The Official December 2014 Study Group Forum

[mist4bison]

.

[Rigo]

[Smallville]

I think there has...my TM instructor mentioned this and said the most there has ever been in a row was 6.

Manhattan says there has never been. Tell your TM instructor to either prove it or stop being a lying tard.

I feel like I read there was been 6, just never 5

[mist4bison]

.

[Rigo]

[Smallville]

I think there has...my TM instructor mentioned this and said the most there has ever been in a row was 6.

Manhattan says there has never been. Tell your TM instructor to either prove it or stop being a lying tard.

I feel like I read there was been 6, just never 5

That makes zero sense, jgoody. Fix yo logic.

absolutely does, CAAAAAAD -6 in a row CAAAAAD-5 in a row

[Rigo]

[Smallville]

6 in a row --> 5 in a row --> 4 in a row --> 3 in a row --> 2 in a row

Lulz. Okay back to studying.

stop looking so narrowly ya scrub

[Rigo]

[Smallville]

6 in a row --> 5 in a row --> 4 in a row --> 3 in a row --> 2 in a row
Lulz. Okay back to studying.

stop looking so narrowly ya scrub

Anyways, I think you're wrong on both counts.

Argument is most vulnerable to criticism because it assumes that the selection of one letter as an answer choice impacts the probability of selection of that letter on the next question.

am oblivious as to where you got that out of anything I said... but okay

[mornincounselor]

Post removed.

[m27]

I was planning to take a PT at 9am this morning to stimulate the real deal but life happened and I woke up at 11:30 Gonna do it tomorrow morning instead. I really have to re orientate by sleeping schedule so that I'm not dead on D-Day morning. Drills and isolated sections all day today

[GreenTee]

.

[GreenTee]

Also yes, Jgoody: If there are six in a row, there are necessarily five in a row. Keep running those conditional chains; you'll get it eventually.

[Smallville]

Also yes, Jgoody: If there are six in a row, there are necessarily five in a row. Keep running those conditional chains; you'll get it eventually.

ugh you miss the point too -_- why can't y'all just be smurt

[LSATneurotic]

Prep test 38
Overall score --179

LR--1
LG--1
RC--1
LR--0

Another older test, nevertheless i flirted with perfection once again. The only new tests i haven't completed are 72 and 73, so im saving those for the final week before judgement day.

Does anyone else enjoy the crisp feel of a new, fresh PT booklet? This nerd does.

[Rigo]

[mist4bison]

.

[Rigo]

[dasani13]

PT 70
LR: -2
RC: -6
LG: -3
LR: -2
Raw: 88/101
Scaled: 169

Damn. All 3 of my missed LG's were on the first simple sequencing game. I just screwed it up. All I can do is laugh about it. I would have had a 171 if I hadn't been a tard.

RC is back to killing me. I miss the earlier and easier RC's where I saw improvement. I feel like the answer choices are a lot trickier now. I'll have to train myself to be super discerning so I can effectively tackle these newer sections.

Proud of my LR score. Sometimes I find it hard to get myself back in the LR zone and I sometimes do worse on the second LR section, but not this time.

Nice job! I agree with the bolded. I've noticed it in LR, too.

[lawjag2015]

PT 18-2-13 (LR) anyone?

I cannot believe that I cannot figure this one out.

[Rigo]

[lawjag2015]

PT 18-2-13 (LR) anyone?
I cannot believe that I cannot figure this one out.

Did you check Manhattan Forums?

Looking at it now!

Lol, I was not even aware of this resource! Thanks!!

[Rigo]

[Big Red]

How did you guys make drilling packets out of the Cambridge tests? Any strategy for putting stuff together?