Blueprint LSAT Prep's ongoing ask-an-instructor extravaganza Forum

[b33eazy]

Are there any tips with RC? It takes me on average 5-7min to get through a passage with proper markings. One of my issues is that I just don't understand what I am reading and have to reread each passage at least twice to understand what I am reading.

[Theopliske8711]

If your having trouble understanding the passage, you may be focusing too much on marking, which is distracting you from the overall reading. Don't mark an idea or even a paragraph until its finished. If you don't understand what your reading, its unlikely that you marking have much relevance anyway. Perhaps instead of marking, jot down the main point of a paragraph in a word or two, keep examples in mind. This will mostly test retention of information, so keeping key pieces of info in mind is the key.

[bp shinners]

Hey BP
How about PT40 Sec3 #15 SA (doctorates in liberal arts)

Thanks

Alright, so I have a sufficient assumption question. I'm thinking I might be diagramming, and I'm thinking I'm looking for a new term in the conclusion.

Reading the stimulus, I see the conclusion is:
'Companies rarely higher PhDs'
Both of those concepts (hiring and PhDs) show up in premises, so I'm in a rarer SA question where the gap is between two premises. Also, I can diagram this one:

Doctorate in Lib Arts -> Interested in Improving Intellect
NOT Interested in Financial Gain -> NOT Hired by Companies
________________________________________
Doctorate in Lib Arts -> NOT Hired by Companies

This one's already lined up nicely for me - both conditions in my conclusion line up with their counterparts in my premises, so I don't need to take contrapositives. However, I do need to connect my first premise with my second premise. To do this, I need to say:
Interested in Improving Intellect -> NOT Interested in Financial Gain

A is talking about another world (would hire, if they were).
B is too weak - some people won't get me to the conclusion (rarely hire)
C is a possibility because it mentions the two terms I'm looking for. However, it mixes them up (NOT IFG->III); this is the sucker choice.
D doesn't matter - I only care about hiring practices, not who's interested in being hired.
E is my answer - it mentions the two terms I'm trying to connect, and does it in the right order. Yes, the only difference between C and E is the word 'The', but that's enough to switch it from a sufficient to necessary condition, and that's what I need for this one. E is III->NOT IFG. Bingo.

[bp shinners]

Are there any tips with RC? It takes me on average 5-7min to get through a passage with proper markings. One of my issues is that I just don't understand what I am reading and have to reread each passage at least twice to understand what I am reading.

I have a TON of RC tips. Literally enough to fill a book.

A few things:
1) 5-7 minutes is a little too long for the passages. 5 minutes is probably alright if you can get through the questions quickly because of the time spent up front (I believe Trent spends about that much time on the RC passages). 7 minutes is going to leave you with about 1:30, on average, to answer the questions, which probably isn't enough time to read them and fully answer them with certainty.
2) Rereading the passage is going to kill you every time. You just can't do it. If you can understand it the second time through, you can understand it the first time through. It sounds like you have more of a focus issue the first time than a comprehension issue. Try to get yourself involved in the passage. Predict where it's going. Trace the sentences with your finger. Anything to get your mind focused on the words on the page. Because if you have to reread the whole thing, there's very little chance your timing will work out.

[meandme]

Are there any tips with RC? It takes me on average 5-7min to get through a passage with proper markings. One of my issues is that I just don't understand what I am reading and have to reread each passage at least twice to understand what I am reading.

I have a TON of RC tips. Literally enough to fill a book.

A few things:
1) 5-7 minutes is a little too long for the passages. 5 minutes is probably alright if you can get through the questions quickly because of the time spent up front (I believe Trent spends about that much time on the RC passages). 7 minutes is going to leave you with about 1:30, on average, to answer the questions, which probably isn't enough time to read them and fully answer them with certainty.
2) Rereading the passage is going to kill you every time. You just can't do it. If you can understand it the second time through, you can understand it the first time through. It sounds like you have more of a focus issue the first time than a comprehension issue. Try to get yourself involved in the passage. Predict where it's going. Trace the sentences with your finger. Anything to get your mind focused on the words on the page. Because if you have to reread the whole thing, there's very little chance your timing will work out.

Do it. I mean you should start a new thread and call it "RC for dummies by BPShinners". Matt I am not kidding. Think about it. RC is the most difficult section to improve on and if you could shine some your LSAT wisdom, then you would be RC Master. Don't dismiss the thought.

[meandme]

Hey Matt,
I need help on PT14 Sec3 Passage4. The questions I need help with are 25 & 27. I got 25 right because I reread the question 23. It stated the "conclusion reading the relationship of demographics..". But for 27 I couldn't find the answer anywhere in the passage. I know the passage talked about the Russians had relied on intermediaries but not the Southern planters Lines 30-34.

Thanks
God bless

[b33eazy]

Are there any tips with RC? It takes me on average 5-7min to get through a passage with proper markings. One of my issues is that I just don't understand what I am reading and have to reread each passage at least twice to understand what I am reading.

I have a TON of RC tips. Literally enough to fill a book.

A few things:
1) 5-7 minutes is a little too long for the passages. 5 minutes is probably alright if you can get through the questions quickly because of the time spent up front (I believe Trent spends about that much time on the RC passages). 7 minutes is going to leave you with about 1:30, on average, to answer the questions, which probably isn't enough time to read them and fully answer them with certainty.
2) Rereading the passage is going to kill you every time. You just can't do it. If you can understand it the second time through, you can understand it the first time through. It sounds like you have more of a focus issue the first time than a comprehension issue. Try to get yourself involved in the passage. Predict where it's going. Trace the sentences with your finger. Anything to get your mind focused on the words on the page. Because if you have to reread the whole thing, there's very little chance your timing will work out.

Thank you. I have tried following it with my pencil, but I will just have to keep at it with that. Also, I will try to better figure out where it's going. Also, what about spending more time on the first paragraph and power reading through the rest of the passage? Also, are there any other tips you would recommend?

[bp shinners]

Also, what about spending more time on the first paragraph and power reading through the rest of the passage? Also, are there any other tips you would recommend?

I wouldn't spend a lot of time on the first paragraph and then power-read the rest. First, the initial paragraph might not be all that important. As often as it contains the Author's main point, it also will often just be background information. Even when the Author's main point is in there, it's usually just a sentence or two, with the rest being background info. You need to read the entire passage carefully, as you never know where important information is going to come up.

And that brings me to my biggest tip - accuracy and speed on RC are all about slowing down. I don't read at my normal speed when I do RC - I read significantly slower. This allows me to maintain focus, really understand everything the first time through, and analyze what's likely to show up as a question. If you're power-reading, skimming, or doing anything else through the passage, you're putting yourself at a huge disadvantage. If you miss something and have to go back to find it, and you have no clue where it is, you're SOL. Slow down, maintain focus, profit.

[bp shinners]

Hey Matt,
I need help on PT14 Sec3 Passage4. The questions I need help with are 25 & 27. I got 25 right because I reread the question 23. It stated the "conclusion reading the relationship of demographics..". But for 27 I couldn't find the answer anywhere in the passage. I know the passage talked about the Russians had relied on intermediaries but not the Southern planters Lines 30-34.

Thanks
God bless

#25
In my first paragraph, I'm flat-out told a reason many historians didn't explore this parallel - "forbidding political differences"; one was an imperial monarchy, the other a federal democracy. That's answer choice A.

Whenever the Author gives me a reason that something might have turned out the way it did/a theory or explanation, I should make a note of it. Barring that, you should have known that the first paragraph is where I talked about the lack of historical analysis, and found answer choice A that way.

#27
The second paragraph is where I talk about the differences between Russian and US servitude systems, so I should be looking there. The answer to 27 is the last difference listed - reread the last sentence in the second paragraph and you'll see that the US didn't use many intermediaries, giving me D.

Whenever I have a list of any kind in a passage, and especially when I'm comparing/contrasting two things, I want to write out that list. You should have had your second paragraph annotated with all the differences, including the lack of intermediaries in the US. Barring that, you should have known the purpose of the second paragraph was to list traits that differed in US and Russian systems, so that's where you're going to find the answer to a question asking about a characterization of the US system.

[ready4180]

Hi BP, can you walk me through how to do PT3 Section 1 Game 3? I got answers 14 and 18 wrong and can't seem to find any explanations online. Thanks!

[Fianna13]

Hey Matt,

For LR questions, especially first 15 problems, after you predicted an answer and found it in the AC, do you still actively go through other 4 choices and mark where in the answer choice that makes it wrong? This is what I've been doing, but i feel I could skip it and go to the next question to save more time? what's your opinion? even 5 seconds per question amount to like 1 minute and 15 seconds later.

[ready4180]

Sorry to inundate you with requests, but could you also work out:

PT 34 Section 1 Q 12?
PT 34 Section 3 Qs 24-26?

Any guidance at all on these questions is much appreciated! Thanks

[bp shinners]

Hi BP, can you walk me through how to do PT3 Section 1 Game 3? I got answers 14 and 18 wrong and can't seem to find any explanations online. Thanks!

Ah, a weird game from an early test.

So I'm trying to arrange these cars by a variety of criteria over 3 levels. So I'm going to have a line for each level, and then three slots on each line/group - one for family/sports, one for new/used, one for production/research. My setup looks like:
3 __ __ __
2 __ __ __
1 __ __ __
f/s n/u p/r

My fourth and fifth rules I can just plug in to get:
3 __ U __
2 __ __ __
1 __ N __
f/s n/u p/r

My first rule tells me:
S and F -> all S above all F (just an ordering principle)
Second:
Used cars must be production/research cars must be new (but new cars could also be production)
Third:
Sports cars must be production/research cars must be family (but family cars could also be production)
So I end up with:
3 __ U P
2 __ __ __
1 __ N __
f/s n/u p/r

Not much more I can do (I could make some scenarios with the S/F rule, where they're either all S, all F, or SSF, or SFF; I don't think they'll be too helpful, and I have a lot of conditional questions anyway).

So 14:
I have sports cars on exactly 2 floors. Well, that means I have an F as well (since 2 S means there's 1 slot left that must be filled with Family, since it can't be sports).
So I get:
3 S U P
2 S __ __
1 F N __
f/s n/u p/r
and, since sports cars must be production cars:
3 S U P
2 S __ P
1 F N __
f/s n/u p/r

A's the only one that could be true, so that's my answer.

18
So now I know that N->R (but research doesn't necessarily mean new - I could have a used research model)
3 __ U P
2 __ __ __
1 __ N R
f/s n/u p/r
and since sports can't be research:
3 __ U P
2 __ __ __
1 F N R
f/s n/u p/r
From my rules, I also know that since sports can't be research, and new can't be production (my new condition is it must be research), all New cars must be Family cars. That's just a combo of my new rule from this question and my initial rule. And that's answer choice D.

[bp shinners]

Hey Matt,

For LR questions, especially first 15 problems, after you predicted an answer and found it in the AC, do you still actively go through other 4 choices and mark where in the answer choice that makes it wrong? This is what I've been doing, but i feel I could skip it and go to the next question to save more time? what's your opinion? even 5 seconds per question amount to like 1 minute and 15 seconds later.

I would always at least read through each other answer choice quickly. If you have a firm grasp of the question (which you hopefully do for the first 15 or so), it shouldn't take you that long to get through the other answers. And if you catch one stupid mistake, it's worth the 1:15 investment.

[bp shinners]

PT 34 Section 1 Q 12?

I talk about the similarities between the genres at the end of the first paragraph; whenever I'm making a comparison, I want to make a note of it. I'd probably also write out the list of characteristics.

In short, it says that the blues and spirituals are superficially different (one is religious, the other secular), but they share a goal (to bring about a spiritual transformation); and this similarity might be because they both come from a similar reservoir of experience (tapping into an aesthetic that underlies African American culture). In short, they appear different, but they actually have a common goal because they both are influenced by the same thing.

A is off because it says only 1 of the two species is related to the progenitor; also, the progenitor isn't necessarily quite different.

B is off because it says they're superficially similar - not the case with blues and spirituals.

C is off because it's talking about both evolving from the same place - they were influenced by, possible, but not necessarily evolved from. Also, I don't know that they should be reclassified; just the similarities noted.

D is off because it's got it backwards - the third species was what influenced the later two, not the other way around.

So we have E - two species of shrubs that appear superficially unalike actually have some striking similarities (like the blues and spirituals); this is attributed to their relationship (but not necessarily progenitorship) to the older species which shares features of both (the similar reservoir).

PT 34 Section 3 Qs 24-26?

24
So we've got a strengthen question.

We raised some possums. We released them. Most of the got eaten by non-native foxes.

From this, we conclude that the problem of possum endangerment (something that just tears me up inside) is from predation.

Well, there's a huge assumption there - a wild possum is likely to die from the same things as a captive-raised possum. This is a bad comparison - I don't know that wild possums get eaten as much as the farm-raised ones. So I need to find an answer choice that lets me know these two groups (farm-raised and wild possums) are similar in how they die.

E gives it to me - the wild ones can't defend themselves any better than the captive-raised ones.

A25
A parallel question.
Jordan essentially says you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.
Terry's response is that there's a way to not be damned.

In A, we're damned if it does and we're damned if it doesn't. But there's a way to not be damned, according to Terry (water the garden yourself). This looks good.

In B, we've got a disconnect between being happy and eating vegetables/exercising. That equivocation is a flaw not seen in the stimulus. Wrong.

In C, we've got Jordan highlighting the difference, and Terry pointing out that you have to do something. Both of those arguments don't line up with the stimulus (Jordan's saying we can't have both; Terry not offering a way out).

In D, Jordan tells us we might be OK if we do, and we might not be. That's not the same as damned if we do/don't.

In E, Terry conditions the response on more heavy rain (strike one - enough to throw it out), but also picks one of the options instead of offering a way out.

26
A role question.

We have a phenomenon - more crime coverage than before.
We have a proposed explanation - more crime.
We have the author offering an alternative explanation - people want to watch the gory stuff.
Then, the author justifies his point - the media puts stuff on that people want to watch. So if there's more crime on, it's because people want to watch it.

The alternative explanation is what this role question is asking about, so I'm looking for something that says alternative explanation/author's conclusion as to why there's more crime on TV. That's E.

[b33eazy]

PT33.S1. Q13

I don't understand why the answer is B. The problem with that is if I negate that that would strengthen the argument because he is saying that it is questionable to prescribe placebos. I selected C and I think I know why it may be wrong, it says indefensible and the author says questionable.

Negating B doesn't destroy the argument, if anything, I think it would strengthen it.

[lawschoolplease1]

Hi BP!

Do you think you could help us out with LR: June 2006 Section 2 #17?

I was able to get the right answer because I knew it needed a connection between goal-oriented behavior and intelligence, but i have trouble understanding why the answer is goal-oriented behavior --> intelligence, and not intelligence --> complex goal oriented behavior.

thanks so much!

[bp shinners]

PT33.S1. Q13

I don't understand why the answer is B. The problem with that is if I negate that that would strengthen the argument because he is saying that it is questionable to prescribe placebos. I selected C and I think I know why it may be wrong, it says indefensible and the author says questionable.

Negating B doesn't destroy the argument, if anything, I think it would strengthen it.

Alright, so I'm dealing with the ethicist's argument, and I don't really care about all that stuff before the "But" (what Benjen Stark said in Game of Thrones).

So the ethicist's argument breaks down like this:
A doctor might prescribe a placebo just so the patient thinks he's doing something (i.e. earning his ridiculous fee)
__________________________________
Therefore, administering placebos is ethically questionable.

So big jump there. I don't know that prescribing something just to make the patient think I'm doing something is ethically questionable. I've never established any criteria for ethically questionable. Before I can conclude that administering placebos is questionable, I need to know what behavior constitutes ethical questionability, and that the behavior here (administering a placebo) falls under that definition.

B plays off that assumption. It tells me that the doctor's motivation is relevant to whether his action is ethically justifiable. If the doctor's motivation isn't relevant (the negation), then my premise here (that the doctor is motivated by making the patient think he's doing something) has nothing to do with my conclusion (that it's ethically questionable). When I drive a complete wedge between my premise and conclusion, I've killed the argument, and I have my answer to a necessary assumption question.

I think you were hung up on the difference between the stimulus saying something was ethically questionable and the AC talking about the ethical justification. While they are different, the two ideas are definitely related - if the ethic justification for an action is unsound, then that action is ethically questionable. So the ethical justification for an action can lead you to the determination that an action is ethically questionable.

On top of that, B is nice and weak (CAN be RELEVANT, which is about as weak a statement as you can get), and I generally like weaker answers in Necessary Assumption questions (not a strong correlation, but a correlation nonetheless).

As to C, it's too strong and specific. I don't know this medical treatment RELIES on the placebo effect, and I don't know it's indefensible (as you say). If something isn't ethically indefensible (the negation), it might still be ethically questionable (you can defend it, but your defense isn't too convincing - that would be defensible but questionable).

[bp shinners]

Hi BP!

Do you think you could help us out with LR: June 2006 Section 2 #17?

I was able to get the right answer because I knew it needed a connection between goal-oriented behavior and intelligence, but i have trouble understanding why the answer is goal-oriented behavior --> intelligence, and not intelligence --> complex goal oriented behavior.

thanks so much!

Sure!

So the argument breaks down as:
Complex/goal oriented behavior doesn't equal consciousness
__________________________________________________
THEREFORE, intelligence doesn't equal consciousness

Clearly, an equivocation between complex/goal-oriented behavior and intelligence, as you stated.

Here, my premise is the complex/goal-oriented behavior, and from that I conclude intelligence. Since I'm going FROM complex/goal-oriented behavior TO intelligence, I need to find something that says the former requires the latter.

[meandme]

Hey Matt
I need help with PT5 LG2 it's the shirt game with colors and sizes. This what I have so far.

R: / M L
Y: S M L
B: S M /

I don't know where to go from there.

Thanks
God bless

[vegso]

Also, what about spending more time on the first paragraph and power reading through the rest of the passage? Also, are there any other tips you would recommend?

I wouldn't spend a lot of time on the first paragraph and then power-read the rest. First, the initial paragraph might not be all that important. As often as it contains the Author's main point, it also will often just be background information. Even when the Author's main point is in there, it's usually just a sentence or two, with the rest being background info. You need to read the entire passage carefully, as you never know where important information is going to come up.

And that brings me to my biggest tip - accuracy and speed on RC are all about slowing down. I don't read at my normal speed when I do RC - I read significantly slower. This allows me to maintain focus, really understand everything the first time through, and analyze what's likely to show up as a question. If you're power-reading, skimming, or doing anything else through the passage, you're putting yourself at a huge disadvantage. If you miss something and have to go back to find it, and you have no clue where it is, you're SOL. Slow down, maintain focus, profit.

I anecdotaly support this advice in the second paragraph, did exactly this and it helped immensely.

[applemaroon]

Hi BP, can you take a look at PT 16, section 2 #24? Why is E correct? What exactly is the "premise that could be false"? Thanks!

[bp shinners]

Hey Matt
I need help with PT5 LG2 it's the shirt game with colors and sizes. This what I have so far.

R: / M L
Y: S M L
B: S M /

I don't know where to go from there.

Thanks
God bless

So it looks like you made up a truth diagram, or whatever that thing is called, to see which shirts are possible. That's certainly one way to go, but I don't think it's very helpful.

I set it up like this:

C: __ __ __
S: __ __ __

I don't care about the shirt numbers (as I'm not putting them in order); I'm just trying to fill in the info for the shirts. My first rule tells me that he doesn't buy 2 shirts that are exactly the same. Second tells me I can't have both small and large shirts (a principle of distribution). Then, my shirt choices are limited.

From my limited shirt choices, I know that I can have, at most, 2 small or 2 large shirts. Since I can't have both small and large shirts, my choices for shirt size are limited to:
All 3 shirts being medium
A medium shirt, and then either 2 large shirts or a large shirt and a medium shirt
A medium shirt, and then either 2 small shirts or a small shirt and a medium shirt

I set these up as scenarios:
_R_ _Y_ _B_
_M_ _M_ _M_
Since I can't have 2 shirts of the same type, if each shirt is Medium, I have an M of each color

_Y/B_ __ __
_S_ _M_ _S/M_

_R/Y_ __ __
_L_ _M_ _L/M_

So those are my possibilities. I need to keep in mind 2 things:
1) I can't have 2 shirts of the same type.
2) If I have 2 non-medium shirts, I need to keep track of which colors those S/L shirts can't be.

After that, the game's not too bad. Most of it turns on the inability of small shirts to be red, actually.

[bp shinners]

Hi BP, can you take a look at PT 16, section 2 #24? Why is E correct? What exactly is the "premise that could be false"? Thanks!

Alright, so there's a lot going on in this argument.

Premises:
1) Role of the Ct. is to uphold humans rights
2) To do this, the Ct. has to sometimes resort to principles not explicitly stated in the in Constitution
3) If they do 2, then human rights are subject to judicial whims unless the are bound to an objective standard (aka the constitution)
4) The Ct. must use only the Constitution to make decisions
5) 2 and 4 are mutually exclusive
____________________________________
Conclusion: 1 is false

So, in short, I have mutually exclusive conclusions (the Ct. looks to other stuff to uphold rights; the Ct. can't look at other stuff to uphold rights). One of them has to be false. The argument goes after 2 (and, therefore, 1 - the basis for 2) when it could just as easily say that 4 is false (the Ct. can look at other stuff to make its decisions and still uphold human rights).

So E should read:
concludes that the role of the Court isn't to protect human rights when it is equally possible that that is the role of the Court, and instead the Court doesn't have to use solely the explicit provisions of the Constitution in making its decisions in order to uphold said rights.

[applemaroon]

Thanks!

Sorry to flood you with questions, but can you also explain PT 17 section 3 #23? What makes A wrong? I can't seem to figure out the difference between A and C. Thanks!