December 2013 LSAT Study Group Forum

[vicpin5190]

That feeling you get when you go back through your test to review and you see a question that if you had read the very subtle change in words in the answer choice, the answer would have been obviously correct.


Further, that feeling when you go through a question and don't have a clue why you would be so dumb to make that mistake.


so many feels....

[wealtheow]

Took the day off from work yesterday and did PT 64... LR1 -1 LR -2 LG -3 RC -2. Didn't finish games (even they became SO OBVIOUSLY EASY DURING REVIEW UGH) but seem to be improving on RC. I attribute this to Manhattan RC - it just helped me tweak the way I read, to stop focusing less on understanding every particular concept mentioned in the passage and more on the nuances and structure of the arguments. Really really helpful, even if that's kind of common sense. Definitely doesn't feel entirely natural to be reading this way, since it drives me nuts if I don't fully "grasp" what I'm reading, but it appears that I'm getting results, so I guess this is the kind of thing I'm going to have to be drilling from now until December to really make it habitual.

Oh, also, for those of you having a tough time w/ RC -remembering that all answers are provable by the text makes it super effective to use water-type pokemon process of elimination first. Wrong answers become terribly obvious this way, and so even if you are not 100% on the correct answer, it's usually the only one left! I find this even more effective than in LR, because in RC there aren't as many twists in logic you need to track in order to eliminate effectively - it's essentially just "Oh, did the dude say this? No? Wrong."

Still getting totally obvious, level 1 difficult LR wrong. WHY?!

Nice long weekend ahead, so my plan is to start the Cambridge LR drills, drill LG (grouping), and do some full RC sections from the 50s PTs I've already done. Actually going out for sushi tonight with friends, so I'm just going to drill a few games between work and din-din, and probably head to bed early.

Got a long way to go but feeling really in the groove of things suddenly!

[wealtheow]

That feeling you get when you go back through your test to review and you see a question that if you had read the very subtle change in words in the answer choice, the answer would have been obviously correct.


Further, that feeling when you go through a question and don't have a clue why you would be so dumb to make that mistake.


so many feels....

ah yes, i know it well, that feel of realizing you failed to notice the word EXCEPT all in capital letters...

[deuceindc]

Checking in. On my 3rd administration, feeling good about my shot at a 173+.

[OVOXO]

Drilling Most Strongly Supported, Must Be True, SA, and Flaw today.

PT SPA on Monday. Woot.

[Miracle]

Drilling Most Strongly Supported, Must Be True, SA, and Flaw today.

PT SPA on Monday. Woot.

All of them?

[TheMostDangerousLG]

Oh, also, for those of you having a tough time w/ RC -remembering that all answers are provable by the text makes it super effective to use water-type pokemon process of elimination first. Wrong answers become terribly obvious this way, and so even if you are not 100% on the correct answer, it's usually the only one left! I find this even more effective than in LR, because in RC there aren't as many twists in logic you need to track in order to eliminate effectively - it's essentially just "Oh, did the dude say this? No? Wrong."

Wow, the implications of this advice are patently wrong. Always start with your fire Pokemon.

On an obviously related note, is anyone else here working on their third take? I'm struggling with how I'm going to study, given that I've already taken almost every PT twice.

[rebexness]

On an obviously related note, is anyone else here working on their third take? I'm struggling with how I'm going to study, given that I've already taken almost every PT twice.

Sup girl, I know this feel. I still have one or two PTs I haven't seen.

PMT was wondering about this too.

[Nonconsecutive]

On an obviously related note, is anyone else here working on their third take? I'm struggling with how I'm going to study, given that I've already taken almost every PT twice.

Im dealing with this as well. Right now I've just went back to the older PTs, since anything even remotely modern I am answering largely from memory. The problem with the older PTs is that I drilled from them so much I seem to be remembering the more difficult questions, even if have "forgotten" the majority of the test. This only applies to LR and RC. I forget LG problems within 2 days, its weird.

[toshiroh]

I'll be reviewing PT53 today, doing some RC prep, drilling MBT, and probably some other types today. I missed some dumb questions on the Pt. I always circle the questions where I know I probably picked the wrong answer, because I narrowed it down to two. I circled 5 on both LRs and those were the ones I got wrong. But I'm definitely seeing gains. RC, though.... sigh.

[toshiroh]

oh and starting 7sage saturday

[dosto]

.

[OVOXO]

Drilling Most Strongly Supported, Must Be True, SA, and Flaw today.

PT SPA on Monday. Woot.

All of them?

Prob 20-30 each?

[Hotguy]

oh and starting 7sage saturday

A wise move.

Better late than never.

[toshiroh]

oh and starting 7sage saturday

A wise move.

Better late than never.

Yeah, and most December courses started last week anyway. so I don't feel too behind. Also, I've been studying for a while, so I won't be using it for the basics, though I'll be sure to go through the basics, as it's the foundation.

[Dr. Dre]

yeah once you understand the basics, you just have to drill your weak spots and take PTs like an aspie

[echamberlin8]

Hello, all! So, I have pushed back the LSAT countless times. I recently withdrew from the October LSAT, because I wasn't nearly ready enough. But I'm sick of working as a paralegal at a big DC law firm, so I'm dying to go to law school next year! This is where the December LSAT comes in. I really want to nail it. I've scored as high as 165 on PTs before, after only having taken 5 total (this was last year). Haven't taken a full length PT in the entire year of 2013 yet (I don't think), but I'm going to take one this weekend.

This is what my study plan currently looks like: read a chapter from each Bible (Logic Games Bible, etc.). I do problems in my Kaplan Mastery Practice book (the "Big Blue Book") relating to what I just read, usually timed. After I finish the Bibles (almost done), I will go through all of the Manhattan books, then I will do the LSAT Trainer. I'm going to start taking two PTs a week.

What else would you guys recommend in terms of studying? I want to start doing only 5-section PTs, but I'm not sure where to get the experimental section from. Maybe use PTs 1-20 for the experimental sections, and then start with 20-39 for the rest of the sections?

Any other tips you guys recommend?

By the way, my name is Edward, so I'd just like to introduce myself in here and hopefully keep posting in here for motivation. As I said earlier, I work full-time as a paralegal at a BigLaw firm in DC, which can sometimes make it hard to study, but I'm trying to really dig in and nail the LsAT. My only fear is that I will be applying a little bit late, since I'm taking the December LSAT. But I REALLY don't want to wait another year (already worked here for almost 2 years).

Rachel Zane is that you??

In all seriousness, I don't really see the point of working through the PS bibles and then learning a different method. If anything, I'd look at the 7sage stuff to complement the PS bibles and help explain answers to all the PT's you'll be doing.

The biggest thing I've found, and heard recommended, is reviewing your PT/ drill sections directly after you do them. This is why I found the 7sage LG explanations so amazing. I'd do a LG section, then, without even checking the answers. I'd watch the 4 corresponding videos explaining them by 7sage. As he goes through each game and question you get to see where you are making mistakes and missing key inferences.

Albeit this method is extremely time consuming, 35 minute LG section + 4 x (10-20 minute) videos = ~1.5 hours for a single LG section, I found it instrumental for improving.

Haha, I had to look up Rachel Zane to get who that was. Hot girl. Wish I worked with her, haha.

Interesting note about the 7sage videos (I'm assuming they're videos?). I've never really heard of them except for brief mentions on here. Is 7sage only LG?

Thanks for the advice, by the way.

[rebexness]

Interesting note about the 7sage videos (I'm assuming they're videos?). I've never really heard of them except for brief mentions on here. Is 7sage only LG?

Thanks for the advice, by the way.

7sage (videos on their website or youtube) are AMAZING. They do everything, but the LG solutions are free.

[cookiecrisp]

Tip on improving LG times? I get all of them correct but only leave myself like 7 min for the last section, where I always lose points

[dosto]

.

[cookiecrisp]

Tip on improving LG times? I get all of them correct but only leave myself like 7 min for the last section, where I always lose points

The obvious answer is drill/practice.

But other than that, what helped me was to develop a better sense of recognizing which rules and answer choices "kick" more often and progressing accordingly during the game. Even if you don't necessarily get all the inferences or aren't able to split the game up into different hypotheticals, there may be a rule or two that is more restrictive than others and therefore serve as a better starting point. This also applies to some answer choices in MBT/MBF questions. Try to go for the answer choices that include more restrictive or limiting variables.

Yeah I've gotten better at doing this. I only started to think to look for more restrictive options recently

[AnonymousAlterEgoC]

Yeah I've gotten better at doing this. I only started to think to look for more restrictive options recently

A big part of this is also identifying randoms.

[cookiecrisp]

Yeah I've gotten better at doing this. I only started to think to look for more restrictive options recently

A big part of this is also identifying randoms.

Randoms...you mean ones that aren't restricted? I generally write down the variables...GHLT for example, and star those ones after I read through the rules. Generally what happens to me is I finish the first two games in under 15 mins, and the third or fourth game will have something that trips me up and kills my time.

[AnonymousAlterEgoC]

Generally what happens to me is I finish the first two games in under 15 mins, and the third or fourth game will have something that trips me up and kills my time.

What is it that trips you up? Can you go through your last 3-5 PTs and identify a pattern? I hope you already do these things (in addition to drilling and what the other poster suggested): watch the relevant 7sage youtube LG video if you miss something non-trivial and save that particular game and do a string of 4+ of them together. After you do enough LGs, you should develop significant predictive power of inferences, questions, and answers. Some have suggested doing 8-12 LGs in a row.

[cookiecrisp]

Generally what happens to me is I finish the first two games in under 15 mins, and the third or fourth game will have something that trips me up and kills my time.

What is it that trips you up? Can you go through your last 3-5 PTs and identify a pattern? I hope you already do these things (in addition to drilling and what the other poster suggested): watch the relevant 7sage youtube LG video if you miss something non-trivial and save that particular game and do a string of 4+ of them together. After you do enough LGs, you should develop significant predictive power of inferences, questions, and answers. Some have suggested doing 8-12 LGs in a row.

My last two LG sections I lost 5 - 6 minutes because I misread rules