The Official September 2017 Study Group Forum

[littlewing67]

.

[Mikey]

Ugh I am jealous as I sit in XXXXXX crying for this cycle to be over and it hasn't even began

When I go pick up my diploma and do transcript BS, we should totally do a study day after

We outtt

YAY!!!

French vanilla coffee from the small cafe on me

is it weird that I SLIGHTLY miss that place.... lol

[ThatOneAfrican]

Could someone help me with this flaw question? It's PT2 S4 Q6 (or no.5 in the Cambridge Flaw book). Would've posted the question here but dunno if I'm allowed to.

So the answer's B apparently. I understand why the other answers are wrong (I guess) but how does B make sense? Shouldn't it be "fails to include an alternative explanation for the observed effect"?

[HesusChrist]

Could someone help me with this flaw question? It's PT2 S4 Q6 (or no.5 in the Cambridge Flaw book). Would've posted the question here but dunno if I'm allowed to.

So the answer's B apparently. I understand why the other answers are wrong (I guess) but how does B make sense? Shouldn't it be "fails to include an alternative explanation for the observed effect"?

"Fails to Exclude" = takes for granted, assumes etc. The author assumes that the box is correctly labeled. Thus the author "fails to to exclude" the possibility that there is acid in the bottle but no soda in the box.

[ThatOneAfrican]

Could someone help me with this flaw question? It's PT2 S4 Q6 (or no.5 in the Cambridge Flaw book). Would've posted the question here but dunno if I'm allowed to.

So the answer's B apparently. I understand why the other answers are wrong (I guess) but how does B make sense? Shouldn't it be "fails to include an alternative explanation for the observed effect"?

"Fails to Exclude" = takes for granted, assumes etc. The author assumes that the box is correctly labeled. Thus the author "fails to to exclude" the possibility that there is acid in the bottle but no soda in the box.

Ooh ok I think I get it. Thanks. Thought it was a typo at first but it makes sense this way.

[caramelizedgod]

good shit

Hehe thanks u better be killing it too

haven't done LSAT shit, in a diff country atm but I still check TLS when I get a chance

you're beating me for sure though. my last PT was a 170

!!!!!

Oh snap where u at??? I was thinking of moving to Australia for a few months after I finish apps lol

El Salvador. I don't drink everyday but I do drink every other day. Today is one of those days that I'll be drinking

If ur not drinking everyday then how r u dealing with the hangovers

[creed]

I have a cross-country flight tomorrow. I was tempted to take a PT to see how I'd perform when fighting distraction, but I think it'd be pointless at the end of the day, so I'm just going to load up on RC and LR practice questions.

Also, turns out lugging a ton of LSAT study materials across a continent takes up quite a lot of suitcase space.

[mnbv9876]

Drill LG. It's affecting your confidence and is an easy way to improve. You don't have to completely neglect LR either, do some sections to maintain. But getting into the 170s without 20+ on LG is very difficult.

Thanks will do. have PTd at 170 4 times now so its within reach, hopefully *fingers crossed, positive thoughts*.... i can't believe how much LG ive had to study its been like 9 months nonstop. but i started at -14 so at least theres been improvement. wish i could just be a genius :'(

[Mikey]

If ur not drinking everyday then how r u dealing with the hangovers

I deal with them by hating myself

[creed]

If ur not drinking everyday then how r u dealing with the hangovers

I deal with them by hating myself

I also deal with them that way, if by "hating yourself" you mean "making early morning bloody marys as soon as humanly possible."

[Gluteus]

I'm excited to begin some LR preparation tomorrow. I haven't touched LR in over a year, but when I first began studying for the LSAT, LR was the first section I worked on. It's my favourite section in terms of content and seems to be the area where I'm most naturally talented.

A strong performance on LR during the real LSAT 43-44+/50 would almost guarantee I score high enough to get into the law schools I want to. Luckily, such a score is only slightly above where I was averaging for timed sections when I was practising last.

My study plan to get re-acquainted with LR is to read through Manhattan LR again. After I finish a chapter on a given question type I will drill and review 25-75 questions of that type from the Cambridge packets.

After I'm done getting re-acquainted, LR preparation will consist of timed sections from newer tests + full practice tests + targeted drilling of weaknesses + blind review

[Rupert Pupkin]

I'm excited to begin some LR preparation tomorrow. I haven't touched LR in over a year, but when I first began studying for the LSAT, LR was the first section I worked on. It's my favourite section in terms of content and seems to be the area where I'm most naturally talented.

A strong performance on LR during the real LSAT 43-44+/50 would almost guarantee I score high enough to get into the law schools I want to. Luckily, such a score is only slightly above where I was averaging for timed sections when I was practising last.

My study plan to get re-acquainted with LR is to read through Manhattan LR again. After I finish a chapter on a given question type I will drill and review 25-75 questions of that type from the Cambridge packets.

After I'm done getting re-acquainted, LR preparation will consist of timed sections from newer tests + full practice tests + targeted drilling of weaknesses + blind review

Nice! You already completely finished drilling (Fool-proof) all the LG Cambridge packets again?

[dm1683]

Just used a toll road today. Mad flashbacks.

I was thinking of joking with the attendant "why don't you just increase the sales tax?" although God knows illinois' is high enough.

[mmart207]

Just used a toll road today. Mad flashbacks.

I was thinking of joking with the attendant "why don't you just increase the sales tax?" although God knows illinois' is high enough.

Yeah that's the last thing we need right now

[Rupert Pupkin]

7Sage Fool Proof Drilling gets so monotonous, but I've definitely improved so much on games from doing this (I believe its from specifically this)

[Csupo]

7Sage Fool Proof Drilling gets so monotonous, but I've definitely improved so much on games from doing this (I believe its from specifically this)

I've also been foolproofing using the 7sage method (PT 1-35). I feel like I've only made small gains though. I'm at PT 20 right now and I still don't feel that confident when doing a completely new game. At what point did you find that you were finally making progress?

[Rupert Pupkin]

7Sage Fool Proof Drilling gets so monotonous, but I've definitely improved so much on games from doing this (I believe its from specifically this)

I've also been foolproofing using the 7sage method (PT 1-35). I feel like I've only made small gains though. I'm at PT 20 right now and I still don't feel that confident when doing a completely new game. At what point did you find that you were finally making progress?

I did it based on Game type not PT (Although its allthe games from PT 1-38), thats prob why. When you do this method coupled with arranging similar games you are making similar inferences over and over again and then your brain will naturally be able to start picking up this inferences when starting a new game. Thus, I dont think the fool-proof method is as powerful if you dont drill by game type. I Havent done a game up to 10 x either though like the method suggests. usually somewhere between 3-5, and that already takes up a lot of time.

So far I have done it this way for the Simple ORdering, Complex Ordering, Grouping (Distribution) and almost done with IN/OUT atm.

[abujabal]

The 70s continue to be the bane of my existence, but it seems like I'm narrowing in on the problem.

PT 71

LR1: -3 (-3 BR)
LRExperimental: -1 (PT 51.1)
LG: -3 (No BR)
Break
LR2: -7 (-6 BR)
RC: -6 (-6 BR)

Total: 167

--

I'm frustratingly unable to consistently stay above 170, at least because of the 70s, it seems. I'm somewhat disregarding this RC because it was a monster, and normally I'm -1/-3 on it. That said, what tips do people have for break management? I'm hearing protein bars as opposed to granola.

Hoping to break 170 at least three times in a row before next month...

Edit:

Here's my LR thing from 7Sage. Any thoughts on what specific things I should be doing to improve this?

[Rupert Pupkin]

The 70s continue to be the bane of my existence, but it seems like I'm narrowing in on the problem.

PT 71

LR1: -3 (-3 BR)
LRExperimental: -1 (PT 51.1)
LG: -3 (No BR)
Break
LR2: -7 (-6 BR)
RC: -6 (-6 BR)

Total: 167

--

I'm frustratingly unable to consistently stay above 170, at least because of the 70s, it seems. I'm somewhat disregarding this RC because it was a monster, and normally I'm -1/-3 on it. That said, what tips do people have for break management? I'm hearing protein bars as opposed to granola.

Hoping to break 170 at least three times in a row before next month...

Edit:

Here's my LR thing from 7Sage. Any thoughts on what specific things I should be doing to improve this?

Youll get over the hump--just keep grinding. That 168-170 hump is the hardest. Idk just keep reviewing and drilling. Looks like its the Assumption family throwing you off. we are the opposite lol in LR. Im scoring around the same as you, but I keep getting Inference Questions (Mainly Most Strongly Supp) wrong

In my break, I had a protein bar and trail mix.

[Csupo]

7Sage Fool Proof Drilling gets so monotonous, but I've definitely improved so much on games from doing this (I believe its from specifically this)

I've also been foolproofing using the 7sage method (PT 1-35). I feel like I've only made small gains though. I'm at PT 20 right now and I still don't feel that confident when doing a completely new game. At what point did you find that you were finally making progress?

I did it based on Game type not PT (Although its allthe games from PT 1-38), thats prob why. When you do this method coupled with arranging similar games you are making similar inferences over and over again and then your brain will naturally be able to start picking up this inferences when starting a new game. Thus, I dont think the fool-proof method is as powerful if you dont drill by game type. I Havent done a game up to 10 x either though like the method suggests. usually somewhere between 3-5, and that already takes up a lot of time.

So far I have done it this way for the Simple ORdering, Complex Ordering, Grouping (Distribution) and almost done with IN/OUT atm.

Thanks for the input! I'll definitely try drilling based on game type. How do you handle Miscellaneous games? Do you find that the skills from the other types transfer over? I think there's about 30 Misc. games from PTs 1-35 that aren't categorizable to the traditional game types. I always freeze when I do these.

[creed]

The 70s continue to be the bane of my existence, but it seems like I'm narrowing in on the problem.

PT 71

LR1: -3 (-3 BR)
LRExperimental: -1 (PT 51.1)
LG: -3 (No BR)
Break
LR2: -7 (-6 BR)
RC: -6 (-6 BR)

Total: 167

--

I'm frustratingly unable to consistently stay above 170, at least because of the 70s, it seems. I'm somewhat disregarding this RC because it was a monster, and normally I'm -1/-3 on it. That said, what tips do people have for break management? I'm hearing protein bars as opposed to granola.

Hoping to break 170 at least three times in a row before next month...

Edit:

Here's my LR thing from 7Sage. Any thoughts on what specific things I should be doing to improve this?

I've managed to pin LR down pretty well in the last month or so doing the following:

Reading the Bible-- especially for assumption questions. The negation technique is extremely useful for me.

Marking up your stimuli-- there's no real standardized way to do this, but I like underlining every 1) variable and 2) variable relationship descriptor. It helps me internalize the way the reasoning is structured

Drilling questions from the PS workbook-- ordered this after I was feeling stuck on LR and it's helped a ton.

Thinking clearly-- one of the best pieces of advice I heard about the LSAT applies best to LR: there is no such thing as a 50/50 question. If you think two answers both seem kinda right, you're misreading or misunderstanding. This sounds small, but it made a big difference for me. I think it'll help you too. Having your BR + real scores be basically the same means that something isn't clicking. (I've come to believe this is actually preferable to being stuck with really low BR and meh real scores but I can't really justify that)

Overall, I knew I was getting comfortable when I had the number of questions I found difficult down to 3-4 MAX per test. Right now, I go -0/-1 about half the time, and I think I'm still missing 2-3 the other half because of focus and stamina (missing an operative word or not closely reading the answer choices). If I manage to get LR down to a consistent -0/-1 I'll update any strategy I used.

Best of luck!

[creed]

Also, one bit that should give you some hope: I really think that assumption and flaw questions are the most learnable behind the parallel reasoning questions.


--


I'm going to PT tomorrow and for some reason I'm a little stressed about it. I feel like I'm in this weird ~173 area where I keep missing 2-3 a test that I really shouldn't be missing.

[Rupert Pupkin]

7Sage Fool Proof Drilling gets so monotonous, but I've definitely improved so much on games from doing this (I believe its from specifically this)

I've also been foolproofing using the 7sage method (PT 1-35). I feel like I've only made small gains though. I'm at PT 20 right now and I still don't feel that confident when doing a completely new game. At what point did you find that you were finally making progress?

I did it based on Game type not PT (Although its allthe games from PT 1-38), thats prob why. When you do this method coupled with arranging similar games you are making similar inferences over and over again and then your brain will naturally be able to start picking up this inferences when starting a new game. Thus, I dont think the fool-proof method is as powerful if you dont drill by game type. I Havent done a game up to 10 x either though like the method suggests. usually somewhere between 3-5, and that already takes up a lot of time.

So far I have done it this way for the Simple ORdering, Complex Ordering, Grouping (Distribution) and almost done with IN/OUT atm.

Thanks for the input! I'll definitely try drilling based on game type. How do you handle Miscellaneous games? Do you find that the skills from the other types transfer over? I think there's about 30 Misc. games from PTs 1-35 that aren't categorizable to the traditional game types. I always freeze when I do these.

Np! I haven't done them yet, but as soon as I finish the In/Out packet, I am going to do those. Im going to drill them the same way and see where that gets me. I can usually figure them out if I have enough time, but as of now Im not comfortable with them either

[Rupert Pupkin]

The 70s continue to be the bane of my existence, but it seems like I'm narrowing in on the problem.

PT 71

LR1: -3 (-3 BR)
LRExperimental: -1 (PT 51.1)
LG: -3 (No BR)
Break
LR2: -7 (-6 BR)
RC: -6 (-6 BR)

Total: 167

--

I'm frustratingly unable to consistently stay above 170, at least because of the 70s, it seems. I'm somewhat disregarding this RC because it was a monster, and normally I'm -1/-3 on it. That said, what tips do people have for break management? I'm hearing protein bars as opposed to granola.

Hoping to break 170 at least three times in a row before next month...

Edit:

Here's my LR thing from 7Sage. Any thoughts on what specific things I should be doing to improve this?

I've managed to pin LR down pretty well in the last month or so doing the following:

Reading the Bible-- especially for assumption questions. The negation technique is extremely useful for me.

Marking up your stimuli-- there's no real standardized way to do this, but I like underlining every 1) variable and 2) variable relationship descriptor. It helps me internalize the way the reasoning is structured

Drilling questions from the PS workbook-- ordered this after I was feeling stuck on LR and it's helped a ton.

Thinking clearly-- one of the best pieces of advice I heard about the LSAT applies best to LR: there is no such thing as a 50/50 question. If you think two answers both seem kinda right, you're misreading or misunderstanding. This sounds small, but it made a big difference for me. I think it'll help you too. Having your BR + real scores be basically the same means that something isn't clicking. (I've come to believe this is actually preferable to being stuck with really low BR and meh real scores but I can't really justify that)

Overall, I knew I was getting comfortable when I had the number of questions I found difficult down to 3-4 MAX per test. Right now, I go -0/-1 about half the time, and I think I'm still missing 2-3 the other half because of focus and stamina (missing an operative word or not closely reading the answer choices). If I manage to get LR down to a consistent -0/-1 I'll update any strategy I used.

Best of luck!

Great advice! This should help me out too. I am at that -3-4 point right now. Yeah I was getting like 3 Assumption Fam questions wrong on avg and then I drilled them by type for like 3-4 days while intensely reviewing the material in the LR Bible and the MH LR book and I havent gotten any wrong since. Of course, there is that crazy one that comes out of nowhere but for the most part I feel extremely comfortable with them

[Barry grandpapy]

PT 28

LR1:-0
LG: -1
LR2:-2
RC: -3

176

I tried a new RC strategy and might stick with it for the next few PTs. I read the passages in ~1.5min without annotating or trying to memorize details. I finished way under time and should have gone back to review the harder questions but was feeling lazy. I usually annotate but that makes me cut the time fairly close, so I might play with this strategy a bit more.