Are you guys planning to apply for Fall 2019?

One thing I've noticed is important to catch in grouping games is the distributions.

After reading the rules, I immediately make a not of how many can fit in each group. This has become more important in some of the recent tests that have more fluid group memberships where the LG stimulus doesn't automatically say 3 people go in group1 etc.

I hope that helps at least a little.

@ Difficulties with MSS questions usually lie in these three things for me : 1) The stimuli for these questions aren't usually arguments. They are just facts. 2) The language used is composed of conditional statements and/or quantifiers(some,most) etc.

Given that, one way to eliminate answers is to eliminate all invalid inferences.

Like for example :

All bees are good dancers. Beyonce is the queen bee.

Valid inference we can make : Beyonce is a good dancer. Invalid inference Beyonce is the most exceptional dancer of them all.

The only valid inference we can make from a conditional statement is the contrapositive.

For quantifiers, there are lessons on valid inferences you can check.

@ Hi (3

@ I think good example of rule driven games are the game in PT 79 which I don't want to spoil too much if you haven't done it.

Wherein you can pretty much not determine information about exact position of game pieces on game board. I have found that for these sort of games, you are rewarded if you don't try to make too many inferences up front, go with the questions and increase your understanding of the game from there.

For games that depend on inference making--certain rules tend to be very powerful to help make inferences, or and not both in in/out games, sequential chains in seq games and so on. The rules can help determine where some of the variables place exactly on the game board.(/p)

I do the same. I usually add extra questions to the warmup depending on my weakest section performance in my most recent PT. For example if I scored lowest in RC, I add two RC passages, 12-13 LR questions, 1 LG. Lowest in games (i.e. lower than my average) I add two games, 15 LR, 1 RC. Or a full section LR.

I use tests between 1-55 for this purpose. Some are retake sections but not really answers that I remember.

I also use time only as a marker and don't set myself any constraints during the warmup to see if there are things I am missing under the time about this test and the next time I could be cautious of it.

Hope that helps.

How is this a level 3 difficulty question LOL?

How to measure if we are moving faster/slower on a passage?

I did not really breakdown the structure strictly into what's the premise, conclusion, sub-conclusion etc under a formula.

I thought D was a bad paraphrase under time and moved on.

However, during BR, I've realized the author is trying to tell us: simple recurring rhythm exerts strong primordial appeal.

Why? we want some form of womb environment. More support for wanting womb:- first sound heard in womb is v.simple rhythm of heartbeat and it's comforting. Lack of this environment means there is a lack of comfort. Also, we want this particular womb environment comfort.

All of these sentences are trying to add some support or the other to the fact that we like simple rhythm because womb environment. The author then goes on to support how womb environment reflects the simple rhythm concept and we still want it.

However, the reason I eliminated D under timed condition is because D paraphrases to a different emphasis-people seeking comfort whereas the emphasis of argument is about simple rhythm sounding pleasant.

I think maybe the more recent tests use this type of main conclusion stimuli and the approach is best served by following RC style main point approach.

@ said:

When I started my LSAT journey, RC was the section I was least concerned about. I finished all the passages, and would get maybe -5. It was something I could see improving with time. Then I did a prep program (Powerscore tutoring for anyone who's curious) and now, I'm only getting to 3 passages. More troubling is the fact that I seem to be having trouble with questions that ask me to infer or guess how the author would feel about something. How do I overcome that? Anyone else have trouble with these sorts of questions? What helped? Any tactics/and or strategies would be really appreciated!

I think a potential problem with the powerscore viewstamp method is that it asks you to do a lot of work upfront that may not be tested on that passage. Like maybe there isn't a purpose question and you are trying to find the purpose of the passage. Maybe there isn't tone and you are trying to find tone. So, that maybe a reason why you are missing out on time.

I agree with skhan01 that there needs to be hard evidence, but what helps narrow down these answer choices is knowing where things are mentioned in the passage so you could quickly refer to it. Also, knowing what is completely off base and things the author totally doesn't discuss about go for a quick elimination. However,an approach where you compare each answer choice with what could be in the passage is extremely time taking and not advisable. Very lengthy and time consuming. This is the key of 7sage approach which asks you to do Low res summaries so you have a quick index of the passage in case you need to refer back to understand what the author is inferring.

In my prep, I've come to understand that doing RC under time also requires some confidence wherein I must be ready to move on when I don't understand a particular phrasing (there is a good chance that one tiny phrase won't be tested, you could come back to it when you are tested on it, maybe the answer choices will be so whacky you can eliminate them easily.) or when I have only 60% confidence that the answer is right but if given a minute I could clarify it by reading through the passage.

How are all your apps going? Where are each of you in the process?

@ Reminding...> @ said:

Oh man, this question triggers so many different things for me. It’s a really important question. I don’t have time to go into it all atm, but if you haven’t heard back from me on this by tomorrow afternoon, tag me to remind me to come back and answer this!

Reminding..

#help

Why is it not- observation : Many teachers are afraid of computers.

Explanation: Because you can teach far many courses with far few teachers.

#help

If D was not present and B said either everyone instead of no one, would that be the right answer, like @notmyname mentioned, I am assuming if it is a binary cut then that must be true too.

I do not write out conditional logic during LR questions. I think that saves time for me. However, I think not writing the whole thing out came due to practice. How I go about identifying quickly is to have a clear idea of the argument structure. What are the premises and what is the conclusion, what information is context etc. This helps enormously for SA questions because I feel like almost all SA questions are predictable. One needs to be careful about contrapositive answer choices.

Both NA and SA questions have a gap. With SA questions the answer choice closes this gap. For example, in this question, the gap is in between prime purchasers of software and the software being successful, so we have to find an answer choice that bridges it.

For NA questions, although sometimes the answers are predictable, sometimes it is hard to find the necessary assumption they are going for.

Necessary assumptions needn't quite close the gap but involve in finding one premise that if it doesn't hold true, wrecks the argument.

Say for example : Johnny goes to the park when it doesn't rain. Johnny went to the park.

Sufficient : it did not rain.

Necessary: Johnny was alive and/or the park wasn't destroyed in an apocalypse (because if Johnny was dead or if the park was non existent, there wouldn't be going to the park and hence it is necessary for the argument).

(X=/Y) ---> /Z That would mean if X is not Y then not Z to me. However I'd be interested if someone has an alternate method to translate this.

Mine took about a month in total. Sent transcripts and once they reached the LSAC (signed for by some LSAC official) it took them about two-three weeks to update that they have indeed received them and then up to four weeks for the evaluation.

If it helps, I haven't submitted a degree certificate either, I have something called as a provisional degree certificate which is some stopgap. My univ takes a few months to generate a degree certificate.

So the total process took maybe 2 months?

@ said:

I came at this problem from a slightly different angle. I had to translate military speak from my 25 year career into civilian talk. What helped me is getting people with zero military exposure to take a look at my resume and tell me what they think I did. That really helped me refine my language. I think focusing on plain language is probably more beneficial in this setting.

Also, if you don't mind me asking. Can you read and review my resume?

This is the inspiration I was looking for!

Congrats @ I am currently in the middle of all the process and knowing that somebody came out of it successfully and is looking forward to their future all fit in together makes me optimistic and happy. (3 (3(/p)

That is amazing improvement! I am going to try it.

How much time did you spend on average in this process? For foolproofing and such?

@ said:

I took every PT and these were the ones that I found to be most difficult. PT 27, 38, 43, 45, 50(riddled basins), 51, 53, 54, 55 (talk story), 72 (Glass), 76 (Karl Popper), 79(Eileen Gray.. dear lord). I got better at RC by fool-proofing these sections.

Thank you Retaker. What kind of improvement did you see? Like what was your score initially and what was it after?

By foolproofing, did you mean you did them over and over?