Re: Mike's Trainer Thread
Posted: Sat May 28, 2016 3:44 pm
sure thing -- thanks for the comment and always happy to help -- mkMAPP wrote:Mike, you sir are a baller and a saint! Thanks for the help!The LSAT Trainer wrote:
HTH -- MK
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=209573
sure thing -- thanks for the comment and always happy to help -- mkMAPP wrote:Mike, you sir are a baller and a saint! Thanks for the help!The LSAT Trainer wrote:
HTH -- MK
Hey --Archer@Law wrote:Hey Mike, I am using the 16 week Trainer study plan and had a question on Chapter 14.
On page 195, there is a two question drill about complex 'or' rules.
On question 2) I came up with the following sequence of letters and I am failing to see where I am messing this up at.
Answer C has 'L' in the seventh position. The sequence below is what I come up with:
J M G F K H L
Maybe I am going about the solving process the wrong way here when dealing with "must be true" questions? I go down the list and plug in whatever the answer says and see if it works within the confines of the rules.
Thanks
I'm working through LG conditional drills on pgs 184/185 (Trainer 2013) and want to make my own way of diagramming this type of rule: "she will take K or G, but not both." You suggest diagramming as: In | Out with K under "In" and G under "Out" with a double arrow pointing at both.The LSAT Trainer wrote:
Mike,The LSAT Trainer wrote:Archer@Law wrote:Hey Mike, I am using the 16 week Trainer study plan and had a question on Chapter 14.
On page 195, there is a two question drill about complex 'or' rules.
On question 2) I came up with the following sequence of letters and I am failing to see where I am messing this up at.
Answer C has 'L' in the seventh position. The sequence below is what I come up with:
J M G F K H L
Maybe I am going about the solving process the wrong way here when dealing with "must be true" questions? I go down the list and plug in whatever the answer says and see if it works within the confines of the rules.
Thanks
Hey -- you were right to notice the difference in consequences, and it is a very, very important one to notice --MAPP wrote:I'm working through LG conditional drills on pgs 184/185 (Trainer 2013) and want to make my own way of diagramming this type of rule: "she will take K or G, but not both." You suggest diagramming as: In | Out with K under "In" and G under "Out" with a double arrow pointing at both.The LSAT Trainer wrote:
I thought I might simplify by writing as: K <------|------> G which would read "if K, not G" and "If G, not K" The only thing this notation lacks is the requirement that either K or G be selected. Is this a problem? That is, are there some games rules that state, "if G then no K, and vice versa," which would leave open the possibility that neither is selected?
Oh man - some of the toughest reasoning structure q’s u will ever find -- thanks for bringing them up for discussion, and I can certainly understand why these would cause u (and pretty much everyone else who sees them) trouble --younjeos wrote:Hello,
I have a question with the “therefore” test, specifically with PT 42 4.16.
Regarding the first and third sentences, I don’t understand the difference between “because gratitude can’t be fulfilled anonymously, the social function of reinforcing good behaviors can only occur if the benefactor knows the source of gratitude”?
and
“because good behaviors can only be reinforced if the benefactor knows the source of gratitude, gratitude can’t be fulfilled anonymously”.
Does the first sentence not make sense because it's saying "because gratitude can't be fulfilled anonymously without any support or qualification? After thinking about how I approach these types of questions, I realized that I take each sentence as a fact that can stand on its own because we're not supposed to dispute the truth of the premises. For example, in my mind, I can imagine how “gratitude can’t be fulfilled anonymously” and “positively reinforcing these behaviors can have beneficial consequences only if the benefactors knows the source of the gratitude” can each act as independent statements that can stand alone without each other's support. I think there’s a fundamental error in the way that I’m approaching these types of questions. Could you help me point out what’s going wrong?
I also struggled with PT 70 1. #17 (the meteorologist) question as well.
Thank you!
Hey --Archer@Law wrote:Mike,
Had another question for you. I'm beginning to enter the ramping up portion of my studies for the September test, and I am going to be doing heavy drilling combined with blind review. Of course this will be done in addition to my work in the Trainer (Will be starting Lesson 16 in the next couple days). Any advice on which tests I should be drilling and how I should structure it?
I.e. Should I use tests 1-38 for drilling or some other number? Should I organize by question type? If so, should I shell out the big bucks for the organized sets on Amazon?
I guess what I am saying is that I am little lost in general as to how I should set up a heavy drilling schedule and what materials I should use.
Thanks for your time Mike
Sure thing - thanks for the thanks and wish you the best - MKArcher@Law wrote:Awesome info! I will follow your advice.
Thanks!
Quick follow up Mike in regards to the drilling layout on the 29-71 schedule. On the 3rd set of drills it has full sections listed for the 41-50 PTs. I'm afraid I don't have access to the actual full tests. However, I do have access to the questions by way of the Manhattan book that divides the tests by question type. I ordered the Manhattan book after find the cost for the actual full tests is anywhere from $40-$100+ per test on Amazon.The LSAT Trainer wrote:Sure thing - thanks for the thanks and wish you the best - MKArcher@Law wrote:Awesome info! I will follow your advice.
Thanks!
Archer@Law wrote:Quick follow up Mike in regards to the drilling layout on the 29-71 schedule. On the 3rd set of drills it has full sections listed for the 41-50 PTs. I'm afraid I don't have access to the actual full tests. However, I do have access to the questions by way of the Manhattan book that divides the tests by question type. I ordered the Manhattan book after find the cost for the actual full tests is anywhere from $40-$100+ per test on Amazon.The LSAT Trainer wrote:Sure thing - thanks for the thanks and wish you the best - MKArcher@Law wrote:Awesome info! I will follow your advice.
Thanks!
Any recommendations on how I should account for this?
Thanks again for everything
Okay Mike I've cooked something up. What do you think?The LSAT Trainer wrote:Archer@Law wrote:Quick follow up Mike in regards to the drilling layout on the 29-71 schedule. On the 3rd set of drills it has full sections listed for the 41-50 PTs. I'm afraid I don't have access to the actual full tests. However, I do have access to the questions by way of the Manhattan book that divides the tests by question type. I ordered the Manhattan book after find the cost for the actual full tests is anywhere from $40-$100+ per test on Amazon.The LSAT Trainer wrote:Sure thing - thanks for the thanks and wish you the best - MKArcher@Law wrote:Awesome info! I will follow your advice.
Thanks!
Any recommendations on how I should account for this?
Thanks again for everything
Hey -- one thing you can do, if you still have enough time on your schedule, is to switch some of those from 41-50 w/some of the other the pt's assigned in the first and second drill sets -- assuming you have other pt's in full sections, I think that should work out fine --
otherwise, I don't think it's that bad a thing (could even be better for you depending on where u r in your studies) if you do end up using the broken-up sets as opposed to the more mixed together drill assignments -- I know that may sound like it contradicts my earlier advice, but the reason I say that is because right after that third set of drills, you are going to be going into your full sections/pt practice anyway, so, essentially, you will just be slightly delaying when you are getting into the mixed together work, and I think that's fine -- HTH and let me know if u have any follow-up q's -- MK
Archer@Law wrote:Okay Mike I've cooked something up. What do you think?The LSAT Trainer wrote:Archer@Law wrote:Quick follow up Mike in regards to the drilling layout on the 29-71 schedule. On the 3rd set of drills it has full sections listed for the 41-50 PTs. I'm afraid I don't have access to the actual full tests. However, I do have access to the questions by way of the Manhattan book that divides the tests by question type. I ordered the Manhattan book after find the cost for the actual full tests is anywhere from $40-$100+ per test on Amazon.The LSAT Trainer wrote:Sure thing - thanks for the thanks and wish you the best - MKArcher@Law wrote:Awesome info! I will follow your advice.
Thanks!
Any recommendations on how I should account for this?
Thanks again for everything
Hey -- one thing you can do, if you still have enough time on your schedule, is to switch some of those from 41-50 w/some of the other the pt's assigned in the first and second drill sets -- assuming you have other pt's in full sections, I think that should work out fine --
otherwise, I don't think it's that bad a thing (could even be better for you depending on where u r in your studies) if you do end up using the broken-up sets as opposed to the more mixed together drill assignments -- I know that may sound like it contradicts my earlier advice, but the reason I say that is because right after that third set of drills, you are going to be going into your full sections/pt practice anyway, so, essentially, you will just be slightly delaying when you are getting into the mixed together work, and I think that's fine -- HTH and let me know if u have any follow-up q's -- MK
Drill Set 1 Q-Type - 29-38
Drill Set 2 Q-Type - 41-50
Drill Set 3 Full Sections- 52-61
PTs - 62-71 + 72-77
Hey Roranoa --roranoa wrote:Hi Mike,
Thanks for all the feedback up to this point.
I have a question about RC.
I always try to read for structure like you emphasize in your book. But I have a hard time doing that with passsages that elaborate on one subject. Passsages that give a detailed chronology of an artist, a description of a native dance or a textbook explanation of some space theory. (ex. PT 68 / section 1 / passage 1)
You see, when the passage has an argument I am able to benefit much by reading for structure. I can slow down on important points and skim through (and save time) lines that are less crucial. But if the passage is like those mentioned above, even if I know what each paragraph is talking about, usually the passage will have a parallel structure with each paragraph talking about a different (yet equally important) aspect of the subject. In this case I can't seem to pin point what is more or less important. So I feel like I have to read everything in detail which makes me lose a lot of time.
What do you suggest I do? Any advice would help!
Thanks!
Hey -- thanks for trusting in the Trainer and wish you the best with it -- if you run into any trouble or need anything, don't hesitate to get in touch -- MKlsatisfunbro1996 wrote:Hey Mike,
I just purchased your book and will be receiving it in the mail tomorrow. I am excited to use your renown book. I am using the bibles now but I am struggling to make those needed inferences and I find their explanations of the games to be confusing to grasp. I hope this book will help me a lot!
Hey! -- Oh, that's so awesome to hear -- I can just picture how happy you must have been seeing that score -- huge congrats -- appreciate the comment and you letting me know --disbalex wrote:Hey Mike,
I stumbled this by chance after I used your book to study for the Feb 2016 LSAT. I just wanted to thank you because your book was the single largest contributing factor towards me scoring a 170 (not counting all the practice tests).
A little bit of background: I was scoring ~158 prior to purchasing this book. After 1 month of reading/learning the tricks using the LSAT Trainer, followed by 2 more months of doing practice tests (3-4 a week), I was scoring avg 167-169. On test day, I got lucky and walked out with a 170.
This is great! Thanks!The LSAT Trainer wrote:Hey Everyone —
Just wanted to let you know about a new free resource I’ve created —
It’s a self-assessment checklist that you can use to quickly assess how ready you feel for the exam. The checklist breaks down the LR, LG, and RC sections according to challenges, question types, and so on, and gives you space to rate/grade yourself on how comfortable you feel with your understanding, strategies, practice experience, and level and mastery.
And you can find it here — http://www.thelsattrainer.com/are-you-r ... klist.html
It is designed using Trainer categories and terminology, but hopefully it can be useful to you whether you’ve prepared with the Trainer or not —
You can use it to monitor your develop throughout your LSAT study process, or you can use it toward the end of your prep to assess strengths and weaknesses, figure out where you need to focus your attention, and so on.
I think this might be especially useful for students who are gearing up for the September exam —
Thanks for taking a look, and if you have any questions or comments let me know —
Mike
Sure thing - hope u find it useful! - MKPozzo wrote:This is great! Thanks!The LSAT Trainer wrote:Hey Everyone —
Just wanted to let you know about a new free resource I’ve created —
It’s a self-assessment checklist that you can use to quickly assess how ready you feel for the exam. The checklist breaks down the LR, LG, and RC sections according to challenges, question types, and so on, and gives you space to rate/grade yourself on how comfortable you feel with your understanding, strategies, practice experience, and level and mastery.
And you can find it here — http://www.thelsattrainer.com/are-you-r ... klist.html
It is designed using Trainer categories and terminology, but hopefully it can be useful to you whether you’ve prepared with the Trainer or not —
You can use it to monitor your develop throughout your LSAT study process, or you can use it toward the end of your prep to assess strengths and weaknesses, figure out where you need to focus your attention, and so on.
I think this might be especially useful for students who are gearing up for the September exam —
Thanks for taking a look, and if you have any questions or comments let me know —
Mike