I used the 180 watch and it worked perfectly. The toughest thing believe it or not is remembering to reset the watch immediately after sections. Sometimes you're so caught up rushing to finish a section that you forget to reset it.
For me, I found LR much harder in Dec than Oct. I got a 169 in October and I got 3 questions wrong on the 3rd logic game because I misread a rule.
I also didn't think RC was as straight forward as others seem to think. I found there were a number of questions where the right AC was hardly distinguishable from the wrong ones. The content of the passages wasn't that bad but I felt the questions were tricky.
Yea, that's not really an answer to my question... If the tests are equated prior to test day (via experimental sections), WHY are are the Dec tests consistently more forgiving?
Hey, so according to most literature out there it appears that the "scale" or "curve" is predetermined based on prior test experimental sections. If that's the case, what explanation is there for the generally more "forgiving" December curve. In 4 of the past 6 December tests, you could get -14 and still get a 170
http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/lsat-curve-test-equating-at-lsac.html
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I don't feel that I'm doing that a lot, nor do I feel that I miss many key inferences near the beginning. I've done every single logic game and at this point I'm trying to figure out tricks to enhance my speed.
The benefit of JY's approach is that if you have good intuition you can quickly scan the AC's and selectively test the ones you feel might be the right AC, which can save you time. However, you leave yourself open to being totally wrong, which obviously results in more time than doing the scenarios.
I was simply wondering if there were any guiding principles or patterns you guys have picked up for determining when it might be more efficient to create a couple mini scenarios based on the new local rule vs going directly to the AC's.
does anyone have any guidance for determining when to draw out scenarios vs brute force the answer choices? sometimes it's pretty clear that a new local rule in a question creates two scenarios and in those cases it's obvious that you should solve for each board before attacking the questions.
however there are also cases where it's less clear whether it's more efficient to break board into scenarios or find the correct answer by brute forcing answer choices. Here's an example: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-49-section-1-game-1/
On question 3, JY goes directly to the answer choices after deducing that there must be two IN blocks. He could instead have attempted to place those blocks and would have realized there are only two placements _ IN IN_ or _ IN _ IN . Then, after deducing those two scenarios, he could have gone to the AC's. I find that JY has a tendency to go to the AC's in these cases.
I've found that sometimes it really matters what order you apply the rules when going thru individual questions in the LG sections. Apply the right rule fist and an inference pops up that causes you to be able to trigger or make irrelevant another rule. However, if you go thru the rules in a suboptimal order, then you sometimes have incomplete inferences that don't let you fully "spend" a rule, and you have to come back to that rule a second time...
Does anyone have any guidance for the best order to begin applying rules in rule driven games? Usually in the games, JY always seems to apply rules in the perfect order but during a pressured exam, it's not always clear to me which rules I should be going thru first.
I'd also like some info here
You're right... Jolene doesn't take issue with whether or not it's damaging to the environment. She has no opinion. If you read her argument carefully, you'll notice that when she says she disagrees, everything that follows suggests that she disagrees as to whether quick profits are made.
I'd be down to meet up. I live in Lower Eastside. Would meeting up around chelsea work?
@jy Are they denying a premise in answer choice C? Stim says only 1 reason, if you bring in an alt reason, is not that in effect denying a premise?