Discussions

tylerannmcclure735

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

tylerannmcclure735

Tuesday, Mar 27 2018

So how do you implement this method？ Say I drill 3 sections LR per day, then I spend 3-4 days drilling and reading manhattans and then spend another 3-4 days review the previous wrong questions？

I do it a little more mixed together. For example, one of my big weaknesses is Flaw questions. So I did some Flaw drills from early PTs. I let myself take as much time as I needed. I checked my answers every 3-5 questions and if any were wrong, I stopped then to write a paragraph about what went wrong and how I could fix it. That way, I could start to experiment with solutions and see what worked and what didn't.

How do you usually write the review for those questions？ Am I supposed to write why every option is wrong/right ？

This probably varies by person. I think what you write will depend on where you are in your studies and why you're getting things wrong. For me, I'm usually stuck between two answer choices if I get something wrong, so I don't spend a lot of time listing out why the obviously-wrong answer choices are incorrect, since that just seems like a waste of time.

I also keep a big spreadsheet with different tabs for LR/LG/RC, and a place to take notes on questions I got wrong (as well as track the types of questions I'm getting wrong). If it helps, here's part of what I wrote for PT 45.S1.Q12, a Weaken question that I got wrong during my drills:

The answer choice I choose, A, is obviously wrong. It is an ad hominem attack. The answer choice may have been right if it factually stated that the study was wrong, but this isn't the case! Relying on these types of attacks is never going to be effective. I didn't actually love this answer choice. My problem is more that I can quickly weed out most wrong answer choices, but in some cases, I skim over one if it's subtly correct or, in the case here, I didn't understand the argument to begin with. That leads to me choosing between two unsatisfactory answer choices and settling on something incorrect. The takeaway: First, if I ever feel like I'm settling for something that is kind of weird, I'm probably right and it's the wrong answer choice. Time to circle the question, reread the stimulus, read the answer choices again (from the bottom up?). Second, be very, very careful not to cross out answer choices without a DEFINITIVE reason why they are wrong.

General · For LR and RC, how to improve

tylerannmcclure735

Monday, Mar 26 2018

I got -2 on each LR section on my diagnostic and then the next few PTs I took (very consistent lol). I spent a week totally beating down every single wrong answer. I literally forced myself to write paragraphs about why I got the answer wrong and come up with tangible things I could do to avoid errors. For example, I have a tendency to gloss over many/most/some/all indicators, so forcing myself to look for and circle these words, especially when I'm between two answer choices that seem okay.

I took another PT yesterday and went -0 on both LR sections! Small sample size, but I think that method is paying off. :)

LSAT · PT9.S4.Q14 - A careful review of hospital fatalities

tylerannmcclure735

Monday, Mar 26 2018

@ said:

C is wrong because it says "the evidence cited to show that a certain factor was absent...." This is inconsistent with the evidence in the stimulus. The stimulus only tells us that "Equipment that monitors a patient's oxygen and carbon dioxide levels was not available in most operating rooms"

Answer choice C says that these equipment were absent (completely unavailable), but that is not the case. They were just not widely used.

Ahhhhh. Most. Duh. That's exactly what I was missing - thank you!

LSAT

•

Saturday, Mar 24 2018

tylerannmcclure735

PT9.S4.Q14 - A careful review of hospital fatalities

Hi everyone!

I was wondering if someone could share their understanding of this question. I was able to eliminate B, D, and E very quickly, but got tied up between A and C and ended up picking C. I can see why A is a good answer, but I'm having a harder time seeing why C is definitively wrong.

To me, the stimulus seems like it's saying that the equipment was not available during the review period. Thus adding the equipment will have no effect. I mean, I guess the stimulus doesn't explicitly say that the absence of equipment caused the result, but it seems sort of implied?

General · Timing yourself for each question

tylerannmcclure735

Wednesday, May 23 2018

@ said:

I taped myself for the first time yesterday. It was SO helpful to see exactly where I was wasting time and I'd definitely recommend it to anyone who struggles to finish sections on time. I don't time myself on questions while I'm taking the test but it's helpful to go back through the video and time yourself afterward

This is an interesting idea! Any tips for setting up the recording?

LSAT · PT16.S3.Q17 - Silencing Device

tylerannmcclure735

Thursday, Mar 08 2018

I agree that efficiency isn't directly tied to electricity consumption in the passage, but I think it's a reasonable inference. When I saw A, I just assumed that a motor that was less "efficient" would have to 1) run for longer to get the same work done compared to a more efficient motor, or 2) use more power to get the same work done in the same amount of time. Either would result in more electricity.

You could also confirm this inference via process of elimination:

B - No. At best, this would mean the new vacuum + device is using the same amount of power as before. At worst, it's using even more power. Doesn't explain the phenomenon.

C - No. Doesn't tell us anything about the new device.

D - No. Governmental standards are irrelevant to the actual amount of power used.

E - No. We don't know what heaviness/mobility have to do with electricity consumption. If anything, I would guess that a heavier/less mobile vacuum has to use more energy.