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

Special forum where professionals are encouraged to help law school applicants, students, and graduates.
dreamofNYC
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:25 pm

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby dreamofNYC » Wed Oct 16, 2013 4:17 pm

What would be a good way to think about analogy vs example? For example I found (PT 53, Section 3, Q 24) tricky.

In this question I don't see the difference between analogy and example. :oops: Thank you so much BP :lol:

I erroneously chose the answer choice that referred to analogy. How is this not an analogy?

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 Oct 16, 2013 4:28 pm

dreamofNYC wrote:Logical force in weaken / strengthen questions. In weaken / Strengthen questions does the correct answer choice "just enough" weaken or strengthen the conclusion, or also more than enough. i.e., use of can vs definitely, use of some vs. most, etc. Do you have some general pointers on that?


A correct weaken/strengthen answer choice will weaken/strengthen the conclusion - it could be "just enough", as you put it, by which I assume you mean it just makes it a little less/more likely to be valid; it could completely in/validate the conclusion; or anywhere in between.

In general, though, I'd rather have a stronger statement to weaken/strengthen the conclusion. I don't need one, and the correlation between strong ACs in weaken/strengthen questions being correct isn't as strong as, say, the correlation between weak ACs in ~MBT and being correct, but it's there. I'd say that the most common weak answer choices in weaken/strengthen questions tend to be counterexamples to strong conclusions, or alternate causes in a causal conclusion.

PT 53, Section 3, Q 9


This would fall under the identifying an alternate cause part of weakening a causal argument. I also don't have a strong causal relationship here - I just know that camellia tea-drinkers are more likely to get kidney damage than people in general - this could mean regular people have a .5% chance, while camellia tea drinkers have a 1% chance. But simply pointing out another possible cause of the damage is enough to weaken a causal relationship.

Also PT 53, Section 1, Q 3


I'm more wary of *some* logical force in weaken/strengthen questions - *most* statements are almost always strong enough to have an effect on the argument. If something is true of most of a group, chances are that it's true of a random element you pick from that group.

PT 55, Section 3, Q 14

Same note on this one - *most* statements are almost always strong enough to have an effect on the argument.

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 Oct 16, 2013 4:31 pm

dreamofNYC wrote:Does causation require the existence of a correlation? Meaning if I can only derive a causation from a correlation. In PT 52, Section 1, Q 8 the correct answer choice weakens the possibility that there is a correlation between nightlights during infancy and near-nearsightedness. So the conclusion says "if there is a causal connection, that connection disappears with age", and the correct answer choice disputes the likelihood of a correlation.

Is this the correct way to think about this question? Thanks so much.


If two things aren't correlated, it'd be hard for there to be a causal relationship - if they don't go together, then one thing isn't really causing the other to happen. The exception to this would be an intervening event that prevents the effect from happening.

Can you check the question cite? My PT 52 doesn't have that question. - Never mind, found it.

The answer choice there actually does the opposite of what you're saying - it says that the evidence saying there was no correlation was flawed. What this answer choice is doing is going after the studies being used to reach the conclusion - if my conclusion is based on a study, but you point out the study is bad, you've weakened my conclusion. It doesn't really have anything to do with the causality posited in this one - that's a red herring to distract you from the possibility of a bad study.
Last edited by bp shinners on Wed Oct 16, 2013 4:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

dreamofNYC
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:25 pm

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby dreamofNYC » Wed Oct 16, 2013 4:56 pm

BP Shinners, I also have a general question regarding learning curve for LR questions. I have done so many LR questions that I feel that I am developing a sort of x-ray that enables me to see the logical "skeleton" of the questions. And beyond the fancy words, I see similarities between questions I've done in other PTs. I also feel like I am getting at the point where I can get away without diagramming most questions. Is this where I want to be prior to taking the exam?

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 » Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:05 pm

dreamofNYC wrote:BP Shinners, I also have a general question regarding learning curve for LR questions. I have done so many LR questions that I feel that I am developing a sort of x-ray that enables me to see the logical "skeleton" of the questions. And beyond the fancy words, I see similarities between questions I've done in other PTs. I also feel like I am getting at the point where I can get away without diagramming most questions. Is this where I want to be prior to taking the exam?

Thank you.


Yep, though I'd force myself to diagram all but the simplest of questions. It'll actually take less time than trying to juggle all the terms in your head, and it'll prevent stupid mistakes.

dreamofNYC
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:25 pm

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby dreamofNYC » Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:20 pm

PT 53, Section 3, Q 9


This would fall under the identifying an alternate cause part of weakening a causal argument. I also don't have a strong causal relationship here - I just know that camellia tea-drinkers are more likely to get kidney damage than people in general - this could mean regular people have a .5% chance, while camellia tea drinkers have a 1% chance. But simply pointing out another possible cause of the damage is enough to weaken a causal relationship.

[quote]

Thanks. Two questions on this one. So in the conclusion "can result" means there can be a causal relationship? Is *can result* equivalent to *it is likely* or it is *probable*? Also, when the stimulus tells me "regular drinkers are more likely to develop kidney damage" - does this suggest a correlation or already this suggests a causation? Also I notice that the right answer choice uses *many* instead of *most* people, although I understand that it also provides an alternate cause. Sorry I feel that it's all a mix in my head now. 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 Oct 16, 2013 5:26 pm

dreamofNYC wrote:Thanks. Two questions on this one. So in the conclusion "can result" means there can be a causal relationship? Is *can result* equivalent to *it is likely* or it is *probable*? Also, when the stimulus tells me "regular drinkers are more likely to develop kidney damage" - does this suggest a correlation or already this suggests a causation? Also I notice that the right answer choice uses *many* instead of *most* people, although I understand that it also provides an alternate cause. Sorry I feel that it's all a mix in my head now. Thanks again!


"can result" means there is a causal relationship, but it's not necessarily 1:1 - you might have the cause without the effect.

"Likely" and "probable" are both moderate logical force - over 50% chance. "Can" is weak logical force - over 0% chance.

The statement that "regular drinkers are more likely to develop kidney damage" is purely correlative - no causation.

And yes, if it said "most" it would have a greater effect on it. But when you're dealing with causality, pointing out that other cause is enough to strengthen/weaken, even if it's a weak statement (though they mess with this sometimes and have something that appears to be an alternative cause not actually consist of one based on certain phrasing).

User avatar
Hotguy
Posts: 382
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 12:33 am

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby Hotguy » Thu Oct 17, 2013 12:02 am

BP, I seem to be having trouble with RC passages that have(to me) a lot of details(for example, pt62 s1,p3 A/B). Can you give me any pointers on what to do to keep better track of overall details? Aside from going back to the 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 » Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:54 am

Hotguy wrote:BP, I seem to be having trouble with RC passages that have(to me) a lot of details(for example, pt62 s1,p3 A/B). Can you give me any pointers on what to do to keep better track of overall details? Aside from going back to the passage.


Nope - you absolutely have to go back to the passage. No way around it - it's how you guarantee correct answers.

Will that take time? Yep. But it's better than sitting there for 45 seconds, agonizing over 2 answer choices.

You can save time by:
1) Knowing what specific details they ask about (for instance, they almost never care about dates)
2) Tagging each paragraph/section of paragraph so that you can find the relevant info quickly.

Those specific questions require you to spend time finding the answer in the passage, but then it should only take you 5-10 seconds to find the actual answer. So you need to have the important details pulled out (lists of characteristics, causal relationships, answers to questions, examples). And you need to tag the passage so you can find details that it pulls out randomly (which it does sometimes) - for instance, if you have a paragraph tagged "Imagery in Kahlo's work", you should be able to find the answer to a specific question about her work in that paragraph in a few seconds.

10052014
Posts: 590
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:12 am

.

Postby 10052014 » Thu Oct 17, 2013 1:16 pm

.
Last edited by 10052014 on Sun Oct 05, 2014 12:49 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Hotguy
Posts: 382
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 12:33 am

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby Hotguy » Thu Oct 17, 2013 1:26 pm

bp shinners wrote:
Hotguy wrote:BP, I seem to be having trouble with RC passages that have(to me) a lot of details(for example, pt62 s1,p3 A/B). Can you give me any pointers on what to do to keep better track of overall details? Aside from going back to the passage.


Nope - you absolutely have to go back to the passage. No way around it - it's how you guarantee correct answers.

Will that take time? Yep. But it's better than sitting there for 45 seconds, agonizing over 2 answer choices.

You can save time by:
1) Knowing what specific details they ask about (for instance, they almost never care about dates)
2) Tagging each paragraph/section of paragraph so that you can find the relevant info quickly.

Those specific questions require you to spend time finding the answer in the passage, but then it should only take you 5-10 seconds to find the actual answer. So you need to have the important details pulled out (lists of characteristics, causal relationships, answers to questions, examples). And you need to tag the passage so you can find details that it pulls out randomly (which it does sometimes) - for instance, if you have a paragraph tagged "Imagery in Kahlo's work", you should be able to find the answer to a specific question about her work in that paragraph in a few seconds.


Good advice. 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 » Fri Oct 18, 2013 12:13 pm

jaylawyer09 wrote:p.s.: I feel relatively comfortable doing games and only get questions wrong when I mis read a rule, or if I misread a question.
Some times, I'll get a game that I am clueless on how to approach it. However, I use 7sage to clear everything up. But most of the time, I understand the games.


First off, this is the important thing - feeling comfortable that you can answer every question correctly unless you make a stupid mistake (of which I include misreading). You need to get to that point before anything else can progress.

Second, for those games where you're clueless, start with the basics - am I ordering anything? Am I grouping anything? And build from there - the LSAT hasn't introduced a new game type for quite some time (and it's pruning away those that aren't ordering or grouping), so if you break it down to its basics, you can usually figure out the method to use and qualify what makes the game weird as a rule within one of the basic game types.

Question 1: Should I redo all the games from 1-40 after I finish, even if I just drilled them with the BP LG? (I feel i need to do them because the 7sage method tell you to do like 10 copies of each) , or should I just move on the LR and so a section every week? I just did each game once, and did a few again if they gave me trouble.


I probably wouldn't start with 1 since there are a lot of weird games in the early ones. Depending on how much practice you want, I'd probably start with 20 or 30. I would redo a lot of them, though, especially since you didn't time yourself the first time through.

Question 2: also, I have not timed myself doing these games. When should I start timing?


Based on your feeling that you get everything right unless you misread something, now.

10052014
Posts: 590
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:12 am

.

Postby 10052014 » Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:49 pm

.
Last edited by 10052014 on Sun Oct 05, 2014 12:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

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 Oct 18, 2013 1:55 pm

jaylawyer09 wrote:I began yesterday timing my self and it going good. BP LG is amazing.


Glad to hear it! If you have any ways we could improve it, let me know and I'll pass it on. And if any other questions pop up, feel free to post here or shoot me a PM.

dreamofNYC
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:25 pm

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby dreamofNYC » Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:39 pm

PT 59, section 2, q 19

A->B
A->-C

From the two above it follows that
B(some)->-C

And I went for the right answer right away. But I wonder in how many other ways this relationship could be exploited? In other words what other correct answers would the lsat potentially look for / have in mind?

I know that we can switch the some statements, but in this case how would we do that? Can we for example say some that are not lawyers are athletes. Although it's a bit mind-twisting, would that ever be considered a coerrect answer? Also can we take the contra positive of this statement, and say some lawyers Are not athletes?

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 » Fri Oct 18, 2013 4:08 pm

dreamofNYC wrote:I know that we can switch the some statements, but in this case how would we do that? Can we for example say some that are not lawyers are athletes.


Exactly right. That could be a correct answer, but I wouldn't expect the LSAT to phrase it that way.

Also can we take the contra positive of this statement, and say some lawyers Are not athletes?


Nope! "Some" statements you can flip around, but you can't take a contrapositive.

Quick rundown:
All/None statement - you can take the original and contrapositive
Most statement - you can take the original
Some statement - you can take the original and the converse (just flip it around)

In all honesty, the big take-away from this question is that you can combine two "all" statements using something other than the transitive property (A->B, B->C, therefore A->C) - you can treat them as quantifiers and combine them to get the "some" statement. That's the limit of what I would expect from a question using a similar structure/logic.

dreamofNYC
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:25 pm

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby dreamofNYC » Fri Oct 18, 2013 4:12 pm

PT 59, section 2, q 20

Aren't answer choices B and D saying the exact same thing?? I was debating between the two and fell for the wrong one.

Thank you!

Pt 59, section 2, q 21

I always seem to get this question wrong and I did it 10 times already :(. I feel like both answers D and E are correct. E) refers to the 1st two sentences only. Whereas D refers to the last sentence only. So both are correct. Help!! :( Thank you :)

dreamofNYC
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:25 pm

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby dreamofNYC » Fri Oct 18, 2013 4:22 pm

bp shinners wrote:
dreamofNYC wrote:I know that we can switch the some statements, but in this case how would we do that? Can we for example say some that are not lawyers are athletes.


Exactly right. That could be a correct answer, but I wouldn't expect the LSAT to phrase it that way.

Also can we take the contra positive of this statement, and say some lawyers Are not athletes?


Nope! "Some" statements you can flip around, but you can't take a contrapositive.

Quick rundown:
All/None statement - you can take the original and contrapositive
Most statement - you can take the original
Some statement - you can take the original and the converse (just flip it around)

In all honesty, the big take-away from this question is that you can combine two "all" statements using something other than the transitive property (A->B, B->C, therefore A->C) - you can treat them as quantifiers and combine them to get the "some" statement. That's the limit of what I would expect from a question using a similar structure/logic.



(I accidentally sent this as a PM). I meant to post it on the forum -- Thank you so much. You always have these sweepingly clarifying perspective. I ask one question and your answer clarifies 10 questions that I may have!

User avatar
crestor
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 5:37 am

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby crestor » Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:42 pm

BP, i think I did well on october 5 but I want to hedge my bases and want to start studying for december. haven't looked at anything lsat related since that day. i go to the library to study like I usually do at noonish. apparently the middle school reserved the entire library. hopefully this is a sign.

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 Oct 21, 2013 2:08 pm

dreamofNYC wrote:PT 59, section 2, q 20

Aren't answer choices B and D saying the exact same thing?? I was debating between the two and fell for the wrong one.

Thank you!

Pt 59, section 2, q 21

I always seem to get this question wrong and I did it 10 times already :(. I feel like both answers D and E are correct. E) refers to the 1st two sentences only. Whereas D refers to the last sentence only. So both are correct. Help!! :( Thank you :)


Can you give me a quick 1-2 word description of which questions these are? We use PT59 as a PT for the course, so my copy of it is out of order (we insert a 5th section).

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 Oct 21, 2013 2:09 pm

crestor wrote:BP, i think I did well on october 5 but I want to hedge my bases and want to start studying for december. haven't looked at anything lsat related since that day. i go to the library to study like I usually do at noonish. apparently the middle school reserved the entire library. hopefully this is a sign.


I'll buy that :)

dreamofNYC
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:25 pm

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby dreamofNYC » Mon Oct 21, 2013 9:17 pm

bp shinners wrote:
dreamofNYC wrote:PT 59, section 2, q 20

Aren't answer choices B and D saying the exact same thing?? I was debating between the two and fell for the wrong one.

Thank you!

Pt 59, section 2, q 21

I always seem to get this question wrong and I did it 10 times already :(. I feel like both answers D and E are correct. E) refers to the 1st two sentences only. Whereas D refers to the last sentence only. So both are correct. Help!! :( Thank you :)


Can you give me a quick 1-2 word description of which questions these are? We use PT59 as a PT for the course, so my copy of it is out of order (we insert a 5th section).


Yes!

T 59, section 2, q 20 begins with "Quality control investigator: Upon testing samples..." and talks about biased sample selection. I encountered a similar question during the next test T 60, Section 3, Q 16 "Wildlife management experts should not interfere with the natural habitats of creatures in the wild..." there is a similar trap answer here answer "D". So there are tempting but wrong answers that say the author assumes something which she shouldn't (i.e., presumes, without providing justification), whereas the correct answer choice says that the author did not assume "i.e., failed to consider". I cannot put my finger on the "pattern" exactly, if there is one. If you could further cast some clarity on these nuances, I'd be grateful!

T 59, section 2, q 23 begins with "This year a flood devastated a small river..." I don't understand why D is right and E is wrong. To me they refer to different sentences of the argument...

Thank you again very much!

dreamofNYC
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:25 pm

Re: blueprint shinners’ semi-weekly office hours

Postby dreamofNYC » Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:11 am

BP, is it possible to estimate when PT 70 will be published?

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 Oct 22, 2013 11:49 am

dreamofNYC wrote:T 59, section 2, q 20 begins with "Quality control investigator: Upon testing samples..." and talks about biased sample selection.


Alright so B and D on this one actually say quite different things.

B says that the inspectors were just as likely to pick a defective as nondefective item. In other words, their selections didn't have a bias to them.

D, on the other hand, says that the inspectors were more likely to pick a defective item. In other words, there was a selection bias.

I encountered a similar question during the next test T 60, Section 3, Q 16 "Wildlife management experts should not interfere with the natural habitats of creatures in the wild..." there is a similar trap answer here answer "D". So there are tempting but wrong answers that say the author assumes something which she shouldn't (i.e., presumes, without providing justification), whereas the correct answer choice says that the author did not assume "i.e., failed to consider". I cannot put my finger on the "pattern" exactly, if there is one. If you could further cast some clarity on these nuances, I'd be grateful!


Ah, alright, so we have the flaw question answer constructs!

First things first - the argument/flaw itself. There are three ways you can express what's wrong with the argument:
The assumption being made - this would be the unstated premise on which the author is relying. So when you state the assumption, you're stating something that would help the argument. In this one, the assumption being made is that the inspectors were taking a representative sample of the products.
The flaw being made - this is a way of categorizing the assumption into similar realms of wrongness. So, for example, the assumption above would be categorized as a sampling fallacy.
The counterargument - this is what you would say in order to rebut the conclusion being made while still allowing the premises to be true. For this argument, the counterargument would be, "Well, maybe your inspectors picked out the ones that looked defective."

How does this impact our answer choices? Well, it aligns with the different answer constructs.

If the answer starts with "presumes" or "assumes" or anything similar, it's going to point out the assumption. It might also point out the flaw instead, making it a little more generic.
If the answer starts out with "overlooks the possibility" or anything similar, it's going to point out the counterargument.
If it starts out with neither, it almost always is just going to state the flaw.

Here, (A) is a flaw answer; (B) is an assumption answer; (C) is a counterargument answer; (D) is a counterargument answer; (E) is an assumption answer.

Hope this helps! I've never actually formalized this before.

T 59, section 2, q 23 begins with "This year a flood devastated a small river..." I don't understand why D is right and E is wrong. To me they refer to different sentences of the argument...


They definitely refer to different things - that's how most answer choices are going to work!

So timeline here - Hollyville sends a bit of money to a town hit by an earthquake. Then, Hollyville itself got hit by a tornado and received some aid. Then, another town was hit by a flood, and Hollyville gave a ton of money - more than it gave to the earthquake town.

So give a little money, get hit by a tornado, give a lot of money. If I'm generalizing from that, I would say that Hollyville upped its charity donations after getting hit by a natural disaster itself.

That's exactly what (D) says - if (D) is true, it explains why Hollyville gave that flooded town more money.

(E) is playing off the fact that Hollyville and the flood town are both located on rivers. However, I don't know that Hollyville has ever been hit by a flood. I know a tornado tore through there, but I don't know that a flood ever hurt them. So I can't say that they're more likely to aid people who experienced a similar hardship to them because I don't know Hollyville experience a similar hardship to them.

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 Oct 22, 2013 12:36 pm

dreamofNYC wrote:BP, is it possible to estimate when PT 70 will be published?


Soon :)


Return to “Free Help and Advice from Professionals”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AZnative and 6 guests