The Official October 2015 Study Group Forum

ltowns1 · Post by **ltowns1** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 12:06 am

The Abyss wrote:I'm taking a 6 section PT (55) tomorrow, blind reviewing and then celebrating my 30th birthday with lots of bourbon and a fine cigar. Nothing (or very little) will be accomplished on Sunday, because I will probably be massively hungover. Happy studying folks.

Happy birthday!

TheProdigal · Post by **TheProdigal** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 12:11 am

The Abyss wrote:I'm taking a 6 section PT (55) tomorrow, blind reviewing and then celebrating my 30th birthday with lots of bourbon and a fine cigar. Nothing (or very little) will be accomplished on Sunday, because I will probably be massively hungover. Happy studying folks.

Welcome to the thirties...

GnosisExchange · Post by **GnosisExchange** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 3:11 am

The Abyss wrote:I'm taking a 6 section PT (55) tomorrow, blind reviewing and then celebrating my 30th birthday with lots of bourbon and a fine cigar. Nothing (or very little) will be accomplished on Sunday, because I will probably be massively hungover. Happy studying folks.

Happy birthday!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just got my score for the June test (I took it in Asia).
Though I can't be mad with my score considering I had a major issue in the month and a half leading up to it, I'm retaking and aiming for something above the 75% for for the law schools I'm interested in.
Just ordered the Manhattan prep books and the Trainer. 99 percentile or bust...I guess.

pittsburghpirates · Post by **pittsburghpirates** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 10:27 am

Post removed.

EnderWiggin · Post by **EnderWiggin** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 11:31 am

Happy study weekend everyone!

EnderWiggin · Post by **EnderWiggin** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 11:32 am

RZ5646 · Post by **RZ5646** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 12:44 pm

pittsburghpirates wrote:Took a 5 section PT (PT58) this morning and used the LG section from PT 57 as the experimental. Turns out mauve dinosaurs at 7:30 AM is absolutely terrible. Who knew? Definitely underestimated the difficulty in taking this thing in the AM because so far almost all of my prep and full PTs have been in the evening after work. I am thoroughly unproductive without coffee, the time pressure really got to me this morning and I flat bombed the first two sections.

I can barely wake up before 10am most days. Resetting my sleep schedule might actually be the hardest part of my LSAT prep.

ETA:

Let's talk soft factors. Anyone here worried about inadequate softs hurting their application? Anyone have really impressive softs?

pittsburghpirates · Post by **pittsburghpirates** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 2:17 pm

Post removed.

MrBalloons · Post by **MrBalloons** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 2:30 pm

Obviously a 0L, so only speculating.

But from what I've seen and heard at the non-"black box" places (everybody but HY and Boalt, really) there's not an appreciable difference between "I was on these clubs in undergrad" and "I worked two years at a law firm and was president of my chapter of this and this"

Both would be within the "normal soft" range, each at the bounds.

RZ5646 · Post by **RZ5646** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 2:36 pm

pittsburghpirates wrote:To be honest, I still don't entirely understand what are considered above average softs vs. not. I know that at HYS (especially YS) these softs come more into play, but to be honest I don't fully understand exactly to what extent they come into play at the rest of the T-14. Any info would be much appreciated

Above average softs are very difficult / time-consuming things like multiple years of prestigious work experience, military service, running a successful company, publishing books, winning a Rhodes scholarship, maybe Peace Corps (but probably not TFA)... basically nothing you can just decide to add to your resume, even within a multiyear timeline.

I'm confident I won't have above average softs. I'm just worried about having softs so weak that they hurt my application.

I don't think H is a black box. Their class size is huge and they struggle to keep their numbers up. You might mean YS and B.

SirArthurDayne · Post by **SirArthurDayne** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 3:27 pm

Post removed.

MrBalloons · Post by **MrBalloons** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 3:57 pm

I find myself thinking "I read something about that recently..." when somebody talks about like, recycling plastic or Immanuel Kant or something lately.

And then I remember it was some crap that LSAC made up in a LR question and that I actually have nothing to contribute.

nlee10 · Post by **nlee10** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 3:58 pm

RZ5646 wrote: ETA:

Let's talk soft factors. Anyone here worried about inadequate softs hurting their application? Anyone have really impressive softs?

I have super weak softs.

RZ5646 · Post by **RZ5646** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 5:07 pm

I think all my LG drilling did was make me memorize the games, because now I'm trying new ones and consistently taking up to twice as long for the same type/difficulty.

ltowns1 · Post by **ltowns1** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 5:22 pm

RZ5646 wrote:I think all my LG drilling did was make me memorize the games, because now I'm trying new ones and consistently taking up to twice as long for the same type/difficulty.

How are you doing in terms of accuracy??

The Abyss · Post by **The Abyss** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 5:31 pm

RZ5646 wrote:I think all my LG drilling did was make me memorize the games, because now I'm trying new ones and consistently taking up to twice as long for the same type/difficulty.

Do you rush into the questions after setting up your board and rules or do you take 30 seconds or so to look for inferences/game board splitting rules/etc? Once I started taking that extra 30 seconds my LG section times improved dramatically because I was leaving less on the table headed into the questions.

RZ5646 · Post by **RZ5646** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 5:39 pm

ltowns1 wrote:
RZ5646 wrote:I think all my LG drilling did was make me memorize the games, because now I'm trying new ones and consistently taking up to twice as long for the same type/difficulty.
How are you doing in terms of accuracy??

Never miss more than 1. Usually -0. If I miss one it's because I'm trying to go fast... I can always figure out the questions, given enough time.

The Abyss wrote:Do you rush into the questions after setting up your board and rules or do you take 30 seconds or so to look for inferences/game board splitting rules/etc? Once I started taking that extra 30 seconds my LG section times improved dramatically because I was leaving less on the table headed into the questions.

That's something I need to work on. Sometimes I'll struggle through a game only to discover at the end that I could have done most of the work upfront with a couple sub-boards.

ltowns1 · Post by **ltowns1** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 6:18 pm

Hey guys I'm curious, for anyone that's really good in LR, when you eliminate wrong answers do you focus on the conclusion on the first round of eliminations, and then go back to argument core to find the better of the last few remaining answers? I feel like I'm having this inner battle of whether its better to eliminate all 5 answers with the entire argument core, or just eliminate focusing on the conclusion to eliminate the first two or three answers, and then going back to focus on evidence and conclusion for the last two or three answers?

RZ5646 · Post by **RZ5646** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 6:27 pm

ltowns1 wrote:Hey guys I'm curious, for anyone that's really good in LR, when you eliminate wrong answers do you focus on the conclusion on the first round of eliminations, and then go back to argument core to find the better of the last few remaining answers? I feel like I'm having this inner battle of whether its better to eliminate all 5 answers with the entire argument core, or just eliminate focusing on the conclusion to eliminate the first two or three answers, and then going back to focus on evidence and conclusion for the last two or three answers?

Can you give an example of where you would use this method?

ltowns1 · Post by **ltowns1** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 6:39 pm

RZ5646 wrote:
ltowns1 wrote:Hey guys I'm curious, for anyone that's really good in LR, when you eliminate wrong answers do you focus on the conclusion on the first round of eliminations, and then go back to argument core to find the better of the last few remaining answers? I feel like I'm having this inner battle of whether its better to eliminate all 5 answers with the entire argument core, or just eliminate focusing on the conclusion to eliminate the first two or three answers, and then going back to focus on evidence and conclusion for the last two or three answers?
Can you give an example of where you would use this method?

It's not really focused on any specific question type. Just a general elimination approach for assumption family questions. The questions that just tend to be plain hard, or those questions where you can't get a solid hold on the gap that's being exploited..but you can, of course, identify the conclusion

RZ5646 · Post by **RZ5646** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 10:00 pm

Did 20 logic games today. It was rough. Did most of them in time with -0, but others I really struggled with. Guess I'm just going to keep drilling hard and hope I improve. I'll be so pissed if I ruin my score with like a -5 in LG in October.

cub1014 · Post by **cub1014** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 10:39 pm

ltowns1 wrote:
RZ5646 wrote:
ltowns1 wrote:Hey guys I'm curious, for anyone that's really good in LR, when you eliminate wrong answers do you focus on the conclusion on the first round of eliminations, and then go back to argument core to find the better of the last few remaining answers? I feel like I'm having this inner battle of whether its better to eliminate all 5 answers with the entire argument core, or just eliminate focusing on the conclusion to eliminate the first two or three answers, and then going back to focus on evidence and conclusion for the last two or three answers?
Can you give an example of where you would use this method?
It's not really focused on any specific question type. Just a general elimination approach for assumption family questions. The questions that just tend to be plain hard, or those questions where you can't get a solid hold on the gap that's being exploited..but you can, of course, identify the conclusion

I'm going through the Manhattan Assumptions Family chapters right now so it's fresh in my head. Based on that and on my previous LSAT experiences, I suggest having the entire argument core rather than just the conclusion in mind. Remember that for these types of questions generally the flaw or the assumption is the gap between the premises and the conclusion, right in the middle of the argument core. For time's sake I think you're better off drilling into your mind how to work with that more fuller picture.

ltowns1 · Post by **ltowns1** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 11:01 pm

cub1014 wrote:
ltowns1 wrote:
RZ5646 wrote:
ltowns1 wrote:Hey guys I'm curious, for anyone that's really good in LR, when you eliminate wrong answers do you focus on the conclusion on the first round of eliminations, and then go back to argument core to find the better of the last few remaining answers? I feel like I'm having this inner battle of whether its better to eliminate all 5 answers with the entire argument core, or just eliminate focusing on the conclusion to eliminate the first two or three answers, and then going back to focus on evidence and conclusion for the last two or three answers?
Can you give an example of where you would use this method?
It's not really focused on any specific question type. Just a general elimination approach for assumption family questions. The questions that just tend to be plain hard, or those questions where you can't get a solid hold on the gap that's being exploited..but you can, of course, identify the conclusion
I'm going through the Manhattan Assumptions Family chapters right now so it's fresh in my head. Based on that and on my previous LSAT experiences, I suggest having the entire argument core rather than just the conclusion in mind. Remember that for these types of questions generally the flaw or the assumption is the gap between the premises and the conclusion, right in the middle of the argument core. For time's sake I think you're better off drilling into your mind how to work with that more fuller picture.

I should have re-worded my question, but you guys don't find that you can eliminate answers based mostly on the conclusion simply because they don't seem to relate to the conclusion( not SOLELY, but focusing mainly on the conclusion)

2. I was discussing this point just a moment ago with R5646. Cub1014, (go Cubs!!!! Lol) on page 171 fhere is a great example of what I'm referring to. Am I interpreting that wrong???? I could be...

cub1014 · Post by **cub1014** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 11:17 pm

ltowns1 wrote:
cub1014 wrote:
ltowns1 wrote:
RZ5646 wrote:
ltowns1 wrote:Hey guys I'm curious, for anyone that's really good in LR, when you eliminate wrong answers do you focus on the conclusion on the first round of eliminations, and then go back to argument core to find the better of the last few remaining answers? I feel like I'm having this inner battle of whether its better to eliminate all 5 answers with the entire argument core, or just eliminate focusing on the conclusion to eliminate the first two or three answers, and then going back to focus on evidence and conclusion for the last two or three answers?
Can you give an example of where you would use this method?
It's not really focused on any specific question type. Just a general elimination approach for assumption family questions. The questions that just tend to be plain hard, or those questions where you can't get a solid hold on the gap that's being exploited..but you can, of course, identify the conclusion
I'm going through the Manhattan Assumptions Family chapters right now so it's fresh in my head. Based on that and on my previous LSAT experiences, I suggest having the entire argument core rather than just the conclusion in mind. Remember that for these types of questions generally the flaw or the assumption is the gap between the premises and the conclusion, right in the middle of the argument core. For time's sake I think you're better off drilling into your mind how to work with that more fuller picture.
I should have re-worded my question, but you guys don't find that you can eliminate answers based mostly on the conclusion simply because they don't seem to relate to the conclusion( not SOLELY, but focusing mainly on the conclusion)

2. I was discussing this point just a moment ago with R5646. Cub1014, (go Cubs!!!! Lol) on page 171 fhere is a great example of what I'm referring to. Am I interpreting that wrong???? I could be...

Okay, I see what you mean. At least in the question you are referring to, the ONLY answer choice that explicitly mentions the whistling of the pilot would be D. I suppose the method could work in situations like this one. The only thing that would concern me about the strategy is the fact that you might have to reread and use up more time if you are wavering between two or three answers, and your interpretation of the ACs may be skewed without the fuller picture initially in mind.

ltowns1 · Post by **ltowns1** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 11:29 pm

cub1014 wrote:
ltowns1 wrote:
cub1014 wrote:
ltowns1 wrote:
RZ5646 wrote:
ltowns1 wrote:Hey guys I'm curious, for anyone that's really good in LR, when you eliminate wrong answers do you focus on the conclusion on the first round of eliminations, and then go back to argument core to find the better of the last few remaining answers? I feel like I'm having this inner battle of whether its better to eliminate all 5 answers with the entire argument core, or just eliminate focusing on the conclusion to eliminate the first two or three answers, and then going back to focus on evidence and conclusion for the last two or three answers?
Can you give an example of where you would use this method?
It's not really focused on any specific question type. Just a general elimination approach for assumption family questions. The questions that just tend to be plain hard, or those questions where you can't get a solid hold on the gap that's being exploited..but you can, of course, identify the conclusion
I'm going through the Manhattan Assumptions Family chapters right now so it's fresh in my head. Based on that and on my previous LSAT experiences, I suggest having the entire argument core rather than just the conclusion in mind. Remember that for these types of questions generally the flaw or the assumption is the gap between the premises and the conclusion, right in the middle of the argument core. For time's sake I think you're better off drilling into your mind how to work with that more fuller picture.
I should have re-worded my question, but you guys don't find that you can eliminate answers based mostly on the conclusion simply because they don't seem to relate to the conclusion( not SOLELY, but focusing mainly on the conclusion)

2. I was discussing this point just a moment ago with R5646. Cub1014, (go Cubs!!!! Lol) on page 171 fhere is a great example of what I'm referring to. Am I interpreting that wrong???? I could be...
Okay, I see what you mean. At least in the question you are referring to, the ONLY answer choice that explicitly mentions the whistling of the pilot would be D. I suppose the method could work in situations like this one. The only thing that would concern me about the strategy is the fact that you might have to reread and use up more time if you are wavering between two or three answers, and your interpretation of the ACs may be skewed without the fuller picture initially in mind.

No it's not a specific question. Its talking about the "best way to evaluate answers."The first way is said to be any answer that does not relate to the conclusion. ( I have an ebook so the pages maybe off a little)