT, I have been drilling LR point of disagreement questions and RC.

On RC, I have tinkered with my strategy. I feel like on PTs, I subconsciously rush through the passage and end up missing a bunch of questions. I have been trying the strategy recommended by StrawMandible and Papercut of spending more time up front with the passage (between 3 and 4 minutes) to really see how the passage and all its nuances fit together (because this is where the difficult questions come form- combining different parts of the passage, making inferences, etc.).

It seems like when I do this, I can eliminate wrong answers really, really fast, whereas if I spend 2 minutes on the passage, I spend a bunch of time rereading stuff and playing "let's try and verify or disprove this answer choice by going on a scavenger hunt through the passage" in the questions.

It seems the LSAT really, really rewards spending more time up front on pretty much all 3 sections, which makes sense, as Papercut likes to say "wrong answer choices are designed to confuse the shit out of you".

Taking PT 40 tomorrow and hope to report back with an RC success story.

Straw_Mandible · Post by **Straw_Mandible** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 2:15 pm

Just finished reviewing PT58, which I took on Saturday (6/21). Here's the breakdown:

RC [PT51, exp.] -5 (-2)
LR -3 (-4)
RC -4 (-1)
LG -6 (-0)
LR -0
Scaled: 168 (BR: 173)

So far, since I started PTing (5/31), I have crept up by a consistent 2 points every week: 162 (PT55) -> 164 (PT56) -> 166 (PT57) -> 168 (PT58). I'm pleased with my progress, but I should confess that I have not done very much work outside of the PTs/reviews to make it happen. Today, I am officially committing to spend more time drilling during the week. LG was my weakest section for most (if not all) of these PTs, and I attribute that mostly to laziness and neglect. I still haven't finished drilling even 25% of the Cambridge packets, and most of that was back in Jan/Feb.

So, time to turn over a new leaf! I'm striving to make big jumps in LG over the next two weeks.

RC
It's funny; before my review, I would have guessed that the PT51 experimental section went much better than the real PT58 RC section. I felt like I was really in the sweet spot for timing and focus on the Exp. (finished comfortably under time), but when I hit the real RC, I was flustered and fuzzy after a really tough couple of LR questions at the end of Sec. 1. I spent 9:30 on the first passage/questions, since I was having trouble internalizing the information and had to reread the first paragraph a few times. I hit my stride on the second and third passages, (-1/-0), but I ended up with only 5 mins left for the last comparative passage--which usually takes the longest. Somehow in that time I managed to fly through both passages and answer all of the questions, and I only missed 2, for a -4 overall. It's kind of a Christmas miracle, and obviously way too close for comfort, but I'm happy about the score.

LR
I'm finally getting back into my groove on LR. But one thing seriously worries me: I somehow missed MORE on blind review than I missed under timed conditions. I stood by (i.e. completely missed) my wrong choices on three questions, and I changed an answer from right to wrong! I don't think this has ever happened before. I'll be cutting those questions out and taping them to the ceiling above my pillow (so that they will forever haunt my LSAT nightmares). Last section went according to plan, -0. (Side note: I think I always score better on the later sections of the test. Maybe my brain needs ~3 hours to warm up before it gets into optimal LSAT mode.)

LG
The last game was kind of a doozy. I'm usually great with in/out games, but this one totally stumped me. It was made up exclusively of "not both" rules--almost none of which connected directly. I just couldn't wrap my mind around the way these rules interacted with each other. I figured it out this morning, when I realized that the key to solving each question was to count out whichever pieces remained in play after certain ones were eliminated. Time to start drilling and 7Sage-ing again!

Cheers,

SM

tskela · Post by **tskela** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 2:17 pm

Does anyone get really anxious during LG? I have this moment of panic after reading every new LG where I feel like it'll be utterly impossible to keep everything straight and I just become ready to give up on life and that point. Of course, I become more comfortable with it over the course of time, but that initial freak out hurts my time and I feel like I'm sabotaging myself by not remaining calm (it's definitely harder to keep track of the rules when all I'm thinking about is bombing the section). I usually PT at -1 in RC, -1 in LR and -8-12 in LG. Ended up with a 171 on 2/14 test and plan on retaking, but LG is the stuff of nightmares for me. Any tips?

dasani13 · Post by **dasani13** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 2:43 pm

tskela wrote:Does anyone get really anxious during LG? I have this moment of panic after reading every new LG where I feel like it'll be utterly impossible to keep everything straight and I just become ready to give up on life and that point. Of course, I become more comfortable with it over the course of time, but that initial freak out hurts my time and I feel like I'm sabotaging myself by not remaining calm (it's definitely harder to keep track of the rules when all I'm thinking about is bombing the section). I usually PT at -1 in RC, -1 in LR and -8-12 in LG. Ended up with a 171 on 2/14 test and plan on retaking, but LG is the stuff of nightmares for me. Any tips?

Yeah, I think it's normal. It used to happen to me in the beginning of my prep but eventually I was able to control it. I would get really anxious and skip a bunch of the simple steps of setting up a game. Whenever you feel like you're freaking out, pause for a few to seconds to just calm down. It will seem counterintuitive at the moment and you'll feel like you're wasting time, but it really helped me.

gagewhitneypace · Post by **gagewhitneypace** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 3:01 pm

Straw_Mandible wrote:
gagewhitneypace wrote: Well, first of all, I should correct those numbers. A -8 is probably the best I could have done on the June games section. It could have been worse. I'm a bit ashamed to admit this, but I ran out of time to even guess on the questions for the last game. A -12 on that section alone was not out of the question.

As for canceling my scores--let's imagine I would have gone -10 on the games and -16 overall. When grading my PTs, a -16 usually worked out to around a 166/167 (notwithstanding the crowdsourced projected curve for the June exam posted on the June waiters thread, which I wasn't willing to gamble on). With my GPA, a 167 probably won't get me into my target schools. But a 174+ probably will. Given that I (hypothetically) missed well over half of my points on a section that most TLSers learn to dominate, I'm pretty confident that I can hit this higher score with some targeted practice. And I'd rather not have this new score averaged with a lower one that does not represent my best performance.

Thanks for all of your feedback on canceling scores though. I'll keep it in mind for September.

So...thoughts on Sudoku?
This makes sense. I entirely support your decision to cancel.

I do not, however, support your decision to use Sudoku as a supplement to drilling logic games. It's seriously not going to help you at all. Sudoku is spatially uniform and predictable (same rules/setup every time). That doesn't mean it's universally easy, but the deductions are not similar to most of those which are required on the LSAT. Success on difficult logic games usually comes down to visualizing a complex/unfamiliar setup and bringing rules together in a way that limits the complexity of the game. Sudoku puzzles do not require you to envision to logical relationships between setup and rules in this way. The deductions, layout, and rules in Sudoku are always the same. The only difference between hard and easy Sudoku puzzles is really just the amount of these identical deductions you have to make.

You said you drilled LG before the June test. Can you share your process with us? TLS has crowd-sourced some potently effective LG drilling practices which might serve you well, if you haven't tried them already.

Thanks for your response Mandible. Sure, I'll summarize the process I used to study LG for the June test. It's a bit of a variation on the Pithypike study guide that I read about here: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =6&t=41657

First, I purchased the four most recent books of LSAT PTs (I might buy the first one now for extra practice), and made 5 copies of each game from these tests, which I then categorized using the Powerscore LG bible (I also read the entire bible before I started drilling on the games). It might be worth noting that I didn't get too detailed with this sorting; for example, I put all grouping games together in the same folder without breaking them out into smaller subgroups of balanced vs. unbalanced, etc (as Pithypike does). Over the course of a bit more than a month, I drilled these games by game type, writing down my score and time on each game. I didn't do all five copies of a game at once; I'd wait until I had completed every game within that type once and then start in on them a second time, etc. I feel like this drilling really worked, at least in the sense that it got me very comfortable with my notation, setups, and game recognition.

I did not, however, make copies of the games from the five or so most recent practice tests (67-71). As I got closer to the test date I began taking full, timed PTs. I probably did 15 total, and for the last five I did the five most recent PTs, for which I had never seen the games. My results were pretty consistent; for PTs with game sections containing games I had drilled, I did consistently well on LG (-3 or under). For the five latests PTs, which contained games I hadn't drilled, I struggled on LG (averaging around -8).

You write above that "Success on difficult logic games usually comes down to visualizing a complex/unfamiliar setup and bringing rules together in a way that limits the complexity of the game." I think this is exactly right, and this is why I struggled on games sections I had never seen before. I DO feel like I was getting better at this process of making inferences from truly unfamiliar setups over the course of the last five PTs, but there would be at least one game per test that would just stump me. Knowing this, I tended to rush a bit on the "easier" games and make a few mistakes there too (hence the -8).

Two more points.

1. For the last five PTs, I would review LG using the free 7sage videos, which generally present clear explanations of the games. However, I wonder if mixing the 7sage advice with my Powerscore training might have resulted in some crossed wires? In certain cases, Powerscore and 7sage clash on how to best set up and solve a game.

2. From the last five PTs, I got the sense that the best way to prepare for what will be truly unfamiliar games is to do all the PTs for which I've never seen the games. So, I could purchase the first PT book and just take all of those as full, timed PTs. But I worry these games will be significantly different from more modern LG. What do you think?

Again, thanks for your help.

tskela · Post by **tskela** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 3:22 pm

dasani13 wrote:
tskela wrote:Does anyone get really anxious during LG? I have this moment of panic after reading every new LG where I feel like it'll be utterly impossible to keep everything straight and I just become ready to give up on life and that point. Of course, I become more comfortable with it over the course of time, but that initial freak out hurts my time and I feel like I'm sabotaging myself by not remaining calm (it's definitely harder to keep track of the rules when all I'm thinking about is bombing the section). I usually PT at -1 in RC, -1 in LR and -8-12 in LG. Ended up with a 171 on 2/14 test and plan on retaking, but LG is the stuff of nightmares for me. Any tips?
Yeah, I think it's normal. It used to happen to me in the beginning of my prep but eventually I was able to control it. I would get really anxious and skip a bunch of the simple steps of setting up a game. Whenever you feel like you're freaking out, pause for a few to seconds to just calm down. It will seem counterintuitive at the moment and you'll feel like you're wasting time, but it really helped me.

Really good to hear it eventually passed for you. Thanks for the advice.

Straw_Mandible · Post by **Straw_Mandible** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 3:41 pm

gagewhitneypace wrote: Two more points.

1. For the last five PTs, I would review LG using the free 7sage videos, which generally present clear explanations of the games. However, I wonder if mixing the 7sage advice with my Powerscore training might have resulted in some crossed wires? In certain cases, Powerscore and 7sage clash on how to best set up and solve a game.

2. From the last five PTs, I got the sense that the best way to prepare for what will be truly unfamiliar games is to do all the PTs for which I've never seen the games. So, I could purchase the first PT book and just take all of those as full, timed PTs. But I worry these games will be significantly different from more modern LG. What do you think?

Again, thanks for your help.

I think your fear of "crossed wires" is a total non-issue. In my opinion, the best way to truly internalize and master the underlying principles of LG is to mix and match diagramming/deduction strategies across the various commercial prep methods in order to develop a system that works best for you personally.

Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote: As to methods there may be a million and then some, but principles are few. The man who grasps principles can successfully select his own methods. The man who tries methods, ignoring principles, is sure to have trouble.

All of the existing prep methods are just varied ways of representing the exact same fundamental principles. After being exposed to a variety of ways of diagramming different types of games, you might decide, for example, that Prep Company X has a better method for solving tiered ordering games, whereas Prep Company Y has a better method for solving in/out grouping games.

Personally, I'm in the process of combining LG methods from the LSAT Trainer, Blueprint, and 7Sage, in order to develop a system for each game type that makes the most sense to me. This exposure may also benefit you when you come across an entirely novel/unfamiliar game, since you will feel less locked in to any one particular approach and have more strategies at your disposal.

Using varied approaches to particular game types will help you develop a firmer grasp of the underlying principles, and it may improve your cognitive and strategic flexibility over the course of the section. So, I'd recommend picking up a few different prep books, just to see if you can figure out ways to refine your strategies on the games that give you trouble. I strongly recommend Blueprint and 7Sage. Others seem to have had success with Manhattan as well.

mornincounselor · Post by **mornincounselor** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:49 pm

Post removed.

bondja · Post by **bondja** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 6:58 pm

mornincounselor wrote:"This guide will teach you an effective technique for mastering LSAT Reading Comprehension and then sharpen your newfound skills with full passages and targeted drills. Learn to change the way you read, tackle the questions effectively, and apply your skills to a wide range of material."

Just got my Manhattan RC 4th in the mail. About to hunker down and savor it like a fine wine.

Currently indulged in mine. I plan to get drunk with it.

WaltGrace83 · Post by **WaltGrace83** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:25 pm

Revisiting some material I haven't touched since March (strengthen Q's), only working on lvl 3+4 to really dig deep into the nuances of this test.

I seriously don't even remember some of these questions, like AT ALL. Was my Strengthen drilling that emotionally taxing that I just blocked it out of my mind?