Top Law Schools

tfleming09 wrote:Ayo Shinners: PT 34, Section 4, questions 19-24

What in the actual fuck is this? The conditional chain with deductions leads to a contradiction with L. HELP PLS

If you end up with a conditional chain that leads to contradictions, then it must be the case that you CANNOT have the sufficient condition.

So after diagramming these rules, I get this chain:
>O(S)
>P(R)|->K(S)
L(S)-|
> N(R) -> O(R)->J(S)->K(R)
(This chain looks like garbage in the post, but I'm leaving it in case anyone wants to try to reconstruct it)

In any case, If L is at S, then O and K both must be at both clinics. Since that's not possible, L can't be at S. Tada - big deduction, L must be at R.

From there, I built two scenarios, one with K at S and one with K at R (since the contrapositive chain, which is also valid*, starts with K, so I'll get a lot out of that):
1)
S: K O N
R: L J
Still to place: P

2)
S: P J/O
R: L K
Still to place: N O J

*Quick note - our original chain is still valid, even though it leads to a contradiction. Those rules still apply; it's just that they lead to an impossible situation, so we know that we can't have the sufficient condition.

Hey BP
How about PT1 Sec3 #7. Thank you in advance.


God bless

BP-

I just posted a thread on this (which I'm pasting here) but I also wanted your input-

I'm trying to divide my time up between the 3 sections.

In the mornings I rotate between doing Logical reasoning and then I do RC in the afternoons. I do games pretty much everyday.

The biggest problem I'm encountering is I have this set # of LR questions & RC passages I do everyday (well 5 days a week anyway) and sometimes (well a lot actually), I seem to spend more time on 1 section on than other. It really just depends on my mood, how long it's taking me to answer questions, review questions, etc., etc.

I was thinking of spending 2 full days on RC and then 3 full days on LR and then doing games everyday in between. I'm thinking maybe I'll get more bang for my buck that way but I don't really know.

I'm just worried about neglecting 1 section when I'm working on another. Does that make sense?

I can do this 5 days a week but I need the weekends off.

I'm really trying to come up with something that will work so I can get better at each section without sacrificing another if this makes any sense.

Hopefully I haven't confused anyone.

meandme wrote:Hey BP
How about PT1 Sec3 #7. Thank you in advance.


God bless

The Cortes one, right?

We've got 2 premises:
1) Cortes saw some dudes playing a game with a rubber ball in the 1500s.
2) These dudes started making rubber sometime around 1000.
Conclusion?
The game was invented sometime between those two dates.

Well, my problem here isn't the 1500 date - Cortes saw them playing it, so it must have been invented before then.

My problem comes with the other date - ~1000 - because that doesn't necessarily have to do with the game. They could have originally played it with a leather ball. Or a coconut. Or a human skull. Just because Cortes saw it played with a rubber ball doesn't mean that the game was always played with a rubber ball. So that earlier date doesn't necessarily guarantee me that the game was created between it and when Cortes saw them playing it.

If I want to properly reach my conclusion, I have to link the creation of rubber to the creation of my game. If I can't do that, I can't get to my conclusion in this argument. And that's what D does - it tells me that the game was always played with a rubber ball. Now, I've linked the creation of rubber to the creation of my game. If I negate that answer to check it - The game WASN'T always played with a rubber ball - then all bets are off, and all I know is that it was invented before 1519.

Actually it's the LR with the ducks at the western lake? Male and female?

Thanks

MissJenna wrote:I'm just worried about neglecting 1 section when I'm working on another. Does that make sense?

It does make sense, but I honestly wouldn't worry too much about it, especially with switching off between LR and RC. The trend over the last few years has been to make the RC section essentially a very long LR stimulus, with a lot more questions. RC isn't 'softer' in the logical requirements than LR is, despite what most people feel. Working on LR should strengthen your RC, and vice versa (if you can track several arguments through 3-5 paragraphs, 1-2 arguments in 1 paragraph is a cake walk).

So the biggest piece of advice I can give you is to stop worrying about this. You're putting in more than enough time, and you still have months until the exam. Switching between RC and LR over several days, or doing both in one day, will lead you to improvements; worrying about your study habits (which seem pretty solid to me) will hurt your score.

If I was studying, however, I would always do a little bit of each section every day, even if the focus was another. So if you're studying for 5 hours, maybe only do 5-10 LR questions, then focus on games and RC the rest of the time.

Thanks....I always seem to feel a little better after reading your answers.

bp shinners wrote:

MissJenna wrote:I'm just worried about neglecting 1 section when I'm working on another. Does that make sense?

It does make sense, but I honestly wouldn't worry too much about it, especially with switching off between LR and RC. The trend over the last few years has been to make the RC section essentially a very long LR stimulus, with a lot more questions. RC is 'softer' in the logical requirements than LR is, despite what most people feel. Working on LR should strengthen your RC, and vice versa (if you can track several arguments through 3-5 paragraphs, 1-2 arguments in 1 paragraph is a cake walk).

So the biggest piece of advice I can give you is to stop worrying about this. You're putting in more than enough time, and you still have months until the exam. Switching between RC and LR over several days, or doing both in one day, will lead you to improvements; worrying about your study habits (which seem pretty solid to me) will hurt your score.

If I was studying, however, I would always do a little bit of each section every day, even if the focus was another. So if you're studying for 5 hours, maybe only do 5-10 LR questions, then focus on games and RC the rest of the time.

meandme wrote:Actually it's the LR with the ducks at the western lake? Male and female?

Thanks

Ah, OK, sorry; my copy of the PT is in a different order apparently.

So we've got two lakes with male:female breakdowns.

West lake: 55% male, 45% female (because it says for every 55 males, there's 45 females; that adds up to 100, so we can convert it straight into a percent)

East lake: 65% male, 35% female (bad ratio for the men; it's ladies choice tonight)

New premise: With young ducks (those who haven't yet bred), we see about the same percentage of male and female (let's call it 51% to 49%, but I'm just making that up).

Other new premise: There are a lot more male ducks that are adults than female ducks that are adults; from this, we're told to infer that the greater the disparity (difference) in the sex ratios, the greater the percentage of older male ducks there are in the population.

Alright, well let's look at what we know. I know the East lake has a greater disparity in sex ratios than the West lake. This must mean (as I'm told to infer) that the East lake has a greater percentage of older male ducks than the West lake. That's answer choice A (well, the reverse of it; but if the East lake has a greater percentage of older male ducks, then the West lake must have a lower percentage, which is exactly what A says).

Now, why isn't it C? Because C is talking about the overall number of ducks. I'm never told the overall number of ducks at the East or West lake; simply the ratios of male to female. The East lake could have 100 ducks (65 male, 35 female) or it could have 10,000 ducks (6,500 male, 3500 female); same with the West lake; and those numbers don't have to be near each other (the West lake could have 10,000 ducks while the East lake only has 100). If you picked this answer choice, you committed a percentage vs. amount fallacy.

Is it possible for a fixed numerical distribution game to have more than one possible numerical distribution?

I am just trying into wrap my head around the Powerscore taxonomy.

biggus_maccus wrote:Is it possible for a fixed numerical distribution game to have more than one possible numerical distribution?

I am just trying into wrap my head around the Powerscore taxonomy.

When you say fixed numerical distribution game, can you give me an example? I'm not familiar with PS's terminology, so I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing before I post a response.

October 2001 (prep 35)

Games 1 and 2 are fixed

Game 4 is unfixed (what powerscore calls "moving")

Again, the terms fixed and moving refer to the numerical distribution

biggus_maccus wrote:October 2001 (prep 35)

Games 1 and 2 are fixed

Game 4 is unfixed (what powerscore calls "moving")

Again, the terms fixed and moving refer to the numerical distribution

Hmm, them calling Game 2 fixed is throwing me for a loop, because I don't know how many options each car has (until I get through the rules, and even then I think there's 1 or 2 I'm not sure of).

For Blueprint, we'd call them:
1) In and Out, stable, selecting from subgroups (I think 'stable' is the same as 'fixed')
2) Profiling game - after reading the introduction, I don't know if I should use the cars or the options as a base; I need to read the rules to get that info (that's what defines a profiling game). After I get the setup, it should look like an unstable grouping game (which is where PS is throwing me off)
4) Ordering game, but it's not 1:1 because I can have more than one person in a single slot.

So, in short, I'm going to punt on your answer, because I don't think that the PS terminology is going to let me capture the intricacy of these games (based just on fixed/moving; they might have other terminology to help).

To answer your question using our terminology, if a game is unstable, then it has multiple distributions. A stable game, by definition, has only one distribution. If a game tells you that either 3 or 5 of 7 are selected, then it's an unstable game (because I don't know if there are 3 or 5 selected), but there are two scenarios, each of which is stable (one scenario with 3 selected, one scenario with 5 selected)

Hey BP
I did PT9 Game 2. I got 5/6 but I made 4 scenarios. Which I know is wrong because it took me awhile. And I didn't understand question 9, 10, and 13. Please explain those to me.

Thanks
God bless

No actual questions, but mad props for this thread. As a happy Blueprint alum, I highly recommend you talk to shinners about the course if you find his advice in this thread helpful.

Let's get this party started.

Any advice on studying for a 3rd re-taker? I've seen pretty much all of the past material. I was thinking about forgetting the full PT's (endurance really isn't an issue for me) and drilling questions un-timed until I fine-tune my accuracy. Thoughts? I have a 158 highest LSAT fwiw.

meandme wrote:Hey BP
I did PT9 Game 2. I got 5/6 but I made 4 scenarios. Which I know is wrong because it took me awhile. And I didn't understand question 9, 10, and 13. Please explain those to me.

Thanks
God bless

Going 5/6 is pretty solid.

Alright, so I've got a pretty straight-forward In and Out, stable grouping game; 4 are selected, 3 aren't.

First two rules are awesome: Exactly 1 of J and K are is selected; Exactly 1 of N and P is selected. That means, of my 4 In slots, 2 are reserved. Of my 3 Out slots, 2 are reserved. Then, I get two straightforward tag-along rules (If X-> Y).

So where to go from here?

There are three ways. I think you went with the first way.

The first way is to create 4 scenarios: 1) J and N are in; 2) J and P are in; 3) K and N are in; 4) K and P are in. This would be perfectly fine, and it shouldn't have taken you a lot of time (it took me about 20 seconds to go through all 4 of them). If you went this way, you should have easily gotten through the questions.

The second way (probably the fastest, and the one I would recommend) is to instead of creating scenarios, just notice what's left. I've placed 4 of my 7 players as linked options. LMQ are left; there are 2 slots in, 1 slot out. So 2 of LMQ will be selected. That deduction is honestly enough to get me through the game.

However, the third way (probably the slowest) would be to create 3 scenarios from this deduction: 1) L and M are in/Q is out; 2) L and Q are in/M is out; 3) M and Q are in/L is out.

Why did I go through all of this? To show you that as long as you make logical deductions, there are many ways to arrive at the same answers. Some are faster than others, but many can be correct.

So question time.

9) So I'm looking for 2 people who are in an 'at least one' relationship. That's a conditional statement with a negated sufficient condition (~X->Y is the same as saying 'at least one of X and Y).

Well, there's my big deduction: between LMQ, I have to select 2. That means if I pick any two of those players, at least one of them has to be in (since I can't have 2 from that group out). B gives me L or M, so it's the right answer.

If you did scenarios, just go through each answer choice. If there's a scenario where both can be out, then it's not the right answer.

10) This is asking me to find a 'can't be both' relationship. A can't be both relationship is one of my big four grouping relationships (just like the 'at least one' relationship from the last question), and it's when I negate the necessary condition (X->~Y is the same as saying I can't have both X and Y).

Hopefully, you spent some time making deductions with your 4 conditional rules. If you did, you'd get the following chain: J->~K->~Q. That's the only conditional rule I can combine (except for N->~P and L, but that's not saying anything new). Since the game straight up gave me 'can't have both J and K', I'm expecting my deduction (can't have both J and Q) to be the answer. And it is.

13) The ever-popular 'what let's me say everything for sure!' question. These aren't particularly hard, just time consuming; especially if you just start trying out every option. If you do that, you'll get to the right answer (when you try one scenario out and it becomes completely filled up), but it might take you 3 minutes.

Instead, let's think about our rules. If I'm trying to fill slots up, I want to use my tag along relationships, because if I select one of those people, I get someone else in the mix. My two tag-along sufficient conditions are N and Q, so I want to start with answer choices that have one of those two in them. But should I start with N, or with Q?

I'd say Q. Why? Because with N, I know P is out and L is in. With Q, I know K is in and J is out, but I also know that either L or M is out. Q tells me a little bit more.

Now, I can do one of 2 things: I can try out both answer choice D and E, and that would get me the right answer. Or, I can think about which one is more likely to give me the correct answer. If L is in, it tells me M is out; nothing else. However, if M is in, it tells me L is out, which tells me N is out, which tells me P is in. Hmm, that sounds pretty complete. Let's try E first.

(Try E).

You'll see that everything is set if M and Q are in - L must be out (because I can only have 2 of LMQ), K must be in (because Q is in); L being out means N is out; K being in means J is out; N being out means P is in. That's the whole shebang. There's my answer.

If you did out the 4 scenarios as described above, this question is even easier - you don't have to think or do any work. Just start with A and see if there is only one scenario where both can be in. The only combo that only shows up once is (E) M and Q.

rglifberg wrote:Any advice on studying for a 3rd re-taker? I've seen pretty much all of the past material. I was thinking about forgetting the full PT's (endurance really isn't an issue for me) and drilling questions un-timed until I fine-tune my accuracy. Thoughts? I have a 158 highest LSAT fwiw.

It's hard when you've seen all the material. However, there's NO WAY you've memorized 6000+ questions.

If you haven't picked up the SuperPrep, pick that up - you'll have a few fresh tests. Cherish them.

I would go back over some of the old material and re-work it. If you get something wrong that you answered incorrectly the first time through, then it's time to really buckle down and review it. Fool me twice and all that.

Other than that, really focus on how the test is tricking you. If you can't identify the flaws in your own reasoning, you can't fix them. Try to relate your incorrect answers to a flaw you're committing ('I equivocated in this one'; 'I messed up the logical force of this one!').

Get your accuracy where you want it to be before worrying about timing. You can't get fast and accurate at the same time (well, you can, but it's rare and difficult to do so).

Fire it up.

Hey BP
PT28 Sec3 #16. It's the question with VD. Is the answer (b) the exclusivity flaw?

Thanks
God bless

Hey BP
How about PT35 LG3. The Kim family. Do you think I should write all the rules I am having problems with and review weekly? Thanks for the help.

God bless

meandme wrote:Hey BP
PT28 Sec3 #16. It's the question with VD. Is the answer (b) the exclusivity flaw?

Thanks
God bless

First off, sorry I wasn't here yesterday - forgot to post I was out of town.

Ah, the VD question. It's a necessary assumption question.

The Newton stuff is great and all, but it doesn't really matter to our argument. So let's talk Beethoven.

Some people think Beethoven had a VD, and that caused his deafness. They have never made a convincing argument, however. Now, we're going to test his hair. Since we know that they used mercury to treat VD, we conclude that the hypothesis is correct IF we find mercury in his hair.

Well, there could be other reasons for him to have mercury in his hair. Maybe Vienna (that's where he lived, right?) just had mercury in the drinking water, and everyone had it. Maybe they tried to treat deafness with mercury. Maybe etc...

So yes, this is an exclusivity fallacy - we're assuming that the only reason someone from that time would have mercury in their system is because they were being treated for VD.

B gives us that, somewhat. It says that some people in Beethoven's time weren't consuming mercury. That has to be true in order for this argument to work - if everyone was sitting around, sipping mercury mixed with brandy (as was fashionable at the time), then mercury in Beethoven's hair means nothing because everyone had mercury in their system back then.

meandme wrote:Hey BP
How about PT35 LG3. The Kim family. Do you think I should write all the rules I am having problems with and review weekly? Thanks for the help.

God bless

So we've got a combo game - we're splitting the Kims into groups (row G and H) and then putting them in order. Getting that setup down is going to be crucial. Also, in these games, it's always easier to Group first, Order second.

To answer your question, yes. Definitely do that. Getting the rules down is absolutely essential to getting questions right on the LSAT. And there are only so many ways they can present rules (in fact, there are really on 4 grouping rules). So if some are tripping you up, review them until they're not.

Hey BP
Please tell he if I am translating this correct.

"The only students with special needs are students with learning disabilities."
LD -> SN

Isn't the ONLY a necessary condition?

Thanks
God bless

meandme wrote:Hey BP
Please tell he if I am translating this correct.

"The only students with special needs are students with learning disabilities."
LD -> SN

Isn't the ONLY a necessary condition?

Thanks
God bless

That is incorrect. 'Only' introduces the necessary condition; 'The only' introduces the sufficient condition.

So this would be:
SN -> LD
If you have special needs, then you have a learning disability.