The Official September 2014 Study Group Forum

[DiniMae]

New to the group, but not to studying. Registered for the OCT 2013, but had emergencies come up so I didn't take it. Took a PS class and read the books. OK at games and LR, but I'm working to whittle it down to -3 or better. Struggling with RC -- which is insulting considering my current profession. Unsure of how to fix it.

[vracovino]

New to the group, but not to studying. Registered for the OCT 2013, but had emergencies come up so I didn't take it. Took a PS class and read the books. OK at games and LR, but I'm working to whittle it down to -3 or better. Struggling with RC -- which is insulting considering my current profession. Unsure of how to fix it.

RC is so weird. And I feel the same way given my major and relatively high academic performance. I just think its a slightly different set of skills than normal reading really requires.

Edit:

on the subject of RC, I've tried to implement a few strategies recently and thought I should share. Got -3 today timed on a full section, which is good. I think I would be okay with that on test day.

Anyway, some things I've noticed...

-Somewhere in the first or second paragraph, the author will make a case for an argument. Usually, each paragraph will provide different support for that core argument. It's important to always keep this in mind, and read with the purpose of "how does this relate to the core argument?" If you find yourself reading the same set of lines over and over, its because you are failing to see how what is being said relates to the main argument, or how it provides support for what the author is currently attempting to argue.

-If a passage is less detail oriented and relatively easy to read, expect to have a bunch of questions where you are going to be revisiting specific lines or examples. The questions for easy to read passages tend to be more difficult. And vice versa.

[flash21]

New to the group, but not to studying. Registered for the OCT 2013, but had emergencies come up so I didn't take it. Took a PS class and read the books. OK at games and LR, but I'm working to whittle it down to -3 or better. Struggling with RC -- which is insulting considering my current profession. Unsure of how to fix it.

RC is so weird. And I feel the same way given my major and relatively high academic performance. I just think its a slightly different set of skills than normal reading really requires.

Edit:

on the subject of RC, I've tried to implement a few strategies recently and thought I should share. Got -3 today timed on a full section, which is good. I think I would be okay with that on test day.

Anyway, some things I've noticed...

-Somewhere in the first or second paragraph, the author will make a case for an argument. Usually, each paragraph will provide different support for that core argument. It's important to always keep this in mind, and read with the purpose of "how does this relate to the core argument?" If you find yourself reading the same set of lines over and over, its because you are failing to see how what is being said relates to the main argument, or how it provides support for what the author is currently attempting to argue.

-If a passage is less detail oriented and relatively easy to read, expect to have a bunch of questions where you are going to be revisiting specific lines or examples. The questions for easy to read passages tend to be more difficult. And vice versa.

good advice, namely the part where you say if you find yourself re-reading you probably arent relating it back to the main idea / argument. I completely agree.

[mornincounselor]

Post removed.

[mornincounselor]

Post removed.

[ilikebaseball]

Quick question because I'm new... When you guys use the terminology PT and then a number (im assuming it stands for practice test?) is there a website where you guys are taking all of these practice tests? Or are you just saying PT50 as in its your 50th practice test that you've taken. I don't know if there is an actual name of a test called PT50 so that if someone has a question on it, someone here who has taken PT50 can help.

[longhorn65]

Hello all, about a week in to studying and I was curious on the approach most take. Do most of you focus on one section until you OWN it and the move on or do you do a bit of studying on each section each day? I am considering just commiting to the logic games bible for 2 weeks or so until I am hitting -2 to -0 pretty consistently then moving on but Im unsure about this approach. Any critique is appreciated and as always Good luck in your studying!

[ilikebaseball]

Hello all, about a week in to studying and I was curious on the approach most take. Do most of you focus on one section until you OWN it and the move on or do you do a bit of studying on each section each day? I am considering just commiting to the logic games bible for 2 weeks or so until I am hitting -2 to -0 pretty consistently then moving on but Im unsure about this approach. Any critique is appreciated and as always Good luck in your studying!

take an initial diagnostic (usually people take the june 2007 one) and see what you need to hit. I usually try to hit everything when I study. I'm very good at the games and I'm very good at RC. So when I have a study session I do 2 logic games and 2 passages just to keep it fresh. But then, because I struggle with LR, I devote the rest of my time to that. I don't think you ever wanna just study one section. Keep it all fresh. You don't have to do a whole 25 question part. Just factor in a logic game or a passage or two. Or do 10 LR questions if that's your strength.

IMO, its all about getting what you struggle in to the same level as your best section. So, I miss 1-2 questions every logic games section, so my goal is to get the LR to the point where I'm missing 1-2 questions. IDK, that's just the way I've thought of it.

[bound]

Hello all, about a week in to studying and I was curious on the approach most take. Do most of you focus on one section until you OWN it and the move on or do you do a bit of studying on each section each day? I am considering just commiting to the logic games bible for 2 weeks or so until I am hitting -2 to -0 pretty consistently then moving on but Im unsure about this approach. Any critique is appreciated and as always Good luck in your studying!

take an initial diagnostic (usually people take the june 2007 one) and see what you need to hit. I usually try to hit everything when I study. I'm very good at the games and I'm very good at RC. So when I have a study session I do 2 logic games and 2 passages just to keep it fresh. But then, because I struggle with LR, I devote the rest of my time to that. I don't think you ever wanna just study one section. Keep it all fresh. You don't have to do a whole 25 question part. Just factor in a logic game or a passage or two. Or do 10 LR questions if that's your strength.

IMO, its all about getting what you struggle in to the same level as your best section. So, I miss 1-2 questions every logic games section, so my goal is to get the LR to the point where I'm missing 1-2 questions. IDK, that's just the way I've thought of it.

For some reason, that PT always gives me the most trouble. The curve is basically nonexistent.

[ilikebaseball]

Hello all, about a week in to studying and I was curious on the approach most take. Do most of you focus on one section until you OWN it and the move on or do you do a bit of studying on each section each day? I am considering just commiting to the logic games bible for 2 weeks or so until I am hitting -2 to -0 pretty consistently then moving on but Im unsure about this approach. Any critique is appreciated and as always Good luck in your studying!

take an initial diagnostic (usually people take the june 2007 one) and see what you need to hit. I usually try to hit everything when I study. I'm very good at the games and I'm very good at RC. So when I have a study session I do 2 logic games and 2 passages just to keep it fresh. But then, because I struggle with LR, I devote the rest of my time to that. I don't think you ever wanna just study one section. Keep it all fresh. You don't have to do a whole 25 question part. Just factor in a logic game or a passage or two. Or do 10 LR questions if that's your strength.

IMO, its all about getting what you struggle in to the same level as your best section. So, I miss 1-2 questions every logic games section, so my goal is to get the LR to the point where I'm missing 1-2 questions. IDK, that's just the way I've thought of it.

For some reason, that PT always gives me the most trouble. The curve is basically nonexistent.

OMG YES. BTW, the only logic game that I've EVER struggled with was the 4th one on this test. The one about he 3 recycle bins??? The last two questions on that game I couldn't even answer. I just skipped.
That was my first test and I missed 20 problems and got a 161. So now I'm 7 points higher and hopefully still rising... but to this day I've never taken an LSAT that gave me that much trouble. I guess its better to take the tough one first to make the real ones look easier?

[longhorn65]

Hello all, about a week in to studying and I was curious on the approach most take. Do most of you focus on one section until you OWN it and the move on or do you do a bit of studying on each section each day? I am considering just commiting to the logic games bible for 2 weeks or so until I am hitting -2 to -0 pretty consistently then moving on but Im unsure about this approach. Any critique is appreciated and as always Good luck in your studying!

take an initial diagnostic (usually people take the june 2007 one) and see what you need to hit. I usually try to hit everything when I study. I'm very good at the games and I'm very good at RC. So when I have a study session I do 2 logic games and 2 passages just to keep it fresh. But then, because I struggle with LR, I devote the rest of my time to that. I don't think you ever wanna just study one section. Keep it all fresh. You don't have to do a whole 25 question part. Just factor in a logic game or a passage or two. Or do 10 LR questions if that's your strength.

IMO, its all about getting what you struggle in to the same level as your best section. So, I miss 1-2 questions every logic games section, so my goal is to get the LR to the point where I'm missing 1-2 questions. IDK, that's just the way I've thought of it.

When people take the practice tests do they stick to only the newer ones? I figured I would start with older ones so ive begun with 1999-2002 and then ill move up from there! is this wrong? sorry for all the questions and also thank you for the reply to the previous question!

[ilikebaseball]

Hello all, about a week in to studying and I was curious on the approach most take. Do most of you focus on one section until you OWN it and the move on or do you do a bit of studying on each section each day? I am considering just commiting to the logic games bible for 2 weeks or so until I am hitting -2 to -0 pretty consistently then moving on but Im unsure about this approach. Any critique is appreciated and as always Good luck in your studying!

take an initial diagnostic (usually people take the june 2007 one) and see what you need to hit. I usually try to hit everything when I study. I'm very good at the games and I'm very good at RC. So when I have a study session I do 2 logic games and 2 passages just to keep it fresh. But then, because I struggle with LR, I devote the rest of my time to that. I don't think you ever wanna just study one section. Keep it all fresh. You don't have to do a whole 25 question part. Just factor in a logic game or a passage or two. Or do 10 LR questions if that's your strength.

IMO, its all about getting what you struggle in to the same level as your best section. So, I miss 1-2 questions every logic games section, so my goal is to get the LR to the point where I'm missing 1-2 questions. IDK, that's just the way I've thought of it.

When people take the practice tests do they stick to only the newer ones? I figured I would start with older ones so ive begun with 1999-2002 and then ill move up from there! is this wrong? sorry for all the questions and also thank you for the reply to the previous question!

No definitely take newer ones first and work to the older ones. The reason I say that is because the newer ones (post 2004 I believe) have a completely different way they ask LR questions. Before 2004, they'd give you a logical reasoning passage, and then give you like 3 questions about that passage. I could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure there's some truth to that. If you're gonna take a bunch of practices, start from current and work to the older ones. Or just go to amazon and buy random ones haha

[longhorn65]

Hello all, about a week in to studying and I was curious on the approach most take. Do most of you focus on one section until you OWN it and the move on or do you do a bit of studying on each section each day? I am considering just commiting to the logic games bible for 2 weeks or so until I am hitting -2 to -0 pretty consistently then moving on but Im unsure about this approach. Any critique is appreciated and as always Good luck in your studying!

take an initial diagnostic (usually people take the june 2007 one) and see what you need to hit. I usually try to hit everything when I study. I'm very good at the games and I'm very good at RC. So when I have a study session I do 2 logic games and 2 passages just to keep it fresh. But then, because I struggle with LR, I devote the rest of my time to that. I don't think you ever wanna just study one section. Keep it all fresh. You don't have to do a whole 25 question part. Just factor in a logic game or a passage or two. Or do 10 LR questions if that's your strength.

IMO, its all about getting what you struggle in to the same level as your best section. So, I miss 1-2 questions every logic games section, so my goal is to get the LR to the point where I'm missing 1-2 questions. IDK, that's just the way I've thought of it.

HAHA thank you very much This is great to know and definatly makes a big difference
When people take the practice tests do they stick to only the newer ones? I figured I would start with older ones so ive begun with 1999-2002 and then ill move up from there! is this wrong? sorry for all the questions and also thank you for the reply to the previous question!

No definitely take newer ones first and work to the older ones. The reason I say that is because the newer ones (post 2004 I believe) have a completely different way they ask LR questions. Before 2004, they'd give you a logical reasoning passage, and then give you like 3 questions about that passage. I could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure there's some truth to that. If you're gonna take a bunch of practices, start from current and work to the older ones. Or just go to amazon and buy random ones haha

Well thank you for this info. Very goodd to know. I just ordered the newest set of 10 so that will be a good starting place. are the newer ones much harder?

[WaltGrace83]

In my opinion, starting with newer and going to older PT's is absolutely insane. Develop an understanding on the stuff that is not as relevant (by the way, its still very relevant). Practice on the newer stuff after you feel that you have gotten a good handle on the material.

[ilikebaseball]

No, it varies. There really isnt an ascending or descending level of difficulty. The june 2007 one just happened to be a very difficult test. Its totally random.

[Louis1127]

In my opinion, starting with newer and going to older PT's is absolutely insane. Develop an understanding on the stuff that is not as relevant (by the way, its still very relevant). Practice on the newer stuff after you feel that you have gotten a good handle on the material.

I second this advice. You should take the newest PTs close to your test date so you get an idea of what your test on test day will look like.

There are subtle changes between old and new LSATs (although I think that their differences are overblown on TLS), but those changes didn't happen between one test. Rather, they happen slowly. There is virtually no difference between PT 39 and PT 40, but there is a somewhat noticeable difference between PT 70 and say, PT 10.

My advice (disclaimer: I am not yet an LSAT master) is to train with the old ones to understand the concepts of the LSAT (for example, formal logic diagramming, learning how to set up games, reading for structure, etc.) and then use the newer ones for full-length PTs.

[ilikebaseball]

In my opinion, starting with newer and going to older PT's is absolutely insane. Develop an understanding on the stuff that is not as relevant (by the way, its still very relevant). Practice on the newer stuff after you feel that you have gotten a good handle on the material.

I second this advice. You should take the newest PTs close to your test date so you get an idea of what your test on test day will look like.

There are subtle changes between old and new LSATs (although I think that their differences are overblown on TLS), but those changes didn't happen between one test. Rather, they happen slowly. There is virtually no difference between PT 39 and PT 40, but there is a somewhat noticeable difference between PT 70 and say, PT 10.

My advice (disclaimer: I am not yet an LSAT master) is to train with the old ones to understand the concepts of the LSAT (for example, formal logic diagramming, learning how to set up games, reading for structure, etc.) and then use the newer ones for full-length PTs.

The LSAT writers havent changed... the only thing that will change is perhaps the subject of the passages/ LR questions. In my opinion, its more important (for timing reasons) to start with new ones first because the older ones have a different style to their LR questions. Maybe it depends what you find more important, the content of the questions or how the structure.

[Louis1127]

In my opinion, starting with newer and going to older PT's is absolutely insane. Develop an understanding on the stuff that is not as relevant (by the way, its still very relevant). Practice on the newer stuff after you feel that you have gotten a good handle on the material.

I second this advice. You should take the newest PTs close to your test date so you get an idea of what your test on test day will look like.

There are subtle changes between old and new LSATs (although I think that their differences are overblown on TLS), but those changes didn't happen between one test. Rather, they happen slowly. There is virtually no difference between PT 39 and PT 40, but there is a somewhat noticeable difference between PT 70 and say, PT 10.

My advice (disclaimer: I am not yet an LSAT master) is to train with the old ones to understand the concepts of the LSAT (for example, formal logic diagramming, learning how to set up games, reading for structure, etc.) and then use the newer ones for full-length PTs.

The LSAT writers havent changed... the only thing that will change is perhaps the subject of the passages/ LR questions. In my opinion, its more important (for timing reasons) to start with new ones first because the older ones have a different style to their LR questions. Maybe it depends what you find more important, the content of the questions or how the structure.

No actually those haven't changed.

And if the old questions have a different feel to them, why would you want to do them closer to your test date instead of at the beginning of your prep to nail down the basics?

[ilikebaseball]

In my opinion, starting with newer and going to older PT's is absolutely insane. Develop an understanding on the stuff that is not as relevant (by the way, its still very relevant). Practice on the newer stuff after you feel that you have gotten a good handle on the material.

I second this advice. You should take the newest PTs close to your test date so you get an idea of what your test on test day will look like.

There are subtle changes between old and new LSATs (although I think that their differences are overblown on TLS), but those changes didn't happen between one test. Rather, they happen slowly. There is virtually no difference between PT 39 and PT 40, but there is a somewhat noticeable difference between PT 70 and say, PT 10.

My advice (disclaimer: I am not yet an LSAT master) is to train with the old ones to understand the concepts of the LSAT (for example, formal logic diagramming, learning how to set up games, reading for structure, etc.) and then use the newer ones for full-length PTs.

The LSAT writers havent changed... the only thing that will change is perhaps the subject of the passages/ LR questions. In my opinion, its more important (for timing reasons) to start with new ones first because the older ones have a different style to their LR questions. Maybe it depends what you find more important, the content of the questions or how the structure.

No actually those haven't changed.

And if the old questions have a different feel to them, why would you want to do them closer to your test date instead of at the beginning of your prep to nail down the basics?

For timing reasons... i mean, I'm not doing pre 2004 tests at all. I don't want my timing to be swayed (and also in may instances, the answers) because of the differences in the LR sections. That was my point. If you're gonna put a gun to my head and say "which ones would you take first" id say the newer ones. but imo i wouldnt take the pre 2004 ones at all

[longhorn65]

I get what your saying but 9 tests just isnt enough for me. I will probably take half of them and that being said will spend the last month or two only on 2004 < tests. THank you for the input though

[ilikebaseball]

I get what your saying but 9 tests just isnt enough for me. I will probably take half of them and that being said will spend the last month or two only on 2004 < tests. THank you for the input though

That would be roughly around 30 tests

[longhorn65]

I get what your saying but 9 tests just isnt enough for me. I will probably take half of them and that being said will spend the last month or two only on 2004 < tests. THank you for the input though

That would be roughly around 30 tests

lol it was a sarcastic extreme underestimation I am aware it is significantly more than 9

[ilikebaseball]

I get what your saying but 9 tests just isnt enough for me. I will probably take half of them and that being said will spend the last month or two only on 2004 < tests. THank you for the input though

That would be roughly around 30 tests

lol it was a sarcastic extreme underestimation I am aware it is significantly more than 9

Just do what's best for you. If you're at the beginning you probalby don't need to take a ton of pts. I know for a fact that come september I'm gonna start taking a p ts every other day, but til then i'm just gonna drill out problems and take a test every other week or so.

[Louis1127]

Choward you and I have very different definitions of "old tests" lol.

By old, I thought you were talking about 1991-2004ish, while you were talking about post 2004 tests.

Our opinions aren't really that different now that we have found that the root of our disagreement was likely our definition of "old tests".

Haha, good luck man, and all love

[ilawsxhool1]

I've been studying from Powerscore's Logical Reasoning Bible and Logical Games Bible. I want to purchase the LSAT Trainer book (read mostly positive reviews on it). If anyone has studied with both, do they contradict each other in a way that will hinder me or is the LSAT Trainer a great supplement to Powerscore?