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
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 » Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:41 pm

Hey Mithun,

I'm coming back for more advice, particularly because I've taken another timed section after heavy review, and I'm finding it hard to push myself mentally without compromising my accuracy. I feel as though I know the means of attacking each respective logical reasoning type, but maybe I need to internalize the process more, and if so would it be advisable to do that while I'm timing myself or should I drill more? It's really frustrating not seeing the gains in terms of speed that you would like especially after drilling for some time...

User avatar
proteinshake
Posts: 2622
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 12:20 pm

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

Postby proteinshake » Sun Aug 14, 2016 9:21 am

caught a huge mistake on BP RC, pages 226-227:

the answer is A, not E (https://lsathacks.com/explanations/lsat ... nsion/q-9/). if Bearden differentiated himself from protesting painting by revealing individual suffering, then this implies that protest painting depicted group suffering (A).

since this is the case, the explanation on page 227 is also wrong.

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 Aug 24, 2016 2:22 am

bp,

isn't 76.lr2.24 a defective question? it asks for a necessary assumption but "none" in the credited choice D is more than necessary. That the students who are least enthusiastic about science and who received the passing grade are not the most committed is necessary. But choice D says that students who are least enthusiastic are not the most committed is necessary. So the choice D is a superset of what is indeed necessary.

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 Sep 05, 2016 4:22 pm

appind wrote:bp,

isn't 76.lr2.24 a defective question? it asks for a necessary assumption but "none" in the credited choice D is more than necessary. That the students who are least enthusiastic about science and who received the passing grade are not the most committed is necessary. But choice D says that students who are least enthusiastic are not the most committed is necessary. So the choice D is a superset of what is indeed necessary.


I looked at it, and I actually agree with you here. D goes a step beyond what is necessary.

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 Sep 05, 2016 4:29 pm

proteinshake wrote:caught a huge mistake on BP RC, pages 226-227:

the answer is A, not E (https://lsathacks.com/explanations/lsat ... nsion/q-9/). if Bearden differentiated himself from protesting painting by revealing individual suffering, then this implies that protest painting depicted group suffering (A).

since this is the case, the explanation on page 227 is also wrong.



Meant to respond to this earlier, but thanks for pointing that out. It's been noted!

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 » Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:44 pm

Blueprint Mithun wrote:
appind wrote:bp,

isn't 76.lr2.24 a defective question? it asks for a necessary assumption but "none" in the credited choice D is more than necessary. That the students who are least enthusiastic about science and who received the passing grade are not the most committed is necessary. But choice D says that students who are least enthusiastic are not the most committed is necessary. So the choice D is a superset of what is indeed necessary.


I looked at it, and I actually agree with you here. D goes a step beyond what is necessary.


so, this means the question is faulty, correct? lsac should agree that item is flawed, how does that impact their official pt and the scores they awarded for this administration?

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 Sep 05, 2016 4:53 pm

appind wrote:
Blueprint Mithun wrote:
appind wrote:bp,

isn't 76.lr2.24 a defective question? it asks for a necessary assumption but "none" in the credited choice D is more than necessary. That the students who are least enthusiastic about science and who received the passing grade are not the most committed is necessary. But choice D says that students who are least enthusiastic are not the most committed is necessary. So the choice D is a superset of what is indeed necessary.


I looked at it, and I actually agree with you here. D goes a step beyond what is necessary.


so, this means the question is faulty, correct? lsac should agree that item is flawed, how does that impact their official pt and the scores they awarded for this administration?


Well seeing as the question wasn't redacted for the release of the practice test, which usually happens for questions deemed faulty, it sounds like they messed up. I haven't heard anything about this particular preptest, so I'm guessing they've done...nothing.

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 Sep 06, 2016 10:44 am

So this question stumped me quite a bit. First and foremost, the SuperPrep explanations do not do well in explaining the conditional relationships given. Additionally, I'm trying to make the connection between the first premise/conditional statement to how we arrive at AC-B stating that economic growth should not be pursued if there is loss of biodiversity.

First premise: we can increase agricultural production + not loosing biodiversity----> only if we abandon conventional agriculture.

Second Premise(?) if we choose to sustain economic growth---> we must increase agricultural production

Conclusion: If we choose to sustain economic growth ---> we must modify agricultural techniques (in order to make further sense of the argument I equated "abandoning conventional agriculture" with "radically modifying agricultural techniques."

My problem is I do not understand how biodiversity is a must to justify this argument. The relationship between increasing agricultural production could indeed be sufficient for the necessary clause "radically modify agricultural techniques" to occur.

This question gave me a run for my money, help from the wise minds of TLS is indeed appreciated.

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 Sep 08, 2016 1:29 pm

.

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 Sep 08, 2016 3:44 pm

New_Spice180 wrote:So this question stumped me quite a bit. First and foremost, the SuperPrep explanations do not do well in explaining the conditional relationships given. Additionally, I'm trying to make the connection between the first premise/conditional statement to how we arrive at AC-B stating that economic growth should not be pursued if there is loss of biodiversity.

First premise: we can increase agricultural production + not loosing biodiversity----> only if we abandon conventional agriculture.

Second Premise(?) if we choose to sustain economic growth---> we must increase agricultural production

Conclusion: If we choose to sustain economic growth ---> we must modify agricultural techniques (in order to make further sense of the argument I equated "abandoning conventional agriculture" with "radically modifying agricultural techniques."

My problem is I do not understand how biodiversity is a must to justify this argument. The relationship between increasing agricultural production could indeed be sufficient for the necessary clause "radically modify agricultural techniques" to occur.

This question gave me a run for my money, help from the wise minds of TLS is indeed appreciated.



Which question is this?

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 Sep 08, 2016 3:50 pm

Blueprint Mithun wrote:
New_Spice180 wrote:So this question stumped me quite a bit. First and foremost, the SuperPrep explanations do not do well in explaining the conditional relationships given. Additionally, I'm trying to make the connection between the first premise/conditional statement to how we arrive at AC-B stating that economic growth should not be pursued if there is loss of biodiversity.

First premise: we can increase agricultural production + not loosing biodiversity----> only if we abandon conventional agriculture.

Second Premise(?) if we choose to sustain economic growth---> we must increase agricultural production

Conclusion: If we choose to sustain economic growth ---> we must modify agricultural techniques (in order to make further sense of the argument I equated "abandoning conventional agriculture" with "radically modifying agricultural techniques."

My problem is I do not understand how biodiversity is a must to justify this argument. The relationship between increasing agricultural production could indeed be sufficient for the necessary clause "radically modify agricultural techniques" to occur.

This question gave me a run for my money, help from the wise minds of TLS is indeed appreciated.



Which question is this?

Super Prep Test C, Section 2, Question 24.

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 Sep 29, 2016 6:14 pm

Quick question on pt 40, S1, Q10. I was checking on how best to answer this question being the difference or the "misinterpretation" is hard to see? This type of question would be relatively hard to pinpoint the difference during a timed section. I understand why B is the answer but I really had problems with the question type/zeroing in on how to find exactly what Olaf misinterpreted. I ended up choosing E.

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 Sep 29, 2016 8:38 pm

New_Spice180 wrote:Quick question on pt 40, S1, Q10. I was checking on how best to answer this question being the difference or the "misinterpretation" is hard to see? This type of question would be relatively hard to pinpoint the difference during a timed section. I understand why B is the answer but I really had problems with the question type/zeroing in on how to find exactly what Olaf misinterpreted. I ended up choosing E.


When you are asked to break down a misinterpretation of an argument, think of the response as a flawed argument. The second speaker was trying to disprove the first, but for some reason, he missed the mark. First of all, it's important to have a strong understanding of what the first speaker is arguing for. In this case, Charlene is claiming that using microbes for environmental cleanup is limited because they become less active when the temperature in the region drops below normal.

When you analyze the responder's argument, pay attention to what they are focusing on in their rebuttal. In Olaf's case, he focuses on temperature. His argument is essentially that, because microbes in two different extreme weather conditions eat oil at the same rate, the idea that they become less active when temperatures are below normal is false.

E is definitely a tempting answer choice, because Olaf seems to be claiming that microbes are NOT less active in certain conditions. But if you think about, he doesn't misinterpret the meaning of 'active' - in fact, he grasps it well, as they are both talking about the rate at which microbes contribute to environmental cleanup. So even though the word active was related to his flaw, he understood Charlene's context for that word, which is what we're really examining.

Olaf's flaw is that he misinterprets the meaning of "temperatures below normal." Charlene is talking about when a region's temperature drops below its typical range. For example, if the temperature fell to 10 degrees below the average in Alaska, the microbes there would become less active. She isn't saying that microbes are less active in extreme temperatures. In fact, if those extreme temperatures are typical for that region, it's perfectly logical that the microbes there are adapted to those conditions and would consume oil at a normal rate.

I think these types of questions can be deceptively hard, because it's usually not enough to just get a sense of where the error in the rebuttal lies. You have to ask yourself what each speaker's context for that specific word or phrase is, and whether they match up.

Hope that helps!

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 Sep 29, 2016 8:48 pm

By the way, I recently wrote a blog post over at Blueprint's blog, Most Strongly Supported, detailing my prep journey. It might be useful and/or inspiring for some of you, so give it a read. Feel free to ask me any questions about it, too!

https://blueprintlsat.com/lsatblog/lsat ... lvaratnam/

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 » Fri Sep 30, 2016 11:58 am

Blueprint Mithun wrote:
New_Spice180 wrote:Quick question on pt 40, S1, Q10. I was checking on how best to answer this question being the difference or the "misinterpretation" is hard to see? This type of question would be relatively hard to pinpoint the difference during a timed section. I understand why B is the answer but I really had problems with the question type/zeroing in on how to find exactly what Olaf misinterpreted. I ended up choosing E.


When you are asked to break down a misinterpretation of an argument, think of the response as a flawed argument. The second speaker was trying to disprove the first, but for some reason, he missed the mark. First of all, it's important to have a strong understanding of what the first speaker is arguing for. In this case, Charlene is claiming that using microbes for environmental cleanup is limited because they become less active when the temperature in the region drops below normal.

When you analyze the responder's argument, pay attention to what they are focusing on in their rebuttal. In Olaf's case, he focuses on temperature. His argument is essentially that, because microbes in two different extreme weather conditions eat oil at the same rate, the idea that they become less active when temperatures are below normal is false.

E is definitely a tempting answer choice, because Olaf seems to be claiming that microbes are NOT less active in certain conditions. But if you think about, he doesn't misinterpret the meaning of 'active' - in fact, he grasps it well, as they are both talking about the rate at which microbes contribute to environmental cleanup. So even though the word active was related to his flaw, he understood Charlene's context for that word, which is what we're really examining.

Olaf's flaw is that he misinterprets the meaning of "temperatures below normal." Charlene is talking about when a region's temperature drops below its typical range. For example, if the temperature fell to 10 degrees below the average in Alaska, the microbes there would become less active. She isn't saying that microbes are less active in extreme temperatures. In fact, if those extreme temperatures are typical for that region, it's perfectly logical that the microbes there are adapted to those conditions and would consume oil at a normal rate.

I think these types of questions can be deceptively hard, because it's usually not enough to just get a sense of where the error in the rebuttal lies. You have to ask yourself what each speaker's context for that specific word or phrase is, and whether they match up.

Hope that helps!


Absolutely crystal! Do you know of any other questions that mirror this one? I'd like to practice a few of these so I can get used to the process. Lastly, if you could elucidate why answer E is incorrect on PT 40 S1 Q16 that would be great. I'm thinking that this is wrong because it appears to be a restatement of the given information/conditional relationship contraposed. Furthermore, we can remove this answer choice because of the fact that, when negated, it puts into question some of the given relationships in the stimulus thereby effectively weakening the premise and not the core per se. Lastly, we can say it's wrong simply because of the scope we need an assumption that is required and being given information about countries that do indeed have "free elections or open criticism" doesn't give us what is required.

My problem with this is that when you do contrapose the entire relationship given with the assumption you get something close to question E and I really want to make sure my reasoning above is correct and concretely why we cannot choose answer E.

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 Oct 01, 2016 12:03 pm

New_Spice180 wrote:
Absolutely crystal! Do you know of any other questions that mirror this one? I'd like to practice a few of these so I can get used to the process. Lastly, if you could elucidate why answer E is incorrect on PT 40 S1 Q16 that would be great. I'm thinking that this is wrong because it appears to be a restatement of the given information/conditional relationship contraposed. Furthermore, we can remove this answer choice because of the fact that, when negated, it puts into question some of the given relationships in the stimulus thereby effectively weakening the premise and not the core per se. Lastly, we can say it's wrong simply because of the scope we need an assumption that is required and being given information about countries that do indeed have "free elections or open criticism" doesn't give us what is required.

My problem with this is that when you do contrapose the entire relationship given with the assumption you get something close to question E and I really want to make sure my reasoning above is correct and concretely why we cannot choose answer E.



E says that "civil disorder does not generally occur in countries that have either free elections or a free press."

The conclusion that we're examining here states that when people tend not to understand the purpose of restrictions on their behavior, civil disorder is more likely. Hopefully, "not understanding the purpose of restrictions" jumped out at you, because that was something totally new that wasn't mentioned in the premises.

The problem with E is that it doesn't really tell us anything about the group that we're focused on. We don't know for certain that people who don't understand the purpose of restrictions are the same who live in countries without free elections or a free press. And if those groups were linked, E tells us about what tends not to happen in countries that DO have free elections or a free press. We can't infer that civil disorder is more likely in countries without a free press/elections just because it is rare in those countries that DO have it.

Examhacker1
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2016 11:44 am

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

Postby Examhacker1 » Sat Oct 08, 2016 1:09 pm

A couple of necessary assumption questions, non PT questions, stumped me. Not able to find any markers after drilling down here. any help is appreciated.

1. Country X imposes heavy tariffs on imported manufactured goods. Company Y has determined that it could increase its profits in the long term by opening a factory in Country X to manufacture the goods that it currently produces in its home country for sale in Country X.

For Company Y's determination to be true, which of the following assumptions must also be true?

(A) Company Y will be able to obtain all the necessary permits to open a factory in Country X.

(C) A sustainable market for Company Y's goods currently exists in Country X.

2. In response to the increasing cost of producing energy through traditional means, such as combustion, many utility companies have begun investing in renewable energy sources, chiefly wind and solar power, hoping someday to rely on them completely and thus lower energy costs. The utility companies claim that although these sources require significant initial capital investment, they will provide stable energy supplies at low cost. As a result, these sources will be less risky for the utilities than nonrenewable sources, such as gas, oil, and coal, whose prices can fluctuate dramatically according to availability.

(C) Weather patterns are consistent and predictable.

(E) Obtaining energy from nonrenewable sources, such as gas, oil and coal, cannot be made less risky.

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 Oct 12, 2016 9:03 pm

Examhacker1 wrote:A couple of necessary assumption questions, non PT questions, stumped me. Not able to find any markers after drilling down here. any help is appreciated.

1. Country X imposes heavy tariffs on imported manufactured goods. Company Y has determined that it could increase its profits in the long term by opening a factory in Country X to manufacture the goods that it currently produces in its home country for sale in Country X.

For Company Y's determination to be true, which of the following assumptions must also be true?

(A) Company Y will be able to obtain all the necessary permits to open a factory in Country X.

(C) A sustainable market for Company Y's goods currently exists in Country X.

2. In response to the increasing cost of producing energy through traditional means, such as combustion, many utility companies have begun investing in renewable energy sources, chiefly wind and solar power, hoping someday to rely on them completely and thus lower energy costs. The utility companies claim that although these sources require significant initial capital investment, they will provide stable energy supplies at low cost. As a result, these sources will be less risky for the utilities than nonrenewable sources, such as gas, oil, and coal, whose prices can fluctuate dramatically according to availability.

(C) Weather patterns are consistent and predictable.

(E) Obtaining energy from nonrenewable sources, such as gas, oil and coal, cannot be made less risky.



Hey, thanks for posting your questions here!

Since these are necessary assumption questions, the thing we should be asking ourselves is: is this statement absolutely necessary for the conclusion to be true? Anything short of that is not a valid answer.

It's very helpful to first be as clear as possible on the conclusion of the argument. In question 1, we need an assumption that must be true if Country Y can indeed increase its long-term profits by opening a factory in Country X.

Looking at (A), ask yourself if its necessary that Y will be able to obtain all the necessary permits to open such a factory. If this wasn't true, i.e. if Y was NOT able to obtain all the necessary permits, then there's no way that their plan to increase profits could work. The plan hinges on opening a factory in country X - without the necessary permits to do so, the entire thing falls apart.

What we did just there was something called the negation test. Once you've narrowed down a necessary assumption question to 2 or 3 possible answers, negate those statements and see if they now make the conclusion invalid. If one of them does, that is your correct answer, because you've essentially just proved that it is necessary.

Now look at (C). If a sustainable market for those goods existed, then that would definitely be a good thing for Y's chances of turning a profit. But is it absolutely necessary?

It isn't. For one thing, even if a sustainable market for those goods doesn't currently exist, it may exist in the future. And since Y's plan is that it could increase long-term profits, it could be totally fine that there's no sustainable market for those goods right now.

C is definitely a tempting answer because it is relevant to Y's plan, but it isn't actually necessary for making that conclusion.

---

Regarding #2, can you post the question prompt? I'd like to see its exact wording before diving into that one. And are you sure that those are the only two possible correct answers? If not, please post the other ones.

thelegendaryg
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:42 pm

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

Postby thelegendaryg » Thu Oct 20, 2016 4:09 pm

Hi,

I had a more general question about taking the December exam.

I'm a Blueprint in-person course LSAT student. I self-studied this June for about 2 months (just familiarizing myself with the material by reading through self-study guides slowly) and started doing a ton of practice tests during the summer (July, August, September). So far I've done almost 30.

However, I think I studied wrong originally because I jumped straight from reading about the content of the LSAT to doing practice tests (no drills or timed sections in between). I studied full-time over the summer, just cranking out practice tests and reviewing them; that was my only method of study. I ended up consistently with scores in the mid-150's, which would not budge. Now I am taking the Blueprint course, which I love.

I'm aiming for a score over 160 for my first choice school; I heard that I should be consistently scoring around 163-165 to give myself some leeway points (in case of nerves) on the actual test. I'm still scoring on the high 150's (so I've improved, but not by much over the course of several months). I have yet to get over 160. My scores are not that consistent.

What I do now: I take 1 test per week, review it methodically, note any specific question types I get wrong. Then 3 days per week I drill logic games (weakest section), then 1 day drill my weakest question types for LR, 1 day RC sections. I also attend all classes and do all homework.

3 questions: 1) Is my INCREDIBLY slow progress, over the course of several months, typical? If not, what do you think I'm doing wrong to not be getting the progress I want (over a 160's score?)

2) Any suggestions for how I should be studying now?

3) Should I take the December exam, or wait until the next admissions cycle when I can consistently score over the 160's?

Thanks in advance!

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 Oct 20, 2016 5:26 pm

If I could get an explanation on PT 41 Q23 this one is certainly a doozy. Some explanations are giving me conditionals others are giving bi conditionals. How do I breakdown this stim? 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 » Wed Oct 26, 2016 12:43 pm

thelegendaryg wrote:Hi,

I had a more general question about taking the December exam.

I'm a Blueprint in-person course LSAT student. I self-studied this June for about 2 months (just familiarizing myself with the material by reading through self-study guides slowly) and started doing a ton of practice tests during the summer (July, August, September). So far I've done almost 30.

However, I think I studied wrong originally because I jumped straight from reading about the content of the LSAT to doing practice tests (no drills or timed sections in between). I studied full-time over the summer, just cranking out practice tests and reviewing them; that was my only method of study. I ended up consistently with scores in the mid-150's, which would not budge. Now I am taking the Blueprint course, which I love.

I'm aiming for a score over 160 for my first choice school; I heard that I should be consistently scoring around 163-165 to give myself some leeway points (in case of nerves) on the actual test. I'm still scoring on the high 150's (so I've improved, but not by much over the course of several months). I have yet to get over 160. My scores are not that consistent.

What I do now: I take 1 test per week, review it methodically, note any specific question types I get wrong. Then 3 days per week I drill logic games (weakest section), then 1 day drill my weakest question types for LR, 1 day RC sections. I also attend all classes and do all homework.

3 questions: 1) Is my INCREDIBLY slow progress, over the course of several months, typical? If not, what do you think I'm doing wrong to not be getting the progress I want (over a 160's score?)

2) Any suggestions for how I should be studying now?

3) Should I take the December exam, or wait until the next admissions cycle when I can consistently score over the 160's?

Thanks in advance!



Hi! I'm glad you've been liking the course. I'm also glad that you realized that jumping straight into practice tests from reading prep books wasn't a good idea. Unless you drill each question type and section carefully, you'll never get a chance to practice the strategies that you picked up from those books. This process is how those strategies become second nature to you, allowing you to eventually work through sections and entire practice tests without stopping to consider how you'll approach each question type.

It sounds like you've been doing plenty of work since starting the course. I'd say keep up your current schedule and give it time. You're probably learning a lot, even if your scores haven't reflected that to the extent that you want them to. You've also yet to cover all the material on the course - if you can master some of the later heavy hitters like Flaw, Assumption, and Strengthen/Weaken questions, and also get plenty of experience doing advanced grouping games and combo games, not only will your score go up, but some of the other question types may seem easier to handle.

Has your class taken the second practice test yet? A lot of students get disappointed because they don't see a significant score difference between that and their first PT before lesson 1. But this is really common, and totally fine - it's typically not until PTs 4-6 that students see a significant improvement.

I think you should keep aiming to take the December exam. You're close to your goal, and you'll probably see more improvement very soon. If you're still scoring under 160 with a week or two left before the exam, then you should considering postponing. But otherwise, I think your goal is very doable - keep pushing ahead!

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 Oct 26, 2016 12:52 pm

New_Spice180 wrote:If I could get an explanation on PT 41 Q23 this one is certainly a doozy. Some explanations are giving me conditionals others are giving bi conditionals. How do I breakdown this stim? Thanks!


PT41...which section?

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 Oct 31, 2016 2:07 pm

Blueprint Mithun wrote:
New_Spice180 wrote:If I could get an explanation on PT 41 Q23 this one is certainly a doozy. Some explanations are giving me conditionals others are giving bi conditionals. How do I breakdown this stim? Thanks!


PT41...which section?


SORRY! Section 1.

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 » Sun Nov 06, 2016 2:21 pm

New_Spice180 wrote:
Blueprint Mithun wrote:
New_Spice180 wrote:If I could get an explanation on PT 41 Q23 this one is certainly a doozy. Some explanations are giving me conditionals others are giving bi conditionals. How do I breakdown this stim? Thanks!


PT41...which section?


SORRY! Section 1.


So this is a parallel flaw question, which I rarely diagram unless the language of the stimulus explicitly calls for it. So let's try and break down the general flaw.

The speaker is saying that perception can't be a relationship between a person and an object that makes people have beliefs about the object. The support for this is that there are objects that CAN'T be perceived about which people have beliefs. So the flaw here has to do with exclusivity. The speaker is mistakenly assuming that just because there are imperceptible objects about which people have beliefs, perception can't be centered around beliefs.

Answer choice (A) follows a really similar patterns, except in the place of perception and beliefs, we have art and aesthetic reactions. Just because we have aesthetic reactions to things that aren't art, doesn't mean that art can't be created for the purpose of causing an aesthetic reaction.

Hope that helps!

TXguy2016
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2016 5:05 pm

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

Postby TXguy2016 » Wed Nov 30, 2016 8:09 pm

Hello,

I was wondering is Blueprint planning on making a book for the LR section of the exam? If so, do you know a general timeframe as to when it might be released?

Thanks


Return to “Free Help and Advice from Professionals”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ac8876a, Anon.y.mousse., ThatOneAfrican and 2 guests