User Avatar
jaeminner478
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free
User Avatar
jaeminner478
Wednesday, Jul 29 2020

Thanks! This is a great feature!!

User Avatar

Thursday, May 28 2020

jaeminner478

PT4.S4.Q23-24

These were so hard.

I got number 23 right at first, but wrong after a blind review. I don't understand why answer choice D is not a necessary assumption. Isn't it important that the brains of twins aren't any more likely to suffer from schizophrenia than a non-twin brain? Shouldn't that be of utmost important to ensure the conclusion about brains in general is valid?

But more confusing to me was 24. How in the heck can we find most of the answers to be "could be true" based on the stimulus? There is no mention of any of the answer choices, like (B) being able to control it with medication, but not cure it. Where is that even implied in the stimulus? Or susceptibility in answer (A). I can't find a logical string that ties these answers together.

#HELP

User Avatar
jaeminner478
Wednesday, Jun 24 2020

@ said:

https://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/bid-310634-welcome-to-the-lsat-casino/

I think this article does a great job explaining the answer you're looking for.

This has got to be it. Best explanation I've seen yet. THANK YOU!!

User Avatar
jaeminner478
Tuesday, Jun 23 2020

@ said:

I had a similar experience too. I got a 160(BR 167) on PT 36 and 167 (BR 171) on PT60. I found that the harder LR questions (16-24) were framed better which made them slightly easier than the older ones. Games were way harder back in the day so that is one big reason. RC is slightly harder on the newer ones so the gap is int too big but its big enough to explain a 4-5 point increase. I think you can still use them as PTs. I use them for untimed drills and its helped my LR quite a bit.

Thank you for sharing! I think that's what I'll do regarding using older versions for drills. What number do you think is a good line of demarcation for new vs old? Thanks!! Good luck!

I have been taking older PTs in order to preserve the newer ones for when I am closer to test date, but out of curiosity, I tried a a more recent test. Here's what happened:

PT38, I scored a160 (171BR)

...5 days later...

I took PT69 and scored a 166 (169 BR)

They were both timed. In fact, I took PT69 under the strictest conditions I've exercised yet.

Now, I know a 6 point jump after 6 days isn't due to some random leap of development. I am genuinely curious if there have been any known changes that might make the newer tests a little "easier"? I didn't get a sense for this while I was actually testing (other than maybe LG being a little more clear).

Perhaps does this mean I should focus more on recent PTs, or conversely, I should focus on the older ones in order to potentially make more gains by challenging myself harder?

User Avatar
jaeminner478
Saturday, Aug 22 2020

Thank you

User Avatar
jaeminner478
Saturday, May 09 2020

@ said:

(C) resolves the paradox/discrepancy by introducing an idea that it’s another factor responsible, other than the headlights use or disuse, that cause the discrepancy between headlights use and accident rates.

First let’s focus on the paradox- mandatory use of headlights not having any impact on the incidence of accidents, yet when optional, left to the driver’s discretion, for at least some subset of drivers, accident rate is less when used at all times, not just when there is rain/fog/etc. Hmmm....what could be special about this subset of drivers who opt to always use headlights, even when not required? If it’s not the law/requirement what else could account for the fact that when optional there are less accidents than when required?

What if it’s not the requirement of headlights, whether they are used or not, that lowers the accident rate? What if the correlation is attributable to another cause...the cautiousness of certain drivers? Any acceptable answer choice would cater to the idea of an alternate cause (if not the headlights, then what— the car? The roads? The driver?). C identifies the drivers.

Phew! That's bonkers. You're amazing. TOTALLY clicked with your explanation. Thank you very much. !!

User Avatar
jaeminner478
Saturday, May 09 2020

@ said:

LOL Same, I freaked out

SORRY! My bad!

User Avatar
jaeminner478
Saturday, May 09 2020

@ said:

You scared the shit out of me for a second because I was like how do you have access to PT97 when the latest PT is 88 or 89? Then I realized you meant Feb1997.

OMG! SO SORRY!! I'm new at this. haha.

User Avatar
jaeminner478
Friday, May 08 2020

Ok. Took all day, but I am done. I did better than I thought, BUT, I had a couple mini melt downs (when 2 out of my 3 kids started wailing), took a mid-section break, started over on RC, and gave myself unlimited time on a couple sections. Sooo, all in all, fake news. :T

BR didn't get me much of a bump either. Long road ahead.

No pats for me today. Time to drink wine.

User Avatar
jaeminner478
Thursday, May 07 2020

OK, I needed to hear this. I definitely need to do this in order to hone my problem areas. Thank you. But I am still aiming to pat myself on the back. Always. Haha.

User Avatar

Thursday, May 07 2020

jaeminner478

CC Done! PT now, or PT later?

Hi! Just finished CC and I know I need to do more a lot more work, but unsure what I need to focus on.

So today's conundrum is... Should I take the PT directly following the CC to get a sense of my weakness now? Or work on my assumed weaknesses first and wait before taking any PTs at all...

I'm just scared to disappoint myself, but want to know where to go next. Not done foolproofing yet either...

User Avatar

Tuesday, Apr 07 2020

jaeminner478

Jump from CC to Prep Tests Feb 1997?

Hi, I am relatively new here and not as tech savvy as some of you. Can you please help me figure out the curriculum?

After completing the last CC section on RC, do we jump to the February 1997 Test? Effectively skipping over the "deprecated" drill sections for PT1-35 that are listed in the syllabus? The syllabus and class schedule indicate two distinct pathways.

Thanks for any help!

User Avatar
jaeminner478
Wednesday, May 06 2020

Maintenance. Yes. I like that!

Honestly just wishing it would click already. Brain hurts.

User Avatar

Tuesday, May 05 2020

jaeminner478

How many times is typical to FP?

Hi!

I just started Fool Proofing PTs 17-33 (basically CC games). I do about one test’s worth of games a day and noticed a trend of mastering them on day 2 (0 wrong and under the target time).

Ok so my question is why ten copies?

If each day is two copies of the same test (one for when you first take it that day, and the other for after you watch the explanation video). But with a 2 day trend of “mastering”, I can’t imagine why the general rule is to print out 10 copies, or 5 days worth of FPing?

Am I missing something? I’m getting a dreadful feeling that maybe I’m rushing it or missing the point? I know it’s not because I’m good at games. Hmm. I honestly think I just have decent short term memory and that’s biasing my ability to make inferences correctly the next day. But I’m definitely making them. Is that the point? And if so, does it last? Or should I be returning to the games I “mastered” way the f later and try them again when the learned inferences are less fresh? Maybe I answered my own question.

So tired. :T

Please help explain what I’m missing!!

#help

User Avatar
jaeminner478
Friday, May 01 2020

@ said:

Many, many games have a similar underlying structure. This is the core of what makes games a section that we can prepared for with a certain degree of confidence. Take for instance pt 33 game 1 and pt 38 game 1. In addition to the many examples of games having a similar structure, there is what I call "inherent constraints" within each type of game that often have a remarkable degree of continuity. Take for instance the idea on a sequencing game that we cannot push something off the board to the right or before the board on the left. This is what often allows mini-inferences to emerge.

thanks!! just what i wanted to know.

User Avatar
jaeminner478
Monday, Jun 01 2020

This. I am going to try this today. I have a hard time applying the loophole ATD when I'm doing LRs. The post it is a great idea. I need to stop lying to myself that my intuition will guide me. haha. I also found that it's been easy for me to dismiss the ATD because the stem doesn't seem to fit a perfect mold so I shrug off most of what I learned to do in Loophole. Don't know why my brain is so stubborn. Thanks for your tips!!

User Avatar

Friday, May 01 2020

jaeminner478

Genetic twin example?

Hi! I know JY has mentioned games having genetic twins and that’s why we’re doing the fool proof method. I’m currently a quarter of the way through FPing and am itching to see what a “genetic twin” game might look like... can anyone help me locate them? Preferably one in PT1-35 and one outside of it...

Confirm action

Are you sure?