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
wtrc
Posts: 2057
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 9:37 pm

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby wtrc » Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:14 pm

bp shinners wrote:New Year's Eve Resolution - help people get into law school.

Hopefully yours is to study. Let's meet in the middle.


Thanks, BP :)!!

I reviewed PT 43 last week, but don't have it on me now. Doing "office hours" anytime next week?

Thanks again!

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

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby bp shinners » Fri Jan 04, 2013 2:26 pm

Yep, I'll be here Tues 4-8 EST. I also check between office hours, so feel free to post at any point and I'll get an answer written up.

lawschoolplease1
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:56 pm

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby lawschoolplease1 » Fri Jan 04, 2013 9:32 pm

Hey BP !
General question...
What's your stance on when to bubble?

I am currently...
-aiming for 175+
-pretty good and fast at games. sometimes i'm done with more than 10 minutes to spare
-LR: finish with 5 minutes left to spare
-RC: KILLER!!!!! I finish RIGHT on time with no time to spare, and this is with some rushing on my end.

What i've been doing:
For games, because I am relatively fast, I bubble everything at the end.
For LR, I have no set routine. I tend to bubble every 10 or so.
RC- I bubble after each passage.

What's your take?
:mrgreen: :mrgreen:

almaz
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 7:12 pm

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby almaz » Sat Jan 05, 2013 7:20 pm

I just purchased the blueprint online course and stumbled upon this message board. I think it is awesome that you do this and just wanted to let you know that your work\knowledge is greatly appreciated. I will be using this in the near future. Thanks bp shinners!

lawschoolplease1
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:56 pm

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby lawschoolplease1 » Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:14 pm

Hi BP!
I actually have another question.

PT60
June 2010
section 3 Q17

Here, I believe the first two sentences are key.
not sterilized and not sealed --> CAN cause bacteria
sterilized and selaed --> no bacteria.
The answer choice reads: nonsterilized --> CAN cause bacteria

In simple terms, I basically see this:
(not A) + (not B) --> C
A + B --> D
the correct answer, choice D, reads: (not A) --> C

My issue is: I thought this is logically invalid, no?
We only know what happens to" (not A) + (not B)" NOT "(Not A)"

please help!
thank you agian!

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

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby bp shinners » Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:31 am

lawschoolplease1 wrote:What's your take?
:mrgreen: :mrgreen:


Personally? I bubble after every question. Yes, that's a slower method, but I've never had issues with timing, so it never presented an issue.

My recommendation? I'd probably recommend that for LR, you bubble after every double page, LG you bubble after every game, RC you bubble after every passage.

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

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby bp shinners » Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:32 am

almaz wrote:I just purchased the blueprint online course and stumbled upon this message board. I think it is awesome that you do this and just wanted to let you know that your work\knowledge is greatly appreciated. I will be using this in the near future. Thanks bp shinners!


Awesome, great to have you in the Blueprint family! Feel free to shoot me a PM with any questions that come up in the online course - I get an e-mail notification for those, so I tend to respond more quickly.

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

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby bp shinners » Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:48 am

lawschoolplease1 wrote:My issue is: I thought this is logically invalid, no?


If your diagram was correct, then you'd be right - NOT A AND NOT B -> C does not give you NOT A->C.

However, that's not what's going on with this stimulus.

First off, when it says anything that isn't sterilized and sealed, it's actually saying:
NOT Sterilized OR NOT Sealed -> Can have bacteria.
If something is "not sterilized and sealed", then that could mean that it's sterilized but not sealed, sealed but not sterilized, or neither sterilized nor sealed. You have to apply the "not" to the conjunction as well as the terms (negated and=or)

The next part is right:
Sterilized AND Sealed -> NO Bacteria

Then, you skipped:
Acceptable Technique -> (Sterilize+Seal) OR Slow Growth of Bacteria

When we get to the right answer, we see:
Acceptable Technique AND Not Sterilized -> Can have bacteria

Well, we actually only needed that first OR statement, since the Not Sterilized by itself guarantees that we Can have bacteria. (We could also have said that this nonsterilizing, acceptably preserved food must have some way of slowing the growth of the bacteria [from our third statement], but that wasn't an answer choice).

lsatkid007
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:07 pm

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby lsatkid007 » Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:01 pm

Hey bp
what's a good amount of time to spend reading and noting per passage. I try to read the passages kin test mode and answer questions more relaxed so I can focus on accuracy. It take me about 4 mind.

Thanks

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

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby bp shinners » Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:55 pm

lsatkid007 wrote:Hey bp
what's a good amount of time to spend reading and noting per passage. I try to read the passages kin test mode and answer questions more relaxed so I can focus on accuracy. It take me about 4 mind.

Thanks


4 mins to read/annotate the passage is a solid amount of time. For the easier ones, it's probably close to 3, and for the tougher ones, 5. But 4's a good average.

User avatar
wtrc
Posts: 2057
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 9:37 pm

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby wtrc » Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:24 pm

BP,

I did PT 43 a week or so ago. Scored a 170, which was a bit disappointing, mostly because I went -1/-2 on LR and -1 on LG, but then a ridiculous -8 on RC.

Anyway,

For Sec 3 #26, is the reason the answer is not C because the word "fundamental" is too strong?

Also, if you have time later to review Sec 2 #20, 18 and Sec 1 #22 and #26, would be so helpful. Thanks!

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

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby bp shinners » Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:01 pm

And we're back.

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

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby bp shinners » Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:33 pm

weathercoins wrote:For Sec 3 #26, is the reason the answer is not C because the word "fundamental" is too strong?


"Fundamental" is a strong word that should give you pause, especially when there's nothing in the stimulus that matches up.

Additionally, I don't know that there was any agreement on economic matters - just that this didn't cause an inordinate amount of tension.

E much better lines up with the stimulus because it talks about the tension mentioned in the stimulus, instead of agreements that I don't have (it mentions negotiations, but that's a precursor to, not the same as, an agreement).

Also, if you have time later to review Sec 2 #20, 18


#20
Flaw question.
Here, we learn that we morally socialize children by making them feel shame.
However, this shame results in guilt and self-loathing.
_________________________________________________________________
Therefore, moral socializing has a net increase on the amount of suffering.

So let's see what I have going on here. I know that morally socializing children does lead to suffering - guilt and self-loathing are not pleasant feelings, so I will suffer more in that regard. However, do I talk about any of the benefits of this moral socialization? I know that it will make me feel guilty, but might it also help me fit in to society? Without moral socializing, maybe I'll end up a sociopath - someone who doesn't feel guilt or self-loathing all the way to the electric chair. That seems worse than a little bit of Catholic guilt.

Whenever I have a conclusion that says the net effect of something goes in one direction, make sure the stimulus balances each side. Here, we don't. I know that moral socialization leads to some amount of suffering, but it never tells me that there's no upside to it, or that the upside is outweighed by this guilt. Without saying that, it's completely possible that moral socialization has more benefits than negatives.

That's answer D - moral socialization sometimes leads to a certain phenomenon (suffering in the form of guilt/self-loathing), but it might also overall cause you to suffer less in life (since you can relate to other people and obey the law).

#18
Alright, a sufficient assumption question. I'm trying to get to the conclusion that "health education" isn't education at all; rather, it's propaganda (abstinence only, anyone?).
Then there's a whole lot of info, but the important things are the definitions of propaganda and education
Propaganda is "nothing but an attempt to influence behavior through the repetition of simplistic slogans."
Education "never involves [the repetition of simplistic slogans]" and "offer[s] up information in all its complexity."
I don't care which is more successful, I just want to get "health education" to be propaganda. To do that, I need to say that it meets the definition of propaganda.
D does that - if "health education" "attempts to influence behavior solely" with slogans, then it is propaganda.
Now, normally, just meeting a definition of something doesn't guarantee that it is that thing. However, in this case, we're told that propaganda is "nothing but" these catchy slogans. D tells us that "health education" is teaching "solely" by repeating slogans. While normally there might be other information that would separate something that met the definition of a phenomenon from being called that phenomenon, here the "solely" and "nothing but" tell us that "health education" must be propaganda, because that's all both are. If there's nothing other than the conveyance of information through repetitive slogans to both, then "health education" must fall under the umbrella of propaganda.

and Sec 1 #22 and #26, would be so helpful. Thanks!


#22
Main point question
For me, there are really only two possible ACs - A and D.
A is close to the last few lines of the first paragraph, which at the time looks like a main point. However, as the author goes on, we get descriptions of certain IP regimes, and the faculty-oriented one of the fourth paragraph is "free from these particular issues." We need to capture that attitude in the answer.
And that's D. It's balanced, descriptive, with a slight lean towards the faculty-oriented institutions being free of the worst of the issues.

B doesn't have any attitude as to the desirability of different regimes - it's just saying the four-fold descriptions are enough. While that may be true, it misses the author's view towards the faculty-oriented institutions.

C says institutions need to adopt common-law presumptions, which are similar to, but not the same as, the policies at faculty-oriented institutions (there are caveats to it there).

E says "indefensible", and that's way too strong of a word for almost any RC question. While those policies are questionable, they aren't indefensible - that word would be limited to institutions like slavery, or genocide.

#26
This was all about your tagging. If you knew the first three policies were listed in the second paragraph, you should have quickly found resource-provider institutions in lines 40-45. There, we learn that these institutions assert a claim to the researcher's IP when the university supplies a significant amount of the supplies for the research (even though the university defines "significant"). That's answer choice E. I'm not a huge fan of "sole" in that answer choice, but since the passage is talking about the IP policies, and the policy as described at a resource-provider institution only involves the extent of resources used, I can get over it, especially since the other ACs are not even close to describing the one thing I know about these institutions.

User avatar
arcanecircle
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 12:33 am

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby arcanecircle » Wed Jan 09, 2013 1:01 am

Thoughts on PT51-S2-Q13? Seemed to me like both A and D strengthened.

Thanks again.

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

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby bp shinners » Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:53 pm

arcanecircle wrote:Thoughts on PT51-S2-Q13? Seemed to me like both A and D strengthened.

Thanks again.


So my theory is that this LHB was limited to the Earth and the Moon.

(A) directly adds to that theory - in the solar system, there are 9 (screw you, Pluto deniers). If one of them wasn't hit by the LHB, that makes it more likely that it was just the Earth and Moon hit by it since I've taken another planet off the table, something I need to do to get to my conclusion.

(D) attacks evidence for another theory - the theory that the LHB extended throughout the inner solar system. We found a rock we thought was from Mars. (D) tells us that it was actually from the Moon. So this definitely eliminates a piece of evidence for a different theory.

However, this doesn't mean the other theory is wrong. One rock doesn't make or break that theory. There could be a million other Mars rocks; we just haven't found them yet. Taking this proof away doesn't add to the likelihood of the LHB being limited to the Earth and Moon - picking this AC is evidence of you committing an absence of evidence fallacy. Just because we defeat one piece of evidence doesn't mean we conclude that the theory being supported by that evidence is false.

lsatkid007
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:07 pm

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby lsatkid007 » Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:47 pm

Hey BP
PT4 Sec2 #19. Please explain that one and what is your take on how to handle the "word substitution" questions. Some time it takes a me awhile. Any tips you can give would be much appreciated.

thanks

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

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby bp shinners » Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:26 am

lsatkid007 wrote:Hey BP
PT4 Sec2 #19. Please explain that one and what is your take on how to handle the "word substitution" questions. Some time it takes a me awhile. Any tips you can give would be much appreciated.

thanks


This one is actually less a "word substitution" question and more a check to see if you can track arguments through multiple passages.

In that last sentence, the "cost" is mentioned as what was brought up by Landes and Badinter as a negative of women "speaking in borrowed voices." At that point, you should have gone back up to the second-to-last paragraph, where Landes and Badinter's argument is explored. Preferably, you didn't have to re-read the whole thing, as you made a note that these two explored why the women's movement collapsed (it was because of their alliances with radicals and borrowed language that pushed them to extremes). That's AC (E). (D) is close, as that's a reason for the collapse. But the alliances themselves weren't a cost; instead, they were a contributing factor to the actual badness that happened - the collapse of the women's movement.

For actual "word substitution" questions, I literally re-read the sentence with each answer choice replacing the word in question. There are usually 2-3 ACs you can rule out before even trying this. A common incorrect answer is repetitive of another concept in the sentence - if you substitute that AC in, the sentence will have two ideas that are the same.

lawschoolplease1
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:56 pm

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby lawschoolplease1 » Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:40 pm

Thanks for the reply to my previous question.
If you have the time, i have another..
June 06
second LR section
#19

For this one, I'm especially concerned with the word "typically."
Is it telling me that MOST fragmented forest ecosystems lost ability to sustain themselves

or is typically used here as a characteristic. like fragmented forest ecosystems characteristically lost ability to sustain themselves?

I ask this because if it were the first, then we'd have a situation where: MOST forest in world are fragments. MOST fragments lost ability to sustain themselves. Since we can't combine two "most" statements, the correct answer choice A wouldn't follow.

what am i doing wrong here?



Thank you for doing this BP!
seriously-- thank you so much!

User avatar
ricekrispies
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:29 am

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby ricekrispies » Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:17 pm

Hey bp, I posted this in the June study group thread but they referred me to you! Hoping you can help me out!

So I've tried this a few times now but....on the June 2007 LSAT, section 1 questions 6-10. It is about the movies playing at the festival. I just can't seem to get them right! All the other Games questions I am totally fine with but I missed three in this section alone. What type of game is this? I need to find it in my MLSAT book and drill the crap out of it.

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

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby bp shinners » Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:10 pm

lawschoolplease1 wrote:Thanks for the reply to my previous question.
If you have the time, i have another..
June 06
second LR section
#19

For this one, I'm especially concerned with the word "typically."
Is it telling me that MOST fragmented forest ecosystems lost ability to sustain themselves

or is typically used here as a characteristic. like fragmented forest ecosystems characteristically lost ability to sustain themselves?


The latter. 'Typically' is used to mean 'usually' by a lot of people, but that's not exactly what it means. Replacing it with 'characteristically' as you've done is the right way to think about it.

So here, I know that the great majority (which should be thought of as most, but with an asterisk) of forests are fragmented, and these forests have typically lost the ability to sustain themselves. They also have endangered species in them, and resource managers are required for the maintenance of the entire list of animals in the forests.

The quantifiers are a bit wonky (typically and great majority), but they should still be treated as a most and all statement, which I can combine. So I end up with most forests will lose some of their species complement if resource managers don't intervene. That's (A).

(B) is close (it's the only other one I think should be a consideration), but it has one problem - it tells me which species are going to die. I only know that forests will lose some of their species without the intervention of resource managers. These might be the prevalent ones, and not the endangered ones.

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

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby bp shinners » Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:23 pm

ricekrispies wrote:Hey bp, I posted this in the June study group thread but they referred me to you! Hoping you can help me out!

So I've tried this a few times now but....on the June 2007 LSAT, section 1 questions 6-10. It is about the movies playing at the festival. I just can't seem to get them right! All the other Games questions I am totally fine with but I missed three in this section alone. What type of game is this? I need to find it in my MLSAT book and drill the crap out of it.


It's a tricky game, is what it is!

What's tricky about this game is you're ordering along two axes - Thurs/Fri/Sat, and shown 1st/2nd/3rd. Add to that the complication that you aren't guaranteed (and in fact can't, based on the rules) to have all three slots filled each day, and you have a crazy game indeed.

I'm going to call this an unstable combo game, and change things up a bit. Usually, I would use the days of the week as a base, since they have an inherent order. However, the movies can show up on more than one day (but not twice on the same day), and there are no rules based on a movie showing earlier or later in the week than another. Additionally, there are rules for the order within each day. So I would treat each day as a group, to which I'm trying to assign movies. Then, once those movies are assigned, I'd put them in order.

jmart154
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:30 pm

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby jmart154 » Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:49 am

Hey BP,

Thanks for sharing your knowledge. There's been significant discussion regarding what to look out for when reading RC passages, but relatively little in the way of common trap/incorrect answers for different question types. I was wondering if you could expand on this thought.

Thank you!

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

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby bp shinners » Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:36 pm

jmart154 wrote:Hey BP,

Thanks for sharing your knowledge. There's been significant discussion regarding what to look out for when reading RC passages, but relatively little in the way of common trap/incorrect answers for different question types. I was wondering if you could expand on this thought.

Thank you!


The RC questions are, at this point, essentially LR questions with a really strong stimulus. So definitely use the strategies for the corresponding question types to eliminate/choose answers.

Specifically, watch out for answers with strong quantification. Not just in 'all', 'always', etc..., but also in the wording. If an answer says "Ignores", that's pretty strong. Ditto "independent", "pernicious", etc... Strong language is unlikely to be correct on RC.

Also, watch out for the last line of the answer. It's very common for them to write out a correct answer for 90% of the answer, and then tank it at the very end. Every word in an RC answer has to be right, so read it till the end.

lawschoolplease1
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:56 pm

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby lawschoolplease1 » Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:35 am

bp shinners wrote:
lawschoolplease1 wrote:Thanks for the reply to my previous question.
If you have the time, i have another..
June 06
second LR section
#19

For this one, I'm especially concerned with the word "typically."
Is it telling me that MOST fragmented forest ecosystems lost ability to sustain themselves

or is typically used here as a characteristic. like fragmented forest ecosystems characteristically lost ability to sustain themselves?


The latter. 'Typically' is used to mean 'usually' by a lot of people, but that's not exactly what it means. Replacing it with 'characteristically' as you've done is the right way to think about it.

So here, I know that the great majority (which should be thought of as most, but with an asterisk) of forests are fragmented, and these forests have typically lost the ability to sustain themselves. They also have endangered species in them, and resource managers are required for the maintenance of the entire list of animals in the forests.

The quantifiers are a bit wonky (typically and great majority), but they should still be treated as a most and all statement, which I can combine. So I end up with most forests will lose some of their species complement if resource managers don't intervene. That's (A).

(B) is close (it's the only other one I think should be a consideration), but it has one problem - it tells me which species are going to die. I only know that forests will lose some of their species without the intervention of resource managers. These might be the prevalent ones, and not the endangered ones.


Hi BP!
Thanks for the explanation!
A quick response- how were you able to tell that it was the second kind of "typically"?

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

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby bp shinners » Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:45 pm

lawschoolplease1 wrote:Hi BP!
Thanks for the explanation!
A quick response- how were you able to tell that it was the second kind of "typically"?


Because that's the standard definition; using it to mean 'usually' is more colloquial. If you see 'typically' on the LSAT, treat is as 'characteristically'.


Return to “Free Help and Advice from Professionals”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests