The Official September 2017 Study Group Forum

Slippin' Jimmy · Post by **Slippin' Jimmy** » Sun Sep 03, 2017 4:28 pm

Platopus wrote:
Slippin' Jimmy wrote:
Mikey wrote:this question in PT 81's LR2 is driving me fucking nuts

e: about to scream, I hate this 1 stupid question
Last one in the section? I dropped 4 questions on that section when I took it in June, was one of the harder LR sections I've come across.
Somehow managed to go -0 on this section during June. Dropped 4 points on the first LR, one of which I knew was wrong immediately after the section was over.

The June test was just so weird for me. I had a combined -2 for the first 2 sections (RC and LR1) but then dropped -6 on the last 2, including -2 on one of the easiest game sections I've ever done. While I'm happy with my score, I can't help but feel I royally screwed up a golden opportunity to absolutely kill a test that played right into my strengths.

chewinggum · Post by **chewinggum** » Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:05 pm

What is the actual photo requirement for your admissions ticket test day? When I sat for 72 I had a printed picture that I included and was told I had to have a "passport-like photo" and had to drive a few miles to get my picture taken at a cvs

I'd kind of rather not have that issue again but I'm assuming a printed picture should be ok if it has to be the one on the site

AvatarMeelo · Post by **AvatarMeelo** » Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:36 pm

Aii I'm burnt out. Thankfully I have tomorrow off from work so going to spend the day relaxing and tackling this heinous exam on Wednesday.

chargers21 · Post by **chargers21** » Sun Sep 03, 2017 7:01 pm

RSolano · Post by **RSolano** » Sun Sep 03, 2017 7:12 pm

How many -0 LG sections would you guys say you went before you considered yourself someone who's consistently -0 on logic games?

I was -6 for months and suddenly in the past week my last three sections I went -0. From tests in the 40s. Did 7sage fool proof method. Wondering if these sections are maybe just easier than 70s and most recent tests?

chargers21 · Post by **chargers21** » Sun Sep 03, 2017 7:21 pm

augustyyy · Post by **augustyyy** » Sun Sep 03, 2017 9:11 pm

Platopus wrote:
augustyyy wrote: whats your review routine if you dont mind share? thanks!
I took 2 PT's a week, and would review the day after I took the test. PT's were usually 2-3 days apart. PT. Review. Drill sections. repeat. Day off. I never did true "blind review". Instead, I would sit down and go through the entire test again, start to finish. For LR I would go through all the questions in the section with a red pen, bracketing conclusions (when applicable), diagramming (usually only formal logic or trick conditional logic, when necessary), and then striking out all the incorrect answers by mentally forcing myself to see why they were incorrect. I would do this even for the easiest questions that I got right. I redid ALL the questions, not only to make sure I didn't just get lucky, but to also see if there were any questions that gave me more trouble than they should have and also to gauge the overall tempo/rhythm of the section. This is one downside of just blind-reviewing only the questions that gave you trouble, you miss the opportunity to put those questions in the context of the rest of the section. I also referenced the Manhattan forums for each question https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/blog ... lanations/ Each LR section took about 45 -60 minutes

RC I would reread each passage, very slowly, often twice before I would even go to the questions. After rereading, I would mentally compare my understanding of the passage to what I remembered when I was PTing. Again, I would go through each question and physically cross out the answers, forcing myself to see why they were incorrect, sometimes writing why they were incorrect such as "scope - narrow", "scope - broad", etc. For correct answers, I would mark the lines of the passage that supported the correct AC.

LG I would watch the 7 sage video for any game that gave me trouble. Usually though, my LG mistakes were due to carelessness, so there wasn't much to review.

I also paid close attention to when my gut feeling was correct. For LR, half of my incorrect AC's were down to the two most attractive answers. In such cases, I spent upwards of 15 minutes on these questions to really make sure I knew why my gut was correct and I was tempted with the wrong AC.

wow thanks this is super detail!!

definitely going to try your way with some PTs!!!

GnarMarBinx · Post by **GnarMarBinx** » Sun Sep 03, 2017 10:15 pm

chargers21 wrote:
RSolano wrote:How many -0 LG sections would you guys say you went before you considered yourself someone who's consistently -0 on logic games?

I was -6 for months and suddenly in the past week my last three sections I went -0. From tests in the 40s. Did 7sage fool proof method. Wondering if these sections are maybe just easier than 70s and most recent tests?
They're definitely easier, but it's a good start

Really? I am not sure if this is correct, but I thought the consensus was that the earlier tests were harder. Am I missing something?

sodomojo · Post by **sodomojo** » Sun Sep 03, 2017 10:57 pm

GnarMarBinx wrote:
chargers21 wrote:
RSolano wrote:How many -0 LG sections would you guys say you went before you considered yourself someone who's consistently -0 on logic games?

I was -6 for months and suddenly in the past week my last three sections I went -0. From tests in the 40s. Did 7sage fool proof method. Wondering if these sections are maybe just easier than 70s and most recent tests?
They're definitely easier, but it's a good start
Really? I am not sure if this is correct, but I thought the consensus was that the earlier tests were harder. Am I missing something?

I believe that is the consensus but I don't think the 40s are quite early enough. I used the pre-40s for type drilling and of the 40s that I've done as full sections they seemed very easy. 7Sage's difficulty ratings seems to corroborate with this. I've had a lot more trouble with LGs in the 70s, though part of that may be doing them as full PTs?

RSolano · Post by **RSolano** » Sun Sep 03, 2017 11:08 pm

chargers21 wrote:
RSolano wrote:How many -0 LG sections would you guys say you went before you considered yourself someone who's consistently -0 on logic games?

I was -6 for months and suddenly in the past week my last three sections I went -0. From tests in the 40s. Did 7sage fool proof method. Wondering if these sections are maybe just easier than 70s and most recent tests?
They're definitely easier, but it's a good start

Uh oh! Okay thanks, have some late 70s coming tomorrow so I'll keep working

Desiigner · Post by **Desiigner** » Sun Sep 03, 2017 11:09 pm

Checking back in. My average over my last 5 PTs is 166, but I am averaging -6 on each games section. I have been foolproofing games for a couple of months, but still miss 4 to 7 on each games section. How long did it take you guys of watching 7sage and foolproofing to start going -0? I feel like it will never happen for me, is it really true that with enough foolproofing anyone can go -0?

studystudystudy · Post by **studystudystudy** » Mon Sep 04, 2017 1:11 am

Desiigner wrote:Checking back in. My average over my last 5 PTs is 166, but I am averaging -6 on each games section. I have been foolproofing games for a couple of months, but still miss 4 to 7 on each games section. How long did it take you guys of watching 7sage and foolproofing to start going -0? I feel like it will never happen for me, is it really true that with enough foolproofing anyone can go -0?

I averaged -9 on LG and fool proofed -ish for 2 weeks and starting going -2 consistently, then hit -0. Slacked off on keeping myself sharp on LG so went to around -4... but yes, it's definitely possible (if I can do it, you sure as **** can!)

sodomojo · Post by **sodomojo** » Mon Sep 04, 2017 3:37 am

Anyone know if a 5-star difficulty LG section exists on 7Sage? The thought of one alone makes me shudder.

saf18hornet · Post by **saf18hornet** » Mon Sep 04, 2017 6:43 am

RSolano wrote:How many -0 LG sections would you guys say you went before you considered yourself someone who's consistently -0 on logic games?

I was -6 for months and suddenly in the past week my last three sections I went -0. From tests in the 40s. Did 7sage fool proof method. Wondering if these sections are maybe just easier than 70s and most recent tests?

Do PT 27 and PT B. If you get -0 on both of those I'd say you're all set

RSolano · Post by **RSolano** » Mon Sep 04, 2017 6:48 am

saf18hornet wrote:
RSolano wrote:How many -0 LG sections would you guys say you went before you considered yourself someone who's consistently -0 on logic games?

I was -6 for months and suddenly in the past week my last three sections I went -0. From tests in the 40s. Did 7sage fool proof method. Wondering if these sections are maybe just easier than 70s and most recent tests?
Do PT 27 and PT B. If you get -0 on both of those I'd say you're all set

Ooh great advice, thanks! Will do

Rupert Pupkin · Post by **Rupert Pupkin** » Mon Sep 04, 2017 10:49 am

Desiigner wrote:Checking back in. My average over my last 5 PTs is 166, but I am averaging -6 on each games section. I have been foolproofing games for a couple of months, but still miss 4 to 7 on each games section. How long did it take you guys of watching 7sage and foolproofing to start going -0? I feel like it will never happen for me, is it really true that with enough foolproofing anyone can go -0?

Just keep at it. It happens for some quicker than others. I was fool proofing and was consistently going -0 till i got to the 70s and then somewhere between -1 and -2/3. Now im fool-proofing those hard games again. -7 on games is quite a bit, so i would continue drilling those. Id say when i miss a couple its because I dont have enough time in the bank for some extra time to think through a really hard game that is presented in PTs in the 70s. My point being is its just one of those things that takes consistent practice and I think the fool proof method and a more general mastery of LG is 0-2 wrong per section and then you can feel confident. There is always room for improvement though in LG. Finishing easier games even faster than you already can, can also help with your accuracy so that you can use the extra time on a game that stumps you and this is prob that difference between going -2 and -0.

Jack_Kelly · Post by **Jack_Kelly** » Mon Sep 04, 2017 12:40 pm

sodomojo wrote:Anyone know if a 5-star difficulty LG section exists on 7Sage? The thought of one alone makes me shudder.

Virus game, that janitor game too I think.

ilpsm · Post by **ilpsm** » Mon Sep 04, 2017 1:12 pm

sodomojo wrote:Anyone know if a 5-star difficulty LG section exists on 7Sage? The thought of one alone makes me shudder.

Just took PT 68 and that one had 2 5-star sections (and 2 1-star sections). I didn't find any of them to be too too bad, but I do know that one of them (wait times) was "miscellaneous" which I've heard is bad news.

Speaking of PT 68, I just got smacked by its RC. Went -0 on every section except for RC which I went -7 on for a 175. Obviously can't be upset about that score but I'm hoping if any section on the september exam is markedly more difficult than the others, it's either an LG or LR section.

Back to working 15+ hours a day until next weekend but got through 3 PTs this weekend and had a 174, 175, and 176. Hopefully I can do as well next weekend. Thinking having a week-long break in between heavy study periods has been helping.

Hope everyone's enjoying their LDW!

Haburo · Post by **Haburo** » Mon Sep 04, 2017 2:03 pm

GnarMarBinx · Post by **GnarMarBinx** » Mon Sep 04, 2017 2:37 pm

sodomojo wrote:
GnarMarBinx wrote:
chargers21 wrote:
RSolano wrote:How many -0 LG sections would you guys say you went before you considered yourself someone who's consistently -0 on logic games?

I was -6 for months and suddenly in the past week my last three sections I went -0. From tests in the 40s. Did 7sage fool proof method. Wondering if these sections are maybe just easier than 70s and most recent tests?
They're definitely easier, but it's a good start
Really? I am not sure if this is correct, but I thought the consensus was that the earlier tests were harder. Am I missing something?
I believe that is the consensus but I don't think the 40s are quite early enough. I used the pre-40s for type drilling and of the 40s that I've done as full sections they seemed very easy. 7Sage's difficulty ratings seems to corroborate with this. I've had a lot more trouble with LGs in the 70s, though part of that may be doing them as full PTs?