[Ended]That'sSoRavenclaw | RC PT 69 |Tues. Aug 1st | 7pm EST

nessa.k13.0

Last PT before we get into the 70s!

RC PT 69 Tuesday 7 PM ET

Experimental from PT 41 LR section 1
Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/992713853

Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.
United States: +1 (571) 317-3122

Access Code: 992-713-853
If the link doesn't work, google Go To Meeting and enter the meeting access code

Requirements:

• For everyone: Must be finished with the core curriculum, have a solid understanding of question types, be able to identify the premises and conclusions, understand conditional logic, etc;
• Come to each PT review sessions with at least 2 priority questions to discuss (because it is highly unlikely we are scoring 180 under timed conditions)
• Must attend the first or second meeting
• Must not miss consecutive meetings. Things come up and so an absence is understandable, but if you routinely miss meetings consecutively, I'll offer your position to the next person who expressed interest.

The That's So Ravenclaw study group is for 12 people who are committed to studying and improving their test performance for the September 2017 LSAT. Workshops and intensives to eliminate weaknesses will also be made available to the study group. Tuesday at 7pm is our additional study time to meet to go over other questions we didn't get to on Sunday. Comment below if you would like me to tag you for our meetings. This group will be going private in 3 weeks.

Tentative Schedule: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=00ppvvc0gp9hdvin7b0p3igdhg@group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/New_York

nessa.k13.0

@"Daniel.Sieradzki" @"joe.j.ham" @Gladiator_2017 @theLSATgrind2017 @Gladiator_2017 @4everchasing @Mitzyyyy @NinaSimone @therealnas @stew2060 @jimmyrivera201 @KWoulf13 @doyleorlando @EAyanruoh @"Pink Dust" @RafaelBernard @dml277 @MikaAhlecia28 @Zluke981209 @"Idil.Beshir" @melisaki04 @malbin123 @Martin01 @Kayyyyyyy @tuc28290 @LsatChic @mcb4LSUROXS @johanna586 @jzzraven @sahaletou2 @famjad14 @"nicole.burdakin" @RafaelBernard @Mellow_Z @Thaddeus @hanphzzz @602627436 @masterthelsat @"Cecilia ZH" @Emileewu6 @leannasamson @ericnewman324 @"Cant Get Right"

rafaelito

Just checked out the August schedule. Love it! Nervous for these later PT's but also excited. Ahh.

nicole.brooklyn

Can't make it today, but I'll be back next week!

nessa.k13.0

@"nicole.burdakin" said:
Can't make it today, but I'll be back next week!

Talk to ya next week then!

nessa.k13.0

RC this Tuesday at 7pm EST!

hey_its_rob

Just worked with one of your Sunday group regulars and it went great! Very helpful. They mentioned the possibility of yours truly joining the group --- I would like to if you've got the room.

Socrat3s

Hey guys, just wanted to provide an easier way of thinking about question 14 section 1, since many of us were confused with it.

Imagine that you're watching a boxing match between two boxers. After the match, you make the following statements: "I haven't counted, so I haven't proved that boxer 1 landed more punches," and "I haven't proved that boxer 2 landed more punches." Now would it make sense for me to conclude, on the basis of these statements, that I haven't proved that either boxer 1 or boxer 2 landed more punches? Clearly, it must be the case that one of the boxers landed more punches - after all, these are the only possibilities! So i do know that the statement "either boxer 1 landed more punches or boxer 2 landed more punches" is true, even though I can't speak to the truth of either statement individually.

Someone in the group (Nas?) voiced concern regarding the fact that other potential causes weren't addressed which could possibly render the statement: "the investigators have not proved that the blaze was caused by campers or lightning" true. After all, if they come to find out later that the blaze was caused by a meteorite, then that statement would be true. But the point is that the statement cannot be validly derived solely from the truth of the two statements: "they haven't proved that the blaze was caused by campers" and "they haven't proved that the blaze was caused by lightning" due to the possibility that these are the only two possible causes. In order to render the statement true, we have to make the additional assumption that there is a third possible cause.

Pink Dust

Hi guys I'm back from my trip so I will join this coming Sunday

holylsat

Hi! I'd love to join this group! Please count me in if there's still room

nessa.k13.0

@robertward949 said:
Just worked with one of your Sunday group regulars and it went great! Very helpful. They mentioned the possibility of yours truly joining the group --- I would like to if you've got the room.

Absolutely! I'll add you to the list of tagged people.

I'll tag ya @holylsat just attend to actually join the group.

SD_SaraE

I am interested in joining tomorrow, is there still room in the group?

nessa.k13.0

@SD_SaraE said:
I am interested in joining tomorrow, is there still room in the group?

Yup! I'll tag you in the next post.