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
bp shinners
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby bp shinners » Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:26 pm

sdwarrior403 wrote:PT 66 section 3 #10 amino acid question. Why couldnt it be b? I made a thread about it but no takers.


In B, it doesn't deal with the main problem I know about the atmosphere of Earth at the time - it was hostile to amino acids. I know that they would be hard to form, and when they did form, they quickly broke apart. B tells me that all I needed was one to result in life, but the LSAT assumes you know that a single amino acid doesn't magically create all life on planet Earth. That amino acid would have to survive for a little bit. In early Earth's atmosphere, it wouldn't have survived very long.

So while it's much easier to form one amino acid than it is to form a whole bunch, and I know that amino acids could form in a non-reducing atmosphere, they wouldn't survive long enough to populate a planet.

User avatar
bp shinners
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby bp shinners » Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:09 pm

Open for business. Takin' care of business. Other business-related things.

AAyala
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 2:50 pm

Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby AAyala » Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:13 pm

Hey BP!

Advice question: I have been stuck on lesson 9 and have been reviewing the stuff prior to that to get a better grasp to move on, which has put me behind. With the October LSAT approaching, will there be a sufficient amount of time to finish the course and do well enough on the LSAT?

Also, I am registered for the Dec. LSAT as a back up :)

User avatar
bp shinners
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby bp shinners » Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:23 pm

AAyala wrote:Hey BP!

Advice question: I have been stuck on lesson 9 and have been reviewing the stuff prior to that to get a better grasp to move on, which has put me behind. With the October LSAT approaching, will there be a sufficient amount of time to finish the course and do well enough on the LSAT?

Also, I am registered for the Dec. LSAT as a back up :)


If you're still on lesson 9, you'd have to kick it into high gear for the rest of your prep time in order to make it through the entire course by the time the test rolls arounds. However, you can definitely make it through the remaining fresh material - that only goes through lesson 13. 14-16 and the clinics are review.

Is that ideal? No - there are a lot of concepts that you'll be rusty on since you haven't practiced them for awhile. Diagramming MBT questions, for instance. But getting through all the material at least once is absolutely imperative to prep, so focus on that (at a minimum) for October.

However, for December, you have plenty of time! Get through the lessons for October so that you can focus on review/refinement for December.

Good luck!

AAyala
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 2:50 pm

Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby AAyala » Tue Sep 18, 2012 6:51 pm

Sounds great. If I take the Oct. LSAT and get below what I am looking for, but take the Dec. and get what I am looking for--will that be ok in the law school admissions POV?

I have experienced a jump from my 151 cold diagnostic to a 159/160; however, I am seeking at least a 165.

User avatar
bp shinners
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby bp shinners » Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:13 pm

AAyala wrote:Sounds great. If I take the Oct. LSAT and get below what I am looking for, but take the Dec. and get what I am looking for--will that be ok in the law school admissions POV?

I have experienced a jump from my 151 cold diagnostic to a 159/160; however, I am seeking at least a 165.


Oh that's awesome! Great job on the first 8-9 points.

As far as law schools go, policies for retakes vary. However, even the ones that say they take an average anecdotally consider the higher score. Most, however, will just take the highest. Especially if you've only retaken once.

rakeshow
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 5:26 pm

Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby rakeshow » Wed Sep 19, 2012 2:38 pm

hey bp,

this is a pretty random question but its just something that came across my mind recently.

do you have any particular insight into the curves? in your experience, can you take a PT and more or less know that its going to be a -10 curve or -14? also, do you know if the harder curves are due to 1 section in particular being a lot harder than normal? ie LG and both LR sections are on par with others and would warrant a -11 curve, but the one RC section was brutal and thus its -14? or is it more gradual and all 4 sections are harder, etc?

I only ask because while taking a PT, most feel around the same level of difficulty, and i am usually a bit surprised to see that its a -10 curve or a -14 (sometimes i find -10 ones to be harder than -14, for example)

User avatar
bp shinners
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby bp shinners » Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:31 pm

rakeshow wrote:hey bp,

this is a pretty random question but its just something that came across my mind recently.

do you have any particular insight into the curves? in your experience, can you take a PT and more or less know that its going to be a -10 curve or -14? also, do you know if the harder curves are due to 1 section in particular being a lot harder than normal? ie LG and both LR sections are on par with others and would warrant a -11 curve, but the one RC section was brutal and thus its -14? or is it more gradual and all 4 sections are harder, etc?

I only ask because while taking a PT, most feel around the same level of difficulty, and i am usually a bit surprised to see that its a -10 curve or a -14 (sometimes i find -10 ones to be harder than -14, for example)


Personally? I can't tell. I can't even really guess. I don't focus on it, though, because it's just a distraction that I don't need while working on problems.

timeless
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:07 am

Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby timeless » Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:44 am

Hey BP

Ive been doing well in games but i was surprised by its recent comeback. Even dino didnt feel so bad, but i was crushed on LG from PT 64 and 62. This was around two weeks ago so Ive been doing games in the 20s and 30s (the supposedly harder ones) and ive started doing the ones in the teens as well. I am planning to do the ones from 1-10 if possible.
Do you think this would be valuable (and hopefully practical too..) for arming myself for the difficulty of the more recent games? Of course, when doing the LG from 1-20, i am skipping those obviously odd ones (arranging alphabet, mixing chemicals....those ones that are obviously not going to come out on modern exams)

Thanks!!

User avatar
Captain Rodeo
Posts: 233
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 1:14 pm

Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby Captain Rodeo » Fri Sep 21, 2012 11:31 am

Hey BP- Hope you've got a good weekend planned. Thanks for doing this again. Quick general Q:

How often is formal logic tested in RC?

I see hypothetical syllogisms scattered around- but so far I don't think I've seen an LR-esque question in reference to that part of the passage.

Maybe this changes with later tests? I think I remember reading the later tests are more picky in that they require more attention to nit-picky detail- so I guess that would just be Identify questions?... what I like to call Hide and Seek questions.

Thanks! Oh- and I definitely have specific questions coming up in the future. Thanks so much for providing us with this spectacular resource!!

BillsFan9907
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:28 am

Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby BillsFan9907 » Fri Sep 21, 2012 12:14 pm

Hey BP, i found the 3rd game from PT 24 particularly challenging. Game 4 was also challenging, albeit a little less so.

How do these games rank in difficultly compared to more recent games?

User avatar
bp shinners
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby bp shinners » Fri Sep 21, 2012 12:15 pm

timeless wrote:Hey BP

Ive been doing well in games but i was surprised by its recent comeback. Even dino didnt feel so bad, but i was crushed on LG from PT 64 and 62. This was around two weeks ago so Ive been doing games in the 20s and 30s (the supposedly harder ones) and ive started doing the ones in the teens as well. I am planning to do the ones from 1-10 if possible.
Do you think this would be valuable (and hopefully practical too..) for arming myself for the difficulty of the more recent games? Of course, when doing the LG from 1-20, i am skipping those obviously odd ones (arranging alphabet, mixing chemicals....those ones that are obviously not going to come out on modern exams)

Thanks!!


I think any practice on questions from any 'era' of the LSAT is going to be helpful, so definitely yes.

My advice for the harder games is this: they require the same process to answer correctly, there's just a little more subtlety and a few more places to go wrong. So when you get to a tough game, don't change your game plan up. Do the same thing. Just be careful at each step. Spend a few extra seconds looking for deductions. Check each rule every time for real (I say do this for every question anyway, but I know some of you don't listen). Double check those Could Be True answers.

But yes, more practice from those PTs will definitely help.

User avatar
bp shinners
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby bp shinners » Fri Sep 21, 2012 12:20 pm

austinyo wrote:How often is formal logic tested in RC?


Depends on what you mean. The actual, formal logic itself is almost never tested on the RC section. They're not going to have you diagram stuff in order to form a new conclusion. If you see something that can be diagrammed, it's probably not going to be useful to do so.

However, diagrammable statements are very strong statements - 'only', 'always', etc... Very strong statements will often be asked about in questions. So knowing how to diagram them isn't important, but making a note that the author just spoke in absolutes is.

I see hypothetical syllogisms scattered around- but so far I don't think I've seen an LR-esque question in reference to that part of the passage.


I can't think of a single instance where there was a RC question that would have benefited from diagramming.

Maybe this changes with later tests? I think I remember reading the later tests are more picky in that they require more attention to nit-picky detail- so I guess that would just be Identify questions?... what I like to call Hide and Seek questions.


You'll read a lot about trends on recent tests around these parts, and I think for the most part it's a few individuals who felt a certain way causing the groupthink to move in a certain direction (like recent Games being more about plug-and-chug/brute force - I haven't found that to be the case at all).

The one trend that I do point out in RC is that they're getting logically 'tighter' with the questions. They used to be 97% of an LR question, where there might be a very little bit of wiggle room of uncertainty that made them not the same as LR. More recently, they've gotten better at making them straight up as solid as LR questions. That's good and bad. Good because it's easier to find a right answer when there's no wiggle room. Bad because they use the LR tricks to trick you in RC.

I wouldn't say it's necessarily small details of the passage that are important (at least, any more than they used to be) - more small details of the answer choices that make them wrong (the same way a single word will throw off a MBT answer choice).

User avatar
bp shinners
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby bp shinners » Fri Sep 21, 2012 12:31 pm

Seoulless wrote:Hey BP, i found the 3rd game from PT 24 particularly challenging. Game 4 was also challenging, albeit a little less so.

How do these games rank in difficultly compared to more recent games?


Game 3, the Juarez/Rosenberg book editing game, is ranked by us as one of (if not the) most difficult game of all time. It's essentially asking you to do 2 tiered ordering games at the same time, and they affect each other as you fill them in. Very, very difficult.

Game 4 (the treatment game) is relatively difficult, as is any grouping game where you're pulling from subgroups. The secret to these games (that move them from extremely difficult to just normal difficult) is that you can almost always figure out 2-4 distributions of which subgroup members are being pulled out (1 dietary regimen, 2 antibiotics, 2 physical therapies is one example). If you make a scenario for each distribution, the game becomes a lot easier. Making those distributions is hard, though.

So, in short, two very, very challenging games. Definitely at the top of the difficulty rank.

timeless
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:07 am

Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby timeless » Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:27 pm

Hi BP

Thanks so much for your help~

A follow up question on games...
Could you elaborate a bit more on the trends you've noticed on the more recent games?

I've redone the games 56,57,60,61,and 64 untimed to actually delve into how the test writers are tricking us in new ways...and I thought that plug and chug argument (i.e. this is whats referred to as hypotheticals, right?) is correct to a certain extent.
I also realized that the games give us relatively little upfront, yet Cannot be true, must be true...these global questions abound, so its even more imperative on my part to keep track of any diagramming (hypos) I made while attacking those local questions earlier on in the game. So basically if i made two hypotheticals for one local question, I would use those to eliminate 2-3 answer choices from a CANNOT BE TRUE question lets say, and i make hypotheticals for the remaining answers, and now that i have 4-5 hypotheticals accumulated up to that point in the game, I would reference those to eliminate answer choices from the next global question, make new hypos, and so on....

Two more things i realized beyond this...
Even on local questions, whereas in the earlier, supposedly easier tests (40s i guess?), when you apply the rule given, other rules from the game rather passively fall in together (like dominos) so that right answer is obtained easily, while in the more recent, 57+ games, the process is more active in the sense that u have to deliberately bring in rules together, crank out some hypos....meaning that its very difficult to visualize in your head (u have to actually draw them out).
Another, and last,thing i noticed is that it has become soo important especially in grouping games to deal with both players in and out. For instance, dinos game from PT 57 and ambassador game from PT64....its easy to screw up once you focus only on the players that are IN, and so you have to simultaneously juggle with those kicked out of the group as well...

I mean...would you agree with these? Even though some ppl might say these may not be anything new, I thought for me personally, they were significant enough to be actually referred to as 'changes.' You mentioned that modern games require you to pay attention to the given rules even more closely. But is there anything more specific that you noticed, perhaps in relation to what i wrote?

Thanks!!

1TLStudent
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 4:01 pm

Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby 1TLStudent » Fri Sep 21, 2012 8:05 pm

BP Shinners:

I am having difficulty with certain flaw problems. Could you please go over the following:

PT 13 Section 4 Question 9 (Correct: C. I chose: None. Main issue with correct AC: What combination of factors are they referring to?)

PT 16 Section 2 Question 22 (Correct: E. I chose: B. Main issue with correct AC: What implications?)

PT 22 Section 2 Question 25 (Correct: B. I chose: D [I have a tendency to chose "1/2 right 1/2 wrong" ACs when the correct AC sounds wrong because I work best through deductive reasoning where I find most plausible AC by crossing out wrong ones first]. Main issue with correct AC: what are the sufficient and necessary conditions AC refers to and why are they sufficient and necessary?)

Thanks.
Last edited by 1TLStudent on Fri Sep 21, 2012 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

1TLStudent
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 4:01 pm

Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby 1TLStudent » Fri Sep 21, 2012 8:09 pm

Also,

I cannot figure out why the correct AC is right on the following problem regarding structure of argument. Any insight/analysis would be greatly appreciated.

PT 6 Section 2 Question 20 (Correct: A. I chose: B [I think this was wrong because it doesn't say it has ALL the advantages or even necessarily fewer TOTAL amount of negatives. Please correct me if I am wrong.] Main issue with correct AC: Is counterproductive really a sufficient word to describe the relationship AC is referring to?)

Edit: If time permits could you also please go over this one other problem please:

PT 23 Section 2 Question 11 (Correct: C. I chose: E. Main issue with correct AC: The wording through me off "draw about consciousness." Issue with my choice being wrong: Question says "by the example of the damaged radio." Not specifically what part does the radio play in the example or what is the broken radio itself synonymous with in the consciousness situation. If that was the case it would be the blow to the head and not the energy aspect. However, it doesn't say that & it refers to the whole example right? If so, then the energy (consciousness) and something material (body) would seem to be congruent with the stimulus. I think i read too literally into the wording since I essentially try to disprove 4 ACs rather than correctly ID one right AC in every problem.)

Thanks again.

User avatar
Captain Rodeo
Posts: 233
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 1:14 pm

Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby Captain Rodeo » Sat Sep 22, 2012 1:14 pm

Thanks BP! That was really helpful

chadbrochill
Posts: 396
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 12:19 am

Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby chadbrochill » Sat Sep 22, 2012 8:49 pm

Hey shinners!

I was wondering if you had any tips or advice about how to approach the final week before test day? Also what would you recommend for test day warmup?

I'm afraid taking too much time off will slow my read/reaction speed but I also don't want to be burnt out and hating the test by test day.

User avatar
bp shinners
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby bp shinners » Sun Sep 23, 2012 2:26 pm

timeless wrote:I also realized that the games give us relatively little upfront, yet Cannot be true, must be true...these global questions abound, so its even more imperative on my part to keep track of any diagramming (hypos) I made while attacking those local questions earlier on in the game. So basically if i made two hypotheticals for one local question, I would use those to eliminate 2-3 answer choices from a CANNOT BE TRUE question lets say, and i make hypotheticals for the remaining answers, and now that i have 4-5 hypotheticals accumulated up to that point in the game, I would reference those to eliminate answer choices from the next global question, make new hypos, and so on....


Your first sentence presents two mutually-exclusive statements - you can't have fewer deductions but more absolute questions. Those questions are testing your deductions, as something that must be true is ALWAYS true - in other words, it's a deduction.

While there are absolute questions that don't lend themselves to easy, up-front deductions, the majority of them do. And while I agree that the deductions are getting harder to spot, they still exist. I've gone over the past 4 or 5 tests recently with students, and I haven't noticed a dip in the number of deductions, or games that lend themselves to scenarios, at all.

Two more things i realized beyond this...
Even on local questions, whereas in the earlier, supposedly easier tests (40s i guess?), when you apply the rule given, other rules from the game rather passively fall in together (like dominos) so that right answer is obtained easily, while in the more recent, 57+ games, the process is more active in the sense that u have to deliberately bring in rules together, crank out some hypos....meaning that its very difficult to visualize in your head (u have to actually draw them out).


Agreed - the test is getting harder. As more people are spending an appropriate amount of time prepping, they've started to get more sophisticated with their questions to properly differentiate between the scoring bands.

Another, and last,thing i noticed is that it has become soo important especially in grouping games to deal with both players in and out. For instance, dinos game from PT 57 and ambassador game from PT64....its easy to screw up once you focus only on the players that are IN, and so you have to simultaneously juggle with those kicked out of the group as well...


This has always been true - having an Out group (or an Out list, as I call it, since the rules don't apply so I don't like calling it a group) has always helped you keep track of the info. While, again, the games are getting harder so it's MORE useful to have these tools at your disposal, they've always been useful.

I mean...would you agree with these? Even though some ppl might say these may not be anything new, I thought for me personally, they were significant enough to be actually referred to as 'changes.' You mentioned that modern games require you to pay attention to the given rules even more closely. But is there anything more specific that you noticed, perhaps in relation to what i wrote?

Thanks!!


I think the modern games lend themselves more to tricky deductions in the form of scenarios than before - in that it's helpful to write out the 2-4 'skeleton's that make up all the possibilities, even if you don't fill much in for each individual scenario. However, I've always felt that way, even though the 'old' LSAT was much more amenable to 'shortcutting' your way through it (since it wasn't as difficult).

User avatar
bp shinners
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby bp shinners » Sun Sep 23, 2012 2:46 pm

First off, thank you for the amazing format in which you posted these questions. It makes it so much easier for me to look them up and provide specific help for your ACs.

1TLStudent wrote:PT 13 Section 4 Question 9 (Correct: C. I chose: None. Main issue with correct AC: What combination of factors are they referring to?)


In short, everything else.

The stimulus tells me that info processing tech is the single most important factor in determining wealth. That sounds strong, but let's think about what it means for a minute. The single most important factor means that it is more important than any other single factor. That doesn't, however, tell me that it's actually important. If we break down what factors into a country's wealth on a pie chart, the biggest slice of the pie has to be info processing tech since it's the single most important factor. But if there are 1,000 factors, info processing tech could make up 1% of the pie, still be the largest slice, but be absolutely drowned out by all the other factors. It's these unnamed factors that are referred to in the answer choice.

Meta point - comparative language ('most important') seems strong, but might actually be quite weak.

PT 16 Section 2 Question 22 (Correct: E. I chose: B. Main issue with correct AC: What implications?)


Two big things here:
1) The Director recognizes that Ms. Tours deserves the raise
2) The Director has a goal here, and that's to maintain the dignity of the merit-based raise system. That is more important to him than promoting the right people.

When someone has a defined goal, that's always going to be important to the answer. So here, the Director thinks the best way to reach that goal is to not give a raise to Ms. Tours because then people would think the squeaky wheel gets the grease, so to speak. But that's an exclusivity fallacy - it might serve the Director's goal better to raise Ms. Tours' salary since she deserves it. If a person who even the Director admits should get a raise doesn't, that calls into question the integrity of the system. That's the implication being talked about here.

For B, he doesn't characterize what she says as mere complaining. First, he says that she's right. Second, he says that others might view it as mere complaining. There's a difference between that and him calling it mere complaining himself.

Meta point: If someone has a goal, and they pick a means of getting there, the answer on the LSAT is almost always that there might be a better way of reaching that goal than the one defined.

PT 22 Section 2 Question 25 (Correct: B. I chose: D [I have a tendency to chose "1/2 right 1/2 wrong" ACs when the correct AC sounds wrong because I work best through deductive reasoning where I find most plausible AC by crossing out wrong ones first]. Main issue with correct AC: what are the sufficient and necessary conditions AC refers to and why are they sufficient and necessary?)


Alright, so let's look at the two pieces of poll data we have:
1) 50%: If indicted of a crime, then an elected official should resign.
2) 35%: If an elected official should resign, then they must have been convicted of a crime.

We've got clear conditional language in there ('if' in the first in the original; 'only if' in the second in the original). Meta tip - when you can diagram the stimulus of a flaw question, it's better than even money that a guys only doing it's a sufficient/necessary fallacy.

My conclusion from these two pieces of data is that more people believe that elected officials should resign if indicted than believe they should resign if convicted. However, I don't know how many people believe that they should resign if convicted - I only know how many people think they should resign ONLY if convicted. That changes it from a sufficient condition to a necessary/required condition, and that's what's mixed up in this question.

Had the second survey said, "whereas 35% believe that elected officials should resign if they are convicted", then I wouldn't have this fallacy. The inclusion of the word 'only' before 'if' completely changes how that statement reads, and makes my conclusion invalid.

User avatar
bp shinners
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby bp shinners » Sun Sep 23, 2012 2:58 pm

1TLStudent wrote:Also,

I cannot figure out why the correct AC is right on the following problem regarding structure of argument. Any insight/analysis would be greatly appreciated.

PT 6 Section 2 Question 20 (Correct: A. I chose: B [I think this was wrong because it doesn't say it has ALL the advantages or even necessarily fewer TOTAL amount of negatives. Please correct me if I am wrong.] Main issue with correct AC: Is counterproductive really a sufficient word to describe the relationship AC is referring to?)


Can you check the cite on this question? My PT 6 doesn't have a question with the word 'counterproductive' in it.

PT 23 Section 2 Question 11 (Correct: C. I chose: E. Main issue with correct AC: The wording through me off "draw about consciousness." Issue with my choice being wrong: Question says "by the example of the damaged radio." Not specifically what part does the radio play in the example or what is the broken radio itself synonymous with in the consciousness situation. If that was the case it would be the blow to the head and not the energy aspect. However, it doesn't say that & it refers to the whole example right? If so, then the energy (consciousness) and something material (body) would seem to be congruent with the stimulus. I think i read too literally into the wording since I essentially try to disprove 4 ACs rather than correctly ID one right AC in every problem.)

Thanks again.


Big problem with what you're saying - where in the stimulus do we ever mention energy? You say that energy = consciousness, but I'm never told that. Without connecting those ideas, it can never be the correct answer to a Role question (or any question in the characterization family, for that matter).

Also, the language in E is too strong even if I accept your contention that the stimulus talks about energy (which I don't). I don't depend on the radio to provide evidence of the existence of the broadcast - there are other ways I can get evidence of that. I simply can use the radio to gain evidence of the broadcast's existence. In fact, if E was an accurate characterization of the argument, it would fall apart - the author is stating that I DON'T need the radio to have evidence of the broadcast's existence, because even if the radio breaks I still think that the broadcast exists - i.e. I can have the broadcast without the radio.

The question itself says that you must describe the role in the argument of the damaged radio analogy, essentially. The damaged radio analogy is used to call into question a belief held by others - not to prove what they say is false, just to call it into question.

User avatar
bp shinners
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby bp shinners » Sun Sep 23, 2012 3:01 pm

chadbrochill wrote:Hey shinners!

I was wondering if you had any tips or advice about how to approach the final week before test day? Also what would you recommend for test day warmup?

I'm afraid taking too much time off will slow my read/reaction speed but I also don't want to be burnt out and hating the test by test day.


Depends on where your PTs are at heading into that week.

If your PTs are where you want them to be, cool it off a bit. Keep yourself fresh, but additional PTs are just time bombs waiting to go off - there's always one that has you score a bit lower, and it's very difficult to get your confidence back up that close to test day.

If your PTs aren't where you want them, keep taking some. Work on finding patterns to your mistakes and fixing them. Go over methods, and make sure you have whatever system you're using down pat.

If you feel like burn out might be a problem during that week, take a day or two off this week. If you don't feel like it will be a problem, but you worry that it might, take a half-day this week.

Don't do anything the day before the exam. Give your brain the day off.

For the day of, if you do any warm-up, do the following:
Bring 10 LR questions and 1 game. No RC. Do them in your car/subway before entering the test center. These should be questions that you got wrong the first time you did them, but you now have them rock solid. Don't do any new games/LR question, as that's just asking for a confidence killer. Just a few easy questions that you know how to do to get your brain in the right mindset.

BillsFan9907
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:28 am

Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby BillsFan9907 » Sun Sep 23, 2012 8:49 pm

Hey BP,

Can you please walk me through LR question PT23, S3 Q23

User avatar
NoodleyOne
Posts: 2358
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby NoodleyOne » Sun Sep 23, 2012 10:01 pm

Heya shinners...

In our review session for PT 63, we came across a snafu trying to explain why E was wrong in S3, LR2, Q23.

C seems clearly correct, but E seems like a super attractive trap answer. If you could walk me through why E is incorrect and what exactly separates it from C, I'd appreciate it.


Return to “Free Help and Advice from Professionals”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest