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
Blueprint Mithun
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:54 pm

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

Postby Blueprint Mithun » Wed May 11, 2016 6:38 pm

New_Spice180 wrote:
That clarifies a lot on this question, other explanations were much to verbose and not effective. Thanks so much. So answer D is correct because D defends the cause effect relationship that is "Lower rates of destructive geological processes in those regions-------->greater abundance of securely identified craters?" And we need to know that it isn't because of the fact that that particular region was gifted with more meteorites...(I had to repeat it just to make sure I understood it myself).

Additionally, I took your advice on moving on to different question types and something just clicked for me during Strengthen/Weaken questions. I'm more able to quickly isolate the argument and it's essential pieces and anticipate gaps. Although necessary and sufficient assumptions are still going to need some work, I see myself actually liking (I've officially become an LSAT geek) this question type. I just find myself tripping over what I need to make a sufficient condition work consistently.



Sweet, glad my explanation helped, and glad you've joined our ranks as an LSAT nerd. I've always believed that it takes a certain level of obsession to do reaaally well on this test.

If you're getting better at seeing and anticipating gaps, that's a great sign. That's one of the most important skills in doing assumption questions. Sufficient conditions have to guarantee the conclusion, which is why, as I said before, this isn't a great example of one. But think about it this way: the burden of proof is very high. If we can't be absolutely sure that this assumption bridges the gap, it isn't sufficient.

User avatar
Blueprint Mithun
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:54 pm

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

Postby Blueprint Mithun » Wed May 11, 2016 6:41 pm

By the way, everyone, Blueprint is currently doing a free course giveaway! Just sign up with your name and email, and you'll have a chance to win a free, all-expenses-paid LSAT prep course this summer. That's nearly 100 hours of class time, a set of comprehensive textbooks, access to our excellent data analytics, and access to tons of actual LSAT questions/preptests.

Sign up here: http://blueprintlsat.com/giveaway

The promotion ends Friday, May 13, at 11:59 PM.

User avatar
New_Spice180
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 11:01 am

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

Postby New_Spice180 » Thu May 12, 2016 12:00 pm

Can anyone help me with understanding this question from PT 10, Section 1, question 9? The question stem is what really gave me the problem as I didn't know whether I should be strengthening it or weakening the argument core. What does it mean when a question stem asks for an answer choice that "least" supports the argument.

I'll give my own assessment of this question, and then perhaps those who see fit can correct my reasoning. So, the essential pieces to the argument really boil down to even though these foss. centipedes were discovered with remains of water dwelling creatures-----> (therefore) the paleontologists are confident that the centipedes lived on land.

A)Eliminate, slightly strengthens conclusion
B) Previously discovered land dwellers? This, once again bolsters the argument.
C)I choose C thinking the job was to weaken the argument. I thought that this undermines the notion that the centipedes could indeed be land dwellers, and thereby not supporting but in fact weakening the argument. I later reviewed this question alongside other resources, and it seems that I am mistaken because this actually allows for the claim to be slightly strengthened. Why? Because this now allows for the possibility of water-dwelling and land-dwelling fossils to both coexist within the fossil not just one or the other.
D) This answer choice is very strange to me and looking at it I can see how not understanding what the stem is asking one may miss this. I thought, "well this has nothing to do with the essential elements of the argument, so I shouldn't even bother with this. However, that's precisely what they are asking an answer choice that essentially has no bearing/nothing to bring strengthen the argument.
E) I'm not sure how this answer choice is necessarily wrong? In my mind now if D is correct there is a chance E's irrelevance qualifies it for consideration as well. I mean, hell, don't you need a respiratory system to live in water and air? I am sufficiently lost.

Any tips/ clarification on this question would be excellent thanks guys!

User avatar
Blueprint Mithun
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:54 pm

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

Postby Blueprint Mithun » Fri May 20, 2016 1:29 pm

New_Spice180 wrote:Can anyone help me with understanding this question from PT 10, Section 1, question 9? The question stem is what really gave me the problem as I didn't know whether I should be strengthening it or weakening the argument core. What does it mean when a question stem asks for an answer choice that "least" supports the argument.

I'll give my own assessment of this question, and then perhaps those who see fit can correct my reasoning. So, the essential pieces to the argument really boil down to even though these foss. centipedes were discovered with remains of water dwelling creatures-----> (therefore) the paleontologists are confident that the centipedes lived on land.

A)Eliminate, slightly strengthens conclusion
B) Previously discovered land dwellers? This, once again bolsters the argument.
C)I choose C thinking the job was to weaken the argument. I thought that this undermines the notion that the centipedes could indeed be land dwellers, and thereby not supporting but in fact weakening the argument. I later reviewed this question alongside other resources, and it seems that I am mistaken because this actually allows for the claim to be slightly strengthened. Why? Because this now allows for the possibility of water-dwelling and land-dwelling fossils to both coexist within the fossil not just one or the other.
D) This answer choice is very strange to me and looking at it I can see how not understanding what the stem is asking one may miss this. I thought, "well this has nothing to do with the essential elements of the argument, so I shouldn't even bother with this. However, that's precisely what they are asking an answer choice that essentially has no bearing/nothing to bring strengthen the argument.
E) I'm not sure how this answer choice is necessarily wrong? In my mind now if D is correct there is a chance E's irrelevance qualifies it for consideration as well. I mean, hell, don't you need a respiratory system to live in water and air? I am sufficiently lost.

Any tips/ clarification on this question would be excellent thanks guys!



Hey, sorry for not getting to this sooner.

This is a Strengthen EXCEPT question. The prompt is a bit awkwardly phrased, and like you said, I think that's the main thing that gave you trouble hear. It asks for the answer that would LEAST support the stimulus. You don't need the answer to go as far as weakening the paleontologists' view, it simply should NOT strengthen their view. In more recent LSATs, these types of questions are usually a lot more clear - the prompt will say something like, "Each of the follow, if true, strengthens the argument EXCEPT:"

Each answer other than D strengthens the stimulus. C, like you said, suggests that both water and land dwelling fossils could be found in the same place.

Remember that the paleontologists are claiming that the centipedes lived in land. E states that fossils of spiders who could only survive on land were found in the same rock as the centipedes. That's what they were implying by referring to their respiratory systems, which were only adapted for air, not water. So E strengthens as well.

D, as you said, doesn't do anything for us. There's no logical connection we can make between that fact and the idea that the centipedes lived on land. So it is what we're looking for.

User avatar
Blueprint Mithun
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:54 pm

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

Postby Blueprint Mithun » Tue May 24, 2016 12:34 pm

Hey man,

I had a quick question about a question from Prep Test 22 section 2, Question 12. It deals with answer choice B it states that there is a difference in the usage of terms but I'm having a hard time seeing that immediate difference? Is it a difference in regards to what the question is relating to or is it something else? Thanks



In this argument, the speaker is claiming that the organ symphonies of Louis Verne are religious on the basis that they are "divinely inspired." He compares them to Handel's works, which set music to religious texts. It's a Flaw question, and the key flaw here is that the speaker conflates "divinely inspired" and "religious," which aren't necessarily the same thing.

The tricky thing about the question is that he doesn't explicitly say the "divinely inspired" = "religious." Instead, this is implicit in his reasoning. Since his rebuttal to the idea that Verne's works are not religious is to call them divinely inspired, it's clear that he thinks the latter always implies the former.

Thus, answer choice B, "confuses two different meanings of the word 'religious'," is our answer.

Students sometimes fall for A, but he's not assuming that all religious music is inspired. He's assuming that all divinely inspired music is religious. However, that doesn't appear as an answer, and B is the closest we get to the same line of reasoning.

User avatar
New_Spice180
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 11:01 am

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

Postby New_Spice180 » Tue May 24, 2016 1:20 pm

Blueprint Mithun wrote:
Hey man,

I had a quick question about a question from Prep Test 22 section 2, Question 12. It deals with answer choice B it states that there is a difference in the usage of terms but I'm having a hard time seeing that immediate difference? Is it a difference in regards to what the question is relating to or is it something else? Thanks



In this argument, the speaker is claiming that the organ symphonies of Louis Verne are religious on the basis that they are "divinely inspired." He compares them to Handel's works, which set music to religious texts. It's a Flaw question, and the key flaw here is that the speaker conflates "divinely inspired" and "religious," which aren't necessarily the same thing.

The tricky thing about the question is that he doesn't explicitly say the "divinely inspired" = "religious." Instead, this is implicit in his reasoning. Since his rebuttal to the idea that Verne's works are not religious is to call them divinely inspired, it's clear that he thinks the latter always implies the former.

Thus, answer choice B, "confuses two different meanings of the word 'religious'," is our answer.

Students sometimes fall for A, but he's not assuming that all religious music is inspired. He's assuming that all divinely inspired music is religious. However, that doesn't appear as an answer, and B is the closest we get to the same line of reasoning.


I appreciate your answer! It's like your explanations give me an "I see the light" moment every time haha!

User avatar
Blueprint Mithun
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:54 pm

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

Postby Blueprint Mithun » Wed May 25, 2016 11:37 am

Haha, that's awesome! Just doin' my job 8)

User avatar
Blueprint Mithun
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:54 pm

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

Postby Blueprint Mithun » Wed May 25, 2016 11:46 am

Thanks again Mithun!

Hey, I had a question about your self prep schedule. Did you have days where you couldn't complete everything in your schedule? I set up my schedule, to what I believed to be fairly doable, and some days I'll finish and some days I'll find myself working longer on logic games that I didn't understand or longer on logical reasoning, which leaves me not able to finish reading comp or logic games. I'm definitely make great progress and my understanding is light years ahead of what is was, but I feel a bit guilty for not being able to consistently finish my daily "regimen" so to speak.

Advice on how to refine my study time would be helpful man, thanks!


I definitely wasn't perfect when it came to my regimen. There would be days where I found it much harder to concentrate, and things would take longer than planned, or I'd cut a few corners out of laziness. I tried to make up for this by working myself harder on other days when I wasn't feeling distracted.

Reviewing carefully and making sure you understand everything that you're going over is really important, and you shouldn't rush through that just to meet your schedule. If you do that, you're missing out on potential insights that you could have learned. You won't be getting the most out of the work you've already done unless you review carefully. So I think that you're doing the right thing. Don't worry too much about meeting your regimen every day. Coming across games/questions that take you longer to review is usually a good thing - it means that you can learn a lot from reviewing that question. So don't view that as a negative.

If you feel like you're falling very far behind what you want to get done, plan out an extra hour or two in the week so you can catch up. But ultimately, your schedule is somewhat arbitrary and exists to guide you, not to rigidly force you into a strict pattern. One of the great things about self-studying is that you have flexibility with your schedule, something you don't get when you're taking a class.

User avatar
New_Spice180
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 11:01 am

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

Postby New_Spice180 » Thu May 26, 2016 8:03 am

Blueprint Mithun wrote:
Thanks again Mithun!

Hey, I had a question about your self prep schedule. Did you have days where you couldn't complete everything in your schedule? I set up my schedule, to what I believed to be fairly doable, and some days I'll finish and some days I'll find myself working longer on logic games that I didn't understand or longer on logical reasoning, which leaves me not able to finish reading comp or logic games. I'm definitely make great progress and my understanding is light years ahead of what is was, but I feel a bit guilty for not being able to consistently finish my daily "regimen" so to speak.

Advice on how to refine my study time would be helpful man, thanks!


I definitely wasn't perfect when it came to my regimen. There would be days where I found it much harder to concentrate, and things would take longer than planned, or I'd cut a few corners out of laziness. I tried to make up for this by working myself harder on other days when I wasn't feeling distracted.

Reviewing carefully and making sure you understand everything that you're going over is really important, and you shouldn't rush through that just to meet your schedule. If you do that, you're missing out on potential insights that you could have learned. You won't be getting the most out of the work you've already done unless you review carefully. So I think that you're doing the right thing. Don't worry too much about meeting your regimen every day. Coming across games/questions that take you longer to review is usually a good thing - it means that you can learn a lot from reviewing that question. So don't view that as a negative.

If you feel like you're falling very far behind what you want to get done, plan out an extra hour or two in the week so you can catch up. But ultimately, your schedule is somewhat arbitrary and exists to guide you, not to rigidly force you into a strict pattern. One of the great things about self-studying is that you have flexibility with your schedule, something you don't get when you're taking a class.


Oh god, I feel like I've been the only one lighting up this forum, but I appreciate the time taken to help me answer these questions! Moreover, I'm getting closer to the period where I should be practice testing, and I recall that you recommended that I take sections in small increments and then work my way up, how long was it before you knew you were ready to move on to timed sections? How many non-timed sections did you do before you felt you were ready? How many "partial" PT did you do before you moved on to actual timed sections?

User avatar
Blueprint Mithun
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:54 pm

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

Postby Blueprint Mithun » Thu May 26, 2016 7:16 pm

New_Spice180 wrote:
Blueprint Mithun wrote:
Thanks again Mithun!

Hey, I had a question about your self prep schedule. Did you have days where you couldn't complete everything in your schedule? I set up my schedule, to what I believed to be fairly doable, and some days I'll finish and some days I'll find myself working longer on logic games that I didn't understand or longer on logical reasoning, which leaves me not able to finish reading comp or logic games. I'm definitely make great progress and my understanding is light years ahead of what is was, but I feel a bit guilty for not being able to consistently finish my daily "regimen" so to speak.

Advice on how to refine my study time would be helpful man, thanks!


I definitely wasn't perfect when it came to my regimen. There would be days where I found it much harder to concentrate, and things would take longer than planned, or I'd cut a few corners out of laziness. I tried to make up for this by working myself harder on other days when I wasn't feeling distracted.

Reviewing carefully and making sure you understand everything that you're going over is really important, and you shouldn't rush through that just to meet your schedule. If you do that, you're missing out on potential insights that you could have learned. You won't be getting the most out of the work you've already done unless you review carefully. So I think that you're doing the right thing. Don't worry too much about meeting your regimen every day. Coming across games/questions that take you longer to review is usually a good thing - it means that you can learn a lot from reviewing that question. So don't view that as a negative.

If you feel like you're falling very far behind what you want to get done, plan out an extra hour or two in the week so you can catch up. But ultimately, your schedule is somewhat arbitrary and exists to guide you, not to rigidly force you into a strict pattern. One of the great things about self-studying is that you have flexibility with your schedule, something you don't get when you're taking a class.


Oh god, I feel like I've been the only one lighting up this forum, but I appreciate the time taken to help me answer these questions! Moreover, I'm getting closer to the period where I should be practice testing, and I recall that you recommended that I take sections in small increments and then work my way up, how long was it before you knew you were ready to move on to timed sections? How many non-timed sections did you do before you felt you were ready? How many "partial" PT did you do before you moved on to actual timed sections?



No worries! I wish more people would utilize this topic, but unfortunately I'm not allowed to advertise it anywhere on this website, so I kind of have to just hope people stumble across it. If you know anyone else who needs help, please let them know about it!

I don't remember how many untimed sections I did. I think I did that for only a week or maybe two, just to get in the flow without feeling too pressured about time. Ease yourself into timed sections, but remember that there's no need to be afraid of them, and if you fall far short of the 35 minute limit at first, that's no reason to get worried. It simply means that you need to keep practicing and work on adjusting your pace. Don't sacrifice accuracy for speed.

I did quite a few partial preptests before I got to 5 section ones. I think it took a good 3 weeks. In particular, the transition from 4 sections to 5 sections was pretty difficult, as that extra section came when I was already worn out. But part of building your endurance for the LSAT is learning to keep working even when you're tired. And it will get easier the more you do it.

CPA-->JD
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 12:30 pm

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

Postby CPA-->JD » Thu May 26, 2016 7:44 pm

Hey with 1.5 weeks to go my scores are ranging from 165-173. I am not getting any particular type of question consistently wrong and each section can vary wildly ( RC -1 - -5, LG -2- -7, LR -0 - -5).

Any advice for what I should focus on for the next 1.5 weeks?

User avatar
Blueprint Mithun
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:54 pm

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

Postby Blueprint Mithun » Sat May 28, 2016 9:31 pm

I just wanted to get your advice on a couple questions regarding the LSAT. I am writing the September test and have recently begun studying after graduating a few weeks ago. I have a 3.88 GPA and want a great LSAT to match.

1) how many hours a day do you think are optimal? I've tried 2-3, 5-6, etc. Sometimes it feels like after a certain point I'm just aimlessly reading and drilling. Just wanted to know your thoughts on that. For instance, how long and how many hours a day did you study?

2) Do you think from now until September is enough time for me to get my score from a 155 diagnostic?

3) Just thoughts on any tips and tricks you think might help from your personal experience. I see you scored really well and obviously know a great deal more than almost anyone on this site.

Thanks again!


1. That really varies on a person-to-person basis. I'd say a minimum of 2 hours, and maximum of right at the point where it feels aimless and unproductive. When you know you're exhausted and not absorbing the information anymore, stop for the day.

I studied for the test over a 3-month period, and put in 4-5 hours per day. One day out of the week, I'd take the day off, or do just an hour or so of prep, depending on whether I felt burnt out or not.

When I was in the stage of learning the material, I'd set a goal of a certain number of chapters/q.types to learn for that day and work through those, then spend the remaining time, if there was any, doing practice questions. Once I was done learning the strategies, I drilled lots of individual sections and reviewed my mistakes. I kept a tally of which q.types I tended to get wrong, and if I noticed any outliers, I'd go back and review the strategies for them, to make sure I wasn't missing any steps. Or I'd poke around the internet (TLS mainly) for advice on them (try not to spend too much time doing this, though), to try and get a fresh perspective.

After I had done a fair amount of sections and felt like I'd internalized most of the strategies, I started to do timed sections. On Logic games, I kept track of how long each game took, so that I'd know if a particular took me a long time, I'd be able to redo it for practice. After doing that for a while, I started to do multiple sections in a row, without taking a break. My plan was to work up to doing fully timed preptests without jumping right into them, as that seemed really intimidating.

I started with two or three sections in a row, worked it up to four (taking a break after the third), and after a week or two of that, started with the 5-section tests. I pulled random sections from older tests to use as experimentals. At this point, a full preptest will take up your prep for the day, and you should wait until later that day, or the next day, to carefully review your mistakes. When you review, make sure to go over all of the answers. You should be able to articulate why each and every wrong answer is wrong. Otherwise, you might fall for one of those tricks in the future. So take your time with reviewing - it's extremely important and should not be rushed. Some days, you'll have breakthroughs, some days you won't, but patience and consistency are key.

2. Yes. I'd recommend you follow a schedule like my own (3 months of 4-5 hours per day). I started with a 153 diagnostic and got a 175. I was preptesting between 173 and 176 at the time, as well. It will be intense, but it's doable if you're committed.

3. Hey, I don't know about all that :oops: My main pieces of advice are:

- treat studying for the LSAT like a part-time job; if you slack off, there's always going to work to make up, there will always be consequences
- for RC passages, try to make yourself interested in the material. It might sound corny, but it's incredibly useful advice. Staying engaged with the passage will help you absorb the information much easier. Another way to think about it is: explain the passage to yourself as you're reading it, as if you were explaining it to a friend.
- redo logic games that you struggled with
- if you hit a plateau with your score, figure out where you're still consistently losing points; re-assess your approach to those types of questions and drill them; don't lose hope, continue to be consistent
- if you suck at Parallel questions or they take you much longer than others, like 96% of LSAT takers, skip them and come back to them. All questions are worth the same amount, so you're better off doing questions that will take you less time
- if you hit a wall with a certain question, skip it; this may feel counterintuitive, but it will save you time and stress; managing stress levels is an important skill on this test, as it is a marathon
- if you feel your stress really building during a preptest (or practice) and can't concentrate because of it, stop and take some deep breaths; mindfulness/simple breathing exercises can be useful here
- once you start doing full preptests, simulate real test conditions. This includes eating a snack during the break. Try different snack combinations. FIND THE ULTIMATE SNACK. Feel free to caffeinate but don't over-caffeinate

User avatar
Blueprint Mithun
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:54 pm

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

Postby Blueprint Mithun » Sat May 28, 2016 9:35 pm

CPA-->JD wrote:Hey with 1.5 weeks to go my scores are ranging from 165-173. I am not getting any particular type of question consistently wrong and each section can vary wildly ( RC -1 - -5, LG -2- -7, LR -0 - -5).

Any advice for what I should focus on for the next 1.5 weeks?


Continue to do preptests and review them. Redo some logic games that gave you a lot of trouble in the past. If you've got a lot of spare preptests, go through the last 10-12 questions in each LR sections - those are the hard ones, and if you practice dealing mainly with those, you'll have an easier time with a regular section.

User avatar
O.J.
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:32 am

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

Postby O.J. » Sun May 29, 2016 3:41 pm

I'm about to start a Blueprint course at my university on the 12th. I have over a week off before then. I want to prep, despite the course suggesting I don't. Whats the best way to prep for the next ten days? I know it wont have a significant impact, but I want to get my head around some basics and drill while I wait. Thanks!

User avatar
New_Spice180
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 11:01 am

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

Postby New_Spice180 » Mon May 30, 2016 7:20 pm

Blueprint Mithun wrote:
CPA-->JD wrote:Hey with 1.5 weeks to go my scores are ranging from 165-173. I am not getting any particular type of question consistently wrong and each section can vary wildly ( RC -1 - -5, LG -2- -7, LR -0 - -5).

Any advice for what I should focus on for the next 1.5 weeks?


Continue to do preptests and review them. Redo some logic games that gave you a lot of trouble in the past. If you've got a lot of spare preptests, go through the last 10-12 questions in each LR sections - those are the hard ones, and if you practice dealing mainly with those, you'll have an easier time with a regular section.


Hey Mithun, I was drilling some flaw questions and I thought I had them down fairly well (during the period in which I was drilling them i was getting no more than 3 wrong per session), and suddenly I got a whopping -5 out of 15 questions. I don't know what happened, but I know that a lot of the questions had conditional reasoning. Should I be worried about this sudden drop in performance, especially since I wanted to move to Inference questions this week as well. What do you recommend I do: drill more or give it a break and move on?

Additionally, I had a huge problem with PT 22 section 2 question 25. Then after extensive review I finally found the obvious answer and the cause for the answer. I just get shaken when I this happens to me. I feel as though I should be getting these questions by now and then I get a result like this...It's a tad bit demoralizing...

Lastly, could you help me unravel PT 17 Section 3, Question 7?

Thanks

User avatar
Blueprint Mithun
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:54 pm

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

Postby Blueprint Mithun » Tue May 31, 2016 10:14 pm

O.J. wrote:I'm about to start a Blueprint course at my university on the 12th. I have over a week off before then. I want to prep, despite the course suggesting I don't. Whats the best way to prep for the next ten days? I know it wont have a significant impact, but I want to get my head around some basics and drill while I wait. Thanks!



Do you have the textbooks yet? If so, I'd recommend reading the first lesson, mainly to get an overview and to introduce yourself to diagramming conditional reasoning. This is an important concept that you'll need to master for the test - I've seen a fair amount of Blueprint students shirk doing the work to master it up front, and they struggle later, attempting to get through the test without diagramming in situations where it could help a lot.

If not, maybe browse some of the study guides on here. There's a sticky guide on the LSAT forum linking to a lot of them. If anything, they'll give you some good perspective on what to expect going into prepping.

User avatar
Blueprint Mithun
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:54 pm

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

Postby Blueprint Mithun » Tue May 31, 2016 10:29 pm

New_Spice180 wrote:
Blueprint Mithun wrote:
CPA-->JD wrote:Hey with 1.5 weeks to go my scores are ranging from 165-173. I am not getting any particular type of question consistently wrong and each section can vary wildly ( RC -1 - -5, LG -2- -7, LR -0 - -5).

Any advice for what I should focus on for the next 1.5 weeks?


Continue to do preptests and review them. Redo some logic games that gave you a lot of trouble in the past. If you've got a lot of spare preptests, go through the last 10-12 questions in each LR sections - those are the hard ones, and if you practice dealing mainly with those, you'll have an easier time with a regular section.


Hey Mithun, I was drilling some flaw questions and I thought I had them down fairly well (during the period in which I was drilling them i was getting no more than 3 wrong per session), and suddenly I got a whopping -5 out of 15 questions. I don't know what happened, but I know that a lot of the questions had conditional reasoning. Should I be worried about this sudden drop in performance, especially since I wanted to move to Inference questions this week as well. What do you recommend I do: drill more or give it a break and move on?

Additionally, I had a huge problem with PT 22 section 2 question 25. Then after extensive review I finally found the obvious answer and the cause for the answer. I just get shaken when I this happens to me. I feel as though I should be getting these questions by now and then I get a result like this...It's a tad bit demoralizing...

Lastly, could you help me unravel PT 17 Section 3, Question 7?

Thanks


If you're struggling or feeling unconfident about conditional reasoning, it's never a bad idea to review the concepts. This article does a great job, you may have seen it before: http://www.top-law-schools.com/conditio ... oning.html

Not every batch of questions is the same, and not every day is the same either. You're gonna have some days when you do worse than others, or you do worse than you expected. It happened to me while prepping, and it happens to everyone. You can't get every occurrence like that get to you - try and have some thicker skin!

P17, S3, Q7 is a Flaw question, but it asks us to describe the flaw being pointed out by the critic in particular. The critic claims that the second result of the advocate's proposal, creating caps on campaign contributions, would force politicians to spend MORE time soliciting money, since each individual contribution will be smaller. This works against the first result - that politicians would have to spend less time fundraising. So answer choice (C) works, as it states that one projected result works against the other.

P.S. Nice JoJo avatar.

User avatar
O.J.
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:32 am

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

Postby O.J. » Tue May 31, 2016 11:33 pm

Blueprint Mithun wrote:
O.J. wrote:I'm about to start a Blueprint course at my university on the 12th. I have over a week off before then. I want to prep, despite the course suggesting I don't. Whats the best way to prep for the next ten days? I know it wont have a significant impact, but I want to get my head around some basics and drill while I wait. Thanks!



Do you have the textbooks yet? If so, I'd recommend reading the first lesson, mainly to get an overview and to introduce yourself to diagramming conditional reasoning. This is an important concept that you'll need to master for the test - I've seen a fair amount of Blueprint students shirk doing the work to master it up front, and they struggle later, attempting to get through the test without diagramming in situations where it could help a lot.

If not, maybe browse some of the study guides on here. There's a sticky guide on the LSAT forum linking to a lot of them. If anything, they'll give you some good perspective on what to expect going into prepping.


I do, got the textbooks a couple days ago. I'll just start the lessons early I suppose. Thanks!

User avatar
New_Spice180
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 11:01 am

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

Postby New_Spice180 » Wed Jun 01, 2016 8:27 am

Hey Mithun, I was drilling some flaw questions and I thought I had them down fairly well (during the period in which I was drilling them i was getting no more than 3 wrong per session), and suddenly I got a whopping -5 out of 15 questions. I don't know what happened, but I know that a lot of the questions had conditional reasoning. Should I be worried about this sudden drop in performance, especially since I wanted to move to Inference questions this week as well. What do you recommend I do: drill more or give it a break and move on?

Additionally, I had a huge problem with PT 22 section 2 question 25. Then after extensive review I finally found the obvious answer and the cause for the answer. I just get shaken when I this happens to me. I feel as though I should be getting these questions by now and then I get a result like this...It's a tad bit demoralizing...

Lastly, could you help me unravel PT 17 Section 3, Question 7?

Thanks


If you're struggling or feeling unconfident about conditional reasoning, it's never a bad idea to review the concepts. This article does a great job, you may have seen it before: http://www.top-law-schools.com/conditio ... oning.html

Not every batch of questions is the same, and not every day is the same either. You're gonna have some days when you do worse than others, or you do worse than you expected. It happened to me while prepping, and it happens to everyone. You can't get every occurrence like that get to you - try and have some thicker skin!

P17, S3, Q7 is a Flaw question, but it asks us to describe the flaw being pointed out by the critic in particular. The critic claims that the second result of the advocate's proposal, creating caps on campaign contributions, would force politicians to spend MORE time soliciting money, since each individual contribution will be smaller. This works against the first result - that politicians would have to spend less time fundraising. So answer choice (C) works, as it states that one projected result works against the other.

P.S. Nice JoJo avatar.


Haha thanks! I think my greater problem is a lack of self trust even though I know answers for instance, I'll drill know an answer is right, but then I have the urge to go back reevaluate which sometimes leads me astray. You're right though I need to trust myself more and stand my ground self-study is hard, but rewarded when met with consistency and hard work.

User avatar
New_Spice180
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 11:01 am

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

Postby New_Spice180 » Mon Jun 06, 2016 2:25 pm

Hey Mithun quick question,

I was using the Blueprint RC reader today and I found that on one of the passages (October 2003 Passage 2) I was having a hard time identifying what the book identified to be the "author's conclusion." I though the last claim in the final paragraph (starting with [n]onetheless) was the overarching main point. What are some tips to further narrow down on the author's conclusion in this/RC overall.... Strangely enough I only missed one question on this passage.... :shock:

User avatar
Blueprint Mithun
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:54 pm

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

Postby Blueprint Mithun » Mon Jun 06, 2016 5:28 pm

Hello,

I have seen on several threads that you have been very helpful with many posts and questions, and I thought I'd ask you a question myself. Which PT do you recommend I study/give priority to? Later tests? Earlier tests? I currently have PT 72-74, do you think it's ok to take these 3 tests first? I'm only wanting to do that since I already have them with me.

I will begin my full-time LSAT studying this Monday and I would like to purchase as many PT's in order to be ready to take them after reviewing for a week or two.

I understand you have your hands full, but I'd greatly appreciate a response from you whenever possible. Thanks in advance!


I think you should save those three tests for later on in your prep. The more recent the test, the closer it will be to the style of the test that you will sit for, so these three will serve as good indicators of your score if you take them late in the game. If you really want to, take one after a few weeks to get a sense of what the modern test is like.

Have you worked through any prep books or a course yet? It's important to learn the material before focusing on preptesting.

User avatar
Blueprint Mithun
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:54 pm

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

Postby Blueprint Mithun » Mon Jun 06, 2016 5:58 pm

New_Spice180 wrote:Hey Mithun quick question,

I was using the Blueprint RC reader today and I found that on one of the passages (October 2003 Passage 2) I was having a hard time identifying what the book identified to be the "author's conclusion." I though the last claim in the final paragraph (starting with [n]onetheless) was the overarching main point. What are some tips to further narrow down on the author's conclusion in this/RC overall.... Strangely enough I only missed one question on this passage.... :shock:


While that last sentence is definitely important to the passage, I think it's a bit too narrow to encompass the entirety of the author's conclusion. Yes, he didn't abandon his commitment to racial issues, but that's just one aspect of the whole story. The passage also spends a lot of time describing his use of European verse forms and the varied critical reception to this, along with his belief that these forms and his political stances were compatible.

When you're trying to describe the author's conclusion, don't assume that one sentence in the passage will encompass it. Practice formulating it yourself, in your own words. Ask yourself - what was the author try to get across? What was the purpose of all this information that he/she gave us?

User avatar
New_Spice180
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 11:01 am

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

Postby New_Spice180 » Thu Jun 09, 2016 10:15 am

I have another fairly tricky question which comes from PT 29 section question 6. I was able to get the answer correct, however, I have an issue with the shift that the question makes from "heart attack" to heart disease. First, wouldn't it be a mistake to equivocate and say they are the same thing? I feel like that's what answer E does, although there is mention of the influence that smoking, drinking, and exercise's effect on cholesterol, the relation we are given is between heart attacks not heart disease. I figured this was the best answer given the premises but I was very skeptical on answering this question based on the change of language from heart attack to heart disease.

Did I make the right judgment call in deciding to equate the risk of heart attack with heart disease? (I know, I know, I'm a guy who thinks about one question way to much, but I must know what's going on!)

User avatar
Blueprint Mithun
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:54 pm

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

Postby Blueprint Mithun » Tue Jun 14, 2016 4:54 pm

New_Spice180 wrote:I have another fairly tricky question which comes from PT 29 section question 6. I was able to get the answer correct, however, I have an issue with the shift that the question makes from "heart attack" to heart disease. First, wouldn't it be a mistake to equivocate and say they are the same thing? I feel like that's what answer E does, although there is mention of the influence that smoking, drinking, and exercise's effect on cholesterol, the relation we are given is between heart attacks not heart disease. I figured this was the best answer given the premises but I was very skeptical on answering this question based on the change of language from heart attack to heart disease.

Did I make the right judgment call in deciding to equate the risk of heart attack with heart disease? (I know, I know, I'm a guy who thinks about one question way to much, but I must know what's going on!)



Actually, I'm impressed that you picked up on that subtle shift. I didn't notice it myself until you pointed it out. It is definitely a form of equivocation, and in this case, I believe an example of poor question writing. Shame on you, LSAC. By saying that the issue is "pertinent," they do relate heart attacks to heart disease, but as we know, heart attacks can certainly occur independently of whether someone has heart disease. So the relationship of cholesterol to heart attacks doesn't necessarily carry over to heart disease.

That being said, I think E is the only viable answer here. A, C, and D are all unsupported no matter how you look at the stimulus, and B is contrary to the facts. You did make the right judgment call here, good job!

User avatar
New_Spice180
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 11:01 am

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

Postby New_Spice180 » Wed Jun 15, 2016 9:20 am

Blueprint Mithun wrote:
New_Spice180 wrote:I have another fairly tricky question which comes from PT 29 section question 6. I was able to get the answer correct, however, I have an issue with the shift that the question makes from "heart attack" to heart disease. First, wouldn't it be a mistake to equivocate and say they are the same thing? I feel like that's what answer E does, although there is mention of the influence that smoking, drinking, and exercise's effect on cholesterol, the relation we are given is between heart attacks not heart disease. I figured this was the best answer given the premises but I was very skeptical on answering this question based on the change of language from heart attack to heart disease.

Did I make the right judgment call in deciding to equate the risk of heart attack with heart disease? (I know, I know, I'm a guy who thinks about one question way to much, but I must know what's going on!)



Actually, I'm impressed that you picked up on that subtle shift. I didn't notice it myself until you pointed it out. It is definitely a form of equivocation, and in this case, I believe an example of poor question writing. Shame on you, LSAC. By saying that the issue is "pertinent," they do relate heart attacks to heart disease, but as we know, heart attacks can certainly occur independently of whether someone has heart disease. So the relationship of cholesterol to heart attacks doesn't necessarily carry over to heart disease.

That being said, I think E is the only viable answer here. A, C, and D are all unsupported no matter how you look at the stimulus, and B is contrary to the facts. You did make the right judgment call here, good job!



Yeah what an odd way to word a equivocate, but I guess that's why they say don't make "common sense" guesses on the LSAT. I even went as far to ask my mother, who's a medical doctor, about whether we can consider heart attack and heart disease the same thing...This question taught me well though! Thanks Mithun!


Return to “Free Help and Advice from Professionals”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest