The Official September 2014 Study Group Forum

[ilikebaseball]

question I asked in another thread:

looked up this thread because I have a question. I'm beginning chapter 8 now, (causality) and I don't feel like I've actually gotten better... or for that matter I don't even feel like my strategies for attacking questions has adapted that much. Is that common in this book? Do people REALLY get the benefits of it near the end where all the questions are? I'm not even halfway done, I'm just wondering if I'm actually going to get a noticable benefit from it during the later chapters of the book.

[kbrizz]

Ugh. Guys.
I just made a really stupid, expensive mistake.

Instead of buying the logic games that are grouped by type, I bought... every single logic game section in existence. Not bad but now I will have to group them since they are just presented as they were in the test.

Is there a guide to doing this somewhere? Please say yes, or else I will reallllllly be kicking myself.

[dasani13]

Ugh. Guys.
I just made a really stupid, expensive mistake.

Instead of buying the logic games that are grouped by type, I bought... every single logic game section in existence. Not bad but now I will have to group them since they are just presented as they were in the test.

Is there a guide to doing this somewhere? Please say yes, or else I will reallllllly be kicking myself.

Did you buy this from Cambridge? If you did, call the customer service number and speak to them. I've dealt with them before and they're very nice-- maybe they'll be able to do something about it.

[kbrizz]

Ugh. Guys.
I just made a really stupid, expensive mistake.

Instead of buying the logic games that are grouped by type, I bought... every single logic game section in existence. Not bad but now I will have to group them since they are just presented as they were in the test.

Is there a guide to doing this somewhere? Please say yes, or else I will reallllllly be kicking myself.

Did you buy this from Cambridge? If you did, call the customer service number and speak to them. I've dealt with them before and they're very nice-- maybe they'll be able to do something about it.

I did. Hoping they'll take pity on me, but since it was all my fault... I might be stuck.

[ilikebaseball]

question I asked in another thread:

looked up this thread because I have a question. I'm beginning chapter 8 now, (causality) and I don't feel like I've actually gotten better... or for that matter I don't even feel like my strategies for attacking questions has adapted that much. Is that common in this book? Do people REALLY get the benefits of it near the end where all the questions are? I'm not even halfway done, I'm just wondering if I'm actually going to get a noticable benefit from it during the later chapters of the book.

bumping this question because im in the middle of a chapter right now lol

[mornincounselor]

Post removed.

[kbrizz]

The people working at Cambridge are absolute angels. They are refunding me, despite it being totally my fault. Phew.

Clearly I'm well on my way to acing this thing...

[h3jk5h]

Interesting results on my last PT.

PT 41:

Score: 159

LG: -10 (inexcusably made one stupid mistake on each of the three easy games before getting derailed by the circular game).

LR1: -6

LR2: -6 (The big thing on my LRs that I have noticed is time. I have underestimated how much I suck when it comes to time. I randomly guessed on at least 2 LR questions per section).

RC: -5 (a personal best, which is kind of sad).

It's refreshing to know that I cannot handle an oddball logic game, because there hasn't been one in like 30 years, right

But seriously, I must and will continue to drill all 3 sections. I've gone through alot of games and will go through more, redoing the ones from this test as well.

I feel like if I can get timing down on LR, I can be in a good place. I guess I'm just so used to drilling untimed that I am not yet good at doing LR questions untimed.

Back to work on drilling all three sections tomorrow.

When I was doing the LR "Miscellaneous" problem set of Cambridge drilling packet, I actually managed to work through more problems than I thought I would. Upon reflection I think it's because I'm doing these un-timed so I'm not under the immense time pressure. I think this is what happened to you. If you had approached the question untimed, you probably would have made more progress.

My assumption why people struggled at the last game of the June test was not only due to its unusual nature (although I havn't looked at it), but also because under the time pressure people can "freeze" and "panic" when they encounter something drastically different than what they had been prepping, i.e. they practiced so many logic games and developed a habit of attacking each problem by their categories (linear, in/out, etc..). Changing our ingrained habits on the fly to solve a novel problem is a difficult order I suppose. Almost for certain I would have blanked out as well.

Perhaps the LSAT did this to test who is able to stay calm in a totally unfamiliar situation, not get discouraged, and quickly think on their feet (which kind of translates lawyer jobs I suppose?) Although I'm still having trouble seeing how the LG section adequately tests the reasoning skills that lawyers need.

[Louis1127]

Thanks for your help, MorninCounselor and h3jk5h.

I just have to get better at processing problems and answer choices so that I get faster at it as well.

The only way to get better at LR is drilling, and that's what I plan on doing with all of my free time until I take my next PT.

[ilikebaseball]

Where do you guys get the set of questions to drill? for example, if my weakness is "weaken" questions, how would I go about drilling these to where I just take like 100 of simply weaken questions? That's what I've wanted lol

[adman921]

Does anyone have advice for me? I got a 165, first time. My last 10 tests (most recent PT's) I had 8 170-171, one 173, and one 175.

My strengths throughout were in LR and RC -- so I barely studied them beyond just taking sections in PT's and sometimes reviewing. LG was my weak spot so I put a ton of time into it. Unfortunately I got hit hard on this game section, not so terrible with -5 but still a big problem considering I did way worse on my strong part of the test than I usually do (-11 LR, usually was 2-4).

I think it's clear I need to just keep up the maintenance on LG, maybe drill more of the older and less predictable games. But as for LR -- do any of you have helpful tips for studying LR? I'll be taking again in Sept and I want to make sure that I'm close to perfect there, in case they throw another tough LG at me or a tough/er RC at me. Shooting to break 170 and I'll be happy man.

Thanks

[ilikebaseball]

it really bothers me that everyone seems to be good at LR but me haha. I'm fortunate I'm very good with games and solid with RC otherwise I might have to rethink my life!

[Louis1127]

Where do you guys get the set of questions to drill? for example, if my weakness is "weaken" questions, how would I go about drilling these to where I just take like 100 of simply weaken questions? That's what I've wanted lol

Cambridge sales exactly the packets you are looking for.

But remember that alot of questions are similar to weaken questions (strengthen, NA, SA, parallel flaw, and others I can't think of right now) all involve analyzing logical flaws in arguments.

[ilikebaseball]

Do you have a link to these?

And ya, although there is a lot of similarity in the strategies involving this game, the answer choices for each type of question tend to differ in how they trick you, which is really whats screwing with me.

[kbrizz]

Do you have a link to these?

And ya, although there is a lot of similarity in the strategies involving this game, the answer choices for each type of question tend to differ in how they trick you, which is really whats screwing with me.

Here you go!

http://www.cambridgelsat.com/bundles/

Make sure to double check that you're buying the right one haha.

[rbrown0824]

Does anyone use the Kaplan Mastery Book for drilling? I have one that was given to me by a friend. I know that most people use Cambridge packets, but I didn't think that it was fiscally responsible to buy them, seeing as how I own all the PT's anyway. Is there a way to use the Pt's like the Cambridge packets?

[h3jk5h]

Does anyone use the Kaplan Mastery Book for drilling? I have one that was given to me by a friend. I know that most people use Cambridge packets, but I didn't think that it was fiscally responsible to buy them, seeing as how I own all the PT's anyway. Is there a way to use the Pt's like the Cambridge packets?

"Fiscally responsible" Hahaha.

I bought a bunch of individual practice tests where I could have gotten them in a bundle, so I wasted a lot of money doing that. In the grand scheme of things, though, given the gravity of the LSAT I think buying the Cambridge drilling packets it's a reasonable investment.

[dasani13]

Does anyone use the Kaplan Mastery Book for drilling? I have one that was given to me by a friend. I know that most people use Cambridge packets, but I didn't think that it was fiscally responsible to buy them, seeing as how I own all the PT's anyway. Is there a way to use the Pt's like the Cambridge packets?

They're worth the money.

[chimera]

Finally got around to taking a PT (#50)... It's my first one since I began drilling.

vital statistics:
raw/scale:83/164 (curve is -10)
RC:-4 (-3 passage 3, -1 passage 4)
LG:-4 (-1 each game. g3 had me absolutely sideways for ~10 minutes )
LR: -9

The results were far from perfect, and from where I was before last December, but I'm alright with that. My take-away is to avoid stupid mistakes (-1 each LG...), and to continue RC drilling but tempering it with a lot more LR. Endurance certainly needs to be regained. Also, I'm going to be making flash-cards with the LR qs I missed... My LR game needs some serious work. Maybe I need to change my approach to drilling, or just practice more.

[Oskosh]

it really bothers me that everyone seems to be good at LR but me haha. I'm fortunate I'm very good with games and solid with RC otherwise I might have to rethink my life!

Haha, well you are actually in an enviable position yourself, as I believe showing improve on RC is pretty difficult.

What really helped me out with LR was learning the question types (question stems and all, but in the way that MLSAT book teaches you), and then doing drills of those questions types slowly. Then, I would do sections of old tests, but would do those slowly and at my own pace. After this, I started timing myself (only giving myself 8-10 minutes to complete the first ten questions), and then taking that all the way to doing full 35 minute sections. I believe that my method was effective, as I now get -3 to -1 on LR consistently.

[diiggidy]

I went through level 1 of the Necessary Assumption packet and went 71/76 today and yesterday. I made a few careless mistakes and there were one or two I'm still not too sure on, but for the most part I felt pretty good. I also started going through the Basic Ordering packet, and am through 12 games. I've had quite a few -0 games in about 6 mins or less for the first try. Every question I got wrong I was able to quickly go back to and catch my mistake, which were again pretty careless. I think I've decided it wouldn't really be worth going back to these games since I found them quite easy, but will go back when they start getting harder.

Going through the Necessary Assumption packets I didn't feel like I was learning much though. Most of the arguments were so easy I didn't even consciously find the conclusion or premise, which kind of defeats of purpose of doing it. Any suggestions for focusing on the basics on the easier questions so I can get it down for the more difficult ones to come? What's everyone's process for drilling the easier questions? When I get to these questions it just seems so obvious, and I can easily pick out the right and wrong answers without going through the "process" that would be required for a more difficult question. I suppose I'll just have to go through the more difficult questions where the lengthier process is required (which I plan on doing anyways of course).

I'm considering taking my first PT since the diagnostic over a month ago (160) tomorrow, I'm just not sure which one yet (any suggestions?). I've just begun drilling after a month of going through the books, so it'd be nice to see where i'm at before really diving into the packets. Other than that, i'm slowly going through the LSAT Trainer along with my drilling. I'm trying to do about 2 chapters a day with the drilling, and so far so good.

[longhorn65]

Had my first day of my class today. They have an interesting but very efficient approach to the games. Hopefully it is all this productive. I enjoyed the day

[bound]

Soooo who else is putting off studying until after this long weekend? lol I feel behind in comparison to ya'll!!


But not really behind....retake city right hurrrr.

[Louis1127]

Diggiddy,

Many people (including myself) use June 2007 as their diagnostic b/c it's free and somewhat modern (2007). I really don't think it matters which test you take as your diagnostic.

I tend to go against the TLS grain in thinking that the older tests are not that much different form the newer ones. Especially with the trends in the logic games section, even an old test would be fine to use as a diagnostic. Old tests are also fine to train with, in my opinion. Although I do find newer RCs to be harder, but once again not to the extent that most people do.

[bondja]

Diggiddy,

Many people (including myself) use June 2007 as their diagnostic b/c it's free and somewhat modern (2007). I really don't think it matters which test you take as your diagnostic.

I tend to go against the TLS grain in thinking that the older tests are not that much different form the newer ones. Especially with the trends in the logic games section, even an old test would be fine to use as a diagnostic. Old tests are also fine to train with, in my opinion. Although I do find newer RCs to be harder, but once again not to the extent that most people do.

I find the older tests have a different way of wording questions which makes it seem harder to some people. Unless I'm just crazy and it's completely the same...possibly...maybe??