+1 to the grid method on LG.

I started off with the LGB, so the PS method of diagramming was programmed into my brain, and once I started Velocity I was really stubborn and hesitant to switch to Dave's grid method. However, I ended up realizing that it's much cleaner and efficient, and easier to reference your prior work.

What I didn't like about the PS method was the amount of time it took to redraw the diagram for each question/answer choice and the sloppiness that came with trying to cram potentially 5 mini diagrams next to each question where there is hardly any space to begin with.

Another reason I'm glad I signed up for Velocity.

Just got done with my last final yesterday. During finals I was able to study for the Lsat but not as much as I would have liked. I plan on going all out the rest of the way until June 11th. I'm probably gonna do pt 54 tonight. I checked out a few LSAT books from FSU law school.

I also have the extra LG from the LSAt blog, some which I find much harder than regular LSAT lgoic games.

I also have an account on Manhattan prep, and I registered the Reading comprehension book, which I believe should give me acces to additional features on the site.

I have Barrons Passkey to the LSAT. and a regular book on logic called "logic made easy.

I also have the "10 New Actual, official Lsat preptests. Two of which I have done already scoring a 166 and a 164 respectively . I am probably also going to purchase a few more practice tests.


Overall I think I got a ton of material to dive into and hopefully break a 170 by test day.

Been sick with a stomach virus so not much studying yesterday.

Today I reread some chapters in LRB, did 8 RC passages and 6 games including the infamous snakes and lizard. I didn't think the game was too difficult. It did take me 11 minutes but I got everything right.

Tomorrow I will review PT 61, 4 RC, couple of chapter in MSLAT LR, 6 games and another PT in the afternoon.

Here is for breaking 175!

PT 56

LG: -0
Very easy. First game took me the longest lol.

LR1: -8
God, I need to fucking MOVE ON when I get stuck on a problem. Some of the disagree questions can be a little tricky, I spent about 4 minutes just sitting on one. Ended up guessing on the last 5 missing all of them... Can't do this anymore. It's really annoying letting things like this happen.

LR2 (exp) 41.1: -2
Felt good, had about 5 minutes left.

LR3: -2
This felt like how a real LR section should go. Was cruising for the most part, identifying the things I needed to, moved on when I got stuck, was happy with this.

RC: -4
Not terrible, not amazing. This is what I would like my worst possible RC score to be by the time the test rolls around.

I think the thing that hit me the hardest was not doing any LR timing for a week. I was doing fine time wise but let myself sit on problems, that has been a nagging habit for me that I need to get rid of. Honestly, part of my personality is to not just leave things unfinished, I hate moving on without getting some sort of closure or feeling like I have enough done. This has carried over into the LSAT... lol

Raw: 86/100
Scaled: 167

So my last 3 PTs are like this: 166/166/167. All three have had one terrible section and a pretty good performance on all the others. I know I can answer every single LR question, the key to the section remains in just moving on when you get stuck, well for me at least.

Admission Ticket is up now~
Check the testing location in advance. I feel really anxious now...

Looks like I should print mine and post it up on my wall for motivation! Think I'm going to go to Walgreens and get that whole picture thing out of the way this weekend. On second thought, maybe I will hire a professional photographer to follow me around this weekend.

Maybe we should all write 180's on our foreheads and take the picture. I don't remember symbols/tattoos being on that absurdly long list of acceptable/not acceptable photos.

I have a question about 56.2.14

This is a strengthen question.

So is the problem with #14 the use of "in general" in the study? The means that while the entrepreneurs might be the most overconfident, there are exceptions in which the business managers are also the most overconfident. However, the conclusion states that the most overconfident are those people that engage in entrepreneurial behavior. Our premise can't actually get us to this conclusion. As of now, it seems like BOTH business managers and entrepreneurs can be overconfident, and therefore engage in entrepreneurial behavior. This makes absolutely no sense.

Is answer choice D actually a necessary assumption of the argument? If we are to say that "the business managers who were the most overconfident were found to have [NOT] attempted to start a business in the past", we would be saying that even the most overconfident business managers (the ones that were the exception to rule and were more overconfident than the entrepreneurs) NEVER were at any point in their past entrepreneurs, and they currently are not now. This would mean that they have never engaged in entrepreneurial behavior, and therefore, the conclusion would fail because "people who are especially overconfident", which as shown includes the business managers that are the exception to the "in general", would not also be said to have engaged in entrepreneurial behavior.

So, does this question really come down to the use of the term in general? Doesn't it necessarily create an exception to the entrepreneurs always being the most overconfident? If so, than it leads open the possibility that even the business managers (who might not have ever been entrepreneurs, negation of D) could be the most overconfident. If this is true, than the business men who were never entrepreneurs could have been the most overconfident which would destroy any semblance of our causal relationship holding. Thus, D actually functions as necessary assumption to the argument.

Sorry I'm not in your study group but I'm bored and figured I'd give it a shot. In this question the psychologist acknowledges the correlation shown in the study is overconfidence and starting up a business, the psychologist then concludes that there must be a causal relationship between these two occurrences. It's important to memorize the 5 ways to strengthen a conclusion based on causality:
1: Eliminate alternate causes
2: Show that when the cause occurs, the effect occurs
3. Show that when the cause does not occur, the effect does not occur
4: Eliminate the possibility that the relationship is reversed
5: Show that the date used are accurate, or eliminate problems with the data.

Answer choice D lends additional evidence (#5) to the conclusion that overconfident people (notice it's not qualified but refers to overconfident people of any variety) are more like to attempt to start a business.

A is wrong, the type of questions asked are not addressed in the stimulus, only the fact that they responded with varying levels of confidence in their responses.

B is out of the scope of the argument, the entrepreneurs need not have understood the odds of success.

C is out of scope, the argument is reaching a conclusion about the probability of overconfident people to start a business, the success of that business is irrelevant.

E is wrong because the correlation is between confidence and starting a business, not confidence and business acumen.

Does this help at all to clear things up?

Daaaaamnit I just fucked up on PT 57:

LG - 2
LR - 1
LR - 3
RC - 1

Raw: 94
Scaled: 174

After the games manhandled me (I couldn't finish, left one blank and straight missed the other one) I just felt angry and 'off' for the whole test. This blows. I really thought I was over a hump with my last two tests. Now I'm going camping this weekend and I have to have THIS hanging over my head... shitty way to go down.

Study long my friends see you in a couple days.

Yo this is solid work, and what you say about knowing when to move on is for sure correct I agree but I have a question: how are you warming up? Is it possible that the huge discrepancy between your LR sections has to do with getting into a groove?

You'll get it!

Since it's payday, I'm ordering my lsat watch today! Saw a link to a normal analog watch that can time, but it is ugly and I wouldn't wear that again either. At least I might attach some sentimental value to the LSAT watch if I get a good score.

Ya, I did a little warm up this time around, it helped. The problem is honestly just sitting on a problem instead of moving on. This is the hardest part about the LSAT. I think I might try doing 1-14/15 (end of page) skip to end and work backwards, might mix it up a little bit and get me out of this dumb habit.

That my system for LR. I think working backwards helps psychologically since by the end you're essentially working towards questions you've already finished (1-14/15). Someone suggested working the entire section backwards. I might try one standalone LR section like that today to see how it goes.

Hmm, the questions I miss most often seem to be in the 16-20 range. I am not sure if my mind just wanders, or if I feel so confident doing the easier problems that I don't start stepping up my concentration like I do on the last few ones because I know those are hard. I'm really not sure, but the MAIN pattern I've noticed in my wrong answers is that they fall within the late teens to #20! It's weird.

I explained this in the Q&A thread. Hope it helps.

Can anyone who was there on Wed. please send me a PM about how the session went? We take our teacher training seriously, and would love to get some feedback on Jerry's performance. Thank you!

PM Sent. Let me know if/when you get it - I sometimes have this problem where my message sits in the outbox for days. If it is urgent and/or important, I can email it to you as well. I have your email address

Thanks - got the message. I'm glad it went so well. Since you mentioned wanting to get more teacher-led sessions, if the group gets some mass and makes a request for a specific lesson, we'll be happy to set that up.

Thanks Noah.

How does everyone feel about possibly requesting a session that's geared specifically towards RC? Maybe picking a couple PTs, doing those passages, and discussing them in a session?

From your message in Skype I thought you had gotten a 160 or something. All doom and gloom! HRMPH

Took my first full-length timed PT this past Tuesday. PT 46:

RC: - 5
LR1: -0
Exp LR (19.4): -0
LR2: -6
LG: -0

Raw: 88
Scaled: 168

Somewhat disappointing given that's my Feb score. A good third of my mistakes were pure sloppiness - not reading the answer choices or stimulus completely or assuming I knew what it said without reading every word. Stupid. And that's the worst I've ever done on RC - only had 5 minutes left to do the last passage (laws to prevent harm/coordination). Confusing passage on its own, but then being preoccupied with time was probably my downfall. Oh well. Only up from here.

BUT, I've never gotten -0 on two LR sections in a row, so I'm celebrating that.

I did this one too today. It was a mess. I went -9 in the RC when I'm usually -4 MAX. The last two passages were a hot mess. On the upside, I did got -2 on the LG which represents an improvement. Still working on my LR gains though.

PT 55:
I don't remember the section order, and I'm not at home to look it up.
LG: -1
LR1:-0
LR2:-0
RC:-0
Total: -1 Score: 180

LG was rough. Everything else is good news.

Edit: FORGOT TO MENTION. I used to play poker semi-professionally during my the last few years of my undergrad, but haven't made it back to the felt in a few months. In my forget-the-ex stupor I headed over to the local card room and played the 2-4NL game. This is germane only because I took LR2 at the table while cards were in play, finished in under 35, and still got a perfect score on the section. I also walked away $2300 in the black during the seven hour session. Good day.