The Official June 2014 Study Group Forum

[Tyr]

I just wanted to post a thought I had. I've been working with The LSAT Trainer and I feel I just had a bit of a breakthrough today. I've noticed that a weakness of mine is to lose sight of the forest for the trees when reading a LR problem. I get so bogged down with the nuances of the wording instead of maintaining the a view of the big picture. By making sure I don't get too focused on the specific wording and instead focusing on the big picture of a passage (i.e. the argument itself) I'm having a much much easier time doing drills.

Long story short: Don't be so concerned about the nitty gritty details of the stimulus. Identify the main point (conclusion), identify the support, then identify how those don't add up.

Okay, that's my thought of the moment.

[iiibbystar]

I'm currently working on grouping games and I am able to usually get 100% accuracy on games. But my problem is that when the first time I attempt a game, I usually end up taking about 15 minutes to finish the game and once I repeat it later, it is within the time limit. Is there any recommendation regarding cutting time on cold games? I sometimes get flustered too when I'm doing a game as well for the first time and I go past 8 minutes and 45 seconds.

I would also like to know this. The same stuff happens to me. Although sometimes it will be going from 11 minutes to 5 minutes or something crazy, even with a few hours in between doing it cold and doing it not. The thing that is frustrating about this is the question, "are we learning THE game or are we learning GAMES?" if that makes sense. Although hundreds of 170+ scorers have done exactly what we have been doing (redoing and redoing) and it has worked for them. This is not to say that this will be sufficient or that one caused the other but just that this problem has been tackled in the past with favorable results regardless.

OMG, I'm so glad you mentioned this because I'm going through the same thing and was wondering exactly what you just stated. I could get games that I've seen or done before under the time constraints but if it's a game I'm seeing for the first time I second guess myself a lot and I also take 10-15mins per game. It's making me worry!

[Captainunaccountable]

I'm currently working on grouping games and I am able to usually get 100% accuracy on games. But my problem is that when the first time I attempt a game, I usually end up taking about 15 minutes to finish the game and once I repeat it later, it is within the time limit. Is there any recommendation regarding cutting time on cold games? I sometimes get flustered too when I'm doing a game as well for the first time and I go past 8 minutes and 45 seconds.

I would also like to know this. The same stuff happens to me. Although sometimes it will be going from 11 minutes to 5 minutes or something crazy, even with a few hours in between doing it cold and doing it not. The thing that is frustrating about this is the question, "are we learning THE game or are we learning GAMES?" if that makes sense. Although hundreds of 170+ scorers have done exactly what we have been doing (redoing and redoing) and it has worked for them. This is not to say that this will be sufficient or that one caused the other but just that this problem has been tackled in the past with favorable results regardless.

OMG, I'm so glad you mentioned this because I'm going through the same thing and was wondering exactly what you just stated. I could get games that I've seen or done before under the time constraints but if it's a game I'm seeing for the first time I second guess myself a lot and I also take 10-15mins per game. It's making me worry!

I know for me when I do a full LG section, some will take longer than others. I believe the recommendation is to try to knock out the first game (or the easiest one) in 5 or so minutes so you can have more time for other games. There is usually an extremely easy game per section (usually simple ordering) and I've made it a goal to knock those out quicker than others. Some games, too, have more questions than others. I think dividing each game into 8.5 minutes is therefore not the best standard to go by. Nonetheless, I believe with more time the process gets more mechanical and thus quicker. I haven't really experienced this yet but this is what I've read.

[Louis1127]

This thread has completely been taken over by retakers!

I'm glad to have you though.

Anyways just finished Lesson 20 or 21 (I forget) in the LSAT trainer. It was 14 questions timed. I didn't too hot. I had -6. -6 out of 14. That's 8 correct. That's a little over 50%. That's shit.

I know I have so much studying to do... but I don't know how much more efficient I can become. I realize all the errors I made and how stupid they were, but still. When I'm pressed for time I don't know how thorough I'm going to be. It's a really frightening idea to be taking this test in June and to be getting -6 out of 14.

It would kill me to score low knowing how much time and effort I've put into this.

Hey Louis1127,

Also just finished Chapter 20 in the Trainer. Got 12/13 correct untimed. Mistakenly saw the last answer so couldn't really count the question. I got #20 wrong, narrowed it down to two choices, and picked the wrong one (found this question tricky).
I am glad we are in similar spots in the Trainer. I just completed that exercise of 14 LR questions and also got -6, or 8/14. I would also agree that I had hoped to do better than that.

Interestingly, I missed more easy ones than hard ones! I even missed the very first one about government yet somehow confidently got 6 of the last 7 questions right?

Anyone ever have this happen near the beginning of your prep (two weeks in)? Missing easy questions and somehow doing really well on hard ones, for an overall result that's just kind of "meh".

Hey Louis1127,

Also just finished Chapter 20 in the Trainer. Got 12/13 correct untimed. Mistakenly saw the last answer so couldn't really count the question. I got #20 wrong, narrowed it down to two choices, and picked the wrong answer (found this question tricky). Anyway, did you do these questions timed? And which questions did you answer incorrectly? I did them untimed because my main goal right now is to get every LR correct without the pressure of time. Accuracy first, timing later. Additionally, how much more time do you think you're going to need to complete the book? I feel like I've been reading this book forever!

Good work, my friend. I hope to be done with the Trainer by January, then start my drilling while also going through Manhattan LR, which is extremely highly regarded on TLS. I did the questions untimed, but I did not slow down as much as I should have in this stage of my prep, but I now recognize this. What I need to do is absolutely disregard time completely, isolate the conc, support, and flaw, then go through each answer and say in my head why I think each is wrong and the right one is right. I will do this from now on, until I get to full-length PTs, which won;t be until like March (estimate).

[philibre]

I just ordered the Trainer, since I've seen so many people discussing and praising it on here. I already have the LRB, LGB, and SuperPrep. Also, I downloaded (for free, yay!) PTs 1-45 (+60 and 61).

Do y'all think it would be worthwhile to order Cambridge drilling packets? Or should I just stick with the PTs since I have them? Also, I saw that there are different levels...if I order them should I start with 1 or skip ahead a bit?

Thanks for any advice

[steven21]

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=220560
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=150072&start=25

I have been getting -1/-2 and a couple -0s on my re-used LR/RC sections on PTs 5-23. I am worried that I will keep scoring this high and then when it is time to sign up for the June test I will take a fresh new recent test and score a lot lower. I only have five PTs left to use.

My tutor suggests that I take a fresh PT right now to get a more accurate picture of where I am at and to start doing ACT/SAT reading comp sections and reading op-eds from nytimes/the economist making up questions for them instead of re-using old LSAT RC Sections for practice because the ACT/SAT RC sections and op-eds from nytimes/economist are fresh. Would doing these two things be more valuable than re-using old RC sections?

[WaltGrace83]

I just ordered the Trainer, since I've seen so many people discussing and praising it on here. I already have the LRB, LGB, and SuperPrep. Also, I downloaded (for free, yay!) PTs 1-45 (+60 and 61).

Do y'all think it would be worthwhile to order Cambridge drilling packets? Or should I just stick with the PTs since I have them? Also, I saw that there are different levels...if I order them should I start with 1 or skip ahead a bit?

Thanks for any advice

Do you think even ONE lsat point is worth the $300 or whatever they are charging? With focused drilling, people have reported going from the low 160s to the mid 170s.




This your future career man. Everything you buy (yes, everything) will be an investment with potentially HUGE returns with almost 0 loss. If you got everything that this site recommends (Cambridge, PTs 40-70, Manhattan, Trainer, the Bibles, etc.) you would only spend about $1,000. Going from a 169 to a 170 could be the difference between getting no scholarship money and getting $20k a year.

[politibro44]

To everyone who has Cambridge LR drilling packets, what do you think of Double_Daily's advice to only do the level 1's and 2's and save the 3's and 4's for section 5 of PT's. Or presumably for focused drilling when you spot weaknesses during PT phase.

Is everyone drilling ALL questions for each question type for LR? Or is anyone saving some for later?

[10052014]

.

[philibre]

I just ordered the Trainer, since I've seen so many people discussing and praising it on here. I already have the LRB, LGB, and SuperPrep. Also, I downloaded (for free, yay!) PTs 1-45 (+60 and 61).

Do y'all think it would be worthwhile to order Cambridge drilling packets? Or should I just stick with the PTs since I have them? Also, I saw that there are different levels...if I order them should I start with 1 or skip ahead a bit?

Thanks for any advice

Do you think even ONE lsat point is worth the $300 or whatever they are charging? With focused drilling, people have reported going from the low 160s to the mid 170s.



This your future career man. Everything you buy (yes, everything) will be an investment with potentially HUGE returns with almost 0 loss. If you got everything that this site recommends (Cambridge, PTs 40-70, Manhattan, Trainer, the Bibles, etc.) you would only spend about $1,000. Going from a 169 to a 170 could be the difference between getting no scholarship money and getting $20k a year.

Fair enough. I'm thinking of ordering the "Extreme Endurance Pack, since it has PTs with 6 sections.

[WaltGrace83]

To everyone who has Cambridge LR drilling packets, what do you think of Double_Daily's advice to only do the level 1's and 2's and save the 3's and 4's for section 5 of PT's. Or presumably for focused drilling when you spot weaknesses during PT phase.

Is everyone drilling ALL questions for each question type for LR? Or is anyone saving some for later?

To me - and this is just my potentially uninformed opinion - but I would think that you definitely should drill 3s and 4s. Why would you save the hardest stuff for PT's? You'll get plenty of hard stuff in the PT as it is . To me, you would want to go into PT's knowing that you have seen the worst of the worst in the LR world. After intensely drilling level 3s and 4s and eventually doing well on them, I think not only will it give you a bunch of confidence but it will help you nail those really easy ones.

From what i have read, LR is much less about getting every question done in 1:20 as it is about nailing those easy ones in 20 seconds and banking time to spend on those really nitty gritty questions from 15-20, 8-10, and potentially 22-25.

[politibro44]

To everyone who has Cambridge LR drilling packets, what do you think of Double_Daily's advice to only do the level 1's and 2's and save the 3's and 4's for section 5 of PT's. Or presumably for focused drilling when you spot weaknesses during PT phase.

Is everyone drilling ALL questions for each question type for LR? Or is anyone saving some for later?

To me - and this is just my potentially uninformed opinion - but I would think that you definitely should drill 3s and 4s. Why would you save the hardest stuff for PT's? You'll get plenty of hard stuff in the PT as it is . To me, you would want to go into PT's knowing that you have seen the worst of the worst in the LR world. After intensely drilling level 3s and 4s and eventually doing well on them, I think not only will it give you a bunch of confidence but it will help you nail those really easy ones.

From what i have read, LR is much less about getting every question done in 1:20 as it is about nailing those easy ones in 20 seconds and banking time to spend on those really nitty gritty questions from 15-20, 8-10, and potentially 22-25.

Yea I didn't really understand Daily_Double's logic in doing that. He also recommended drilling all 1's or all 2's in groups of 30, rather than mixing it up. I also don't think I agree with this advice entirely, but I have tried it. I think my packets are better when I have a good mix of 1's, 2's, 3's, and 4's. But I am drilling in groups of 30, so it's like an extra long LR section. I consider it an endurance building factor while also drilling.

How does everyone review questions they get wrong? What is your process? I've been saving all my missed ones and done some review on my own, but am curious to see what other people are doing for review. I'm only doing LR at the moment, but am open to hearing what people find works for RC and LG too. After all, I see on all credited TLS guides that review is of paramount importance.

[alexrodriguez]

Woke up at 3am and started studying. Got about two hours in so far.

Hopefully get another 2 hours after work.

I'm about to do PT 57. Gonna do it untimed.

[alexrodriguez]

To everyone who has Cambridge LR drilling packets, what do you think of Double_Daily's advice to only do the level 1's and 2's and save the 3's and 4's for section 5 of PT's. Or presumably for focused drilling when you spot weaknesses during PT phase.

Is everyone drilling ALL questions for each question type for LR? Or is anyone saving some for later?

I am drilling all of LR. I have finished, and am half way through re-drilling them.

All I can say is, IF you have the time, then its probably advisable, since you can never do enough drilling.

I will be starting PTs late Jan, or maybe beginning of Feb. This is way earlier than I though I would begin pts, for I thought I would begin in march, like louis1127. But I guess I have more time to do them - instead of 3 a week, I would rather do 2 on some weeks instead.

btw, stay calm guys. we got it.

Somebody get this tattooed on their back.

[cavalier2015]

i need some help planning my studies. due to some unforeseen family emergencies I had to fly abroad yesterday. in the hurry of packing for a flight less than 6 hours from taking off, I forgot to pack any of my LSAT books. I will not be back in the states till the 12th. I have the following materials: Trainer, Logic Games Bible, Bluescore LG, and Manhattan LR. I also plan to buy the Cambridge packets immediately after coming back. I am really new to the LSAT studying stuff and was hoping if some of the more expereinced members (or anyone really!) can offer me a rough timetable of how I should divide materials for the JUNE lsat? Should I aim to finish all the "studying" (meaning going through all the books) by mid Feb and then aim to drill and PT from mid Feb to test time? Or is that too long or too short? Any advice would be great.

[Daily_Double]

(bored and spotted this in on topics)

I used to get a bunch of feedback about recommending only doing the level ones and twos. Let me take a moment to point out why most questions are in the categories they are in though. Questions are easier (level 1/2) because the gap or inference is easy to see. In questions that are allegedly more difficult this is not the case.* The reason people miss level 3/4 questions more often than level 1/2 questions is not that the questions are "more difficult." But because the question stimulus is more convoluted---background information, dense scientific language, etc.---and as a result the stimulus takes more time to understand. But you shouldn't let time stand in your way, especially during drilling, because if you do understand the question stimulus you will have an idea of the gap or inference that the question stem is asking you to analyze or make. And if you make this a habit then eventually you'll have more than an idea and will literally know the logic of the correct answer before even reading the answers.

The main reason people miss questions with difficult stimuli is not because they don't know what to do** but because they skip a step. Usually the step skipped is understanding the argument before moving towards the answers. You don't need to drill 5000 questions to make the steps a pattern, that's one of the reasons why I recommend only doing the level ones and twos and some of the threes and fours. Another reason why I suggest avoiding most of the level 3's and 4's is because most students review the Cambridge packets terribly. They finish, turn to the answer sheet, cross of the ones they got wrong and then go back and make excuses: "I was between that answer and the one I choose so really it's like I got it right, oh I see it now that must have been a dumb mistake, I wasn't thinking, etc." And that's ok at the beginning, everyone does this. But you shouldn't make a pattern of it. By doing all of the level 3s and 4s you will likely reinforce these poor habits and overlook the purpose of drilling: to recognize the patterns in categories that are tested on the LSAT by applying valid reasoning to stimuli/games and each answer choice. You don't drill to see how many questions you can get right or to finish the packet. You drill to see things in the way they usually appear on the test. Doing the ones and twos and some, but not all, of the threes and fours is sufficient for this. You can and should do the level threes and fours if you are still having trouble or if you want to and I recommend checking them out, but I also suggest not doing all of them because you are more likely to review effectively if you throw a old section into a practice test.

Obviously the assumptions behind this recommendation: (1) that doing all of the questions at least once is not required for you to reach your goal, and (2) that you are not reviewing Cambridge effectively in at least some instances, could be invalid. And I hope the latter is, but based on my experience it usually is not. And for that reason I recommend saving sections from the practice tests in the thirties to throw into your practice tests---these tests will have some of the questions from the packets and you'll get to work through them in real time. But again this is just a recommendation, if you want to do what I did and hedge your bets by doing everything , then go for it. I'm just saying that you could probably achieve the same result with more time spent reviewing and less time spent taking old LSAT questions. Anyways, good luck on June, 1:00 PM administrations are incredible.

* LR is all about the gap between the premises and the conclusion or about making a valid inference based upon some set of facts, so I'm going to keep using these two words to describe the tasks presented in LR.
** Read stem, read stimulus, don't move towards answers until you understand stimulus, prephrase, eliminate answers that are irrelevant/contradictory/extreme/reversals and select answer that satisfies the question stem

TL;DR: Do some, but not all of the level 3's and 4's, unless you are having trouble with a question/game type. This is not a rule so feel free to disregard it completely, it is simply a suggestion to make your studies more efficient

[Louis1127]

Thanks so much for that info, DD. What would you think about reviewing in this way: when we are drilling (untimed obviously), writing out why we crossed out each answer we crossed out and why we picked the answer that we did, so that when we go back and review, we won't fall into the trap you described of not reviewing adequately.

Anyone else feel free to let me know what you think about this as well.

[Daily_Double]

This isn't what you want to hear, but the answer depends. My point was that you can do very well on the LSAT by placing more emphasis on quality of review than on quantity of LSAT stimuli/games/passages completed. But in the end it comes down to individual preferences. Some students convince themselves that they need a high score, or that they want to go all in, so they do everything no matter how long it takes. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it takes a lot of time, dedication, sacrifice, and alcohol. Other students want to put 100% in, but they only have two/three months, these are primarily the people to whom my recommendation above is targeted towards. Neither category is necessarily better or worse to be in that the other, but you have to be realistic about your time---don't schedule 40 PTs in one month, etc. So think about which category you fall into and plan accordingly.

To give you some feedback on your actual question, yes it would help. But I think a better way to approach this would be to make categories: simple one sentence breakdowns of the stimulus by question type and the effect of the answer. For example, (looks around desk, picks up nearest practice test, a stack of 20+ practice tests wobbles precipitously---think high stakes jenga) if you were to do this to PT 44, S4, Q26, it would look like this:

Q Type: S/A

Stimulus: Conditional Logic chain with that concludes the first condition is absent.

Answer: The last requirement of the chain is absent.

The goal of this is to see the patterns, so short simple sentences that state the purpose/logic of the stimulus and answer would be effective. But I'm hesitant to fully endorse it. Yes, it could increase your score, but it also takes up a decent amount of time. I'd save it for the questions that give you trouble. You'll notice I didn't include a sentence about incorrect answers, that's because I understood the stimulus before going into the answers, prephrased the correct one and mentally eliminated the others because they would not result in the negation of the first condition. You could write why an answer is wrong, and that's also helpful, but I think it is more important to see the relationships between the stimuli and correct answers. Again, this is more of an individual choice.

[Straw_Mandible]

Re: Doing all L1s and L2s but only some L3s and L4s

Thanks so much for this explanation, DD. I definitely see what you're saying here, but the one outstanding question I have is this: If we have the time to devote to drilling and thoroughly reviewing all of the questions in a packet, what's the advantage to "saving" any? The idea of saving questions seems to be that we will want fresh questions to drill later or include as experimental sections in PTs. But I don't understand the reason for this.

WRT future drilling (e.g., to iron out weaknesses that we identify in our PTs), why is it considered less effective to go back over questions we have already seen? I feel like this could be extremely useful-- especially if we are repeating questions which we had previously gotten wrong. The second, third, or fourth time over the same difficult question could continue to bring new insights, don't you think? Plus, the repetition should help cement the habit of breaking down these convoluted stimuli to find more subtle or complex flaws. Plus we'll still have fresh material in the form of PTs.

WRT experimental sections: Why do these need to be fresh? Usually, the concerns people have with retaking PTs is that they are not an accurate representation of our scoring capacity at that point. However, experimental sections are only included in PTs for the sake of stamina -- they don't factor into our scores. So what's the problem with taking a fresh PT with an experimental section that contains questions we've already drilled? Isn't repetition always a good thing? Plus, it would provide the added benefit of habituating the transition between question types--which was a challenge that we did not face in our drills.

As someone who has been through this process and out the other side, your advice here is worth its weight in gold. Thanks so much for chiming in!

[Daily_Double]

All of your points are valid. But they seem to be geared towards the practice of studying everything no matter how long it takes. Again, that's fine and it's awesome that you want this so badly. But studying for six months isn't a requirement of success on this test, that's all those points address.

(1) If you have the time, the motivation, then do it all. Retaking isn't fun. But you could probably still have the same effect with less wok.

(2) Nope. Going back over stuff is good.

(3) These don't need to be fresh.

[Straw_Mandible]

studying for six months isn't a requirement of success on this test

^ This is comforting! Over the past few months, most of us ITT have been basking in the luxury of time, so we've been going for bulk over efficiency. I'm sure as June approaches, this mentality will change.

Anyway, thank you again for your input!

-SM

[wwbeyoncedo]

Just wanted to drop in and let you all know if you have any questions about prep, especially retakes, feel free to PM me. I went from 165 in Oct '13 to 177 in December. I'm not big on posting but I'm happy to help if you're interested; especially you lurkers out there.

Also just wanted to say DD's advice is on point. If you haven't read his post on the LSAT do it-- it's basically how I approached my retake and I think it made a world of difference. Quality over quantity is a great thing to remember.

Cheers!

[Tyr]

A question on the Cambridge by type bundles... How are they arranged by difficulty? For example, I'm looking at the Cannot Be True bundle and it has 27 questions. I was expecting each question to be notated as Tier 1, 2, etc. Is it just that the first quarter of questions per packet are tier 1, second quarter are tier 2, etc.?

[rebexness]

Also just wanted to say DD's advice is on point. If you haven't read his post on the LSAT do it-- it's basically how I approached my retake and I think it made a world of difference. Quality over quantity is a great thing to remember.

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 6&t=212294

Linked for those who haven't read it.

[Straw_Mandible]

A question on the Cambridge by type bundles... How are they arranged by difficulty? For example, I'm looking at the Cannot Be True bundle and it has 27 questions. I was expecting each question to be notated as Tier 1, 2, etc. Is it just that the first quarter of questions per packet are tier 1, second quarter are tier 2, etc.?

If you look at the attached answer sheet, it contains the question difficulty levels. The proportions vary by question type, but all packets are arranged from easy to difficult.