On this point, what is the best way to split LR by type? Especially without access to the Cambridge PDFs.Alexandros wrote:Last person that should be giving LR advice but drilling by question type is helpful. I never used PS but MH LR was very good if you want another book.Lalalsat96 wrote:How does one get better at Logical reasoning? I thought i had a natural aptitude for this after working through the Powerscore book clearly not. I suck. Haha help please because I don't think drilling is working
The Official September 2017 Study Group Forum
- TedBuckland
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:25 am
Re: The Official September 2017 Study Group
-
- Posts: 803
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 8:05 am
Re: The Official September 2017 Study Group
Oh, ok thanks! I was worrying for a little bit with all the rave reviews..Alexandros wrote:I think the most important thing is just to have something that explains each question type in depth, in a way you can understand.ngogirl12 wrote:Do you guys think going through the Manhattan LR guide is really important? This month I'm redoing the 7sage curriculum/reading Trainer and drilling. I have the Manhattan LR guide but only went through a few chapters before I jumped ship for 7Sage. Is it really worth it?
-
- Posts: 803
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 8:05 am
Re: The Official September 2017 Study Group
You can purchase books where they separate the lR questions by type on the Amazon or Manhattan/powerscore websites. Otherwise I think someone has a post somewhere where they post all the different question types in all the PTs that exist,TedBuckland wrote:On this point, what is the best way to split LR by type? Especially without access to the Cambridge PDFs.Alexandros wrote:Last person that should be giving LR advice but drilling by question type is helpful. I never used PS but MH LR was very good if you want another book.Lalalsat96 wrote:How does one get better at Logical reasoning? I thought i had a natural aptitude for this after working through the Powerscore book clearly not. I suck. Haha help please because I don't think drilling is working
-
- Posts: 6478
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:46 am
Re: The Official September 2017 Study Group
If you feel like doing it yourself there are guides online that list the questions by type.TedBuckland wrote:On this point, what is the best way to split LR by type? Especially without access to the Cambridge PDFs.Alexandros wrote:Last person that should be giving LR advice but drilling by question type is helpful. I never used PS but MH LR was very good if you want another book.Lalalsat96 wrote:How does one get better at Logical reasoning? I thought i had a natural aptitude for this after working through the Powerscore book clearly not. I suck. Haha help please because I don't think drilling is working
If you want to use something that has the questions grouped by type - Manhattan has one for the 40s (https://www.amazon.com/Real-LSATs-Group ... 937707784/ ) There might be others out there as well.
- twiix
- Posts: 858
- Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 12:41 pm
Re: The Official September 2017 Study Group
I'm doing the 7sage cc again as well. I like to use the MH book for additional explanation/context about questions that I have weaknesses in. So once you go through the CC and start drilling and figure out that you suck at NA/SA questions, it's helpful to have another resource with different verbiage to help get you over the roadbump.ngogirl12 wrote:Oh, ok thanks! I was worrying for a little bit with all the rave reviews..Alexandros wrote:I think the most important thing is just to have something that explains each question type in depth, in a way you can understand.ngogirl12 wrote:Do you guys think going through the Manhattan LR guide is really important? This month I'm redoing the 7sage curriculum/reading Trainer and drilling. I have the Manhattan LR guide but only went through a few chapters before I jumped ship for 7Sage. Is it really worth it?
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- TedBuckland
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:25 am
Re: The Official September 2017 Study Group
Yeah I was trying to avoid having to do them manually. Oh well, who needs weekends anywayAlexandros wrote:If you feel like doing it yourself there are guides online that list the questions by type.TedBuckland wrote:On this point, what is the best way to split LR by type? Especially without access to the Cambridge PDFs.Alexandros wrote:Last person that should be giving LR advice but drilling by question type is helpful. I never used PS but MH LR was very good if you want another book.Lalalsat96 wrote:How does one get better at Logical reasoning? I thought i had a natural aptitude for this after working through the Powerscore book clearly not. I suck. Haha help please because I don't think drilling is working
If you want to use something that has the questions grouped by type - Manhattan has one for the 40s (https://www.amazon.com/Real-LSATs-Group ... 937707784/ ) There might be others out there as well.
- TedBuckland
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:25 am
Re: The Official September 2017 Study Group
Theory (need to get my post count up): Thinking that the decline of 170+ scores in recent years can be at least partially attributed to the PDF's like Cambridge being outlawed.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
-
- Posts: 6478
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:46 am
Re: The Official September 2017 Study Group
No, because the curve remains the same - The same % of test takers will receive high scores. It has to be because of an overall decline in test-takers.TedBuckland wrote:Theory (need to get my post count up): Thinking that the decline of 170+ scores in recent years can be at least partially attributed to the PDF's like Cambridge being outlawed.
Thoughts?
-
- Posts: 6478
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:46 am
Re: The Official September 2017 Study Group
In that case, I'd get a book like the Manhattan one (I used that one but there are probably others.)TedBuckland wrote:Yeah I was trying to avoid having to do them manually. Oh well, who needs weekends anywayAlexandros wrote:If you feel like doing it yourself there are guides online that list the questions by type.TedBuckland wrote:On this point, what is the best way to split LR by type? Especially without access to the Cambridge PDFs.Alexandros wrote:Last person that should be giving LR advice but drilling by question type is helpful. I never used PS but MH LR was very good if you want another book.Lalalsat96 wrote:How does one get better at Logical reasoning? I thought i had a natural aptitude for this after working through the Powerscore book clearly not. I suck. Haha help please because I don't think drilling is working
If you want to use something that has the questions grouped by type - Manhattan has one for the 40s (https://www.amazon.com/Real-LSATs-Group ... 937707784/ ) There might be others out there as well.
-
- Posts: 4366
- Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 2:37 pm
Re: The Official September 2017 Study Group
What is the story about the packets being outlawed?Alexandros wrote:No, because the curve remains the same - The same % of test takers will receive high scores. It has to be because of an overall decline in test-takers.TedBuckland wrote:Theory (need to get my post count up): Thinking that the decline of 170+ scores in recent years can be at least partially attributed to the PDF's like Cambridge being outlawed.
Thoughts?
- TedBuckland
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:25 am
Re: The Official September 2017 Study Group
But wouldn't the curve still work the same way, regardless of the numbers? It wouldn't matter if there were 100 people or 1000 people taking, because if 1% are going to score in the highest tier, then you'd have 1 or 10, but it's still 1%. The raw numbers themselves would drop but that wouldn't have any effect on percentages.Alexandros wrote:No, because the curve remains the same - The same % of test takers will receive high scores. It has to be because of an overall decline in test-takers.TedBuckland wrote:Theory (need to get my post count up): Thinking that the decline of 170+ scores in recent years can be at least partially attributed to the PDF's like Cambridge being outlawed.
Thoughts?
-
- Posts: 6478
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:46 am
Re: The Official September 2017 Study Group
The packets were discontinued. And I think LSAC (probably Susan) decided they don't want PDFs.dj9i27 wrote:What is the story about the packets being outlawed?Alexandros wrote:No, because the curve remains the same - The same % of test takers will receive high scores. It has to be because of an overall decline in test-takers.TedBuckland wrote:Theory (need to get my post count up): Thinking that the decline of 170+ scores in recent years can be at least partially attributed to the PDF's like Cambridge being outlawed.
Thoughts?
-
- Posts: 6478
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:46 am
Re: The Official September 2017 Study Group
That's what I'm saying. A lower amount of 170+ scores would have to be attributable to a decline in test-takers, not to the test getting "harder" or people struggling with it more.TedBuckland wrote:But wouldn't the curve still work the same way, regardless of the numbers? It wouldn't matter if there were 100 people or 1000 people taking, because if 1% are going to score in the highest tier, then you'd have 1 or 10, but it's still 1%. The raw numbers themselves would drop but that wouldn't have any effect on percentages.Alexandros wrote:No, because the curve remains the same - The same % of test takers will receive high scores. It has to be because of an overall decline in test-takers.TedBuckland wrote:Theory (need to get my post count up): Thinking that the decline of 170+ scores in recent years can be at least partially attributed to the PDF's like Cambridge being outlawed.
Thoughts?
Although they could be indirectly related - Because of no more PDFs, less people take the test or something like that.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 6478
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:46 am
Re: The Official September 2017 Study Group
Need to buy a blender so I can start making some smoothies.
so I stop spending $10 for a single smoothie for lunch.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2761d/2761d4a8f5c7f03511ddb21914b773afa22c7f5c" alt="Cool 8)"
so I stop spending $10 for a single smoothie for lunch.
-
- Posts: 4366
- Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 2:37 pm
Re: The Official September 2017 Study Group
... doesn't the LSAC sell PDF? I wonder if this is why H is doing what they are doingAlexandros wrote:The packets were discontinued. And I think LSAC (probably Susan) decided they don't want PDFs.dj9i27 wrote:What is the story about the packets being outlawed?Alexandros wrote:No, because the curve remains the same - The same % of test takers will receive high scores. It has to be because of an overall decline in test-takers.TedBuckland wrote:Theory (need to get my post count up): Thinking that the decline of 170+ scores in recent years can be at least partially attributed to the PDF's like Cambridge being outlawed.
Thoughts?
-
- Posts: 6478
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:46 am
Re: The Official September 2017 Study Group
No, they used to but I'm pretty sure they don't anymore (unless they started again.)dj9i27 wrote:... doesn't the LSAC sell PDF? I wonder if this is why H is doing what they are doingAlexandros wrote:The packets were discontinued. And I think LSAC (probably Susan) decided they don't want PDFs.dj9i27 wrote:What is the story about the packets being outlawed?Alexandros wrote:No, because the curve remains the same - The same % of test takers will receive high scores. It has to be because of an overall decline in test-takers.TedBuckland wrote:Theory (need to get my post count up): Thinking that the decline of 170+ scores in recent years can be at least partially attributed to the PDF's like Cambridge being outlawed.
Thoughts?
Mayhaps this is somehow the explanation for everything.
How is ur pneumonia? Are you still alive?
-
- Posts: 4366
- Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 2:37 pm
Re: The Official September 2017 Study Group
it was probably just a kindle deal, so strange they throw the hammer down on Cambridge and PDFs like that.Alexandros wrote:No, they used to but I'm pretty sure they don't anymore (unless they started again.)dj9i27 wrote:... doesn't the LSAC sell PDF? I wonder if this is why H is doing what they are doingAlexandros wrote:The packets were discontinued. And I think LSAC (probably Susan) decided they don't want PDFs.dj9i27 wrote:What is the story about the packets being outlawed?Alexandros wrote:No, because the curve remains the same - The same % of test takers will receive high scores. It has to be because of an overall decline in test-takers.TedBuckland wrote:Theory (need to get my post count up): Thinking that the decline of 170+ scores in recent years can be at least partially attributed to the PDF's like Cambridge being outlawed.
Thoughts?
Mayhaps this is somehow the explanation for everything.
How is ur pneumonia? Are you still alive?
Antibodies are doing their job, shout out to modern medicine. Wondering if this is now a preexisting condition for healthcare tho.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- TedBuckland
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:25 am
Re: The Official September 2017 Study Group
You're right, I retract my argument. LolAlexandros wrote:That's what I'm saying. A lower amount of 170+ scores would have to be attributable to a decline in test-takers, not to the test getting "harder" or people struggling with it more.TedBuckland wrote:But wouldn't the curve still work the same way, regardless of the numbers? It wouldn't matter if there were 100 people or 1000 people taking, because if 1% are going to score in the highest tier, then you'd have 1 or 10, but it's still 1%. The raw numbers themselves would drop but that wouldn't have any effect on percentages.Alexandros wrote:No, because the curve remains the same - The same % of test takers will receive high scores. It has to be because of an overall decline in test-takers.TedBuckland wrote:Theory (need to get my post count up): Thinking that the decline of 170+ scores in recent years can be at least partially attributed to the PDF's like Cambridge being outlawed.
Thoughts?
Although they could be indirectly related - Because of no more PDFs, less people take the test or something like that.
- TedBuckland
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:25 am
Re: The Official September 2017 Study Group
Looks like manhattan only offers the one book.Alexandros wrote:In that case, I'd get a book like the Manhattan one (I used that one but there are probably others.)TedBuckland wrote:Yeah I was trying to avoid having to do them manually. Oh well, who needs weekends anywayAlexandros wrote:If you feel like doing it yourself there are guides online that list the questions by type.TedBuckland wrote:On this point, what is the best way to split LR by type? Especially without access to the Cambridge PDFs.Alexandros wrote:Last person that should be giving LR advice but drilling by question type is helpful. I never used PS but MH LR was very good if you want another book.Lalalsat96 wrote:How does one get better at Logical reasoning? I thought i had a natural aptitude for this after working through the Powerscore book clearly not. I suck. Haha help please because I don't think drilling is working
If you want to use something that has the questions grouped by type - Manhattan has one for the 40s (https://www.amazon.com/Real-LSATs-Group ... 937707784/ ) There might be others out there as well.
-
- Posts: 6478
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:46 am
Re: The Official September 2017 Study Group
Probably because of copyright stuff with PDFs floating around blahbahblah. I hope they bring them back tho.dj9i27 wrote:it was probably just a kindle deal, so strange they throw the hammer down on Cambridge and PDFs like that.Alexandros wrote:No, they used to but I'm pretty sure they don't anymore (unless they started again.)dj9i27 wrote:... doesn't the LSAC sell PDF? I wonder if this is why H is doing what they are doingAlexandros wrote:The packets were discontinued. And I think LSAC (probably Susan) decided they don't want PDFs.dj9i27 wrote:What is the story about the packets being outlawed?Alexandros wrote:No, because the curve remains the same - The same % of test takers will receive high scores. It has to be because of an overall decline in test-takers.TedBuckland wrote:Theory (need to get my post count up): Thinking that the decline of 170+ scores in recent years can be at least partially attributed to the PDF's like Cambridge being outlawed.
Thoughts?
Mayhaps this is somehow the explanation for everything.
How is ur pneumonia? Are you still alive?
Antibodies are doing their job, shout out to modern medicine. Wondering if this is now a preexisting condition for healthcare tho.
Good! preexisting conditions are lots of fun and I will now die immediately when I return to 'Murica. I can't imagine that would count tho, so I think you're in the clear.
-
- Posts: 4366
- Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 2:37 pm
Re: The Official September 2017 Study Group
some real bad hombres have those PDFs, tiffany didn't even study and got a 178.Alexandros wrote: Probably because of copyright stuff with PDFs floating around blahbahblah. I hope they bring them back tho.
Good! preexisting conditions are lots of fun and I will now die immediately when I return to 'Murica. I can't imagine that would count tho, so I think you're in the clear.
I imagine only the heads of the Super PACs will have control of health-care, money, water, etc.
At this point I want to go to law school so I can become Judge Dredd in 16 years.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- twiix
- Posts: 858
- Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 12:41 pm
Re: The Official September 2017 Study Group
lol noobs, i has pdfs. $4000 kthxdj9i27 wrote:some real bad hombres have those PDFs, tiffany didn't even study and got a 178.Alexandros wrote: Probably because of copyright stuff with PDFs floating around blahbahblah. I hope they bring them back tho.
Good! preexisting conditions are lots of fun and I will now die immediately when I return to 'Murica. I can't imagine that would count tho, so I think you're in the clear.
I imagine only the heads of the Super PACs will have control of health-care, money, water, etc.
At this point I want to go to law school so I can become Judge Dredd in 16 years.
- TedBuckland
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:25 am
Re: The Official September 2017 Study Group
I don't have enough posts for a picture but imagine the meme of patrick saying he has $3 being here. kthxTWiiX wrote:lol noobs, i has pdfs. $4000 kthxdj9i27 wrote:some real bad hombres have those PDFs, tiffany didn't even study and got a 178.Alexandros wrote: Probably because of copyright stuff with PDFs floating around blahbahblah. I hope they bring them back tho.
Good! preexisting conditions are lots of fun and I will now die immediately when I return to 'Murica. I can't imagine that would count tho, so I think you're in the clear.
I imagine only the heads of the Super PACs will have control of health-care, money, water, etc.
At this point I want to go to law school so I can become Judge Dredd in 16 years.
-
- Posts: 6478
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:46 am
Re: The Official September 2017 Study Group
I heard Tiffany got a 187 actually.dj9i27 wrote:some real bad hombres have those PDFs, tiffany didn't even study and got a 178.Alexandros wrote: Probably because of copyright stuff with PDFs floating around blahbahblah. I hope they bring them back tho.
Good! preexisting conditions are lots of fun and I will now die immediately when I return to 'Murica. I can't imagine that would count tho, so I think you're in the clear.
I imagine only the heads of the Super PACs will have control of health-care, money, water, etc.
At this point I want to go to law school so I can become Judge Dredd in 16 years.
and I think u should incorporate that into ur PS Faye told me she would love it.
-
- Posts: 6478
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:46 am
Re: The Official September 2017 Study Group
Also dumb me is seriously considering postponing graduating to get my GPA higher.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login