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

[Alexandros]

It finally happened-- NEW HIGH SCORE!!!


PT 58
Conditions: 5 section, 7-sage proctored, taken around 10:30 after a warmup section.

RC: -1
LR1: -1
LG: -0
LR2: -0
Raw: 99

Scaled: 180



So so so pumped. I think taking a longer warmup with questions from all three sections made a huge difference. Also, using the extra time at the end of LG helped me catch two incorrect LG answers, so always go back and check your work!

WTF MAN WTF.

CONGRATS!!!

[34iplaw]

I realized that RC sections really tire me out, so now I'm doing RC prep the same way I do LG prep. Packs of 4, 35 minutes max, over and over until I can learn this section.

Let us know how that works! I've been doing that for LG too and it's worked quite well, but I've been staying away from repeating RC since I wasn't sure if it would do any good.

Did someone steal your shades?

Get some clubmasters. They'd look sick.

Kind of irritated. Went 55/60 on the type 7 MP/MC questions. I drew over and erased all of my work so I can't read my previous markings. I'll go back to them later and trying to reason through them a bit more thoroughly.

Need to eat. Then type 8. Need to be productive to day.

Yeah, goddam Scythians again. Thanks for the rec - I'll make an order!

Hey, 55/60 ain't bad at all! And you're holding yourself to very high standards and figuring out what went wrong, which is excellent.

Shooting for 172+, so I really don't want to leave anything on the table. I'm just annoyed that it's more like getting 49/50 on the true type 7s and 6/10 or whatever on the "_________" are. I don't feel like, if I'm getting 90%+ for any question type, that I should be getting less than 80% accuracy on any question type.

I appreciate the look over on my explanations btw - I just haven't had a chance to get into them. Probably tomorrow depending how hungover I am.

Just did a whole mess of grouping. It was weird to jump from type to type, but I think my starting place is stronger than it was when I did linear. One thing that I have been doing is writing like open ended options where I would have put the numbers...

i.e. if there is a rule that says R->notY ; Y->notR, I'll put a Y/R under an underline in the out section [in games where there are limits on the number of variables]... if there is a notY->R ; notR->Y rule, I'll put a Y/R under an underline in the in section. I could put them above, but I think it reminds me too much of a dual option whereas in this situation it's one or both. I also find these types of notations can be really powerful in the possible situations questions.

I dunno. Sunday/Monday/Tuesday are going to be super busy. 6 hour drive + need to finish HW 4, watch lecture 5, and do lecture 5 HW before the next lesson. I haven't looked at the HW5 yet, but I hope it's a bit shorter... I have a feeling that it is not!

Oh, and congrats Sweettort. Have a keystone light [the beer of beers] or something tonight.

[Barack O'Drama]

It finally happened-- NEW HIGH SCORE!!!


PT 58
Conditions: 5 section, 7-sage proctored, taken around 10:30 after a warmup section.

RC: -1
LR1: -1
LG: -0
LR2: -0
Raw: 99

Scaled: 180

So so so pumped. I think taking a longer warmup with questions from all three sections made a huge difference. Also, using the extra time at the end of LG helped me catch two incorrect LG answers, so always go back and check your work!

SweetTort, you are the goddamn man! Congrats brother, I knew it was coming soon.

[Mikey]

I still got my bet placed on Sweet getting a 180 in September. 180 bucks. Who wants to bet against it?

[20170322]

I still got my bet placed on Sweet getting a 180 in September. 180 bucks. Who wants to bet against it?

Haha definitely a big difference between going 180
On a PT and getting an actual 180, so I'm not too sure. Thanks for your support, all!

[Mikey]

I still got my bet placed on Sweet getting a 180 in September. 180 bucks. Who wants to bet against it?

Haha definitely a big difference between going 180
On a PT and getting an actual 180, so I'm not too sure. Thanks for your support, all!

Gotta be positive man, I believe you can get it.

[20170322]

Lol, 7sage sent me this link after I punched in my score

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH-aC7O ... e=youtu.be

[Deardevil]

Lol, 7sage sent me this link after I punched in my score

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH-aC7O ... e=youtu.be

Haha way to go, man. Calls for a pregame celebration.

[Deardevil]

anyone else in a situation where they have like 1 fresh PT left

how are you prepping without no fresh material?

Where are you at, score-wise?
Regardless, I would just go through them again, starting from the earliest.

[Rupert Pupkin]

I still got my bet placed on Sweet getting a 180 in September. 180 bucks. Who wants to bet against it?

Haha definitely a big difference between going 180
On a PT and getting an actual 180, so I'm not too sure. Thanks for your support, all!

You're crushing it my dude! Be Confident! YOu obviously are smart enough to do it in a PT and doing that now in July...By the end of Sept you will be doing that in your sleep. Keep up the good work. You're a motivation for the rest of us haha

[Mikey]

I still got my bet placed on Sweet getting a 180 in September. 180 bucks. Who wants to bet against it?

Haha definitely a big difference between going 180
On a PT and getting an actual 180, so I'm not too sure. Thanks for your support, all!

You're crushing it my dude! Be Confident! YOu obviously are smart enough to do it in a PT and doing that now in July...By the end of Sept you will be doing that in your sleep. Keep up the good work. You're a motivation for the rest of us haha

amen! Sweet for president (:

[ngogirl12]

This might be a long post, so I apologize in advance. Below are some notes that I took while listening into 7Sage's free webinar the other day.

Thanks for this. I was in on that webinar too, it kind of made me panic because I haven't been working on my personal statement in lieu of studying for the LSAT.

I have an idea of how I want to start out, it's anecdotal but I don't know how to connect that part with my later actions and move towards law school.

My friend ironically I met through 7Sage gave me a bunch of books to read, so I think I might go that route. I'm just nervous about this and curious as to what other people are doing.

[ngogirl12]

It finally happened-- NEW HIGH SCORE!!!


PT 58
Conditions: 5 section, 7-sage proctored, taken around 10:30 after a warmup section.

RC: -1
LR1: -1
LG: -0
LR2: -0
Raw: 99

Scaled: 180



So so so pumped. I think taking a longer warmup with questions from all three sections made a huge difference. Also, using the extra time at the end of LG helped me catch two incorrect LG answers, so always go back and check your work!

CONGRATS!! That's so awesome!

[20170322]

After today, I'm legitimately looking at Chicago/Columbia/NYU. I think there's a chance they become affordable if I don't choke on the LSAT.

[appind]

It finally happened-- NEW HIGH SCORE!!!


PT 58
Conditions: 5 section, 7-sage proctored, taken around 10:30 after a warmup section.

RC: -1
LR1: -1
LG: -0
LR2: -0
Raw: 99

Scaled: 180



So so so pumped. I think taking a longer warmup with questions from all three sections made a huge difference. Also, using the extra time at the end of LG helped me catch two incorrect LG answers, so always go back and check your work!

that's cool, congrats

are these fresh PTs?

[proteinshake]

I think I really only need to focus on drilling hard LR questions. so far I'm 73/75 on Flaw drill questions (the two I missed were from the beginning of my prep) and 85/90 on Necessary Assumptions (the five I missed are level 3 or 4/4 on Camridge).

on that note, time to go get tacos with some friends!

[Mikey]

After today, I'm legitimately looking at Chicago/Columbia/NYU. I think there's a chance they become affordable if I don't choke on the LSAT.

I'm positive that you'll have an amazing cycle with your 180, don't worry!

[20170322]

It finally happened-- NEW HIGH SCORE!!!


PT 58
Conditions: 5 section, 7-sage proctored, taken around 10:30 after a warmup section.

RC: -1
LR1: -1
LG: -0
LR2: -0
Raw: 99

Scaled: 180



So so so pumped. I think taking a longer warmup with questions from all three sections made a huge difference. Also, using the extra time at the end of LG helped me catch two incorrect LG answers, so always go back and check your work!

that's cool, congrats

are these fresh PTs?

Yup! Only have about 13 fresh PT's left, so I'll start retaking in late August.

[olikatz]

Congrats SweetTort, I would be super pumped too!

On another note, I was wondering if anyone has detailed notes on Conditional Reasoning that they can possibly share with me, or a referral to a page that really sums it up well? As many times as I have re-read those sections in the bibles, I am still confused

[appind]

Yup! Only have about 13 fresh PT's left, so I'll start retaking in late August.

that's very cool for a fresh test

taken an actual administration before? how did you get RC to such level? iirc late 50s rc has some tough passages in it.

[20170322]

Yup! Only have about 13 fresh PT's left, so I'll start retaking in late August.

that's very cool for a fresh test

taken an actual administration before? how did you get RC to such level? iirc late 50s rc has some tough passages in it.

September will be my first time.

Tbh RC is my worst section. I've been able to improve it recently by doing it over and over and over again. I recommend making RC packets and doing them until your eyes bleed.

[appind]

anyone else in a situation where they have like 1 fresh PT left

how are you prepping without no fresh material?

Where are you at, score-wise?
Regardless, I would just go through them again, starting from the earliest.

currently in low 170s. retaking a mid 160s score.

[Deardevil]

On another note, I was wondering if anyone has detailed notes on Conditional Reasoning that they can possibly share with me, or a referral to a page that really sums it up well? As many times as I have re-read those sections in the bibles, I am still confused

I'll try my best to sum it up.

Conditional reasoning revolves around sufficient and necessary conditions.
The former is an occurrence that "guarantees" something that follows,
whether the latter will happen, is happening, or already happened.
For instance, a necessary condition, or a requirement, for the sufficient condition "enter law school" can be "take LSAT."
To be in law school, you must eventually take the LSAT, are currently taking the LSAT, or have already taken the LSAT.

The necessary condition, however, cannot guarantee that the sufficient condition is met.
Just because you have taken the LSAT doesn't necessarily mean you got in law school;
maybe you changed your mind at the last minute or no TT schools accepted you.
Let's denote "enter law school" as "A" and "take LSAT" as "B." As established, it is true that A -> B.
B -> A means "take LSAT" is sufficient for "enter law school," which is not the case. This is commonly known as the mistaken reversal.
Simiarly, another error is to negate both sides, resulting in ~A -> ~B, which says "not entering law school shows that LSAT isn't taken."
Again, that doesn't have to be the case because you not entering could be due to other reasons AFTER taking the LSAT.
Finally, by reversing AND negating, you get the contrapositive, ~B -> ~A, which IS true and is ALWAYS true, given that A -> B is true.
By saying you haven't taken the LSAT, it must mean you aren't going to law school because we know the LSAT is one of the many requirements.

Sufficient conditions can be easily identified by words like "if" and "when."
Anything that sounds remotely like those two indicates sufficiency. Necessity is easily seen with "must" or "required."
Sufficient assumption, or justify the conclusion, questions and assumption questions use these terms,
such as "which one of the following, IF assumed, justifies the conclusion?" or "which assumption below does the author DEPEND/NEED?"
A special case is "only if." Is it sufficient? It has "if..." No. It's actually necessary.
What if I said "you will win only if you train hard?" How would you reword this sentence? "If you win, you MUST train hard."

Finally, there's "unless." At first, this was tricky.
Let's say a problem presents a situation where a person cannot enter a club UNLESS he/she is 21.
There's no "if" or "must." So how do you figure out the sufficient and necessary conditions?
"Unless," or "without," like "only if," modifies what is immediately after it. In this case, it's the age limit.
NOTE that once you determine what is necessary, you have to NEGATE the sufficient condition, the other piece of information.
Translated, this simply reads "if a person CAN enter a club, then he/she must be 21."

Hope this makes sense.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Yup! Only have about 13 fresh PT's left, so I'll start retaking in late August.

that's very cool for a fresh test

taken an actual administration before? how did you get RC to such level? iirc late 50s rc has some tough passages in it.

September will be my first time.

Tbh RC is my worst section. I've been able to improve it recently by doing it over and over and over again. I recommend making RC packets and doing them until your eyes bleed.

Can you elaborate on how you are making RC Packets- what do this packets consist of? Just multiple sections of RC from PTs?.. Thanks

[Rupert Pupkin]

When you guys are doing any given LG, do you take a few moments after you write down the rules to make inferences and mark some Not Laws that you can infer from the rules that are given on your master game drawing?