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

[20170322]

Starting to plan law school visits, including UVA and Vanderbilt. Definitely a good way to get motivated for the LSAT. Hell, if I start hitting 177+ consistently, it might warrant a visit to NYC

[Alexandros]

Realizing that getting LG to guaranteed -0 is going to take just as much time, effort, and energy as it took to get from a -19 to a sometimes -0. Let's do this.

Question for those of you who are fairly far along on LG - roughly what percentage of games that you have access to and are not saving for a full PT have you done at least once?

100%

Ah ok, thanks! That makes me feel better.

Yeah, LG has been a long, uphill battle for me. Even after tons of drilling, I can still misread a rule and go -4, like on my last test. Gotta stay vigilant from now until September if we're serious about going -0.

You're absolutely right - vigilance and hard work.

I think you'd said you were increasing the times you read through the rules to 3? I realize I usually only read through the rules once, which is a terrible, terrible habit. Going to start with getting used to answering the first "acceptable order" questions via the rules directly, so to have read them at least twice, for now.

[Barack O'Drama]

Starting to plan law school visits, including UVA and Vanderbilt. Definitely a good way to get motivated for the LSAT. Hell, if I start hitting 177+ consistently, it might warrant a visit to NYC

That's the spirit! Hell, if you start getting 177+ consistently, it might warrant a visit to Cambridge and New Haven as well

[Alexandros]

told myself I'd wake up at 6 everyday and I keep waking up at 8/9/10 UGH. I'm gonna force myself to be in bed by 10:30 tonight no matter what!

Gah, same here. Mental alertness can really make or break your performance, and I'm not a morning person at all. >_>

[Barack O'Drama]

told myself I'd wake up at 6 everyday and I keep waking up at 8/9/10 UGH. I'm gonna force myself to be in bed by 10:30 tonight no matter what!

Same. I can't stop going to bed at like 4-5am. My sleep schedule is just screwed. I wake up at around 8 and then I'm groggy and can't focus for at least 2 hours. So I'm not beginning my prep until 10. This has to stop, I agree. Tonight I am going to try to take some sleep medicine or something, because starting tomorrow I want to be up at 6, go for a run, and then get to prepping by 8. That gives me an extra +2 hours a day right there. It will also help us get adjusted to taking the test at 8:30am

I am following suit and forcing myself to get to sleep before 2am. I know there's no way in hell I'll sleep before that, but its better than going to sleep when the sun's rising and birds are chirping lol

[20170322]

Realizing that getting LG to guaranteed -0 is going to take just as much time, effort, and energy as it took to get from a -19 to a sometimes -0. Let's do this.

Question for those of you who are fairly far along on LG - roughly what percentage of games that you have access to and are not saving for a full PT have you done at least once?

100%

Ah ok, thanks! That makes me feel better.

Yeah, LG has been a long, uphill battle for me. Even after tons of drilling, I can still misread a rule and go -4, like on my last test. Gotta stay vigilant from now until September if we're serious about going -0.

You're absolutely right - vigilance and hard work.

I think you'd said you were increasing the times you read through the rules to 3? I realize I usually only read through the rules once, which is a terrible, terrible habit. Going to start with getting used to answering the first "acceptable order" questions via the rules directly, so to have read them at least twice, for now.

Yeah, that's more of an aspiration than actual practice. I need to start rereading rules, because it's burned me on more than one occasion. There's no easier way to miss every question than to misunderstand a rule.

[20170322]

Starting to plan law school visits, including UVA and Vanderbilt. Definitely a good way to get motivated for the LSAT. Hell, if I start hitting 177+ consistently, it might warrant a visit to NYC

That's the spirit! Hell, if you start getting 177+ consistently, it might warrant a visit to Cambridge and New Haven as well

Haha, I wish. I'm trying to only consider schools within my price range, so HYS are probably out. Now, NYU/Columbia on scholarship...


My gf is also obsessed with NYC, so I'm considering the possibility of visiting in the Spring and proposing in Central Park.

[Doubting Law]

told myself I'd wake up at 6 everyday and I keep waking up at 8/9/10 UGH. I'm gonna force myself to be in bed by 10:30 tonight no matter what!

Same! My alarm goes off at 6:30 every morning, and I just lay in bed like a degenerate until 9:30-10.

[Barack O'Drama]

So I have a question for you guys...And apologies in advance if I have missed some talk of it in ITT.

I have read and heard probably 20 different opinions on this, at least. But what are the thoughts of older LGs vs. newer LGs. I have heard the the old ones are easier and I have also heard they are more challenging. I have read that the new ones seem easier, because when you get to them YOU have gotten better from drilling the older ones.

I am drilling from the Cambridge packets, PT 1-38, and just really wondering how screwed am I going to be when I begin drilling/PT'ing PTs 50-70?

I've taken a few quick glances, but I didn't want to look too deeply, as to keep the novelty for PT reasons.

Thoughts?

[20170322]

So I have a question for you guys...And apologies in advance if I have missed some talk of it in ITT.

I have read and heard probably 20 different opinions on this, at least. But what are the thoughts of older LGs vs. newer LGs. I have heard the the old ones are easier and I have also heard they are more challenging. I have read that the new ones seem easier, because when you get to them YOU have gotten better from drilling the older ones.

I am drilling from the Cambridge packets, PT 1-38, and just really wondering how screwed am I going to be when I begin drilling/PT'ing PTs 50-70?

I've taken a few quick glances, but I didn't want to look too deeply, as to keep the novelty for PT reasons.

Thoughts?

In my experience, they're roughly of similar difficulty, with older LG's having the chance of a hard miscellaneous question.

[Barack O'Drama]

Starting to plan law school visits, including UVA and Vanderbilt. Definitely a good way to get motivated for the LSAT. Hell, if I start hitting 177+ consistently, it might warrant a visit to NYC

That's the spirit! Hell, if you start getting 177+ consistently, it might warrant a visit to Cambridge and New Haven as well

Haha, I wish. I'm trying to only consider schools within my price range, so HYS are probably out. Now, NYU/Columbia on scholarship...


My gf is also obsessed with NYC, so I'm considering the possibility of visiting in the Spring and proposing in Central Park.

That's amazing, Tort! I, too, also love NYC. I could definitely see myself at NYU/Columbia. I hear ya on HYS being out of the price range... I think with that 177+ you're gonna get, $$$$ will be coming your way!

[Barack O'Drama]

So I have a question for you guys...And apologies in advance if I have missed some talk of it in ITT.

I have read and heard probably 20 different opinions on this, at least. But what are the thoughts of older LGs vs. newer LGs. I have heard the the old ones are easier and I have also heard they are more challenging. I have read that the new ones seem easier, because when you get to them YOU have gotten better from drilling the older ones.

I am drilling from the Cambridge packets, PT 1-38, and just really wondering how screwed am I going to be when I begin drilling/PT'ing PTs 50-70?

I've taken a few quick glances, but I didn't want to look too deeply, as to keep the novelty for PT reasons.

Thoughts?

In my experience, they're roughly of similar difficulty, with older LG's having the chance of a hard miscellaneous question.

OK. Whew! I was just worried they might be significantly more challenging, I think I can handle that.

[PhiladelphiaCollins]

So I have a question for you guys...And apologies in advance if I have missed some talk of it in ITT.

I have read and heard probably 20 different opinions on this, at least. But what are the thoughts of older LGs vs. newer LGs. I have heard the the old ones are easier and I have also heard they are more challenging. I have read that the new ones seem easier, because when you get to them YOU have gotten better from drilling the older ones.

I am drilling from the Cambridge packets, PT 1-38, and just really wondering how screwed am I going to be when I begin drilling/PT'ing PTs 50-70?

I've taken a few quick glances, but I didn't want to look too deeply, as to keep the novelty for PT reasons.

Thoughts?

I haven't gone through that many, but they don't seem too much harder in difficulty, just a little bit...weird. As in the same logic and all that applies, but they just seem to operate slightly "differently" than the newer games. idk maybe I'm off base here but for the most part they're not really night and day

[PhiladelphiaCollins]

So I have a question for you guys...And apologies in advance if I have missed some talk of it in ITT.

I have read and heard probably 20 different opinions on this, at least. But what are the thoughts of older LGs vs. newer LGs. I have heard the the old ones are easier and I have also heard they are more challenging. I have read that the new ones seem easier, because when you get to them YOU have gotten better from drilling the older ones.

I am drilling from the Cambridge packets, PT 1-38, and just really wondering how screwed am I going to be when I begin drilling/PT'ing PTs 50-70?

I've taken a few quick glances, but I didn't want to look too deeply, as to keep the novelty for PT reasons.

Thoughts?

I haven't gone through that many, but they don't seem too much harder in difficulty, just a little bit...weird. As in the same logic and all that applies, but they just seem to operate slightly "differently" than the newer games. idk maybe I'm off base here but for the most part they're not really night and day



SIDENOTE: Does anyone know anyway I can practice comparative reading? I SUCK at these passages right now, but I don't want to touch any of the actual prep passages because there are so few of them.

[Barack O'Drama]

So I have a question for you guys...And apologies in advance if I have missed some talk of it in ITT.

I have read and heard probably 20 different opinions on this, at least. But what are the thoughts of older LGs vs. newer LGs. I have heard the the old ones are easier and I have also heard they are more challenging. I have read that the new ones seem easier, because when you get to them YOU have gotten better from drilling the older ones.

I am drilling from the Cambridge packets, PT 1-38, and just really wondering how screwed am I going to be when I begin drilling/PT'ing PTs 50-70?

I've taken a few quick glances, but I didn't want to look too deeply, as to keep the novelty for PT reasons.

Thoughts?

I haven't gone through that many, but they don't seem too much harder in difficulty, just a little bit...weird. As in the same logic and all that applies, but they just seem to operate slightly "differently" than the newer games. idk maybe I'm off base here but for the most part they're not really night and day



SIDENOTE: Does anyone know anyway I can practice comparative reading? I SUCK at these passages right now, but I don't want to touch any of the actual prep passages because there are so few of them.

Yeah, I have heard that analysis about the newer games operating differently. I guess I will just have to get used to them when I get to them..

I also heard that relative ordering games appear more frequently? I don't mind them to be honest, so that won't be bad, if true.

As far as practicing comparative readings w/o using up material...Good question and I would be curious as well. I will check later to see if MLSAT or LG RCB has practice passages with CR that aren't from real tests. I know the Cambridge packets I use for RC don't have comparative readings, as these are from PT 1-38, which did not use CR. Good question!

[cgra1916]

told myself I'd wake up at 6 everyday and I keep waking up at 8/9/10 UGH. I'm gonna force myself to be in bed by 10:30 tonight no matter what!

Same! My alarm goes off at 6:30 every morning, and I just lay in bed like a degenerate until 9:30-10.

+1 !!! I've been trying to study 9-5 every weekday, but I end up waking up at 8:30-9:00 with my alarm at 8:00 am :/

[20170322]

This is probably a bad idea to do post-drilling, but I'm going to go take a 4-section PT. Bring it!

[Barack O'Drama]

This is probably a bad idea to do post-drilling, but I'm going to go take a 4-section PT. Bring it!

Good luck you LSAT beast

[Justice4Birdperson]

I'm following the 4 month LSAT Trainer schedule strictly for now. Just took the 2nd PT in the schedule (PT 63 I think) and improved 14 points from the first PT. I'm pretty happy with that (although I thought the LG for this PT was on the easy side), so thank you LSAT Trainer. Still got a bit to go to get to the score I require. I find my attention getting strained after the first 2 sections. I also still run across LR problems that just bewilder me. I may need to get the LR Bible or something to help me with that.

I'm using the same schedule for the Trainer as you (29-71 version though with some lower PT drills mixed in). Regardless of where you start a 14 point increase in a month or so is impressive.

On to your point though. There are a lot of people who like the Bible, however, it will teach you a different way of doing things then what you have learned in the Trainer. An example is the stimulus first approach the Bible takes on LR. If you're looking for something that builds on the methods in the Trainer, Manhattan might be worth a look.

Manhattan comes very highly recommended on these forums.

I need no less than 175. And I don't have more than about 2 hours a day of time during weekdays. I do kind of feel like the Trainer's schedule is somewhat light especially compared to the hours I'm seeing here. But it seems to be working for me. I'll probably pick up Manhattan LR. Anything less than 175 I just grind out my current career for another 40 years and have nice mediocre retirement in whats left of Florida.

[New_Spice180]

I'm having a conditional logic break down, I thought I understood the use of "unless" and yet in many explanations I'm seeing are contrary to what I've been taught in the trainer and manhattan. When you have "unless" it's negate sufficient and then keep other part as is, correct? If I'm not mistaken that's what I have been taught, yet I'm seeing R never does anything unless V is available diagrammed as R--> V ( I thought the correct diagram is ~V---> R) Clarification on this rule would be helpful!

[34iplaw]

I'm having a conditional logic break down, I thought I understood the use of "unless" and yet in many explanations I'm seeing are contrary to what I've been taught in the trainer and manhattan. When you have "unless" it's negate sufficient and then keep other part as is, correct? If I'm not mistaken that's what I have been taught, yet I'm seeing R never does anything unless V is available diagrammed as R--> V ( I thought the correct diagram is ~V---> R) Clarification on this rule would be helpful!

Unless precedes the necessary statement. The negation of the other part of the statement is the sufficient.

R unless V should be diagrammed as Rnot -> V or Vnot -> R
Not R unless V should be diagrammed as R -> V or Vnot ->Rnot*

Unless is the same as "Not...only if."

First statement [R unless V] is the same as "Not R only if V."
Second statement [Not R unless V] is the same as "Not Not R only if V" or "R only if V."

I think the part you are missing is that unless precedes the necessary statement. Not the sufficient.

*edited a typo/error.

[New_Spice180]

I'm having a conditional logic break down, I thought I understood the use of "unless" and yet in many explanations I'm seeing are contrary to what I've been taught in the trainer and manhattan. When you have "unless" it's negate sufficient and then keep other part as is, correct? If I'm not mistaken that's what I have been taught, yet I'm seeing R never does anything unless V is available diagrammed as R--> V ( I thought the correct diagram is ~V---> R) Clarification on this rule would be helpful!

Unless precedes the necessary statement. The negation of the other part of the statement is the sufficient.

R unless V should be diagrammed as Rnot -> V or Vnot -> R
Not R unless V should be diagrammed as R -> V or Vnot ->R

Unless is the same as "Not...only if."

First statement [R unless V] is the same as "Not R only if V."
Second statement [Not R unless V] is the same as "Not Not R only if V" or "R only if V."

I think the part you are missing is that unless precedes the necessary statement. Not the sufficient.

the reason you have them R>V or Vnot>R is because it's true either way, correct? Additionally you can use either the contrapositive or the original statement to make inferences when necessary, right? I'm just clearing up some major hiccups I have in my understanding of conditional phrases.

[Barack O'Drama]

I'm following the 4 month LSAT Trainer schedule strictly for now. Just took the 2nd PT in the schedule (PT 63 I think) and improved 14 points from the first PT. I'm pretty happy with that (although I thought the LG for this PT was on the easy side), so thank you LSAT Trainer. Still got a bit to go to get to the score I require. I find my attention getting strained after the first 2 sections. I also still run across LR problems that just bewilder me. I may need to get the LR Bible or something to help me with that.

I'm using the same schedule for the Trainer as you (29-71 version though with some lower PT drills mixed in). Regardless of where you start a 14 point increase in a month or so is impressive.

On to your point though. There are a lot of people who like the Bible, however, it will teach you a different way of doing things then what you have learned in the Trainer. An example is the stimulus first approach the Bible takes on LR. If you're looking for something that builds on the methods in the Trainer, Manhattan might be worth a look.

Manhattan comes very highly recommended on these forums.

I need no less than 175. And I don't have more than about 2 hours a day of time during weekdays. I do kind of feel like the Trainer's schedule is somewhat light especially compared to the hours I'm seeing here. But it seems to be working for me. I'll probably pick up Manhattan LR. Anything less than 175 I just grind out my current career for another 40 years and have nice mediocre retirement in whats left of Florida.

175 or bust! I like your attitude and willing to turn down LS if you can't get the LSAT you want. Very noble!

Where are you Pt'ing now? I really like the LSAT Trainer and am using it myself in conjunction with MLSAT/Tons of PTs/Cambridge Drills packets.

I do think it might be in your best interest to drop some money and get the MLSAT LR/LGs if you still feel like you need some more help in those areas. The MLSAT RC is good too, at least compared to the LG RCB. I've also heard some good things about Blueprint's RC strategy.

A 175 is no easy feat, but depending on where you are now, it is totally doable in 3 months. My first PT was about a 151 and I'm aiming for a 170. That's a nearly 20 point increase, which isn't easy, but with lots of drilling and Pt'ing, is very possible. 2 Hours a day on weekdays isn't a bad start, so long as you can supplement those hours with around 8 hours on Saturday and Sundays. Of course, this is all continent on where you are now, and how far you have to get to 175.

So my only advice would be to get through the Trainer and begin Pt'ing as soon as you have all the fundamentals of each game type down. 7Sage has great free LG videos for every game. It has been the biggest help as far as LGs go for me. If you still need some work with LR I really recommend the MLAT over the LR Bible. I have both and there is just no question in my mind that MLAT's approach is superior in almost every way. No gimmicks, just straight to the point strategies.

[Barack O'Drama]

I'm having a conditional logic break down, I thought I understood the use of "unless" and yet in many explanations I'm seeing are contrary to what I've been taught in the trainer and manhattan. When you have "unless" it's negate sufficient and then keep other part as is, correct? If I'm not mistaken that's what I have been taught, yet I'm seeing R never does anything unless V is available diagrammed as R--> V ( I thought the correct diagram is ~V---> R) Clarification on this rule would be helpful!

Unless precedes the necessary statement. The negation of the other part of the statement is the sufficient.

R unless V should be diagrammed as Rnot -> V or Vnot -> R
Not R unless V should be diagrammed as R -> V or Vnot ->R

Unless is the same as "Not...only if."

First statement [R unless V] is the same as "Not R only if V."
Second statement [Not R unless V] is the same as "Not Not R only if V" or "R only if V."

I think the part you are missing is that unless precedes the necessary statement. Not the sufficient.

Great explanation! Even clarified for me better than I understood. I just remember this: Unless is the same as "Not...only if." Helps if I ever get confused.

[halcyon]

Hi people,

Been lurking on these forums for a few weeks and I finally made an account. Is there a Facebook group for this study group? If there isn't one, anyone interested?