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

[YupSports]

Just took PT 75:

LR1: -1
RC: -6
LR2: -4
LG: -3

Score: 167

Felt my focus slipping during second LR, definitely should have done better.

Mt RC average is -4, I'll have to take a peek and see what I missed.

Gonna drill some LG this week, as I am quite a bit rusty.

[34iplaw]

Attempted the infamous mauve dinosaurs yesterday. I think its reputation is well-earned. I got the setup alright, but screwed up one of the rules. Got lucky, though, and only missed one as a result of that.

Yeah - I kind of wish people didn't refer to it as such, as it sort of gives some of the mystery away... that said, I feel the key inference is that:

[+] Spoiler

yellow, red, and green {the yellow whatever and the green whatever are interchangable} are the same thing... they're not mauve... it's just a convoluted and misleading way to establish an in out group

[Alexandros]

Going really slow today and slept past 8am. Finally finished pseudoBR-ing PT 69.
Real:
LR1: -1
LG: -2
RC: -3
LR2: -2
Scaled: 173

BR: 99/100. -1 LR2. (eta: 0 RC. mismarked.)
Very easy (imo) LG. Got a correct order question wrong from misreading (they put "top" on the bottom and "bottom" on the top. that was dick thing to do, LSAC.) and one for realz wrong. LR1 read "agree" as "disagree." Fucked up RC fair and square.
LR2 was not as easy as I took it to be first time. Circled 4 on BR.

I need to confront the fact that I've my scores have gone nowhere since mid-July (if anywhere, down). Very consistently 172-175. Might try to use 7sage analytics or something to see what's going on. I refuse to accept that I've ceiling'd in the low 170s.

[20170322]

Just retook PT 75 under testing conditions in a noisy Starbucks. I took it once a little under a year ago, so the score is probably inflated by a few points.

PT 75:
LR1: -0
(Exp LR): -0
RC: -1
LR2: -1
LG: -0
Raw: 98
Scaled: 180


Pretty pleased. Even if I get 5 points shy of this score on game day, I'm not retaking.

[Alexandros]

Attempted the infamous mauve dinosaurs yesterday. I think its reputation is well-earned. I got the setup alright, but screwed up one of the rules. Got lucky, though, and only missed one as a result of that.

Yeah - I kind of wish people didn't refer to it as such, as it sort of gives some of the mystery away... that said, I feel the key inference is that:

[+] Spoiler

yellow, red, and green {the yellow whatever and the green whatever are interchangable} are the same thing... they're not mauve... it's just a convoluted and misleading way to establish an in out group

How did y'all set this one up?

[+] Spoiler

For "in" I made two rows of 5 slots, one row for color and one for dino, and put in two Ms, one R S, and two blanks, and two (I think there were 7 dinos? I don't have the game in front of me right now) slots for "out". Then put V/U in one of the out slots, and put all of the dinos that could be mauve in a circle near the two Ms (I think that was V/U, L, T.) I don't think I made any big inferences at the beginning, though there are certainly big inferences that you could make, but I felt like I was able to visualize what was going on alright.

(I realized I think my dependence on visualization might be why I tend to take longer on the easy 1 to 1 linear games? Brain can't handle 7+ elements in a line so I have to draw the whole thing out again for MBF/CBT/MBT questions.)

[Alexandros]

Just retook PT 75 under testing conditions in a noisy Starbucks. I took it once a little under a year ago, so the score is probably inflated by a few points.

PT 75:
LR1: -0
(Exp LR): -0
RC: -1
LR2: -1
LG: -0
Raw: 98
Scaled: 180


Pretty pleased. Even if I get 5 points shy of this score on game day, I'm not retaking.

Congrats, SweetTort! That was a while ago, so if it's inflated, wouldn't be by much.

[20170322]

Just retook PT 75 under testing conditions in a noisy Starbucks. I took it once a little under a year ago, so the score is probably inflated by a few points.

PT 75:
LR1: -0
(Exp LR): -0
RC: -1
LR2: -1
LG: -0
Raw: 98
Scaled: 180


Pretty pleased. Even if I get 5 points shy of this score on game day, I'm not retaking.

Congrats, SweetTort! That was a while ago, so if it's inflated, wouldn't be by much.

That's what I'm hoping! My 10 PT average, which is all fresh tests, is a 177, so I'm really hoping to land there on test day. Just purchased the 3 most recent PTs, so I'm hoping to kill those so I can go into test day with confidence.

[Alexandros]

Just retook PT 75 under testing conditions in a noisy Starbucks. I took it once a little under a year ago, so the score is probably inflated by a few points.

PT 75:
LR1: -0
(Exp LR): -0
RC: -1
LR2: -1
LG: -0
Raw: 98
Scaled: 180


Pretty pleased. Even if I get 5 points shy of this score on game day, I'm not retaking.

Congrats, SweetTort! That was a while ago, so if it's inflated, wouldn't be by much.

That's what I'm hoping! My 10 PT average, which is all fresh tests, is a 177, so I'm really hoping to land there on test day. Just purchased the 3 most recent PTs, so I'm hoping to kill those so I can go into test day with confidence.

teach me your secret.
Sounds like a solid plan! You're gonna slay it on test day.

[Mikey]

(they put "top" on the bottom and "bottom" on the top. that was dick thing to do, LSAC.)

[Mikey]

Just took PT 75:

LR1: -1
RC: -6
LR2: -4
LG: -3

Score: 167

Felt my focus slipping during second LR, definitely should have done better.

Mt RC average is -4, I'll have to take a peek and see what I missed.

Gonna drill some LG this week, as I am quite a bit rusty.

Still a good score man. At least in my book it's a good score for having your focus slipping in the middle of it!

[Alexandros]

(they put "top" on the bottom and "bottom" on the top. that was dick thing to do, LSAC.)

(Idk how these people sleep at night, tbh.)
YOU ON BREAK FOR PT 69, BRUH?

[YupSports]

Just took PT 75:

LR1: -1
RC: -6
LR2: -4
LG: -3

Score: 167

Felt my focus slipping during second LR, definitely should have done better.

Mt RC average is -4, I'll have to take a peek and see what I missed.

Gonna drill some LG this week, as I am quite a bit rusty.

Still a good score man. At least in my book it's a good score for having your focus slipping in the middle of it!

I wouldn't be angry if it was my gameday score.

[appind]

(they put "top" on the bottom and "bottom" on the top. that was dick thing to do, LSAC.)

(Idk how these people sleep at night, tbh.)
YOU ON BREAK FOR PT 69, BRUH?

i made the same mistake on this top/bottom ordering question.

[Alexandros]

Got it right, but 69.4.9 doesn't feel at all airtight to me. Anyone see something that I'm missing?

(Checked manhattan forums and apparently an instructor mailed in a complaint abt this one. I feel a bit vindicated.)

[Pozzo]

Attempted the infamous mauve dinosaurs yesterday. I think its reputation is well-earned. I got the setup alright, but screwed up one of the rules. Got lucky, though, and only missed one as a result of that.

Yeah - I kind of wish people didn't refer to it as such, as it sort of gives some of the mystery away... that said, I feel the key inference is that:

[+] Spoiler

yellow, red, and green {the yellow whatever and the green whatever are interchangable} are the same thing... they're not mauve... it's just a convoluted and misleading way to establish an in out group

[+] Spoiler

Hm. That's really insightful. I made the mistake of assuming that each color had to be represented. Totally lucked out by only missing one. Watching 7sage, I had mad respect for takinng the time to make 6 sub-gameboards, but I just can't imagine keeping my cool long enough on test day to do that.

[appind]

Got it right, but 69.4.9 doesn't feel at all airtight to me. Anyone see something that I'm missing?

(Checked manhattan forums and apparently an instructor mailed in a complaint abt this one. I feel a bit vindicated.)

i think i did this section and not sure if i found something incorrect. what's the issue you're seeing?

[Alexandros]

Got it right, but 69.4.9 doesn't feel at all airtight to me. Anyone see something that I'm missing?

(Checked manhattan forums and apparently an instructor mailed in a complaint abt this one. I feel a bit vindicated.)

i think i did this section and not sure if i found something incorrect. what's the issue you're seeing?

[+] Spoiler

the fact that they ate a wider variety of plants doesn't necessarily mean they ate any plants no other tribe ate (Like maybe they ate both A and B, but another people ate just A and another people ate just B). I guess it's not a MBT, just most strongly supported. But still.

[20170322]

3 weeks away. Starting to get nervous...

[appind]

Got it right, but 69.4.9 doesn't feel at all airtight to me. Anyone see something that I'm missing?

(Checked manhattan forums and apparently an instructor mailed in a complaint abt this one. I feel a bit vindicated.)

i think i did this section and not sure if i found something incorrect. what's the issue you're seeing?

[+] Spoiler

the fact that they ate a wider variety of plants doesn't necessarily mean they ate any plants no other tribe ate (Like maybe they ate both A and B, but another people ate just A and another people ate just B). I guess it's not a MBT, just most strongly supported. But still.

[+] Spoiler

so the way i looked at it was that if a people eat a wider variety of plants then that itself (just eating a wider variety as opposed to a narrower variety) constitutes a way they are using plants that no other people do. that is, eating a wider variety in itself is something unique about using plants for eating. i know it's not the most straightforward way to read it but that's the only way i could justify the answer to myself.

[CoGar]

When a hurricane comes through and taKes out your power. Guess that just leaves one thing to do. STUDY STUDY STUDY

[Alexandros]

Got it right, but 69.4.9 doesn't feel at all airtight to me. Anyone see something that I'm missing?

(Checked manhattan forums and apparently an instructor mailed in a complaint abt this one. I feel a bit vindicated.)

i think i did this section and not sure if i found something incorrect. what's the issue you're seeing?

[+] Spoiler

the fact that they ate a wider variety of plants doesn't necessarily mean they ate any plants no other tribe ate (Like maybe they ate both A and B, but another people ate just A and another people ate just B). I guess it's not a MBT, just most strongly supported. But still.

[+] Spoiler

so the way i looked at it was that if a people eat a wider variety of plants then that itself (just eating a wider variety as opposed to a narrower variety) constitutes a way they are using plants that no other people do. that is, eating a wider variety in itself is something unique about using plants for eating. i know it's not the most straightforward way to read it but that's the only way i could justify the answer to myself.

[+] Spoiler

Yeah, I think I see what you're saying, but didn't it say they're using "*some* plants" in a way no other tribe uses those plants? Idk I'm gonna have to look at it again.

[34iplaw]

[+] Spoiler

Hm. That's really insightful. I made the mistake of assuming that each color had to be represented. Totally lucked out by only missing one. Watching 7sage, I had mad respect for takinng the time to make 6 sub-gameboards, but I just can't imagine keeping my cool long enough on test day to do that.

How did y'all set this one up?

[+] Spoiler

For "in" I made two rows of 5 slots, one row for color and one for dino, and put in two Ms, one R S, and two blanks, and two (I think there were 7 dinos? I don't have the game in front of me right now) slots for "out". Then put V/U in one of the out slots, and put all of the dinos that could be mauve in a circle near the two Ms (I think that was V/U, L, T.) I don't think I made any big inferences at the beginning, though there are certainly big inferences that you could make, but I felt like I was able to visualize what was going on alright.

(I realized I think my dependence on visualization might be why I tend to take longer on the easy 1 to 1 linear games? Brain can't handle 7+ elements in a line so I have to draw the whole thing out again for MBF/CBT/MBT questions.)

My set up was basically what you did, but...

[+] Spoiler

I actually represented all the colors normally and did it how you did where I just had the dino slots and colors above it.... I think that I may have put faint lines between the red dino, the two not mauve dinos, and the two mauve dinos.... I sort of just had that realization relatively quickly that the game was basically basically a grouping game with three groups {1: Red W/E; 2: ___ ___ two not mauves whatever; 3: ____ ___ two mauves. I tend to do games on a relatively intuitive basis rather than setting up a bunch of possibilities (which I think is why I find rule substitutions really easy) but sometimes I get tripped up on simpler games... something like... (off memory)
.....g/y..g/y...
.R..___..___..M...M
.S..___..___..__..__

M: T U V {not I not P not S}

[Instrumental]

Took PT64 today, not happy with the score, but my points lost were more evenly distributed.
LR1: -3
AR: -4 (I slogged through the last game and didn't get to four of the questions).
LR2: -5
RC: -6
Score 166.

Not sure what happened with the LR. That's what I've been relying on to get higher scores since AR is often a toss up and RC is usually garbo. Once again, I went through LR thinking I was crushing it and just came out so-so.

[bearedman8]

.

[appind]

Got it right, but 69.4.9 doesn't feel at all airtight to me. Anyone see something that I'm missing?

(Checked manhattan forums and apparently an instructor mailed in a complaint abt this one. I feel a bit vindicated.)

i think i did this section and not sure if i found something incorrect. what's the issue you're seeing?

[+] Spoiler

the fact that they ate a wider variety of plants doesn't necessarily mean they ate any plants no other tribe ate (Like maybe they ate both A and B, but another people ate just A and another people ate just B). I guess it's not a MBT, just most strongly supported. But still.

[+] Spoiler

so the way i looked at it was that if a people eat a wider variety of plants then that itself (just eating a wider variety as opposed to a narrower variety) constitutes a way they are using plants that no other people do. that is, eating a wider variety in itself is something unique about using plants for eating. i know it's not the most straightforward way to read it but that's the only way i could justify the answer to myself.

[+] Spoiler

Yeah, I think I see what you're saying, but didn't it say they're using "*some* plants" in a way no other tribe uses those plants? Idk I'm gonna have to look at it again.

[+] Spoiler

yeah, i mean the issue in the q is a bit weird, and this approach to justify the answer isn't what someone would naturally think when doing this q. i think if one wants to contort oneself to justify the choice, then one could argue along the lines of saying "some" plants can refer to all plants as one group, so the people were using using plants in a way that no other people did just by the virtue of eating a wider variety of them.

i agree that this issue is something that lsac needs to account for, just like they need for a few other questions that have similar, and possibly a bit more gaping in some cases, holes. i read the manhattan expln too. did the guys who wrote to lsac get a response?