June 2011 Study Group Forum

[geverett]

OMG.

180 on 46 just now. I'm flying.

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

I've been plateaued in the low 170s (and high 160s, gulp) for a while. Been taking more time between tests to brush up on theory. Developing more sophisticated strategies, and specifically practicing with 30 minute sections instead of 35. This is breaking open my concept of what I can get on this test. Even if I don't keep the gain (or whole gain) for the next PT, now I know I can do it. It's like a handhold on the summit. I'm not all the way up yet, but I can reach it. I can at least see it.

How do you review this test? I guess I need to look at all the questions that could have gone the other way, the uncertain ones. I'm noticing strategies that are becoming more ingrained, fully absorbed. Like 15 LR questions in 15 minutes, and then a natural slow down in response to expected higher difficulty. (Pretty sure that's plagiarized from LRB)

Anyway, thanks for listening. I always read the posts and help when I can. It's nice to have a community to practice with. I have to tell you about this, because no one else in my life understands this obsession.

seriously awesome. congrats! Studied from around 7:30 AM CST until now. Think I might top of the day with some RC.

[geverett]

Hey team,
What do you guys think is the best way to review what you got right and wrong in RC? I see there is a definitive way to do that, so it seems, in LR and LG but for those of you who have seen great improvement in RC what is your review strategy and what are some of the things you changed in your method that you believe led to this improvement. Would love to hear about it.

[Eichörnchen]

Hey team,
What do you guys think is the best way to review what you got right and wrong in RC? I see there is a definitive way to do that, so it seems, in LR and LG but for those of you who have seen great improvement in RC what is your review strategy and what are some of the things you changed in your method that you believe led to this improvement. Would love to hear about it.

I feel the same way when it comes to RC. Lately I write out the main topic (ie- Phil of scientific objectivity) and the ever-important Main Point, then I write how I did and how I felt about the passage. Then I'll go to the questions I was very unsure about or got wrong and write what my error was and why I think I made it.

As for games, I just redo them until I get all the answers correct. Do you think this is adequate?

edit: I forgot somefin

[mickeyD]

As for games, I just redo them until I get all te answers correct. Do you think this is adequate?

I'm sure this is what you do, but I think it is important to make sure you're getting them correct via the proper inferences and rules. If you got a question wrong, and then go back and find the right answer by trying 6 different hypotheticals until you eliminate all the possibilities, you're not really learning anything. With some exceptions of course, pretty much every LG question has a key rule/inference that allows you to quickly find the right answer. LG review should consist of finding that key deduction that you missed the first time around and applying it to find the solution.

Like I mentioned, I'm sure this is what most people do, but anyone who isn't is definitely selling themselves short.

[geverett]

cool website i found: http://moststronglysupported.com/

[Eichörnchen]

Yea I would have to say at this point I am too hypo-heavy. I'm hoping that as I drill more, my inference making will improve. Right now, when something isn't working I'll usually ponder it, read all the rules, stare and think "hmm...WTF?" and then if I still haven't gotten the lightbulb I'll do some hypos until I discover the inference that way. Although it seems like it's usually not an inference missing so much as me being a dumbass and not remembering a not law when doing my mini setup for a local q, or forgetting half the stem in a local q, etc. Hopefully silly mistakes like this will go away soon because they cost me a huge amount of time because I'll think and think and not realize I am forgetting a key rule until I move on and come back to the question or after a bunch of hypos and I realize I'm screwing up something fundamentally.

[Yeags]

Took PT 40 today with RC from PT 52 as experimental

RC experimental: -4
LR: -1
LG: -5 I ran out of time and skipped 5 questions from the Zephre Airlines problem
LR: -4 (losing focus after disastrous games)
RC: -0
so -10 in total, and scaled to 170

I feel like I'm having huge variations in my sections which is kind of frustrating >:[ thank goodness we still have about 8 weeks to prep.

[coldshoulder]

23 -- 04/12/11 ----- LR: -2/-3 ; RC: -3 ; LG: -1 --------91/176 -----

Holy beards batman!!! Apparently my LR studying over the last week and careful review has paid off, not too mention the big curve on this test. Hopefully I can keep it up.

This is my first score above 169...hope it's not a fluke.

[Yassig]

Wow, congrats to everyone scoring those amazing scores (including an 180!). Makes me feel like such a slacker!

...back to the grind with more LG/LR drills. Hello caffeine, my new best friend!

[geverett]

I'm going to drill individual sections tomorrow like a mad man.

[mac35352]

23 -- 04/12/11 ----- LR: -2/-3 ; RC: -3 ; LG: -1 --------91/176 -----

Holy beards batman!!! Apparently my LR studying over the last week and careful review has paid off, not too mention the big curve on this test. Hopefully I can keep it up.

This is my first score above 169...hope it's not a fluke.

Great job.

[JohnMKeynes]

Can someone help me out with Game #1 October 1996 question twelve? I am not really following the explanation where W is not reduced G, P, N must be reduced?

[Hunterrhoid]

this thread's rockstar

Haha, I think you're thinking of soj. His performance is a little more consistent than mine. Guy's a beast.

wow! I don't even know what you say beyond that haha. What was your diagnostic?

I didn't time myself, so it doesn't measure well, but it was high 160s-170 or something. I didn't know what I was getting into then, so I didn't really take it that seriously.

That's amazing, Hunter! It must feel so good. I'm doing LR repair exclusively before going back to PTs, probably on Thursday. I hope to get out of the slight slump I'm currently in.

Thanks. You'll be fine, man. Study in-between to correct mistakes is definitely what is working for me. Lately for me, my LR mistakes are when I get fooled by a combination of what I've been privately calling 'dirty tricks'. However, I've recently seen a lot of improvement there, because by getting into it, it seems like LSAC has a much smaller roster of 'dirty tricks' than they do question-types, or subject matter.

Congrats! Awesome to see all your hard work and review is paying off. And your success definitely motivates the rest of us to keep at it, hopefully I can post something similar on this thread, preferably about 3 weeks after June.

Thanks, mick. That's EXACTLY when I would like to post this again. We can do this.

seriously awesome. congrats! Studied from around 7:30 AM CST until now. Think I might top of the day with some RC.

That's a long day. What's your RC strategy right now?

[Hunterrhoid]

Oh my GOD CONGRATULATIONS, that is seriously so. Fucking. Awesome.
Do you mind if I ask what you did as you took more time between tests? I'm in the 170s range right now (with a few dips into the high 160s) and I would loooove to replicate your breakthrough. Seriously, this is very impressive, you should be SUPER proud!!!

Thanks!

I've been focusing heavily on individual question types. Like several hours on weaken, or three days (more like two weeks) on RC. I've found that, for me, by really focusing my study on RC, I've improved in LR automatically. Really focusing anywhere on an extreme micro level has paid off everywhere else.

I've spent a LOT of time analyzing my mistakes, and I've found that my biggest threats are time, careless reading, and getting confused on complicated language (I also misbubbled about once per test until recently). What I'm doing to correct:

Time: Retake PTs 29-38 with 30-minute section time limits. This gives me a lot of confidence, because I already studied the hardest questions on the test when I took them the first time, and so I get speed practice with a very high repeat score. It gives me a sense of the pacing I need.

Careless reading: In-depth study of the kinds of details I gloss over. Specifically, I've been applying the arrows from the family distinctions in LRB when I find a justify, strengthen, weaken, or flaw question. It is a quick way to remind me whether I can use outside information, and what it should look like. Also, specifically on sufficient assumption questions, it's become evident to me that I sometimes miss these because the correct answer is so extreme. It will be tossing around 'exactly' 'must' 'always' etc. However, this is often EXACTLY what you want in a sufficient assumption answer (one that makes the conclusion logically follow). The stronger the claim, the easier it can be to hang an argument. I was crossing these answers out on habit because I hadn't built a separate strategy for these questions.

Complicated language: This bullshit. Diagramming. Saving time elsewhere so that I can spend more defusing these bombs. NOT crossing out an answer because I don't immediately understand it (whoops). Also, I think it's helped me to think of the test-writers as my enemies. Does that sound dumb? I feel like they are trying to fuck with me, trying to make me fail. Somehow that mentality gives me some extra patience that I need to beat this stuff.

Good luck, C&T.

[Hunterrhoid]

Oh yeah, I ALSO use that arrow thing for most support-ed/most support-ing questions, as I have mixed up the outside info thing one too many times on those.

[geverett]

Oh yeah, I ALSO use that arrow thing for most support-ed/most support-ing questions, as I have mixed up the outside info thing one too many times on those.

Hunter,
What is your process when you review what you got right/wrong on RC?

[geverett]

Hey team,
What do you guys think is the best way to review what you got right and wrong in RC? I see there is a definitive way to do that, so it seems, in LR and LG but for those of you who have seen great improvement in RC what is your review strategy and what are some of the things you changed in your method that you believe led to this improvement. Would love to hear about it.

I feel the same way when it comes to RC. Lately I write out the main topic (ie- Phil of scientific objectivity) and the ever-important Main Point, then I write how I did and how I felt about the passage. Then I'll go to the questions I was very unsure about or got wrong and write what my error was and why I think I made it.

As for games, I just redo them until I get all the answers correct. Do you think this is adequate?

edit: I forgot somefin

Eich,
Do you disprove/prove all correct/incorrect answer choices or just for the ones you got wrong or had a hard time with.

[Eichörnchen]

Hey team,
What do you guys think is the best way to review what you got right and wrong in RC? I see there is a definitive way to do that, so it seems, in LR and LG but for those of you who have seen great improvement in RC what is your review strategy and what are some of the things you changed in your method that you believe led to this improvement. Would love to hear about it.

I feel the same way when it comes to RC. Lately I write out the main topic (ie- Phil of scientific objectivity) and the ever-important Main Point, then I write how I did and how I felt about the passage. Then I'll go to the questions I was very unsure about or got wrong and write what my error was and why I think I made it.

As for games, I just redo them until I get all the answers correct. Do you think this is adequate?

edit: I forgot somefin

Eich,
Do you disprove/prove all correct/incorrect answer choices or just for the ones you got wrong or had a hard time with.

No, I don't prove why my correct answers were correct unless I almost chose another answer or was otherwise unsure. For the ones I got correct and didn't circle as unsure, I pretty much just reread the question and ac's and if I know why I got it right then I just move on. For unsure/incorrect I will explain why my choice was correct/incorrect and why my other contenders were wrong.
I definitely don't think that the idea of proving my correct answers correct is bad, it's probably just because I'm lazy that I don't . I would just get so borrrrred writing out an explanation for all the questions that I felt 100% about, but in the future, if I don't have sections that could use my time a lot more (I'm lookin at you games) then I might try that strategy out.

[OhOkay]

Wow, you guys are an inspiring and very helpful lot!

So my plan to do a PT yesterday failed... but I just did one now. My PT record thus far:
April 10 - PT 40: LR -1, RC -0, LG -4, LR -1 = 174
April 13 - PT 50: RC -6, LR -0, LG -1, LR -0 = 173

With Pt 40, I had trouble finishing the LGs in time (had to skip two questions). Same with the RC today with PT 50 - I didn't skip any q's but was racing to try to finish, and skimmed the last few questions. I think maybe I took this test way too early. I woke up at 8:10 and was taking the test by 8:35, and felt pretty dead the whole time. Almost gave up on the remaining two sections when I got to the ten minute break (I added fake fifth sections from PTs in the 20s). Logic games felt like a relief when I finally got to them because it meant I didn't have to keep reading more boring paragraphs.

I guess since I've only taken two PTs so far, it would be dumb to try to extrapolate any patterns in terms of what my weak sections are. I could probably start figuring out my weak question types though. Will report back once I've reviewed and analyzed these tests (mostly finished reviewing PT 40 already). But first... a nap before I keel over.

Should I perhaps drill more sections/question types before I take more full-length PTs? Since I basically just started studying a week ago, and there's less than 8 weeks to the test, I keep feeling like I need to start PTing asap. My non-PT practice thus far has consisted of:
- 50ish games from pre-20 PTs. Great accuracy, but took about 10-12 mins for grouping and advanced linear games.
- 10 LR sectons from PTs 13-17. Timing ok, scores usually -3ish. Couldn't see any patterns for weak q's.
- 2 RC sections from PTs 15, 16. Timing great, -1 on each.

Congrats to those who are seeing great improvements (esp. Mr. 180!), and to those are who are seeing some setbacks, temporary dips are unimportant in the overall scheme of things. Thanks for all the helpful advice you guys dish out -- I'm grateful, and i'm so glad I can post here too since no one in my life right now has a clue what the lsat is. Posting provides some serious motivation!

[jim-green]

Congrats to those who are seeing great improvements (esp. Mr. 180!), and to those are who are seeing some setbacks, temporary dips are unimportant in the overall scheme of things. Thanks for all the helpful advice you guys dish out -- I'm grateful, and i'm so glad I can post here too since no one in my life right now has a clue what the lsat is. Posting provides some serious motivation!

You're doing better than I after I've had 6 months of studying. I'm jealous. By the way, I'm taking my first timed half-PT today. I've only done untimed questions until now, then untimed sections, then timed sections (the last motivated by Florida who explained what drilling meant). This afternoon is my first timed half-PT (3 sections non-stop).

[geverett]

Can someone explain to me PT 10 Logic Game 3 #14 why it cannot be Z as you could just remove it and replace it with another letter.

[OhOkay]

Can someone explain to me PT 10 Logic Game 3 #14 why it cannot be Z as you could just remove it and replace it with another letter.

Hey geverett. I looked up the game you're asking about. Replacing "z" wouldn't work because then the words in the sentence wouldn't be in alphabetical order anymore, as any letter you replace it with would be from earlier in the alphabet. hope that helps

[geverett]

sneaky operators.

[geverett]

I've been working from the earlier tests today. I'm wrapping up 5 timed LG sections. Then I will do 5 timed RC passages. Then I will do 6 LR sections. Hopefully I can get this all done tonight. We shall see. Also, no I am not doing them straight in a row. I am pausing after each one, re-working what I got wrong, and taking a short 5-10 minute break.

[Yassig]

I've been working from the earlier tests today. I'm wrapping up 5 timed LG sections. Then I will do 5 timed RC passages. Then I will do 6 LR sections. Hopefully I can get this all done tonight. We shall see. Also, no I am not doing them straight in a row. I am pausing after each one, re-working what I got wrong, and taking a short 5-10 minute break.

Seriously hard-core, whether you're doing it straight or not. I expect to see 180 scores from you very soon!