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

Special forum where professionals are encouraged to help law school applicants, students, and graduates.
User avatar
scalawag
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:50 pm

Re: Blueprint LSAT Prep's ongoing ask-an-instructor extravaganza

Postby scalawag » Fri May 29, 2015 2:03 am

I might be able to finish this another time but I haven't gotten to Aja or Gaucho - good God and now I must sleep.

User avatar
scalawag
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:50 pm

Re: Blueprint LSAT Prep's ongoing ask-an-instructor extravaganza

Postby scalawag » Fri May 29, 2015 1:06 pm

Whoa you know what happens when I drink - Steely Dan is the best band ever and if nobody is around me when I'm listening to them I will write about how good they are on the internet.

Amazingly I'm not burned out anymore - back to studying.

Blueprint Ben
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2015 2:47 pm

Re: Blueprint LSAT Prep's ongoing ask-an-instructor extravaganza

Postby Blueprint Ben » Sun May 31, 2015 1:25 pm

scalawag wrote:Whoa you know what happens when I drink - Steely Dan is the best band ever and if nobody is around me when I'm listening to them I will write about how good they are on the internet.

Amazingly I'm not burned out anymore - back to studying.

Happy to be of service!

(And yes, Steely Dan rocks.)

chaitealatte
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:33 pm

Re: Blueprint LSAT Prep's ongoing ask-an-instructor extravaganza

Postby chaitealatte » Mon Jun 01, 2015 10:03 pm

Hi Ben! This is a bit of an odd problem but with only a week to go for the June LSAT I figured I'd give it a shot. I have weird testing anxiety only with science-y RC passages. I really can't explain it-- when I'm doing a full PT under timed conditions, if one of the harder RC passages tends to be science-related, I tense up, have trouble reading through it, and then end up taking too long/making a lot of mistakes. I generally do a lot better when I'm not testing myself under timed conditions or when I review the passage. Any ideas how to get over this? I'd really appreciate any ideas.

Blueprint Ben
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2015 2:47 pm

Re: Blueprint LSAT Prep's ongoing ask-an-instructor extravaganza

Postby Blueprint Ben » Thu Jun 04, 2015 1:09 pm

Hi friends! This is my final farewell. On Sunday I'm moving to a place with spotty Internet and even spottier access to electricity, so I won't be posting on TLS any time in the near future.

But fear not! We've found a very capable replacement in Blueprint Sam. He'll be around to answer your questions and offer advice. So give Sam a warm welcome, and I wish you all the best of luck on your upcoming takes.

User avatar
Blueprint Sam
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2015 5:08 pm

Re: Blueprint LSAT Prep's ongoing ask-an-instructor extravaganza

Postby Blueprint Sam » Mon Jun 08, 2015 5:23 pm

Thanks Ben for the introduction!

Hello all, my name is Sam and I will be running this forum for the foreseeable future. A little about me: I just graduated from Harvard Law School (HLS), and will be clerking at the Federal District Court level this upcoming year (and am currently studying for the CA bar). I am born and bred in Southern California and love to surf, try craft beers, and take my puppy to the dog park.

Best of luck to everybody on your test today, and I can't wait to help you out with any lingering questions about today's exam, or any new test takers for September and beyond!!

StandupPaddler
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 11:55 am

Re: Blueprint LSAT Prep's ongoing ask-an-instructor extravaganza

Postby StandupPaddler » Mon Jun 08, 2015 11:36 pm

fyi, the next test is in October

User avatar
Blueprint Sam
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2015 5:08 pm

Re: Blueprint LSAT Prep's ongoing ask-an-instructor extravaganza

Postby Blueprint Sam » Wed Jun 10, 2015 1:05 am

StandupPaddler wrote:fyi, the next test is in October


Hmmm... You are totally right! :shock: http://www.lsac.org/jd/lsat/test-dates-deadlines

My bad. Guess I was getting a little too excited about helping out. Please feel free to use me as a resource for whenever you plan to take the test!

:?: :arrow: :D

User avatar
appind
Posts: 1448
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:07 am

Re: Blueprint LSAT Prep's ongoing ask-an-instructor extravaganza

Postby appind » Sun Jun 14, 2015 2:43 am

hey bp,
why does 57.lr2.16 credited choice assume causation when the stim only states correlation between technological changes and pace of life?

User avatar
BlueprintJason
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 2:48 pm

Re: Blueprint LSAT Prep's ongoing ask-an-instructor extravaganza

Postby BlueprintJason » Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:21 pm

Hey TLSers!

My name is Jason, and I'll be taking over the Blueprint ask-an-instructor thread. You can learn more about me on Blueprint's instructor page if you'd like: http://blueprintlsat.com/about/our-instructors (I'm in the third row down).

My goal is to get on here most days of the week to field questions, so fire away!

Note: In order for me to help you best, it'd be really helpful to get the Pt#, section number, and question number (like what appind did above); that way I can locate it quickly and help you as fast as possible.

Jason

User avatar
BlueprintJason
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 2:48 pm

Re: Blueprint LSAT Prep's ongoing ask-an-instructor extravaganza

Postby BlueprintJason » Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:02 pm

appind wrote:hey bp,
why does 57.lr2.16 credited choice assume causation when the stim only states correlation between technological changes and pace of life?


Hi appind,

Sorry for the delay on your question, it took me a while to get the LSAT professional credentials set up.

Ok, so I think the confusion in this particular question based on your query is most likely due to understanding the question type. This is understandable, because it is a confusing question type (and one that I've seen more and more on recent tests). If I'm wrong about this, just jump down to the explanation of the question, but the following discussion is helpful as many students struggle with this question type.

This is actually a strengthen principle question. From your question, it sounds like you might be reading it as a "most strongly supported" (or what we at blueprint call "soft must be true"). It's a subtle difference, but here is a rule of thumb:

If the question prompt is asking you to take the stimulus above for granted (i.e. not criticizing it), then you have a soft must be true question. For example, they would say something like "which of the following is most supported by the principle above?" Here, they are instructing you to find the principle in the stimulus and take it for granted, and find a reasonable conclusion that most likely follows from the facts/premises in the stimulus.

On the other hand, in question 16, they actually phrase it differently. They say, "The critic's statements most closely conform to which of the following assessments?" Here, they are not telling you to take the stimulus for granted, they are instead directing you to take the answer choices for granted (the assessments, which are essentially principles in these answer choices), and use one of them to strengthen the argument of the critic. When they tell you to make something conform to a principle (or assessment) they are making the argument stronger, because if something conforms to a principle, then that principle supports it.

Now to the question:

In a strengthen, we are looking for a conclusion that receives partial support from the premises in the stimulus. Generally, we find an answer choice that links up something in the premises and directs it towards what we need to prove in the conclusion. It's helpful to identify the conclusion and see what it is that the author mentions there that isn't directly addressed in the premises, then look for something that will help fill in that gap.

The conclusion is essentially that people don't feel as if they have enough time. The premise is that as technology has improved, things have gotten faster, and that has created feelings of instability.

The next thing is to think about what's wrong here. Well, there have been feelings of instability created by the speed of technology increasing, but that doesn't mean that people will necessarily feel that they have less time. The author takes for granted that the feeling of instability and the feeling of not having enough time are one in the same (without stating that). (C) helps repair this gap, though it's not 100% valid either. But that isn't our job, we just need a little support.

If it's true that changes in people's feelings about life can result from technological changes, then the author's conclusion is a little more likely to follow than it was before. Since the author claims that technology's increasing speed (changes) create instability, and ultimately wants to prove that we feel we have less time (feeling towards life), (C) has thus provided the link we need between the premise and conclusion.

HTH!

User avatar
appind
Posts: 1448
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:07 am

Re: Blueprint LSAT Prep's ongoing ask-an-instructor extravaganza

Postby appind » Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:03 pm

BlueprintJason wrote:
appind wrote:hey bp,
why does 57.lr2.16 credited choice assume causation when the stim only states correlation between technological changes and pace of life?


Hi appind,

Sorry for the delay on your question, it took me a while to get the LSAT professional credentials set up.

Ok, so I think the confusion in this particular question based on your query is most likely due to understanding the question type. This is understandable, because it is a confusing question type (and one that I've seen more and more on recent tests). If I'm wrong about this, just jump down to the explanation of the question, but the following discussion is helpful as many students struggle with this question type.

This is actually a strengthen principle question. From your question, it sounds like you might be reading it as a "most strongly supported" (or what we at blueprint call "soft must be true"). It's a subtle difference, but here is a rule of thumb:

If the question prompt is asking you to take the stimulus above for granted (i.e. not criticizing it), then you have a soft must be true question. For example, they would say something like "which of the following is most supported by the principle above?" Here, they are instructing you to find the principle in the stimulus and take it for granted, and find a reasonable conclusion that most likely follows from the facts/premises in the stimulus.

On the other hand, in question 16, they actually phrase it differently. They say, "The critic's statements most closely conform to which of the following assessments?" Here, they are not telling you to take the stimulus for granted, they are instead directing you to take the answer choices for granted (the assessments, which are essentially principles in these answer choices), and use one of them to strengthen the argument of the critic. When they tell you to make something conform to a principle (or assessment) they are making the argument stronger, because if something conforms to a principle, then that principle supports it.

Now to the question:

In a strengthen, we are looking for a conclusion that receives partial support from the premises in the stimulus. Generally, we find an answer choice that links up something in the premises and directs it towards what we need to prove in the conclusion. It's helpful to identify the conclusion and see what it is that the author mentions there that isn't directly addressed in the premises, then look for something that will help fill in that gap.

The conclusion is essentially that people don't feel as if they have enough time. The premise is that as technology has improved, things have gotten faster, and that has created feelings of instability.

The next thing is to think about what's wrong here. Well, there have been feelings of instability created by the speed of technology increasing, but that doesn't mean that people will necessarily feel that they have less time. The author takes for granted that the feeling of instability and the feeling of not having enough time are one in the same (without stating that). (C) helps repair this gap, though it's not 100% valid either. But that isn't our job, we just need a little support.

If it's true that changes in people's feelings about life can result from technological changes, then the author's conclusion is a little more likely to follow than it was before. Since the author claims that technology's increasing speed (changes) create instability, and ultimately wants to prove that we feel we have less time (feeling towards life), (C) has thus provided the link we need between the premise and conclusion.

HTH!


i see this as a strengthen principle question, but I find that the gap between feeling of instability and the feeling of not having enough time does't exist as it's a premise in the stim that feeling instability causes feeling of not having enough time ("making us feel as if"). If choice C wouldnt str that gap then what does it strengthen?

my initial post was about the gap between correlation between tech change and life pace in stim vs causation between them in choice C. Causation in C doesn't sem to do anything to strengthen the stim as the conclusion has no reference to tech change.

User avatar
BlueprintJason
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 2:48 pm

Re: Blueprint LSAT Prep's ongoing ask-an-instructor extravaganza

Postby BlueprintJason » Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:31 pm

appind wrote:i see this as a strengthen principle question, but I find that the gap between feeling of instability and the feeling of not having enough time does't exist as it's a premise in the stim that feeling instability causes feeling of not having enough time ("making us feel as if"). If choice C wouldnt str that gap then what does it strengthen?

my initial post was about the gap between correlation between tech change and life pace in stim vs causation between them in choice C. Causation in C doesn't sem to do anything to strengthen the stim as the conclusion has no reference to tech change.


Actually, I think I'm understanding the "making us feel as if we don't have enough time" as the conclusion.

In my understanding of the stimulus:

Sentence 1: premise
Sentence 2 (first half): secondary conclusion
Sentence 2 (second half): main conclusion

So, I see (C) as providing a gap-filler between the secondary conclusion and the main conclusion.

Let me try phrasing it with indicator words to see if it makes sense:

Since technology and the pace of life have increased, we've subsequently gotten unstable feelings.
As a result, these feelings of impermanence have made us feel as if we don't have enough time.

I think this is what the author is trying to say, and the gap is that the resulting instability from technology doesn't necessarily lead to feeling like there isn't enough time.

If it were true, as in (C), that technology change does cause feeling change, then it's much more likely that the results of technology that the author tells us in the premises lead to the whole impermanence/time feelings that the author thinks have ultimately occurred from all of this change.

User avatar
appind
Posts: 1448
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:07 am

Re: Blueprint LSAT Prep's ongoing ask-an-instructor extravaganza

Postby appind » Wed Jun 24, 2015 9:03 pm

BlueprintJason wrote:
appind wrote:i see this as a strengthen principle question, but I find that the gap between feeling of instability and the feeling of not having enough time does't exist as it's a premise in the stim that feeling instability causes feeling of not having enough time ("making us feel as if"). If choice C wouldnt str that gap then what does it strengthen?

my initial post was about the gap between correlation between tech change and life pace in stim vs causation between them in choice C. Causation in C doesn't sem to do anything to strengthen the stim as the conclusion has no reference to tech change.


Actually, I think I'm understanding the "making us feel as if we don't have enough time" as the conclusion.

In my understanding of the stimulus:

Sentence 1: premise
Sentence 2 (first half): secondary conclusion
Sentence 2 (second half): main conclusion

So, I see (C) as providing a gap-filler between the secondary conclusion and the main conclusion.

Let me try phrasing it with indicator words to see if it makes sense:

Since technology and the pace of life have increased, we've subsequently gotten unstable feelings.
As a result, these feelings of impermanence have made us feel as if we don't have enough time.

I think this is what the author is trying to say, and the gap is that the resulting instability from technology doesn't necessarily lead to feeling like there isn't enough time.

If it were true, as in (C), that technology change does cause feeling change, then it's much more likely that the results of technology that the author tells us in the premises lead to the whole impermanence/time feelings that the author thinks have ultimately occurred from all of this change.


if an argument says "A correlates with B. B creates C. C makes D", then isn't "C makes D" a premise?
the stim is the same structure where A is tech change, B is life's pace, C is felling of instability, and D is feeling of not enough time. in your paraphrase, imo i can't see the basis on which one can insert "as a result" in the paraphrase which makes it look there is a gap when the stim connects feeling of instability and feeling of not enough time more directly as a premise in "feelings of impermanence and instability, making us feel as if we never have enough".

User avatar
BlueprintJason
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 2:48 pm

Re: Blueprint LSAT Prep's ongoing ask-an-instructor extravaganza

Postby BlueprintJason » Fri Jun 26, 2015 12:46 am

appind wrote:
BlueprintJason wrote:
appind wrote:i see this as a strengthen principle question, but I find that the gap between feeling of instability and the feeling of not having enough time does't exist as it's a premise in the stim that feeling instability causes feeling of not having enough time ("making us feel as if"). If choice C wouldnt str that gap then what does it strengthen?

my initial post was about the gap between correlation between tech change and life pace in stim vs causation between them in choice C. Causation in C doesn't sem to do anything to strengthen the stim as the conclusion has no reference to tech change.


Actually, I think I'm understanding the "making us feel as if we don't have enough time" as the conclusion.

In my understanding of the stimulus:

Sentence 1: premise
Sentence 2 (first half): secondary conclusion
Sentence 2 (second half): main conclusion

So, I see (C) as providing a gap-filler between the secondary conclusion and the main conclusion.

Let me try phrasing it with indicator words to see if it makes sense:

Since technology and the pace of life have increased, we've subsequently gotten unstable feelings.
As a result, these feelings of impermanence have made us feel as if we don't have enough time.

I think this is what the author is trying to say, and the gap is that the resulting instability from technology doesn't necessarily lead to feeling like there isn't enough time.

If it were true, as in (C), that technology change does cause feeling change, then it's much more likely that the results of technology that the author tells us in the premises lead to the whole impermanence/time feelings that the author thinks have ultimately occurred from all of this change.


if an argument says "A correlates with B. B creates C. C makes D", then isn't "C makes D" a premise?
the stim is the same structure where A is tech change, B is life's pace, C is felling of instability, and D is feeling of not enough time. in your paraphrase, imo i can't see the basis on which one can insert "as a result" in the paraphrase which makes it look there is a gap when the stim connects feeling of instability and feeling of not enough time more directly as a premise in "feelings of impermanence and instability, making us feel as if we never have enough".


So I think your confusion is warranted here (TBH, the question is not written very well IMO; one should use indicator words to clarify conclusions in a flawed-argument based question like this), but I think that ultimately what the author expresses at the end of the stimulus is his/her opinion about the situation as a whole. When I finish reading the stimulus, I take away that the author is really trying to say that it is their opinion that all of the information about technology and its effects/results/whatever lead to us feeling like we have less time at the end of the day.

I think the reason I have this feeling as a reader is because that kind of broad-brushed claim at the end (making us feel that we don't have enough time), makes me think, "Hey you need to back that up! How the heck are you claiming that technology makes us feel like we have less time just based on feelings of uncertainty, blah, blah, blah? I mean people order toilet paper on Amazon now instead of even going to the store. That's people having more time as a result of technology--unstable or not. You, sir or madam, are full of XYZ."

That kind of claim that the author ends with is stated as an opinion--at least in the way I read the stimulus, and I think that is what LSAC intended given that (C) ends up being their credited response. And in LSAT stimuli, particularly one that is argument based like this stimulus, an author expressing their opinion is almost certainly some sort of conclusion (intermediate or main, in this case I read it as the main conclusion for the reasons above--flaws can also occur in subsidiary conclusions) that needs support. The author hasn't provided full support (there's the flaw), but they have given us information about technology and its results. (C) links up the given information that we are to take for granted with the author's opinion statement at the end of the stimulus in the way I understand it as a reader.

A more general takeaway:

One thing that helped me when I got flummoxed by a particular question in my prep--and this is def one of those thorny strange LSAT birds that would have done that to me--is taking a step back from the question, setting it aside, and coming back to it with a fresh set of eyes (perhaps after doing several other principle strengthen questions some of which probably have somewhat strange structures). I found that if I took a week or so off a question, I would come back and usually see or sense something in it intuitively that I didn't before. Come back to it in a week, read the stimulus, and just ask yourself the following question(s): "What's the main reason this author wrote this? Why are they boring me with this garbage? What are they trying to prove? What do they believe or want to express at the end of the day?"

For me, when I ask myself that question, it is "Oh yeah, in the end, they just want me to think technology makes us feel like we have less time. That's an opinion without full support, and that's usually the type of thing that is a conclusion on the LSAT, so that's the gap I need to fill with TCR...Oh yes, answer choice (C), make it rain!" Ok, that's pretty lame, but it's something along those lines...

HTH

PM me if this question is still giving you fits in a few days and maybe I can poke around and try and find some similar stimuli to point you towards to reinforce the pattern of opinions=conclusions.

User avatar
appind
Posts: 1448
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:07 am

Re: Blueprint LSAT Prep's ongoing ask-an-instructor extravaganza

Postby appind » Sat Jun 27, 2015 8:32 pm

BlueprintJason wrote:
So I think your confusion is warranted here (TBH, the question is not written very well IMO; one should use indicator words to clarify conclusions in a flawed-argument based question like this), but I think that ultimately what the author expresses at the end of the stimulus is his/her opinion about the situation as a whole. When I finish reading the stimulus, I take away that the author is really trying to say that it is their opinion that all of the information about technology and its effects/results/whatever lead to us feeling like we have less time at the end of the day.

I think the reason I have this feeling as a reader is because that kind of broad-brushed claim at the end (making us feel that we don't have enough time), makes me think, "Hey you need to back that up! How the heck are you claiming that technology makes us feel like we have less time just based on feelings of uncertainty, blah, blah, blah? I mean people order toilet paper on Amazon now instead of even going to the store. That's people having more time as a result of technology--unstable or not. You, sir or madam, are full of XYZ."

That kind of claim that the author ends with is stated as an opinion--at least in the way I read the stimulus, and I think that is what LSAC intended given that (C) ends up being their credited response. And in LSAT stimuli, particularly one that is argument based like this stimulus, an author expressing their opinion is almost certainly some sort of conclusion (intermediate or main, in this case I read it as the main conclusion for the reasons above--flaws can also occur in subsidiary conclusions) that needs support. The author hasn't provided full support (there's the flaw), but they have given us information about technology and its results. (C) links up the given information that we are to take for granted with the author's opinion statement at the end of the stimulus in the way I understand it as a reader.

A more general takeaway:

One thing that helped me when I got flummoxed by a particular question in my prep--and this is def one of those thorny strange LSAT birds that would have done that to me--is taking a step back from the question, setting it aside, and coming back to it with a fresh set of eyes (perhaps after doing several other principle strengthen questions some of which probably have somewhat strange structures). I found that if I took a week or so off a question, I would come back and usually see or sense something in it intuitively that I didn't before. Come back to it in a week, read the stimulus, and just ask yourself the following question(s): "What's the main reason this author wrote this? Why are they boring me with this garbage? What are they trying to prove? What do they believe or want to express at the end of the day?"

For me, when I ask myself that question, it is "Oh yeah, in the end, they just want me to think technology makes us feel like we have less time. That's an opinion without full support, and that's usually the type of thing that is a conclusion on the LSAT, so that's the gap I need to fill with TCR...Oh yes, answer choice (C), make it rain!" Ok, that's pretty lame, but it's something along those lines...

HTH

PM me if this question is still giving you fits in a few days and maybe I can poke around and try and find some similar stimuli to point you towards to reinforce the pattern of opinions=conclusions.


i think one of the reasons for confusion is the nature of the question itself. While you mention this question being of the form principle-strengthen, it's seems to be seen and classified differently by others. manhattan imo sees it as inverted principle-example or matching question. cambridge probably classifies it as principle identify which requires no strengthening. This link shows another understanding of this question stem by a major instructor.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=224152&p=7448896&hilit=conforms+to#p7448896
it seems to me that the issue is that the task is not that one should be finding the gap in the stim to strengthen through the answer choice but something else.

User avatar
BlueprintJason
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 2:48 pm

Re: Blueprint LSAT Prep's ongoing ask-an-instructor extravaganza

Postby BlueprintJason » Tue Jun 30, 2015 11:36 am

appind wrote:
i think one of the reasons for confusion is the nature of the question itself. While you mention this question being of the form principle-strengthen, it's seems to be seen and classified differently by others. manhattan imo sees it as inverted principle-example or matching question. cambridge probably classifies it as principle identify which requires no strengthening. This link shows another understanding of this question stem by a major instructor.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=224152&p=7448896&hilit=conforms+to#p7448896
it seems to me that the issue is that the task is not that one should be finding the gap in the stim to strengthen through the answer choice but something else.


Hey appind,

I won't speak to the other approaches used here for this question type, because we at Blueprint don't use that nomenclature and I think our way is going to yield better results for you long term. There are other approaches out there, but I think our way works best.

At Blueprint, we determine question type by trying to figure out what family of question we are dealing with. This helps us know what our job is and how we should approach the question: are we taking the stim for granted and figuring out what could logically follow (Implication), are we matching the stim with a matching description (characterization), or, as in this question, do we have a flawed stimulus that we are going to repair with new information in the answer choices that we should assume to be true (operation).

I've outlined in above posts why I think this question is in the operation family of questions and hence a strengthen. The argument has a gap between the author's opinion (conclusion) and earlier claims, and answer choice (C) fills this gap in the way that I am understanding the stimulus. In other words, if (C) is true, then the relationship between the support and conclusion is strengthened. (C) doesn't match with something the author has proven. That causal relationship hasn't been established, and that is precisely the issue that needs to be repaired. You can't imply (C) from the stimulus and you certainly can't match it, because the author hasn't yet established the connection that (C) offers. If this were a characterization (matching) type question, (C) would be immediately eliminated in my mind since it isn't something we can say the author establishes (in fact it would be a perfect sucker choice to me in that kind of context).

One note to carry over about principle based questions: when they say "The statements above [stimulus] most closely conform to which of the following principles?" this is a strengthen (IMO this question is a variant of that construction). Here, LSAC is providing a principle in the answer choices, and these are things you should take for granted and see if they help your stimulus. The stimulus will be an invalid argument--this is why LSAC doesn't tell you to take the stimulus for granted like "If the statements above are true." And when LSAC doesn't tell you this then you almost always have an invalid argument (the exceptions to that are things like parallel reasoning where validity is just one feature to be considered and not really the point of the question and you are just matching). The "following principles" are not going to be worth criticizing on the grounds of whether or not they match the stimulus or can be implied from them. If a stimulus conforms to a principle, then that principle will in effect strengthen the support/conclusion relationship of the stimulus. Take the answer choices for granted as being true and see if each answer choice supports the support/conclusion relationship. This approach will work best for these types of questions IMO.

Good luck!

User avatar
BlueprintJason
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 2:48 pm

Re: Study Plan for Retake after course

Postby BlueprintJason » Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:36 pm

Note: This is a reply to viewtopic.php?&f=6&t=250411

Hey somethingelse55,

I'm actually a Blueprint instructor who has taught A LOT of tutoring students who have taken (or are taking) the course. So, I can help you adapt your approach based on that material in a way that has worked well for others. Hopefully it will help!

First off, it's good that you tested in your PT range. I heard of a lot of people under-performing their numbers on this particular exam--the curve was not so friendly. Based on the progress you made in the course, I'm confident that you can continue to improve and will CRUSH September with the right work.

Secondly, the fact that you've done some questions before shouldn't dissuade you from re-using material--particularly in the sections/question types where you didn't do quite as well as you'd like on the real thing. What I've found is that students typically get a lot from going back and doing lesson problems and homework from earlier in the course a second time. You might find that you didn't really perfect the strategy in a particular question on second glance. What I have them do is go through a set of questions (say parallel reasoning), circle everything so that you don't know what you picked the first time, erase, and redo it. Even if you remember the answer, you are teaching your brain to work through the proper thinking patterns--this will help you spot similar type situations in future questions. The first thing I would do is go back through the lessons and review the step-by-step flow charts for the various question types and re-work the problems of that type. I would mix this in by using the packets of questions organized by type, that way you are simultaneously reviewing and applying what you are re-learning to novel situations--the name of the game on the LSAT. I would start by focusing on accuracy purely for probably a month or so with maybe a timed section mixed in here and there. The hard question sets are especially good for this, since they are hard to get right time or no time.

The packets by question type are particularly good. PM me, and I'll explain some more specifics about how to use the various packets they have and which parts of the course material you should focus on--based on what you perceive as your strengths and weaknesses from the June exam.

I think 10 full PT's left is enough. But, I would focus on taking those once you've thoroughly reviewed and worked on timing strategies in individual sections. You should probably take these newer tests primarily in the last month of your prep and focus on that point on patching up your weaknesses and improving endurance. Now you should really focus on drilling those question type packets and improve on each individual skill.

Another thing is that you can get a lot of redoing a PT that you've done in the past, or doing a PT where you've done some of the questions (say in the BP homework) but maybe not all of them. I know you said you don't like this idea, but there are some MAJOR things to gain out of redoing things--especially from early in the course [you should expect to do better on PE1 from the class now than when you originally took it, and you can't expect to do better than that on a fresh PT]. This can test you on whether you truly mastered this material from the course once you see it in real time. I've seems students make a lot of improvement redoing prior PTs, realizing that they still haven't mastered a particular concept, and then doing review and really nailing it in subsequent PTs. Students often move on to new things before truly mastering an earlier concept--patience and persistence is so important. Working in the way I'm describing above will definitely fill up your prep time.

Buying the SuperPrep is probably worth it unless you are pinching pennies. You can get the PTs from them on your Blueprint online account, but they have extensive explanations in the SuperPrep books that are instructive in terms of getting inside the test-maker's mind.

I'm not sure that it's worth using the book on the TLS1776 guide. I've seen it and wasn't blown away--I was looking at it for possible tutoring material for people that have done every game and decided not to use it. There are also hundreds of released games. I wouldn't even worry about new material until you feel you have mastered all of the released ones honestly. Redoing games is probably the most useful in the "redo" department, because you usually don't remember as much about those as you do about LR and RC questions due to lack of context.

One other source of fresh games is the set of LSAT India exams--I'm pretty sure that you can download these off of LSAC's website. The characters in the games also have awesome names that are much cooler than normal games.

I'm always a fan of reading dense material. A high level of reading ability is a definite pre-requisite for the highest levels of scoring. I wouldn't spend an inordinate amount of time doing this compared to working PTs, drilling, etc., however.

Again, PM me if you want more specific details as to working with the organization of the Blueprint materials in a more specific page-by-page kind of way.

HTH!!!

User avatar
ltowns1
Posts: 696
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 1:13 am

Re: Blueprint LSAT Prep's ongoing ask-an-instructor extravaganzaq

Postby ltowns1 » Wed Jul 15, 2015 11:03 pm

Hi LSAT Folks. We're told the you should not "term match" (when looking for a right answer in assumption family questions you find an answer that has similar words). However, should there be a caveat to that? While you don't want to term match, logically speaking, we have to see relevant nouns that occur in the premise or conclusion (our core) stated in some way back in the correct answer choice right? Maybe not explicitly stated just as it was, but they do have to be related right? From a intellectual point of view, that question has always made me wonder.

I guess my question is about scope, I'm usually able to determine the conclusion and support for an argument but when it comes to eliminating I have are time figuring out what is relevant is in/out of scope

I'll try to post an example soon
Thanks for reading

User avatar
BlueprintJason
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 2:48 pm

Re: Blueprint LSAT Prep's ongoing ask-an-instructor extravaganzaq

Postby BlueprintJason » Thu Jul 16, 2015 9:01 pm

ltowns1 wrote:Hi LSAT Folks. We're told the you should not "term match" (when looking for a right answer in assumption family questions you find an answer that has similar words). However, should there be a caveat to that? While you don't want to term match, logically speaking, we have to see relevant nouns that occur in the premise or conclusion (our core) stated in some way back in the correct answer choice right? Maybe not explicitly stated just as it was, but they do have to be related right? From a intellectual point of view, that question has always made me wonder.

I guess my question is about scope, I'm usually able to determine the conclusion and support for an argument but when it comes to eliminating I have are time figuring out what is relevant is in/out of scope

I'll try to post an example soon
Thanks for reading


Hey ltowns,

Thanks for posting.

We don't use the phrase "term match" for anything specific, but I get what you mean. There are often some trap answer choices designed to model the exact wording of a premise or conclusion, but maybe it doesn't actually do what the question is asking. In fact, I think this type of trap answer choice is common to a slew of questions, not just assumption questions.

As to eliminating, I think that is also a dangerous strategy. I think you got to the reason why. Often, you need to mention a noun or pronoun from the premises or conclusion to provide a link (or at least a correct answer choice could do this). So, I wouldn't automatically eliminate an answer choice just based on seeing that they used an exact term from the stimulus, but I would probably be suspicious and make sure I could definitively eliminate the others if I could sense it was a trap. It's very hard to give absolutes in things like this, because the test makers could "term match" as you say just fine and in another case the "term match" could be the basis of a dirty trap. Caveat emptor for sure on these kinds of strategies. I'm not sure who told you not to term match (hopefully they didn't say "never"), but I would be cautious following this advice as a general rule. Sometimes it will work and other times it won't.

The thing that a correct answer choice does need to do is provide a link between some element in the premises and the conclusion. It may be that they don't need to mention anything explicitly to do this, it really depends on the context of the question--there could be something "necessary" to the argument or "sufficient" to prove its conclusion without ever using any terms specifically stated in the stimulus. This might be more rare though, I'm not sure.

I'll give you an example:

Two people are going to play basketball. Player A is better than player B, thus A will win.

The argument depends on which of the following assumptions?

Here, the flaw is clearly one of equivocation--the argument makes two related concepts (winning and being better) equal, when in fact there is a difference in what they actually mean. Just because you are better doesn't mean you won't lose to a worse player every once in a while, etc.

A common trap answer choice would be: "Player A will win against anyone they are better than." This isn't something the argument depends on, but it mentions both something in the premises and "links" to the conclusion (better and win). Player A doesn't need to have this kind of power necessarily. For this argument to succeed, it's only required that A can beat B. That's it, because the conclusion was very limited. But I think there is the term matching thing trap going on there.

A common type of correct answer choice in a necessary assumption would be some element in the premise not making the conclusion impossible to follow. It would be kind of weird for this example but would read: "Being better doesn't guarantee that you will not win." I've seen this type of pattern in a ton of correct answer choices in this family. And yeah, it must be the case that that's true for us to have any chance of proving the conclusion to be true considering that specific evidence. But you see, I used both "terms" here: win and better. So, if you had eliminated just for that reason, you would lose.

Lastly, they don't have to mention anything in the stimulus at all to construct something that is necessary. Another possible correct answer choice would be: "The ball goes through the hoop at some point." Well, yeah, that's kind of odd, but it is necessary, otherwise how could anyone win? I haven't mentioned balls or hoops at all, but this is necessary.

I hope that example clarifies why the "don't term match" rule could lead to trouble in an assumption question. Hopefully I got what you meant by term matching. Definitely offer up an example if you get the chance.

One more thing, just because I've seen it a lot and it's on topic. Parallel questions often have sucker answer choices about the same topic as the stimulus. For example, the stimulus could be about ostriches and the trap wrong answer might be about some other bird. It will be tempting to people that are careless on its face because it's about the same kind of thing, but it's actually designed as a trap for the unwary.

HTH, let me know if you have an example or if you can clarify what you meant in case I misunderstood what you meant by term matching.

Jason

User avatar
ltowns1
Posts: 696
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 1:13 am

Re: Blueprint LSAT Prep's ongoing ask-an-instructor extravaganzaq

Postby ltowns1 » Thu Jul 16, 2015 10:10 pm

BlueprintJason wrote:
ltowns1 wrote:Hi LSAT Folks. We're told the you should not "term match" (when looking for a right answer in assumption family questions you find an answer that has similar words). However, should there be a caveat to that? While you don't want to term match, logically speaking, we have to see relevant nouns that occur in the premise or conclusion (our core) stated in some way back in the correct answer choice right? Maybe not explicitly stated just as it was, but they do have to be related right? From a intellectual point of view, that question has always made me wonder.

I guess my question is about scope, I'm usually able to determine the conclusion and support for an argument but when it comes to eliminating I have are time figuring out what is relevant is in/out of scope

I'll try to post an example soon
Thanks for reading


Hey ltowns,

Thanks for posting.

We don't use the phrase "term match" for anything specific, but I get what you mean. There are often some trap answer choices designed to model the exact wording of a premise or conclusion, but maybe it doesn't actually do what the question is asking. In fact, I think this type of trap answer choice is common to a slew of questions, not just assumption questions.

As to eliminating, I think that is also a dangerous strategy. I think you got to the reason why. Often, you need to mention a noun or pronoun from the premises or conclusion to provide a link (or at least a correct answer choice could do this). So, I wouldn't automatically eliminate an answer choice just based on seeing that they used an exact term from the stimulus, but I would probably be suspicious and make sure I could definitively eliminate the others if I could sense it was a trap. It's very hard to give absolutes in things like this, because the test makers could "term match" as you say just fine and in another case the "term match" could be the basis of a dirty trap. Caveat emptor for sure on these kinds of strategies. I'm not sure who told you not to term match (hopefully they didn't say "never"), but I would be cautious following this advice as a general rule. Sometimes it will work and other times it won't.

The thing that a correct answer choice does need to do is provide a link between some element in the premises and the conclusion. It may be that they don't need to mention anything explicitly to do this, it really depends on the context of the question--there could be something "necessary" to the argument or "sufficient" to prove its conclusion without ever using any terms specifically stated in the stimulus. This might be more rare though, I'm not sure.

I'll give you an example:

Two people are going to play basketball. Player A is better than player B, thus A will win.

The argument depends on which of the following assumptions?

Here, the flaw is clearly one of equivocation--the argument makes two related concepts (winning and being better) equal, when in fact there is a difference in what they actually mean. Just because you are better doesn't mean you won't lose to a worse player every once in a while, etc.

A common trap answer choice would be: "Player A will win against anyone they are better than." This isn't something the argument depends on, but it mentions both something in the premises and "links" to the conclusion (better and win). Player A doesn't need to have this kind of power necessarily. For this argument to succeed, it's only required that A can beat B. That's it, because the conclusion was very limited. But I think there is the term matching thing trap going on there.

A common type of correct answer choice in a necessary assumption would be some element in the premise not making the conclusion impossible to follow. It would be kind of weird for this example but would read: "Being better doesn't guarantee that you will not win." I've seen this type of pattern in a ton of correct answer choices in this family. And yeah, it must be the case that that's true for us to have any chance of proving the conclusion to be true considering that specific evidence. But you see, I used both "terms" here: win and better. So, if you had eliminated just for that reason, you would lose.

Lastly, they don't have to mention anything in the stimulus at all to construct something that is necessary. Another possible correct answer choice would be: "The ball goes through the hoop at some point." Well, yeah, that's kind of odd, but it is necessary, otherwise how could anyone win? I haven't mentioned balls or hoops at all, but this is necessary.

I hope that example clarifies why the "don't term match" rule could lead to trouble in an assumption question. Hopefully I got what you meant by term matching. Definitely offer up an example if you get the chance.

One more thing, just because I've seen it a lot and it's on topic. Parallel questions often have sucker answer choices about the same topic as the stimulus. For example, the stimulus could be about ostriches and the trap wrong answer might be about some other bird. It will be tempting to people that are careless on its face because it's about the same kind of thing, but it's actually designed as a trap for the unwary.

HTH, let me know if you have an example or if you can clarify what you meant in case I misunderstood what you meant by term matching.

Jason


yeah you pretty much got it.if you have time, could you just walk through a made up questions to illustrate how you do it if it's not too much trouble. Cause I mean I feel like I analyze the conclusion+ premise well, but from there, it's like I don't execute well. Especially concerning elimination strategy. Again, i don't know why, but I do soo much better when I focus the conclusion lol. I know that's not the correct way, but it feels like it works better

User avatar
BlueprintJason
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 2:48 pm

Re: Blueprint LSAT Prep's ongoing ask-an-instructor extravaganzaq

Postby BlueprintJason » Mon Jul 20, 2015 1:35 pm

ltowns1 wrote:yeah you pretty much got it.if you have time, could you just walk through a made up questions to illustrate how you do it if it's not too much trouble. Cause I mean I feel like I analyze the conclusion+ premise well, but from there, it's like I don't execute well. Especially concerning elimination strategy. Again, i don't know why, but I do soo much better when I focus the conclusion lol. I know that's not the correct way, but it feels like it works better


Yeah or for sure!

Well, first off, I'll say that focusing on the conclusion in an argument-based question is seriously important. A lot of students go wrong because they forget which thing the author is trying to prove. So, good for you!

That being said, it's important to keep in mind that mentioning the conclusion does not necessarily mean that you are providing a link between it and the premises.

I'll do a strengthen to show you what I mean:

1. Dietitian: High blood cholesterol is generally bad for your health. Agave root, like red meat, has a lot of cholesterol [side note: I have no idea if this is true about agave, just making shit up]. But agave root is actually not bad for your health--it is low in saturated fat, which influences cholesterol in the blood a lot more than cholesterol that you consume through food.

Which one of the following, if true, most supports the dietitian's argument?

So, this is a classic strengthen question (it's a variant off a real question but with slight changes for clarity), and there is a lot of term matching issues to watch out for.

My steps for strengthen are:
1. ID Conclusion
2. ID relevant premises
3. Ascertain the flaw--how could the evidence be true but the conclusion ends up being false anyways? What is the argument failing to consider or blindly assuming? Is there a name for this fallacy that I know?
4. Pre-phrase the type of thing that if true, would increase the likelihood that the premise being true leads to the conclusion being true. Remember, I don't need to prove it 100% like a sufficient, I just need to help strengthen the connection a little bit.
5. Eliminate things that do not influence the support/conclusion relationship or that influence it in the opposite way. Be flexible in case the AC provides a link in a way that you did not anticipate, but that actually makes sense.

So, the conclusion here is: "AR is not bad for your health." The premises are: "AR is low in saturated fat," "saturated fat influences BC more than cholesterol in food," and "High BC is bad for you."

Diagrammed out it looks like this:

High BC is bad for you.
AR is low in SF.
SF influences BC more than food cholesterol.
--------
Thus, AR is not bad for you.

[Side note: this process takes a while at the beginning when you are learning to see logical structure, but the more you break down things like this on pen and paper untimed at the beginning when you are learning, the easier it will be to do in your head, and eventually on the clock. It's especially good as a review for questions that initially gave you trouble.]

Ok, now to the flaw. Well the key word that bothers me in the premises is "influences" and I'll bet that is going to be the source of the flaw. Why? Because I have no specific knowledge about dieting interactions on the LSAT (in actual real life I do have a sense that this assumption is ok, bc I'm a certified personal trainer and have given diet advice, but I MUST ignore that outside knowledge and force the author to tell me everything), I don't know what low SF is going to do to BC. In fact, it could be an inverse relationship--SF goes down while BC goes up--and that would fuck up my conclusion since high BC is not good for you.

So the author is not considering that the "influence" could be inverse, or it is taking for granted that low SF necessarily influences BC in the same way. This is not necessarily true from a logical standpoint. This is a flaw of exclusivity--assuming things can only happen one way instead of other logically possible options. Now, if we were scientists with background knowledge, this would probably be ok, but we are logicians with only rudimentary, everyday knowledge of the world around us (that's our role on the LSAT, at least).

On to predictions (specifically in a term matching sense), what I'd love for an answer choice is something like: term in premise that is true leads to term in conclusion that I want to get to. In this case, that would be something like "Low SF foods usually lead to low BC." In fact, this ends up being the correct answer in the real version of the question (or a similar variant). It's ok it you get the terms you need if they provide the link you are looking for.

But we also have to avoid traps that involve terms that we are familiar with.

One possible sucker answer choice could be:

--People with low SF in their diets often eat AR.

This has terms in the premises, two in fact, that I will recall: AR and low SF. This doesn't tell me why having low SF in the diet leads to a certain result in BC. Hence, it misses the conclusion. Noticing this by focusing on things that actually have an influence on the conclusion is an important elimination strategy, so keep on that path.

Another different type of sucker choice is:

--AR has a lot of healthy saturated fat molecules that are good for you.

This is mega tempting if you are only focusing on the terms and not the context (this is actually pretty evil--they didn't make a sucker this mean on the actual question this is based on). It links a term from the premises "saturated fats" and links to the conclusion "not bad for you" [don't worry about the distinction between good for you vs. not bad for you, that's not the rub in this particular example]. It seems like a dead set winner and is close to the prediction in many ways. Yet, it doesn't actually strengthen the conclusion. For one, just because it has "a lot of" good SF (whatever that is) it doesn't mean that it doesn't also include bad SF. Even more importantly though, the SF in AR could have beneficial effects in isolation, but it still doesn't fix our major logical gap: even if this trap AC was true--we still don't know how low SF affects BC! Proportional or inverse??? Even if there are partial good effects for health, it doesn't mean that it is not bad for your health in the raising BC way that we were focused on in the premises.

Takeaway is:

1) Yes, focus on the conclusion, but focus more on how things influence the outcome of the conclusion in light of the relevant premises.
2) Term matching is often an indicator of a correct answer choice (particularly if the terms are closely matched but not exactly word for word--it's harder to pick something that is not dead on the money words-wise but says essentially the same thing form a logical standpoint).
3) Be wary of term matching as a blanket strategy though, because it could be the source of an evil trap technique, especially in the harder answer choices where the right answer maybe isn't something that you could readily predict.

HTH, let me know if there is a specific question that is messing with you on any of the above grounds and I'll have a look at it.

Jason

User avatar
ltowns1
Posts: 696
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 1:13 am

Re: Blueprint LSAT Prep's ongoing ask-an-instructor extravaganzaq

Postby ltowns1 » Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:26 pm

BlueprintJason wrote:
ltowns1 wrote:yeah you pretty much got it.if you have time, could you just walk through a made up questions to illustrate how you do it if it's not too much trouble. Cause I mean I feel like I analyze the conclusion+ premise well, but from there, it's like I don't execute well. Especially concerning elimination strategy. Again, i don't know why, but I do soo much better when I focus the conclusion lol. I know that's not the correct way, but it feels like it works better


Yeah or for sure!

Well, first off, I'll say that focusing on the conclusion in an argument-based question is seriously important. A lot of students go wrong because they forget which thing the author is trying to prove. So, good for you!

That being said, it's important to keep in mind that mentioning the conclusion does not necessarily mean that you are providing a link between it and the premises.

I'll do a strengthen to show you what I mean:

1. Dietitian: High blood cholesterol is generally bad for your health. Agave root, like red meat, has a lot of cholesterol [side note: I have no idea if this is true about agave, just making shit up]. But agave root is actually not bad for your health--it is low in saturated fat, which influences cholesterol in the blood a lot more than cholesterol that you consume through food.

Which one of the following, if true, most supports the dietitian's argument?

So, this is a classic strengthen question (it's a variant off a real question but with slight changes for clarity), and there is a lot of term matching issues to watch out for.

My steps for strengthen are:
1. ID Conclusion
2. ID relevant premises
3. Ascertain the flaw--how could the evidence be true but the conclusion ends up being false anyways? What is the argument failing to consider or blindly assuming? Is there a name for this fallacy that I know?
4. Pre-phrase the type of thing that if true, would increase the likelihood that the premise being true leads to the conclusion being true. Remember, I don't need to prove it 100% like a sufficient, I just need to help strengthen the connection a little bit.
5. Eliminate things that do not influence the support/conclusion relationship or that influence it in the opposite way. Be flexible in case the AC provides a link in a way that you did not anticipate, but that actually makes sense.

So, the conclusion here is: "AR is not bad for your health." The premises are: "AR is low in saturated fat," "saturated fat influences BC more than cholesterol in food," and "High BC is bad for you."

Diagrammed out it looks like this:

High BC is bad for you.
AR is low in SF.
SF influences BC more than food cholesterol.
--------
Thus, AR is not bad for you.

[Side note: this process takes a while at the beginning when you are learning to see logical structure, but the more you break down things like this on pen and paper untimed at the beginning when you are learning, the easier it will be to do in your head, and eventually on the clock. It's especially good as a review for questions that initially gave you trouble.]

Ok, now to the flaw. Well the key word that bothers me in the premises is "influences" and I'll bet that is going to be the source of the flaw. Why? Because I have no specific knowledge about dieting interactions on the LSAT (in actual real life I do have a sense that this assumption is ok, bc I'm a certified personal trainer and have given diet advice, but I MUST ignore that outside knowledge and force the author to tell me everything), I don't know what low SF is going to do to BC. In fact, it could be an inverse relationship--SF goes down while BC goes up--and that would fuck up my conclusion since high BC is not good for you.

So the author is not considering that the "influence" could be inverse, or it is taking for granted that low SF necessarily influences BC in the same way. This is not necessarily true from a logical standpoint. This is a flaw of exclusivity--assuming things can only happen one way instead of other logically possible options. Now, if we were scientists with background knowledge, this would probably be ok, but we are logicians with only rudimentary, everyday knowledge of the world around us (that's our role on the LSAT, at least).

On to predictions (specifically in a term matching sense), what I'd love for an answer choice is something like: term in premise that is true leads to term in conclusion that I want to get to. In this case, that would be something like "Low SF foods usually lead to low BC." In fact, this ends up being the correct answer in the real version of the question (or a similar variant). It's ok it you get the terms you need if they provide the link you are looking for.

But we also have to avoid traps that involve terms that we are familiar with.

One possible sucker answer choice could be:

--People with low SF in their diets often eat AR.

This has terms in the premises, two in fact, that I will recall: AR and low SF. This doesn't tell me why having low SF in the diet leads to a certain result in BC. Hence, it misses the conclusion. Noticing this by focusing on things that actually have an influence on the conclusion is an important elimination strategy, so keep on that path.

Another different type of sucker choice is:

--AR has a lot of healthy saturated fat molecules that are good for you.

This is mega tempting if you are only focusing on the terms and not the context (this is actually pretty evil--they didn't make a sucker this mean on the actual question this is based on). It links a term from the premises "saturated fats" and links to the conclusion "not bad for you" [don't worry about the distinction between good for you vs. not bad for you, that's not the rub in this particular example]. It seems like a dead set winner and is close to the prediction in many ways. Yet, it doesn't actually strengthen the conclusion. For one, just because it has "a lot of" good SF (whatever that is) it doesn't mean that it doesn't also include bad SF. Even more importantly though, the SF in AR could have beneficial effects in isolation, but it still doesn't fix our major logical gap: even if this trap AC was true--we still don't know how low SF affects BC! Proportional or inverse??? Even if there are partial good effects for health, it doesn't mean that it is not bad for your health in the raising BC way that we were focused on in the premises.

Takeaway is:

1) Yes, focus on the conclusion, but focus more on how things influence the outcome of the conclusion in light of the relevant premises.
2) Term matching is often an indicator of a correct answer choice (particularly if the terms are closely matched but not exactly word for word--it's harder to pick something that is not dead on the money words-wise but says essentially the same thing form a logical standpoint).
3) Be wary of term matching as a blanket strategy though, because it could be the source of an evil trap technique, especially in the harder answer choices where the right answer maybe isn't something that you could readily predict.

HTH, let me know if there is a specific question that is messing with you on any of the above grounds and I'll have a look at it.

Jason


Great thanks! Yeah, I might have a question or two to run by you guys using real LSAT questions because while the examples are always great, there is really nothin comparable to those real LSAT questions

User avatar
BlueprintJason
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 2:48 pm

Re: Blueprint LSAT Prep's ongoing ask-an-instructor extravaganza

Postby BlueprintJason » Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:56 pm

Hey Everyone,

I've been enjoying TLS so much that I'm going to be holding office hours!

In addition to my normal trolling of the forums looking for questions to answer throughout the week, I'll also be checking this forum topic on:

Tuesdays 12-2PM EST
Wednesdays 8-10PM EST

Hopefully this gives people morning and evening options.

Feel free to log on and ask your LSAT-related questions during these hours to get quicker response-time from me.

Best,

Jason

User avatar
BlueprintJason
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 2:48 pm

Re: Blueprint LSAT Prep's ongoing ask-an-instructor extravaganza

Postby BlueprintJason » Tue Jul 21, 2015 1:00 pm

ltowns1 wrote:
Great thanks! Yeah, I might have a question or two to run by you guys using real LSAT questions because while the examples are always great, there is really nothin comparable to those real LSAT questions


Het ltowns,

This is actually a really great point, and gives me a chance to mention something to anyone else who might be reading this.

You should only be practicing with real LSAT questions. The above was intended as a demonstration only (and is actually almost exactly word for word a real question with a slight change in the terms: Agave root instead of shellfish, for example).

We at Blueprint give our students access to every released LSAT question, we think it's important that you have ample access to as many real questions as possible.

However you end up preparing, make sure to use only real questions and go through as many of the real released questions as you can go through while still mastering the concepts in ones that you need to review.

HTH

Jason


Return to “Free Help and Advice from Professionals”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest