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

[magickware]

Can you state what you think the assumption is that (D) makes wrt Waller's argument?

After reading what you wrote, I came to the realization that I was reading the answer wrong the entire time.

It's effectively a contrapositive of the conditional that Waller wrote, and as such Waller would obviously agree with it.

Now it actually makes sense!

[bp shinners]

It's PT 11, Sec. 2, Q.16

Sure! This one's tricky because it puts some causality in my conditionality, and a conditional inside a conditional. I'll use ---> for conditionals, and -_- for causality.

So the first few sentences are just background, and the real stuff starts when I hit the "If"
So my conditional is:
(Low Body Temp-_->Slow Reaction)--->(Artificially Raise Body Temp.--->Increase Speed of Reaction)
But! We artificially raised body temp, and the speed of reaction didn't increase. That means that the conditional that makes up my necessary condition isn't true. If I negate the necessary, that's sufficient to tell me I can't have my sufficient (in other words, the contrapositive).

So the contrapositive is:
(If artificially raising body temperature doesn't necessarily lead to increased speed of reaction)--->(Low body temp doesn't cause slow reaction).

I know that artificially raising the temp. doesn't lead to increased speed of reaction, which is enough to tell me that my purported causal relationship is wrong. That's what (C) says, so that's my answer.

[bp shinners]

PT 47, Sec. 1, Q.18

Ugh, this one. Kills people.

So I have a lot of comparisons in here, and comparisons are always important on the LSAT.

1) Temp decreases as you move up in the troposphere
2) The temp at the top of the troposphere is warmer at the poles than the equator
3) Temp increases as you move up in the stratosphere
4) Some junk about ozone that I don't care about.

The ozone stuff might come up in the correct answer, but I'm not thinking so - these comparisons are where the money's at. Whenever I have a comparison in an LR question, especially in the Implication family, chances are good it impacts the answer.

For this one, since I have so many comparisons, I'm not going to try to predict an answer. Just that it's going to deal with these comparisons.

A - I know the temp is different, but I don't know that's because of thickness. Maybe the starting temperatures are the reason for the different temps, not the thickness.

B - I know the temp of the stratosphere starts warmer over the poles, but I don't know what it's like once you get to the top of the stratosphere. Maybe one is thicker than the other. Maybe there's something else that makes it different. Who knows? I never compare the temps there, so I can't pick this AC.

C - Same explanation for here as in (B) - the only way I compare the poles to the equator is at the top of the troposphere. Without statements that allow me to compare their temps above that, I can't pick an answer choice that compares them.

D - Bingo. 3rd comparative statement. When the stratosphere begins, temperatures increase as you go up through the stratosphere. If that's true, then the top of the stratosphere is going to be warmer than the point of the troposphere directly below it. This is a direct consequence of one of my comparisons, so it's right.

E - Trying to get me to do science? Shame on you, LSAT. And, if anything, it seems like if we deplete the ozone layer, which heats the stratosphere, the stratosphere would cool down.

[crestor]

BP do you have any timetable on when you release your predictions for october?

[bp shinners]

BP do you have any timetable on when you release your predictions for october?

When Hank, our blog guy, tells me that he wants it posted! Won't be this week since I already wrote a post; might be next week.

But, in all honesty, I really just sit down the day I make those up with a fine Scotch and make stuff up. I make a few crazy predictions that rarely come true; I make a few generic predictions that would be true of any test. We do those more for fun and to show that there's a pattern to the LSAT than to demonstrate some supernatural understanding of the test. Preternatural, sure. Supernatural? No.

[neprep]

BP do you have any timetable on when you release your predictions for october?

When Hank, our blog guy, tells me that he wants it posted! Won't be this week since I already wrote a post; might be next week.

But, in all honesty, I really just sit down the day I make those up with a fine Scotch and make stuff up. I make a few crazy predictions that rarely come true; I make a few generic predictions that would be true of any test. We do those more for fun and to show that there's a pattern to the LSAT than to demonstrate some supernatural understanding of the test. Preternatural, sure. Supernatural? No.

I don't know, you guys at BP have some inexplicable oracular insights — didn't one of your instructors (Colin something) predict a game about dinosaurs a few weeks before PT57? Someone from BP surely dresses up like an LSAC employee and sneaks a peek at their item pool.

[crestor]

I predict Thurgood Marshall makes an appearance in rc and a volcano related passage comes about. This is because each are blueprint lesson covers.

[bp shinners]

BP do you have any timetable on when you release your predictions for october?

When Hank, our blog guy, tells me that he wants it posted! Won't be this week since I already wrote a post; might be next week.

But, in all honesty, I really just sit down the day I make those up with a fine Scotch and make stuff up. I make a few crazy predictions that rarely come true; I make a few generic predictions that would be true of any test. We do those more for fun and to show that there's a pattern to the LSAT than to demonstrate some supernatural understanding of the test. Preternatural, sure. Supernatural? No.

I don't know, you guys at BP have some inexplicable oracular insights — didn't one of your instructors (Colin something) predict a game about dinosaurs a few weeks before PT57? Someone from BP surely dresses up like an LSAC employee and sneaks a peek at their item pool.

Colin Elzie. That was a crazy prediction that came true.

-Edit-
Hmm, that was a recap, not a prediction - http://blueprintprep.com/lsatblog/lsat- ... at-takers/

[10052014]

.

[bp shinners]

BP!!!!!

Im reading the BP LG and just finished Basic and 1:1. About to drill 1:1 so went to back of book to identify which games are 1:1.

Until...

I saw a few that said "Stable, 1:1"

What is stable and unstable??

ty

Hmm, stable is usually referring to grouping/combo games, or weird ordering games. Can you give me a few cites and I'll see what's up?

[neprep]

BP do you have any timetable on when you release your predictions for october?

When Hank, our blog guy, tells me that he wants it posted! Won't be this week since I already wrote a post; might be next week.

But, in all honesty, I really just sit down the day I make those up with a fine Scotch and make stuff up. I make a few crazy predictions that rarely come true; I make a few generic predictions that would be true of any test. We do those more for fun and to show that there's a pattern to the LSAT than to demonstrate some supernatural understanding of the test. Preternatural, sure. Supernatural? No.

I don't know, you guys at BP have some inexplicable oracular insights — didn't one of your instructors (Colin something) predict a game about dinosaurs a few weeks before PT57? Someone from BP surely dresses up like an LSAC employee and sneaks a peek at their item pool.

Colin Elzie. That was a crazy prediction that came true.

-Edit-
Hmm, that was a recap, not a prediction - http://blueprintprep.com/lsatblog/lsat- ... at-takers/

I was talking about this little gem:

According to a recent study involving me taking a second to think about it and make a broad guess, there have been literally hundreds of questions about dinosaurs on the LSAT. Dinosaurs may no longer roam the Earth, but they’re alive and well in the Reading Comprehension and Logical Reasoning sections (I’m still waiting for a Logic Game; “The Tyrannosaurus Rex must go extinct at some point before, but not immediately before, the Pterodactyl”).

http://blueprintprep.com/lsatblog/lsat- ... ssic-park/

It's not the same thing, but it's basically as close as Nostradamus ever got to predicting anything.

[10052014]

.

[Journey180]

Is it typical that , once you start to get a handle on LG, things start to fall into place naturally? My experience has been that I had to do hours upon hours upon hours of reading, practicing, and revising, then...like a bird learning to fly, I get some wind and I start to fly higher and higher every time. Sorry for the analogy. Is this a typical story?

[10052014]

.

[Journey180]

Is it typical that , once you start to get a handle on LG, things start to fall into place naturally? My experience has been that I had to do hours upon hours upon hours of reading, practicing, and revising, then...like a bird learning to fly, I get some wind and I start to fly higher and higher every time. Sorry for the analogy. Is this a typical story?

are you okay man?

No.

[civis]

.

[bp shinners]

Is it typical that , once you start to get a handle on LG, things start to fall into place naturally? My experience has been that I had to do hours upon hours upon hours of reading, practicing, and revising, then...like a bird learning to fly, I get some wind and I start to fly higher and higher every time. Sorry for the analogy. Is this a typical story?

For some people, it falls into place naturally. For others, they have to fight tooth and nail for every small advance.

[bp shinners]

Hey bp,

I have 6 fresh PTs left (64-69). How many would you recommend I work in before Oct 5? I'm wondering if there's a balance to shoot for or if more practice and review would always do me good. If it helps, I'm on the BP online course and have done 4/6 of the scheduled practice exams and 6/9 of the practice exams.

Also, have you ever seen someone jump PT scores dramatically for a fluke test? I pulled a 178 the other day and it's at least +9 over every other test I've taken. Any tips on finding that sweet spot again or should I treat it as an anomaly?

Thanks!

I'd try to work in 2 through the weekend (a third if you're really ambitious), and then 1 Monday, and 1 Wednesday. If that one goes well, then just review materials on Thursday, take Friday off, and kill it on Saturday.

And you can't fluke your way into a 178. You most likely had a test that was easy for you, coupled with a heightened focus on applying everything you've learned. Focus on doing that again!

[magickware]

Hi BP, I have a question about flaw questions in general.

Could harder flaw questions have a number of flaws, but the answer choice will talk only about one correctly, while one or two may hint at the others but put it in an incorrect way?

[crestor]

Matt, i've exhausted all lr/lg/rc material from 40 to 69. i know most of these questions like the back of my hand and when i drill from a section it really messes with me. what should I do?

[Fianna13]

Matt, i've exhausted all lr/lg/rc material from 40 to 69. i know most of these questions like the back of my hand and when i drill from a section it really messes with me. what should I do?

take it easy this week and kill saturday's test.

[josh321]

In a parallel and parallel flaw question is the phrase not all = some or does the terms have to be the same ? Like in PT 41 section 1 # 15 even though answer choice A & E are wrong they are very tempting. Thank you

[josh321]

Shinner I've also seen the phrase "~MTF" on the blueprint website, what type of question is that?

[bp shinners]

Hi BP, I have a question about flaw questions in general.

Could harder flaw questions have a number of flaws, but the answer choice will talk only about one correctly, while one or two may hint at the others but put it in an incorrect way?

Definitely. In fact, a common tactic is to make one flaw super obvious, but then not put it in the answer choices. Or to take a common flaw type (say a causal fallacy) and phrase it as another flaw type (for causal, they can phrase it as exclusivity easily).

And sorry I was AWOL this week - jury duty!

[bp shinners]

Matt, i've exhausted all lr/lg/rc material from 40 to 69. i know most of these questions like the back of my hand and when i drill from a section it really messes with me. what should I do?

Relax. Review what you've already done. Go into the test fresh.