The Official September 2016 Study Group - WAKE ME UP WHEN SEPTEMBER ENDS Forum

[garypaintsalot]

Didn't imagine full time studying the LSAT is so irritating. I have to workout every time to keep up the energy. I have ran 5 5k since last Saturday as well as normal lifting weights. I also eat a lot of healthy food, especially breakfast and lunch (multigrain cereal, eggs, subways, fruits, etc). When my friends saw me eating a footlong subway for dinner after workout, he was like dude, you can't lose weight if you eat this for dinner; I was like I ain't losing weight, I'm keeping my brain run!

[studyingeveryday]

I definitely have asked about books and resources a LOT here, but just to clarify before I buy:

The Manhattan books are good for raising my score from low 160s, right? and powerscore is better for foundational stuff? I'm retaking, so I'm looking for material that will help me raise my score to high 160s, or low 170s if I do well. I just want to make sure I choose the right material before I buy it--thank you!!

And whatever I get, I'm pairing along with the LSAT Trainer 16 week plan.

100% Manhattan, though I really think, as a retaker, you shouldn't spend 16 weeks with the Trainer.

Thank you! Wait, should I do a shorter version of the Trainer? If so, should I still align it for it to end when I take the LSAT or end earlier? (this will be my first time with the Trainer)

Also, my worst section is RC, then LR, and I'm most comfortable with LG. Do you think (and anyone who's reading this can please offer their input!) I should get all three Manhattan books, or should I just get RC and LR and use 7sage videos for LG?

[20170322]

Going to do some drilling and review tonight, then do a full PT at 10am tomorrow. Hoping this one goes better than the last.

[Barack O'Drama]

How many hours a day and during what times is everyone studying the the LSAT? Just curious to see what everyone's routines are as far as this goes?

I teach as well and since Monday, I'll be studying, or at least setting aside the time to study like if it was a job. Studying 9-5 M-F, 1 hour lunch break, with 15-30 minute breaks in the morning and afternoon.

After two weeks, I also plan to use either Saturday or Sunday to either review/drill for a couple hours, or take a PT. I'm also doing the Insanity program in the evenings

This week I start my internship which is minimally 9-5 M-F. I am going to wake up extra early so I can workout and do a little prep before work and then in the evenings I will try to do at least 3 hours a day, but hopefully more like 5 and then grind my ass off during the weekend. I am just going to try to get in as much as I can when the time is available. I know some days I will have more energy than others, so we will see.

Anybody working full-time like I will and have any recommendations/advice?

I'll be full-time as well, starting next week. anticipating a lot of waking up super early, going to bed super early (joy oh joy), and then a lot of lsat work in the evenings. Mornings are obviously a much more ideal time to study than evenings after a long day, but unless we plan on waking up at 4am every day, there's not much to be done there.

I was considering it (if I have too, I will), but thats just fucking BRUTAL.

I was thinking about doing that and setting all my clocks ahead 4 hours to give myself the illusion of having a normal schedule, but I figure a made-up time zone might be taking the "letting the lsats take over every aspect of my life" thing a bit too far.

Yeah, that might be a little too far, haha. I do feel ya though, I've been thinking crazy thoughts about ways to make more time for studying. We just have to be reasonable, lest we burn ourselves out.

[Barack O'Drama]

I definitely have asked about books and resources a LOT here, but just to clarify before I buy:

The Manhattan books are good for raising my score from low 160s, right? and powerscore is better for foundational stuff? I'm retaking, so I'm looking for material that will help me raise my score to high 160s, or low 170s if I do well. I just want to make sure I choose the right material before I buy it--thank you!!

And whatever I get, I'm pairing along with the LSAT Trainer 16 week plan.

100% Manhattan, though I really think, as a retaker, you shouldn't spend 16 weeks with the Trainer.

Thank you! Wait, should I do a shorter version of the Trainer? If so, should I still align it for it to end when I take the LSAT or end earlier? (this will be my first time with the Trainer)

Also, my worst section is RC, then LR, and I'm most comfortable with LG. Do you think (and anyone who's reading this can please offer their input!) I should get all three Manhattan books, or should I just get RC and LR and use 7sage videos for LG?

Proteinshake told me to get the MLSAT after I had gone through most of the PS bibles. I will say that is the best LSAT decision I made. The build on the foundation laid by the bibles/trainer. I think you should get all 3. I think the bibles are completely amazing if you want to score in the 160s. I think it gives you enough knowledge to achieve that. The MLSAT I think is a bit more geared towards cutting the superfluous bullshit and getting to the nitty gritty. It just feels more straight forward and objective.

[studyingeveryday]

I definitely have asked about books and resources a LOT here, but just to clarify before I buy:

The Manhattan books are good for raising my score from low 160s, right? and powerscore is better for foundational stuff? I'm retaking, so I'm looking for material that will help me raise my score to high 160s, or low 170s if I do well. I just want to make sure I choose the right material before I buy it--thank you!!

And whatever I get, I'm pairing along with the LSAT Trainer 16 week plan.

100% Manhattan, though I really think, as a retaker, you shouldn't spend 16 weeks with the Trainer.

Thank you! Wait, should I do a shorter version of the Trainer? If so, should I still align it for it to end when I take the LSAT or end earlier? (this will be my first time with the Trainer)

Also, my worst section is RC, then LR, and I'm most comfortable with LG. Do you think (and anyone who's reading this can please offer their input!) I should get all three Manhattan books, or should I just get RC and LR and use 7sage videos for LG?

Proteinshake told me to get the MLSAT after I had gone through most of the PS bibles. I will say that is the best LSAT decision I made. The build on the foundation laid by the bibles/trainer. I think you should get all 3. I think the bibles are completely amazing if you want to score in the 160s. I think it gives you enough knowledge to achieve that. The MLSAT I think is a bit more geared towards cutting the superfluous bullshit and getting to the nitty gritty. It just feels more straight forward and objective.

Thanks so much! Okay, all three Manhattan books it is! My wallet is crying but I'm hopeful this will help me with that 170 along with the Trainer! I will keep you all updated!

[tuesdayninja]

Think there's some improvements in my LG! Drilled PT4 LG tonight, went -4 at 35min, the -4 coming from four unanswered questions leftover in the last game. Came to the last game at 27 minutes. It was a mapping game involving ski chalets that kinda threw me for a bit. Went 3/4 afterwards on the ones leftover untimed. Watched the 7sage video on the missed problem, I was forgetting a little option in the mapping where I could connect chalet J to chalet O. More LG tomorrow!

That's excellent! I can't wait to start seeing some improvement in my LGs. 7Sage is such an amazing way to review. It has been such a big help already and I just started logic games Again, nice work. Seems like you've got a good grasp of the skills you'll need for a very high score.

Thanks, 7sage is da shittttt. You'll get those improvements soon enough too!

[proteinshake]

I definitely have asked about books and resources a LOT here, but just to clarify before I buy:

The Manhattan books are good for raising my score from low 160s, right? and powerscore is better for foundational stuff? I'm retaking, so I'm looking for material that will help me raise my score to high 160s, or low 170s if I do well. I just want to make sure I choose the right material before I buy it--thank you!!

And whatever I get, I'm pairing along with the LSAT Trainer 16 week plan.

100% Manhattan, though I really think, as a retaker, you shouldn't spend 16 weeks with the Trainer.

Thank you! Wait, should I do a shorter version of the Trainer? If so, should I still align it for it to end when I take the LSAT or end earlier? (this will be my first time with the Trainer)

Also, my worst section is RC, then LR, and I'm most comfortable with LG. Do you think (and anyone who's reading this can please offer their input!) I should get all three Manhattan books, or should I just get RC and LR and use 7sage videos for LG?

Proteinshake told me to get the MLSAT after I had gone through most of the PS bibles. I will say that is the best LSAT decision I made. The build on the foundation laid by the bibles/trainer. I think you should get all 3. I think the bibles are completely amazing if you want to score in the 160s. I think it gives you enough knowledge to achieve that. The MLSAT I think is a bit more geared towards cutting the superfluous bullshit and getting to the nitty gritty. It just feels more straight forward and objective.

Thanks so much! Okay, all three Manhattan books it is! My wallet is crying but I'm hopeful this will help me with that 170 along with the Trainer! I will keep you all updated!

Trainer ---> Manhattan is the best method imo. I just took a look at the 16 week Trainer plan and I don't think it is rigorous at all. the first week only has you doing the first 4 chapters and a diagnostic?? I did that in the first two days! and I'd assume you probably would have a lot of energy remaining to study more than that. what I did was read however many chapters I could each day without feeling burnt and drill after a chapter if it was appropriate to do so (for example, after the 'Flaws" chapter). You should be able to get through the Trainer in 3-4 weeks this way, then move on to Manhattan, drilling after every Manhattan chapter (the RC book isn't necessary though, I found the Trainer to be sufficient, but if you need more help, get it). after that, you can take 2-3 PTs a week! I also take a PT after I finish every prep book!

[studyingeveryday]

I definitely have asked about books and resources a LOT here, but just to clarify before I buy:

The Manhattan books are good for raising my score from low 160s, right? and powerscore is better for foundational stuff? I'm retaking, so I'm looking for material that will help me raise my score to high 160s, or low 170s if I do well. I just want to make sure I choose the right material before I buy it--thank you!!

And whatever I get, I'm pairing along with the LSAT Trainer 16 week plan.

100% Manhattan, though I really think, as a retaker, you shouldn't spend 16 weeks with the Trainer.

Thank you! Wait, should I do a shorter version of the Trainer? If so, should I still align it for it to end when I take the LSAT or end earlier? (this will be my first time with the Trainer)

Also, my worst section is RC, then LR, and I'm most comfortable with LG. Do you think (and anyone who's reading this can please offer their input!) I should get all three Manhattan books, or should I just get RC and LR and use 7sage videos for LG?

Proteinshake told me to get the MLSAT after I had gone through most of the PS bibles. I will say that is the best LSAT decision I made. The build on the foundation laid by the bibles/trainer. I think you should get all 3. I think the bibles are completely amazing if you want to score in the 160s. I think it gives you enough knowledge to achieve that. The MLSAT I think is a bit more geared towards cutting the superfluous bullshit and getting to the nitty gritty. It just feels more straight forward and objective.

Thanks so much! Okay, all three Manhattan books it is! My wallet is crying but I'm hopeful this will help me with that 170 along with the Trainer! I will keep you all updated!

Trainer ---> Manhattan is the best method imo. I just took a look at the 16 week Trainer plan and I don't think it is rigorous at all. the first week only has you doing the first 4 chapters and a diagnostic?? I did that in the first two days! and I'd assume you probably would have a lot of energy remaining to study more than that. what I did was read however many chapters I could each day without feeling burnt and drill after a chapter if it was appropriate to do so (for example, after the 'Flaws" chapter). You should be able to get through the Trainer in 3-4 weeks this way, then move on to Manhattan, drilling after every Manhattan chapter (the RC book isn't necessary though, I found the Trainer to be sufficient, but if you need more help, get it). after that, you can take 2-3 PTs a week! I also take a PT after I finish every prep book!

Got it!! This is really awesome advice!!

[chicharon]

To our esteemed OP--

HAPPY HAPPY BIRTHDAY, AMTA!!!

[amta]

To our esteemed OP--

HAPPY HAPPY BIRTHDAY, AMTA!!!

thank you, chic!!! waiters 12/2k15 forever.

[Giro423]

June waiter here...looking for some advice. I'm planning to keep studying at least until I get my score back in case I decide I need to retake. If I scored 165+ I'll probably call it, if not I'm going to shoot for 170+ in Sept. Most of my studying for June was done almost exclusively with Manhattan material. For my "phase 2" study material I just received: LR and RC bibles, ACE the LSAT Logic Games, remaining PT's I haven't seen, and Nova's Master the LSAT. My goal is to try and fill in any gaps in understanding with some fresh material. However, I'm a little worried about different strategies overloading me and causing a score drop. I decided to skip the LG bible thinking that I don't need a foundation change here since Manhattan's techniques seem to work pretty well for me, so I got ACE and Nova based on TLS1776' recommendation to try and strengthen my hypo approach. I plan on using 7Sage's LG videos too. I hear a lot about the LSAT trainer and the Cambridge packets as well. Thoughts? Thanks guys!

I think you ultimately can reach a point of wasting time on reading too many different prep books, but I found the Bibles and Manhattan to be very complimentary. I don;t think in your situation and how you described what you want to do that you would you reach that point. Its like studying for a most tests where reading some additional books that are complimentary to the main textbook are very helpful. It seems as though the top Prep companies like the ones you mentioned aren't just about teaching little shortcuts and tricks, but rather systematic approaches and they train you to think a certain way. Because of this, I don't think reviewing a new book would hurt you, it would only help. You might find the way that the bible (for example) explained something slightly clearer to you or you like one of the PS approaches better. However, if your current approach is working then don't waste your time and instead, Drill/PT away.

I am currently using the Bibles and then using Manhattan as complimentary (you would be doing the opposite it sounds like). Later in prep, I may look to adding some of the TLS1776 book recommendations that you mentioned if I feel that its necessary. Many posters in here have discussed the LSAT trainer, which is apparently beneficial, but they would be better to give you a review than that than I.

The cambridge packets are extremely helpful from what I hear, but unfortunately they aren't available. I wanted to buy them for my prep, but LSAC banned Cambridge from making them anymore. A supplementary product is Powerscore's Game Type and Question TYpe books - this is what I am using and its great. They are definitely worth the investment for drilling.

Best of Luck! Hopefully you got a score you are satisfied with on the June test though!

Thank you! Always nice to get a second opinion. Good luck with your studying too.

[chicharon]

To our esteemed OP--

HAPPY HAPPY BIRTHDAY, AMTA!!!

thank you, chic!!! waiters 12/2k15 forever.

May you keep your shoe game up and 180 forever.

[proteinshake]

To our esteemed OP--

HAPPY HAPPY BIRTHDAY, AMTA!!!

thank you, chic!!! waiters 12/2k15 forever.

[MAPP]

I hate the LSAT.

Ditto

I try to love it, but I think it hates me so I hate it back

Lol #foreverhateful.

Weren't you also part of the June thread? Did you take or decide to postpone?

I was in the June thread but never planned to take in June... my studying kicked off second week of May. I was just there to see if I could gain some extra smartness before I began my own study regimen

[MAPP]

I've been drilling LG and then watching the 7sage videos and I am trying to come up with the "rule" for when I shouldn't try to make sub-gameboards (I think it would be impossible to make a rule for when you should make sub-gameboards). I think SweetTort you might be very able to comment on this since you've seemed to have done a lot of LG already?

Right now, my rule is that whenever there are many possibilities for each game piece a sub-gameboard would not work (e.g. F,G,K,L are grouped into three groups and each group could have three pieces). I try to make sub-gameboards whenever the pieces go into the board 1-to-1 or there are more pieces than spots on the board (because in these instances there are only a few possible combinations for all the pieces).

Basically, I'm am trying to see what anyone's thoughts are on making sub-gameboards and when to attempt making them and when to not?

[proteinshake]

I've been drilling LG and then watching the 7sage videos and I am trying to come up with the "rule" for when I shouldn't try to make sub-gameboards (I think it would be impossible to make a rule for when you should make sub-gameboards). I think SweetTort you might be very able to comment on this since you've seemed to have done a lot of LG already?

Right now, my rule is that whenever there are many possibilities for each game piece a sub-gameboard would not work (e.g. F,G,K,L are grouped into three groups and each group could have three pieces). I try to make sub-gameboards whenever the pieces go into the board 1-to-1 or there are more pieces than spots on the board (because in these instances there are only a few possible combinations for all the pieces).

Basically, I'm am trying to see what anyone's thoughts are on making sub-gameboards and when to attempt making them and when to not?

if you can make a split with significant consequences, split the game board. for example, if 'either K of J can go 4th' and when either of them are put into that spot you can make a significant amount of inferences, split it. if not, don't. the hard part is knowing when splits like this will lead to additional inferences. there's no point in splitting a game board if you can't make any or many more inferences.

I think this is probably what you intuitively do anyway.

[proteinshake]

putting a star next to every game I don't go -0 on in the Cambridge packs and gonna make 1 pack of every game I didn't go -0 on so I can do it later in my prep.

[SunDevil14]

I am currently working through my prep books. I would highly suggest the Powerscore Logic Games Bible. Originally I was not able to get through all 4 games in time, nor with tremendous accuracy. I completed the book about a week and a half ago, and am now consistently getting through all 4 games while only missing a few question if any.

My main question is about logical reasoning. Is there a large consensus on whether the stimulus should be read before the questions or vice versa? Rather, is choosing which to read first a matter of preference?

I have been recording my progress using both methods, and I consistently score higher when reading the question first. Although, my prep material suggestions reading the stimulus first. I'm curious of whether reading the question first will be detrimental in the long, despite currently yielding better results.

do whatever works best for you.

I agree with Proteinshake that you should do whatever works best for you. The only downside I have heard is that once you read the question before the stimulus, you can never get a truly fresh perspective on the game. You might see it biased and miss something. However, I read it first because I think the risk of that happening is worth knowing what to look for so you can pre-phrase your answer.

My thoughts exactly, I find the reading the question first enables me better focus on the stimulus, and more accurately construct a paraphrased answer. I am also able to move through the section faster. I believe those two factors combined mitigate the issue of creating a bias while reading the question.

To answer your other question, I try to get in at least 4 hours a day, 6 days a week. I usually go do 3 hours of drill/new material and prep, and 1+ hours of review.

[Barack O'Drama]

I am currently working through my prep books. I would highly suggest the Powerscore Logic Games Bible. Originally I was not able to get through all 4 games in time, nor with tremendous accuracy. I completed the book about a week and a half ago, and am now consistently getting through all 4 games while only missing a few question if any.

My main question is about logical reasoning. Is there a large consensus on whether the stimulus should be read before the questions or vice versa? Rather, is choosing which to read first a matter of preference?

I have been recording my progress using both methods, and I consistently score higher when reading the question first. Although, my prep material suggestions reading the stimulus first. I'm curious of whether reading the question first will be detrimental in the long, despite currently yielding better results.

do whatever works best for you.

I agree with Proteinshake that you should do whatever works best for you. The only downside I have heard is that once you read the question before the stimulus, you can never get a truly fresh perspective on the game. You might see it biased and miss something. However, I read it first because I think the risk of that happening is worth knowing what to look for so you can pre-phrase your answer.

My thoughts exactly, I find the reading the question first enables me better focus on the stimulus, and more accurately construct a paraphrased answer. I am also able to move through the section faster. I believe those two factors combined mitigate the issue of creating a bias while reading the question.

To answer your other question, I try to get in at least 4 hours a day, 6 days a week. I usually go do 3 hours of drill/new material and prep, and 1+ hours of review.

Yeah, so true about your first point. And that sounds like an ideal balance. What time of day do you study at? Do you do it all in one shot or spread it out?

[LSRAT]

How many hours a day and during what times is everyone studying the the LSAT? Just curious to see what everyone's routines are as far as this goes?

I do at least 3 hours a day during the week, anywhere from 5-10 on Sat/Sun depending on how much review I find myself needing or if I'm blind reviewing a PT. Starting a log of my ACTUAL hours has been really beneficial. While it's not necessarily about time, but rather the effectiveness of your studying methods/concentration, making sure that you're putting in the amount of hours you think is necessary is important. I tend to overestimate my time studying unless I actually keep track, and once I started doing that, I found myself putting more hours into my learning.

[momoyome]

I've been drilling LG and then watching the 7sage videos and I am trying to come up with the "rule" for when I shouldn't try to make sub-gameboards (I think it would be impossible to make a rule for when you should make sub-gameboards). I think SweetTort you might be very able to comment on this since you've seemed to have done a lot of LG already?

Right now, my rule is that whenever there are many possibilities for each game piece a sub-gameboard would not work (e.g. F,G,K,L are grouped into three groups and each group could have three pieces). I try to make sub-gameboards whenever the pieces go into the board 1-to-1 or there are more pieces than spots on the board (because in these instances there are only a few possible combinations for all the pieces).

Basically, I'm am trying to see what anyone's thoughts are on making sub-gameboards and when to attempt making them and when to not?

I mak sub board whenever I have big blocks that can go in only three or four places. Like you have a block that's L_M where exactly one player is between l and m. I try and find the most restrictive rule and go from there; sometimes it can be the player that is in the most rules too.

[momoyome]

I've been drilling LG and then watching the 7sage videos and I am trying to come up with the "rule" for when I shouldn't try to make sub-gameboards (I think it would be impossible to make a rule for when you should make sub-gameboards). I think SweetTort you might be very able to comment on this since you've seemed to have done a lot of LG already?

Right now, my rule is that whenever there are many possibilities for each game piece a sub-gameboard would not work (e.g. F,G,K,L are grouped into three groups and each group could have three pieces). I try to make sub-gameboards whenever the pieces go into the board 1-to-1 or there are more pieces than spots on the board (because in these instances there are only a few possible combinations for all the pieces).

Basically, I'm am trying to see what anyone's thoughts are on making sub-gameboards and when to attempt making them and when to not?

I mak sub board whenever I have big blocks that can go in only three or four places. Like you have a block that's L_M where exactly one player is between l and m. I try and find the most restrictive rule and go from there; sometimes it can be the player that is in the most rules too.

[20170322]

Just clocked in at 29 minutes for 5 games, -0 (had seen a few of them before).

Feeling ready for this PT tomorrow.

[Archer@Law]

I

.

:

I am interested in the Trainer --> Manhattan progression. Are you using 1-38/whatever for drilling and then 39- current for PT's? Or some other combination?