The Official June 2014 Study Group Forum

[Augy1]

Answer sheet. See my most recent post.

thanks! I figured they would be on the answer sheet, but I'm trying to avoid looking at the answer sheet so I don't spoil any questions... lol

Before I start doing a packet, I mark the end of each section by level.

Thanks for the suggestion!

[Augy1]

I have both the LSAT Trainer and the Manhattan LR, in which order would you recommend studying both books for LR? Does it make it a difference?

Also, for the LSAT trainer, is it best to use a study schedule for learning it? I looked over the study schedules and saw that they require pt 52-61 for drills, but I really want to save those pts for later when I start taking fully timed tests. Could I instead substitute drilling pt 52-61 for drilling the same type of questions but from the Cambridge bundle questions pt 1-38?

[Tyr]

I have both the LSAT Trainer and the Manhattan LR, in which order would you recommend studying both books for LR? Does it make it a difference?

Also, for the LSAT trainer, is it best to use a study schedule for learning it? I looked over the study schedules and saw that they require pt 52-61 for drills, but I really want to save those pts for later when I start taking fully timed tests. Could I instead substitute drilling pt 52-61 for drilling the same type of questions but from the Cambridge bundle questions pt 1-38?

I'm not sure if it would matter if you use PTs 52-61 for drills, or instead, use PTs 1-30 for drilling (thus saving the rest for PTs). Just drill enough of each required type of question that The Trainer wants you to go over. In regards to which to use first, I think you'd be fine using The Trainer first. If you feel you need more help after going through The Trainer, then consult Manhattan LR, RC, LG. Additionally, reach out to Mike Kim here on TLS. He is more than willing to spend time to answer questions- thoroughly.

[rebexness]

I have both the LSAT Trainer and the Manhattan LR, in which order would you recommend studying both books for LR? Does it make it a difference?

Also, for the LSAT trainer, is it best to use a study schedule for learning it? I looked over the study schedules and saw that they require pt 52-61 for drills, but I really want to save those pts for later when I start taking fully timed tests. Could I instead substitute drilling pt 52-61 for drilling the same type of questions but from the Cambridge bundle questions pt 1-38?

If I was you I would do this:

Read the LSAT Trainer, straight through. Then take a PT, noting where your weakness appears to be, and what types of questions you are getting wrong in LR.

Then work through Manhattan LR, paying special attention to those questions that are of your "weaker" areas. After each LR chapter, do Level 1/2 (mixture) of the associated Cambridge packets.

Save any PT from 39-71 for full timed PTs.

[alexrodriguez]

Read the LSAT Trainer, straight through. Then take a PT, noting where your weakness appears to be, and what types of questions you are getting wrong in LR.

Then work through Manhattan LR, paying special attention to those questions that are of your "weaker" areas. After each LR chapter, do Level 1/2 (mixture) of the associated Cambridge packets.

Save any PT from 39-71 for full timed PTs.

I wouldn't recommend reading the Trainer straight through. Following one of the study guides allows practical application of the skills you're attempting to develop.

[dardardelight]

I'm doing pretty much what Rebexness is doing, but with the addition of going over 7sage along with MLSAT .

Just finished Chapter 20 of the Trainer (Question set of LR) and got 12/14 correct untimed, with the exception being the two "tough" questions that he described on the solutions page... making some good headway, but I definitely have a ways to go.

Almost up to the "Print Wacky Sentences" section of the Trainer. Does anybody have any idea why this is in the Trainer?? Just to make the book look thicker? I'm guessing that Mike just wants to add some lightheartedness to the whole process.

Good luck, cronies. #knickstape

[alexrodriguez]

PT's 52, 53, 54, 55, 56

Just printed out three copies of each logic game.

It's going to be a fun weekend.

[Bosh]

I did 50 LR questions yesterday which was drilling 25 Weaken Questions and missed (-4) and drilled 25 Strengthen and I missed (-1). I feel like those are my hardest question type because it takes me a while to figure out some of the right answer. It could be that some answers seem out of scope when you first see it.

I also did 8 LGs, basically advance linear.
PT 36 G2 12:07mins (-1)
PT 36 G3. 11:08mins (-1)
PT 36 G4. 5:59mins. (-0)
PT 37 G1. 6:30mins (-0)
PT 37 G2. 5:17mins. (-1)
PT 37 G4. 7:16mins. (-1)
PT 38 G2. 9:48mins. (-0)
PT 38 G4. 9:23mins. (-0)

PT36 G3 was the hardest of them all. I think it's a groupings game but Cambridge identified it as advance. Hope 7sage can help.

[10052014]

.

[sashafierce]

I'm doing pretty much what Rebexness is doing, but with the addition of going over 7sage along with MLSAT .

Just finished Chapter 20 of the Trainer (Question set of LR) and got 12/14 correct untimed, with the exception being the two "tough" questions that he described on the solutions page... making some good headway, but I definitely have a ways to go.

Almost up to the "Print Wacky Sentences" section of the Trainer. Does anybody have any idea why this is in the Trainer?? Just to make the book look thicker? I'm guessing that Mike just wants to add some lightheartedness to the whole process.

Good luck, cronies. #knickstape

Are you doing the 7sage course? If yes, how is it? I am strongly considering doing it so I would appreciate your feedback

[TheGreatJustice]

I wanna go from -3 on LR to -1.

The mistakes I make are often from me reading too quickly, missing a qualifier, or not making an inference, or skipping over a answer that I dismiss immediately.

I have the LR bible, but I find myself skipping through that because most of it seems obvious to me, and I already know most of the stuff being said from studying LR questions before I got the bible.

What should I do? I don't want to go to the LR bible and start from scratch, but I do want to improve on LR.

[10052014]

.

[TheGreatJustice]

I wanna go from -3 on LR to -1.

The mistakes I make are often from me reading too quickly, missing a qualifier, or not making an inference, or skipping over a answer that I dismiss immediately.

I have the LR bible, but I find myself skipping through that because most of it seems obvious to me, and I already know most of the stuff being said from studying LR questions before I got the bible.

What should I do? I don't want to go to the LR bible and start from scratch, but I do want to improve on LR.

get mlsat lr

the logical reasoning strategy guide?

I don't personally like their heavy emphasis on strict formal logic, mapping out the logic of prompts and such, especially for the parallel and assumption questions. It seems like people on their forums can only think if they map out the reasoning of the prompt on paper.

[Straw_Mandible]

I don't personally like their heavy emphasis on strict formal logic, mapping out the logic of prompts and such, especially for the parallel and assumption questions. It seems like people on their forums can only think if they map out the reasoning of the prompt on paper.

If you have not yet gone through the Trainer, that is what you should use if you're looking for LR mastery. I used only the Trainer for LR (briefly glanced at MLSAT LR, and like you, I found it too strict and mechanical for my tastes). I am now hovering around -0/-1 territory.

[10052014]

.

[TheGreatJustice]

I don't personally like their heavy emphasis on strict formal logic, mapping out the logic of prompts and such, especially for the parallel and assumption questions. It seems like people on their forums can only think if they map out the reasoning of the prompt on paper.

If you have not yet gone through the Trainer, that is what you should use if you're looking for LR mastery. I used only the Trainer for LR (briefly glanced at MLSAT LR, and like you, I found it too strict and mechanical for my tastes). I am now hovering around -0/-1 territory.

good advice, thank you. I was considering buying the Trainer anyways. I may do so next week then.

It's this one, right?

http://www.amazon.com/LSAT-Trainer-rema ... AT+Trainer

does this include every section type?

[rebexness]

nice. I will probably read the trainer while pting.

Unless you mean for a casual review, that is a waste of PTs.

[10052014]

.

[Straw_Mandible]

nice. I will probably read the trainer while pting.

Unless you mean for a casual review, that is a waste of PTs.

what do you mean? (Please clarify)

Credited strategy. Reading the Trainer during PTs maximizes efficiency. Guaranteed 180.

[rebexness]

nice. I will probably read the trainer while pting.

Unless you mean for a casual review, that is a waste of PTs.

what do you mean? (Please clarify)

If you do not have an excellent grasp of the subject material already, I would not waste time taking PTs. All you are doing is wasting fresh material.

[Straw_Mandible]

Assumes that one could not have an excellent grasp of material without reading the Trainer.

[rebexness]

Assumes that one could not have an excellent grasp of material without reading the Trainer.

1) This is overplayed
2) I didn't get that impression.

[Straw_Mandible]

Haha sorry, Rebex. You're right, it's overplayed. And I'm as big a fan of the Trainer as anybody. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's the only way to be properly prepared to start PTs. Jaylawyer has been using a ton of other materials, and he's been drilling like a madman.

[WaltGrace83]

Just did PT42 section 2.

I felt really good about the first 15/26. I was only about a minute off time, felt confident, and everything was going quite smoothly. As I was reviewing the answers, I realized that I probably got #11 wrong so i marked that down and changed my answer.

When I was reviewing #16 on up, I felt just okay.
#16 I felt really confident.
#17 I wasn't confident but I got a good answer through process of elimination.
I knew that I had no idea what was going on in #18 and #19 so I tried to analyze those and couldn't arrive at the correct answer so tagged them for further review.
#20-21 I felt fine on.
#22 I never got to (I skip parallel reasoning for the end), #23 I had no idea what was going on. Didn't get to #24 (parallel reasoning).
#25-6 I felt great on!

I answered 24 questions in under 35 minutes, I was pretty happy. Let's just say I have a lot to learn from this section. I crushed 1-15! Only got one wrong and that made me feel good.

I GOT crushed on everything else. #16-20 I got completely wrong! If I take into account the ones I couldn't get to because of time I would have gotten a -9. However, for the ones that I reasoned out I got 18/24. Not very good.

Well I am going to dust myself and really learn from these mistakes. It sucks because I felt so confident throughout the first part of the test (rightfully so) .

[afnajjerh]

Hey, Jaylawyer, i know the subject of a drilling study plan was floating around a while. Is that still a possibility or nah?