Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Special forum where professionals are encouraged to help law school applicants, students, and graduates.
evolution
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:04 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby evolution » Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:04 pm

This conclusion is really saying that WHEN we match a blemish to a nick, we can trace the document to the printer. Since the conclusion only applies to situations where we can match a blemish to a nick, bringing up a situation where we can't even see the blemish doesn't damage the conclusion at all! The conclusion wouldn't apply to that situation!


This is what I missed when interpreting the conclusion, it makes much more sense now, thanks for clearing that up!

User avatar
flash21
Posts: 1536
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby flash21 » Wed Jul 30, 2014 7:09 pm

Christine (MLSAT) wrote:Hmmm, I think you might want to re-read my post just a tad more carefully. :)

I look for the wrong answers specifically on CBTs (and CBFs), specifically because it is easier to prove the concrete. In those situations the wrong answers are concrete (MBF or MBT), while the correct answer is just a possibility. I find that even when you put the variable in and run through all the rules and it appears to be possible, you're still left with a nagging doubt about whether you might have missed an inference that would kill it, or if it really is possible. But the wrong answers are clear and definitive rule violators (for MBF). For this reason, I find that NOT checking every answer on a CBT is dangerous, unless that CBT is clear and obvious from the master diagram, or clearly exists in a prior hypo.

But on MBTs, I hunt for the RIGHT answer. This is the situation where if you are crunched for time finding the right answer is good enough, because if every way that you try to avoid the MBT, the game breaks, then you know for certain that it must be true!

But even with MBTs, I do advise checking all the answers if at all possible, as people often *do* catch their own errors that way. It is a trade off with speed, and you'll simply have to decide how often that trade off works better for you. You should always be doing deep analysis of your performance on games after the fact, so you should know if you are consistently missing questions because you did not check every answer on MBTs!

Does that make sense?


ah! My mistake, thanks a lot - this makes more sense. I'll start drilling this way from now on with games and I'll report back.

Forgive my misunderstanding, I have to get up at 4am for work so my brain is a bit fuzzy when I'm home studying for the LSAT / reading over long posts.

Appreciate all the help you've given me, and I'll probably be back for more at some point!


Take care.

User avatar
Christine (MLSAT)
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:41 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby Christine (MLSAT) » Wed Aug 06, 2014 1:14 am

flash21 wrote:ah! My mistake, thanks a lot - this makes more sense. I'll start drilling this way from now on with games and I'll report back.

Forgive my misunderstanding, I have to get up at 4am for work so my brain is a bit fuzzy when I'm home studying for the LSAT / reading over long posts.

Appreciate all the help you've given me, and I'll probably be back for more at some point!

Take care.


I completely understand! I just wanted to make sure you didn't get the advice backwards! :)

Good luck applying the thought process, and I'd love to hear how it goes!

User avatar
Christine (MLSAT)
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:41 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby Christine (MLSAT) » Wed Aug 06, 2014 1:15 am

TrunksFan1 wrote:Thank you for the information Christine! That seems like a fair compromise to me! Looking forward to signing with MLSAT.


We look forward to having you! :mrgreen:

deebanger
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 11:40 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby deebanger » Thu Aug 07, 2014 4:52 pm

Hey Christine!

I was just wondering if you help me negate two answer choices (C and E ) in PT 30, S2, Q22 the infamous rattle snake problem and explain to me how the negation of those two choices lead to the correct answer.

This is what I've gotten so far,

Premise- One new section is formed each time a rattle snake molts
Conc- if they are not so brittle, we can determine the age of the rattle snake from the sections it has.

the gap here i think is that even if the they are not so brittle, and if age can be determined by its sections, what if some other outside factor makes it difficult to determine the age. So, just like many other NA q's, we looks for alternate reasons why age cannot be determined by the sections.

Anser choice A is Suffciient Assump i believe, as the answer fixes the whole argument completely, and we don't need that for NA, also the mention of "exactly" is interesting as it reminds me of this example, the suit that jon wants to buy costs 100 bucks. He has "exactly" 100 bucks. and this is sufficient but not necessary, so when i saw the word exactly, i thought about that sentence.

B is out of scope/irrelvant.

D is wrong, as when you negate it, it does nothing, it definitely does not destroy the argument.

C and E were the choices i had left, and the i tried to see how the negation of those choices would lead me tot he correct answer choice, but i could not. can u help me? thanks!

User avatar
flash21
Posts: 1536
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby flash21 » Thu Aug 07, 2014 4:59 pm

Christine (MLSAT) wrote:
flash21 wrote:ah! My mistake, thanks a lot - this makes more sense. I'll start drilling this way from now on with games and I'll report back.

Forgive my misunderstanding, I have to get up at 4am for work so my brain is a bit fuzzy when I'm home studying for the LSAT / reading over long posts.

Appreciate all the help you've given me, and I'll probably be back for more at some point!

Take care.


I completely understand! I just wanted to make sure you didn't get the advice backwards! :)

Good luck applying the thought process, and I'd love to hear how it goes!


Hey Christine, thought I'd give an update. I've been using your advice and I like it for a few reasons:

1.) Could be true questions - the wrong answer now seems so much more apparent when looking for the wrong answers. They not only seem wrong, but super blatantly wrong. Not really sure why the is, I think I'm just beginning to notice this

2.) Helps get rid of the uncertainty that I had when not checking all of the answers. I did a section the week before, and wasn't using your advice and gotten some CBT's questions wrong that I thought were right (but I didn't check all the other choices to see if they were wrong).

3.) MBT's also work well because of how they are absolute in the given diagram or rule driven question you are on - so going directly for the answer seems like a good idea, I just try to make sure I don't forget to account for what is a floater in a given situation.

User avatar
flash21
Posts: 1536
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby flash21 » Fri Aug 08, 2014 10:57 am

Hi - back with a question, a more general question though.

I'm having trouble with MSS questions.

I've found that generally, they have pretty long a convoluted stimuli filled with little details that you have to push together and make some sort of inference, one that usually eludes me, and its usually because its such a SMALL thing that is actually being supported when it comes down to looking at the answer choices. I'm speaking more specifically about level 3/4 MSS questions, I can usually do well on the lower level questions.

I guess I'm asking how to best approach this question type. Do I just break it down to premises and conclusions? Or will I miss some important details by doing so?

They are unique in that you aren't trying to find gaps and the inference isn't necessarily 100 percent true, so in combining all of these aspects, they give me a hard time.

I'll provide an example of where a MSS gave me a hard time. PT 16, S2, Q11

I chose (B) --> bad reading on my part. Factories of the future, my mistake.

However, but in looking at (D), I can see why its correct after looking at an explanation, but to me its one of those questions where I say to myself "seriously??". I'd absolutely miss a question in the future - and I think this highlights how the littlest details are what the right answer revolves around. Its a very subtle answer choice, at least I think.

If I could get a full breakdown if how you'd deal with a convoluted stimulus and a hard MSS question, I'd' appreciate that a lot.

Thanks again Manhattan peeps.


EDIT:::

After reading Christine's post here : (viewtopic.php?f=6&t=234328http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=234328)

I realized I don't really have a great process for MSS. I feel like the process is different from other questions types such as str/wea/flaw, that I feel a lot more comfortable approaching.

evolution
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:04 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby evolution » Sun Aug 10, 2014 5:10 pm

Hey Christine, this question comes from 52.1.21: The Iliad and the Odyssey...

Premise: I and O differ greatly between each other
Conclusion: I and O are almost certainly not the work of the same poet

So we're trying to prove that even though there are differences between works, they could still be attributed to the same author.

I was between (A) and (C) on this by asking myself: 'even if ___________, would the conclusion still hold?'

For (A), I can see how this doesn't weaken the conclusion because even if the hymns that were attributed to Homer differed more than I and O, there still is that possibility that those attributions could be wrong. So the conclusion holds.

However, for (C), even if the works known to be written by the same modern writer are as different as I and O, couldn't it still be possible that I and O are written by different authors, since Homer is a historic writer, and (C) is talking about a modern writer. Therefore, the author's conclusion could still hold?

So in this situation, could you explain why (C) is better than (A)? Since it seems like if true, both answers show that the conclusion could still be true.

User avatar
Christine (MLSAT)
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:41 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby Christine (MLSAT) » Mon Aug 11, 2014 12:46 pm

flash21 wrote:Hi - back with a question, a more general question though.

I'm having trouble with MSS questions.

I've found that generally, they have pretty long a convoluted stimuli filled with little details that you have to push together and make some sort of inference, one that usually eludes me, and its usually because its such a SMALL thing that is actually being supported when it comes down to looking at the answer choices. I'm speaking more specifically about level 3/4 MSS questions, I can usually do well on the lower level questions.

I guess I'm asking how to best approach this question type. Do I just break it down to premises and conclusions? Or will I miss some important details by doing so?

They are unique in that you aren't trying to find gaps and the inference isn't necessarily 100 percent true, so in combining all of these aspects, they give me a hard time.

I'll provide an example of where a MSS gave me a hard time. PT 16, S2, Q11

I chose (B) --> bad reading on my part. Factories of the future, my mistake.

However, but in looking at (D), I can see why its correct after looking at an explanation, but to me its one of those questions where I say to myself "seriously??". I'd absolutely miss a question in the future - and I think this highlights how the littlest details are what the right answer revolves around. Its a very subtle answer choice, at least I think.

If I could get a full breakdown if how you'd deal with a convoluted stimulus and a hard MSS question, I'd' appreciate that a lot.

Thanks again Manhattan peeps.


EDIT:::

After reading Christine's post here : (viewtopic.php?f=6&t=234328http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=234328)

I realized I don't really have a great process for MSS. I feel like the process is different from other questions types such as str/wea/flaw, that I feel a lot more comfortable approaching.



It's an interesting question that you raise, flash21.

First, I'll say that I don't treat most-strongly-supported and must-be-true questions very differently. The correct answer to an MSS question needs to be *quite* strongly supported, so you aren't being asked to make any more than the most minimal assumptions. Additionally, I've never seen a wrong answer to an MBT that could arguably have been the correct answer to an MSS. The only real difference is that the MSS leaves just a tiny tad of wiggle room for things that aren't completely and totally, mathematically, 100% provable. Both are simply 'really dang likely to be true inferences we can make'.

Second, I think it's critical to remember that inferences are typically not very predictable. You're being given a number of bits of information, then asked to find something you can (mostly) prove. Because you cannot generally predict where the correct answer will focus, it's not a good use of your time to read the stimulus with the same level of analysis as we might use on an assumption question, where we are trying to identify the gap *before* we reach the answer choices.

I typically read the stimulus relatively quickly, just taking note of the various bits of information I'm given, and what they relate to - just organizing the information with a rough map of where to find things again, much the same way that I would on a reading comp passage. This affords me plenty of time to compare each answer choice to the information that I actually have in the stimulus. You can generally knock out 2-3 answers on a first read for either:
    1) bringing up a new idea that doesn't relate to the concepts in the stimulus
    2) using structural language that isn't reflective or supported by the stimulus: comparative language, prescriptive language (should/ought), conditional relationships, predictions about the future, value judgments, etc
3) using extreme language that isn't supported[/list]

Remember, though, that anything in #2 or #3 is fine IF that language is reflected/supported directly in the stimulus

At that point, you should be down to perhaps two answer choices, and you absolutely will want to compare those two answer choices directly to the information from the stimulus. If the answer choice makes a claim about snapping sea turtles, pop back to the stimulus to quickly review everything you've been told about snapping sea turtles, and see how it compares. If you feel a bit stuck (don't use this strategy all the time), you can actually try negating the answer choice to see if it then conflicts with something you've been told (more on this in a moment). If something is a valid inference, negating should conflict with SOMETHING.

You do end up doing a decent bit of analysis in the answer choices, but this is 1) necessary, since you can't predict in advance what the inference will be and 2) acceptable, since your initial read of the stimulus doesn't generally require you to break apart an argument core; all you're doing is mentally mapping the info you're being given for later reference.

Now, the specific question (PT16-S2-Q11) you bring up is a somewhat unusual inference question, though a favorite of mine. Let's apply that negating trick to (D): if the needles wear out at PREDICTABLE rates, then why the heck would they need to use some fancy-pants acoustic device? They would surely just set up a schedule of replacements. Wouldn't that be easier, if it were predictable? But no, we're told this fancy-pants acoustic device is totally where the future is going, and we have to believe it, so these things are probably not predictable. I'd have to work pretty hard to come up with a rationale for why we are going to use these sophisticated devices if the needle-wear is predictable.

If you thought that negating trick sounded an awful lot like something you'd do on a necessary assumption question, you'd be right. Notice that in this stimulus, we actually DO get an argument: the conclusion is the last line, heavily signaled by "therefore". This conclusion makes a prediction about the future (fancy acoustic thing will become standard). Here's the argument core:

    PREMISE:Inefficient to hire people for sole purpose of needle checking
    CONCLUSION:Fancy acoustic checker will become standard

In other words, because one solution is unacceptable (hiring people just to check), we conclude some other solution is THE WAY IT WILL HAPPEN. This argument assumes that no other solution would work either! (Such as, for instance, simply making a replacement schedule based on predictable wear.)

Now, we haven't been asked for a necessary assumption, exactly. We've been asked for an inference, based on the information above. So, we're being told to ACCEPT this argument, in total. If we accept this argument, and its conclusion, then we must also accept any assumptions it is making. So we're being asked to accept not only the explicit information, but also the necessary assumptions embedded in the argument!!

That's the added layer here that makes this question particularly tough - it's not a typical laundry list of information, but rather an argument with a clear assumption being made - one that we are forced to accept.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on all this, both in regards to this specific question and the general approach to inference questions!





PS - I'm also curious exactly why you were tempted by (B), and how you finally realized it was incorrect. I find it tempting because we can infer that the future factory can't or won't hire people to do some other job AND check needles. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the future factory won't ever hire ANYONE to do a single task (maybe the floor-sweeper does that and only that, for example).

HeirCroc
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:01 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby HeirCroc » Mon Aug 11, 2014 2:58 pm

PT 63 LR 2 Question 2.

So, I can see why TCR is correct. It's a classic LSAT flaw: the shift from people the artist knows and 'everyone in this country' is an outrageous assumption/gap. We don't know if his pals/colleagues/whoever are representative of the country as a whole.

I'm wondering, however, why E is wrong. It seems to me the argument is treating 'hoping to make a living as an artist' as 'wanting to be an artist'. This seems like an unjustified shift, but as I read it now it seems like maybe it’s one of those ‘common sense’ term-shifts/assumptions that are justified? That's my guess at to why E is wrong. I mean, the argument it seems to me is definitely 'doing' E.

lsat_hopeful
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:08 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby lsat_hopeful » Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:06 pm

Here's a more general study question that I'd like your input on:

Study 10 LSAT PTs thoroughly or try to do as many PTs as possible, even if that means going through them less thoroughly.

(I know this sounds like a noob question, but I'd really like to get your insight.)

User avatar
Christine (MLSAT)
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:41 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby Christine (MLSAT) » Tue Aug 12, 2014 1:17 am

evolution wrote:Hey Christine, this question comes from 52.1.21: The Iliad and the Odyssey...

Premise: I and O differ greatly between each other
Conclusion: I and O are almost certainly not the work of the same poet

So we're trying to prove that even though there are differences between works, they could still be attributed to the same author.

I was between (A) and (C) on this by asking myself: 'even if ___________, would the conclusion still hold?'

For (A), I can see how this doesn't weaken the conclusion because even if the hymns that were attributed to Homer differed more than I and O, there still is that possibility that those attributions could be wrong. So the conclusion holds.

However, for (C), even if the works known to be written by the same modern writer are as different as I and O, couldn't it still be possible that I and O are written by different authors, since Homer is a historic writer, and (C) is talking about a modern writer. Therefore, the author's conclusion could still hold?

So in this situation, could you explain why (C) is better than (A)? Since it seems like if true, both answers show that the conclusion could still be true.



Great question, evolution!

You're holding each potential answer choice to too high a bar - you're wanting the answer choice to completely defeat and destroy the conclusion, and that's not necessarily what a weakener does. A weakener simply makes the conclusion less likely to be true by undermining the likelihood of an assumption connecting the premise and conclusion.

By asking "could the conclusion still be true", you are demanding that a correct answer eliminate all reasonable possibility of the conclusion.

Let's revert back for a second to my favorite silly argument:
    PREMISE: All boys like sports
    CONCLUSION: Andy likes sports

Here, we are assuming that Andy is a boy. A valid weakener for this argument would be something like "Many people named Andy are girls." It's still entirely possible that Andy is, in fact, a boy, and the conclusion would in those cases still be valid. But raising that there are, in fact, some girl-Andy's weakens that connection. It highlights the possibility that the assumption could be wrong.

In this argument, we have:
    PREMISE: The 2 poems have differences in tone/vocab/details
    CONCLUSION: The 2 poems almost certainly have different authors

The argument is assuming that having those types of difference is enough information to conclude that works have difference authors. Any example where we had those differences, and yet DID have the same author would do some work to undermine that assumption. This would undermine the assumed connection between [differences in the works] and [actual authorship].

That connection is exactly what we see in (C) - an example is thrown out of works that have those same differences, and yet have the same author. This doesn't PROVE that the Iliad and the Odyssey are by the same author - not by a longshot. But it kills the possibility of any sort of complete blanket rule that might tell us that those differences are enough, all by themselves, to conclude that the authors must be different people. In so doing, it damages the assumed connection between [differences in the works] and [actual authorship].

(A), on the other hand, doesn't give us that sort of situation. We get an example of two works having substantial differences, but we have zero information on who the actual authors are. All we know is that they are both attributed to Homer - and clearly, attribution doesn't mean much here. This doesn't weaken any connection between [the differences in the works] on the one hand and [actual authorship] on the other, as it never actually raises [actual authorship].

For weaken questions, it's tempting to shortcut the process by looking for an answer that makes the conclusion impossible - but only the crazy-strong weakeners will do that. Most weakeners still leave a lot of possibility for the conclusion to be true, but make the connection between premise and conclusion less likely to be a rock solid bridge. Keep your focus on the assumed connection in the argument core, instead of on the possibility of the conclusion alone.

Let me know what you think!

Adrian Monk
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 7:32 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby Adrian Monk » Tue Aug 12, 2014 2:01 am

deebanger wrote:Hey Christine!

I was just wondering if you help me negate two answer choices (C and E ) in PT 30, S2, Q22 the infamous rattle snake problem and explain to me how the negation of those two choices lead to the correct answer.

This is what I've gotten so far,

Premise- One new section is formed each time a rattle snake molts
Conc- if they are not so brittle, we can determine the age of the rattle snake from the sections it has.

the gap here i think is that even if the they are not so brittle, and if age can be determined by its sections, what if some other outside factor makes it difficult to determine the age. So, just like many other NA q's, we looks for alternate reasons why age cannot be determined by the sections.

Anser choice A is Suffciient Assump i believe, as the answer fixes the whole argument completely, and we don't need that for NA, also the mention of "exactly" is interesting as it reminds me of this example, the suit that jon wants to buy costs 100 bucks. He has "exactly" 100 bucks. and this is sufficient but not necessary, so when i saw the word exactly, i thought about that sentence.

B is out of scope/irrelvant.

D is wrong, as when you negate it, it does nothing, it definitely does not destroy the argument.

C and E were the choices i had left, and the i tried to see how the negation of those choices would lead me tot he correct answer choice, but i could not. can u help me? thanks!


also interested in this, i heard that this is one of the hardest problems in the history of the lsat, and i think it might also have to do with the way the question was asked, it almost sounded like a SA question, (i think most did not notice the word "required" in the q, )and thus many would have been tempted to choose A. I wish we could have seen the statsictics of what choice did most of the students picked, i think the majority picked A. those tricky lsac bastards.

User avatar
Christine (MLSAT)
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:41 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby Christine (MLSAT) » Tue Aug 12, 2014 2:49 am

Adrian Monk wrote:
deebanger wrote:Hey Christine!

I was just wondering if you help me negate two answer choices (C and E ) in PT 30, S2, Q22 the infamous rattle snake problem and explain to me how the negation of those two choices lead to the correct answer.

This is what I've gotten so far,

Premise- One new section is formed each time a rattle snake molts
Conc- if they are not so brittle, we can determine the age of the rattle snake from the sections it has.

the gap here i think is that even if the they are not so brittle, and if age can be determined by its sections, what if some other outside factor makes it difficult to determine the age. So, just like many other NA q's, we looks for alternate reasons why age cannot be determined by the sections.

Anser choice A is Suffciient Assump i believe, as the answer fixes the whole argument completely, and we don't need that for NA, also the mention of "exactly" is interesting as it reminds me of this example, the suit that jon wants to buy costs 100 bucks. He has "exactly" 100 bucks. and this is sufficient but not necessary, so when i saw the word exactly, i thought about that sentence.

B is out of scope/irrelvant.

D is wrong, as when you negate it, it does nothing, it definitely does not destroy the argument.

C and E were the choices i had left, and the i tried to see how the negation of those choices would lead me tot he correct answer choice, but i could not. can u help me? thanks!


also interested in this, i heard that this is one of the hardest problems in the lsat, and i think it might also have to do with the way the question was asked, it almost sounded like a SA question, and thus many would have been tempted to choose A.


Thanks for raising this again, Adrian Monk, I almost missed deebanger's post!

This question is a totally fascinating question for me, for a number of reasons. The question stem does sound trickily like a SA question because of the words "properly drawn". SA questions will often ask which assumption would allow the conclusion to be properly drawn. This question, however, asks which assumption is required in order for the conclusion to be properly drawn.

Reading this as a SA question would tempt one toward (A), though interestingly, (A) is actually not sufficient. :p More on that in a moment.*

Deebanger, I think the heart of the issue for you may lie in an incomplete understanding of the core and gap here. Let's lay it out:

    PREMISE: each molting gives one new section
    CONCLUSION: if the rattles weren't brittle, we could determine age from the number of sections

While you're right that some outside force that made age difficult to determine would be pretty damaging, that's not the fundamental disconnect this argument drives home. The premises tell us only about the relationship between [molting] and [sections]. Then the conclusion claims a connection between [sections] and [age]. But we don't know the connection between [molting] and [age]!

One thing this argument is assuming is that if we knew how many times the snake had molted, we would then know how old it was. This would require some sort of understood, standard "schedule" for molting. If snakes molted every day when they were happy, and only once a year when they were sad, then just knowing how many times a snake had molted wouldn't tell us a darn thing about how old the creature was. Fundamentally, we need their molting rate to be regular enough to be meaningful in determining their age.

Negating (E) would mean that snakes do NOT molt at the same rate in feast and famine. This does the same damage as the happy/sad issue above. If there is some difference in the molting rates during feast vs famine, then just knowing how many moltings a snake had gone through wouldn't tell us the age. It doesn't matter which situation causes the snake to molt more often, the difference alone is enough to destroy the informative link between [number of moltings] and [age].

Negating (C) works differently. If snakes do NOT molt more frequently when young, that means they either molt at the same rate or they molt less frequently. If they were to molt at the same rate when young and old, then that certainly doesn't destroy the argument; in fact, that would mean we're more likely to be able to determine the age just based on the number of moltings.

After we distill the core and isolate the gap to be assuming a connection between molting and age, we should be able to predict that we need to protect the molting rate from annoying variations. (E) protects it from one such annoying variation!




*(A) is not strictly necessary, since we don't need the "schedule" to be once a year. It could once a month, or once a day, etc, as long as it is regular! The specificity of "once a year" goes entirely to far.

As to why (A) is not actually sufficient: If rattlesnakes molted precisely once a year, that would tie up the concerns about varying molting rates screwing up the age count. However many moltings a snake had gone through would exactly equal the number of years old it was. However, the premise tells us that each molting produces a new section. It doesn't tell us that molting is the only thing that produces sections!

So, what if snakes molt exactly once a year (and produce a section in the process), but they also spontaneously create sections every time they get really happy even though they haven't molted? If that were the case, then counting the sections would give us a higher number than the number of times they had molted, and thus, we still might not be able to determine age accurately!

This argument is actually assuming two things:
1) that molting is the only way to acquire new sections and
2) that molting happens on enough of a schedule that we can translate [number of times molted] to [age].

I'd love to hear both of your thoughts on this Adrian Monk and deebanger! It's a super tough question, for number of reasons!

User avatar
flash21
Posts: 1536
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby flash21 » Tue Aug 12, 2014 5:11 pm

.
Last edited by flash21 on Wed Aug 13, 2014 4:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MattM
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:05 am

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby MattM » Tue Aug 12, 2014 7:49 pm

Hello,

I'm having a difficult time seeing my RC scores improve and I feel pretty solid on both LG and LR so I was considering purchasing the RC strategy guide to help me improve there as Im missing 8-10 questions there.

In addition to strategies and tips how many full length LSAT passages are contained in the book to help me practice?

Thanks!

h3jk5h
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:56 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby h3jk5h » Tue Aug 12, 2014 11:05 pm

I bought all three guides for MLSAT. I still have no unlimited access to post on the forums. Do I have to enroll in a course to get the access?

User avatar
Christine (MLSAT)
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:41 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby Christine (MLSAT) » Wed Aug 13, 2014 1:22 pm

h3jk5h wrote:I bought all three guides for MLSAT. I still have no unlimited access to post on the forums. Do I have to enroll in a course to get the access?


Drat! That sounds like a glitch. PM me your MLSAT forum username, and I'll have tech look into it right away!

User avatar
flash21
Posts: 1536
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby flash21 » Wed Aug 13, 2014 4:01 pm

Christine (MLSAT) wrote:
flash21 wrote:Hi - back with a question, a more general question though.

I'm having trouble with MSS questions.

I've found that generally, they have pretty long a convoluted stimuli filled with little details that you have to push together and make some sort of inference, one that usually eludes me, and its usually because its such a SMALL thing that is actually being supported when it comes down to looking at the answer choices. I'm speaking more specifically about level 3/4 MSS questions, I can usually do well on the lower level questions.

I guess I'm asking how to best approach this question type. Do I just break it down to premises and conclusions? Or will I miss some important details by doing so?

They are unique in that you aren't trying to find gaps and the inference isn't necessarily 100 percent true, so in combining all of these aspects, they give me a hard time.

I'll provide an example of where a MSS gave me a hard time. PT 16, S2, Q11

I chose (B) --> bad reading on my part. Factories of the future, my mistake.

However, but in looking at (D), I can see why its correct after looking at an explanation, but to me its one of those questions where I say to myself "seriously??". I'd absolutely miss a question in the future - and I think this highlights how the littlest details are what the right answer revolves around. Its a very subtle answer choice, at least I think.

If I could get a full breakdown if how you'd deal with a convoluted stimulus and a hard MSS question, I'd' appreciate that a lot.

Thanks again Manhattan peeps.


EDIT:::

After reading Christine's post here : (viewtopic.php?f=6&t=234328http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=234328)

I realized I don't really have a great process for MSS. I feel like the process is different from other questions types such as str/wea/flaw, that I feel a lot more comfortable approaching.



It's an interesting question that you raise, flash21.

First, I'll say that I don't treat most-strongly-supported and must-be-true questions very differently. The correct answer to an MSS question needs to be *quite* strongly supported, so you aren't being asked to make any more than the most minimal assumptions. Additionally, I've never seen a wrong answer to an MBT that could arguably have been the correct answer to an MSS. The only real difference is that the MSS leaves just a tiny tad of wiggle room for things that aren't completely and totally, mathematically, 100% provable. Both are simply 'really dang likely to be true inferences we can make'.

Second, I think it's critical to remember that inferences are typically not very predictable. You're being given a number of bits of information, then asked to find something you can (mostly) prove. Because you cannot generally predict where the correct answer will focus, it's not a good use of your time to read the stimulus with the same level of analysis as we might use on an assumption question, where we are trying to identify the gap *before* we reach the answer choices.

I typically read the stimulus relatively quickly, just taking note of the various bits of information I'm given, and what they relate to - just organizing the information with a rough map of where to find things again, much the same way that I would on a reading comp passage. This affords me plenty of time to compare each answer choice to the information that I actually have in the stimulus. You can generally knock out 2-3 answers on a first read for either:
    1) bringing up a new idea that doesn't relate to the concepts in the stimulus
    2) using structural language that isn't reflective or supported by the stimulus: comparative language, prescriptive language (should/ought), conditional relationships, predictions about the future, value judgments, etc
3) using extreme language that isn't supported[/list]

Remember, though, that anything in #2 or #3 is fine IF that language is reflected/supported directly in the stimulus

At that point, you should be down to perhaps two answer choices, and you absolutely will want to compare those two answer choices directly to the information from the stimulus. If the answer choice makes a claim about snapping sea turtles, pop back to the stimulus to quickly review everything you've been told about snapping sea turtles, and see how it compares. If you feel a bit stuck (don't use this strategy all the time), you can actually try negating the answer choice to see if it then conflicts with something you've been told (more on this in a moment). If something is a valid inference, negating should conflict with SOMETHING.

You do end up doing a decent bit of analysis in the answer choices, but this is 1) necessary, since you can't predict in advance what the inference will be and 2) acceptable, since your initial read of the stimulus doesn't generally require you to break apart an argument core; all you're doing is mentally mapping the info you're being given for later reference.

Now, the specific question (PT16-S2-Q11) you bring up is a somewhat unusual inference question, though a favorite of mine. Let's apply that negating trick to (D): if the needles wear out at PREDICTABLE rates, then why the heck would they need to use some fancy-pants acoustic device? They would surely just set up a schedule of replacements. Wouldn't that be easier, if it were predictable? But no, we're told this fancy-pants acoustic device is totally where the future is going, and we have to believe it, so these things are probably not predictable. I'd have to work pretty hard to come up with a rationale for why we are going to use these sophisticated devices if the needle-wear is predictable.

If you thought that negating trick sounded an awful lot like something you'd do on a necessary assumption question, you'd be right. Notice that in this stimulus, we actually DO get an argument: the conclusion is the last line, heavily signaled by "therefore". This conclusion makes a prediction about the future (fancy acoustic thing will become standard). Here's the argument core:

    PREMISE:Inefficient to hire people for sole purpose of needle checking
    CONCLUSION:Fancy acoustic checker will become standard

In other words, because one solution is unacceptable (hiring people just to check), we conclude some other solution is THE WAY IT WILL HAPPEN. This argument assumes that no other solution would work either! (Such as, for instance, simply making a replacement schedule based on predictable wear.)

Now, we haven't been asked for a necessary assumption, exactly. We've been asked for an inference, based on the information above. So, we're being told to ACCEPT this argument, in total. If we accept this argument, and its conclusion, then we must also accept any assumptions it is making. So we're being asked to accept not only the explicit information, but also the necessary assumptions embedded in the argument!!

That's the added layer here that makes this question particularly tough - it's not a typical laundry list of information, but rather an argument with a clear assumption being made - one that we are forced to accept.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on all this, both in regards to this specific question and the general approach to inference questions!





PS - I'm also curious exactly why you were tempted by (B), and how you finally realized it was incorrect. I find it tempting because we can infer that the future factory can't or won't hire people to do some other job AND check needles. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the future factory won't ever hire ANYONE to do a single task (maybe the floor-sweeper does that and only that, for example).

First of all - thanks. I'll book mark this and come back to it whenever I'm about to do MSS questions.

In regard to your question,

I found out (B) was wrong basically after I got it wrong, and then the wrong-ness became more apparent after I looked into the language more (and the part about going into the future). When I'm not really sure, I can bend the logic to make it seem as though an answer choice is correct when its actually not, but I digress.

(B) I saw from the stimulus that "the people who operate the sewing machines monitor the needles and replace those that begin to wear out". I took this statement as meaning that these are the ONLY two tasks these people do, and when the machine that monitors it is implemented, they will only need to replace the needles, resulting in them only having to do one task.

Is this wrong because of the part mentioning "into the future" in addition to me wrongly assuming these are the ONLY two tasks that they do? Is it the only two tasks that they do only if the LSAT explicitly states that its the only task that they do?

Thanks! Hope you enjoy my interesting logic.

User avatar
flash21
Posts: 1536
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby flash21 » Thu Aug 14, 2014 5:00 pm

side question also - is there a way I can change my username on the forum? Manhattan forums, not TLS.

User avatar
Christine (MLSAT)
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:41 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby Christine (MLSAT) » Fri Aug 15, 2014 11:25 am

flash21 wrote:In regard to your question,

I found out (B) was wrong basically after I got it wrong, and then the wrong-ness became more apparent after I looked into the language more (and the part about going into the future). When I'm not really sure, I can bend the logic to make it seem as though an answer choice is correct when its actually not, but I digress.

(B) I saw from the stimulus that "the people who operate the sewing machines monitor the needles and replace those that begin to wear out". I took this statement as meaning that these are the ONLY two tasks these people do, and when the machine that monitors it is implemented, they will only need to replace the needles, resulting in them only having to do one task.

Is this wrong because of the part mentioning "into the future" in addition to me wrongly assuming these are the ONLY two tasks that they do? Is it the only two tasks that they do only if the LSAT explicitly states that its the only task that they do?

Thanks! Hope you enjoy my interesting logic.


Ahh, I see what you did now.

There are a number of things that are wrong with (B), some of which you've identified already:

1) You're right - you absolutely cannot assume that operating the sewing machine and checking the needles are the only two things those employees do!! Imagine if I told you that I baked cookies on Saturday - can you assume that's the ONLY thing I did on Saturday? Of course not! I haven't limited my language in any way to indicate that I did that AND ONLY THAT.

This is exactly the same issue that often occurs in conditionals. Consider the statement: If I eat chocolate, then I am happy. This doesn't mean that chocolate is the ONLY way to be happy, nor does it mean that chocolate doesn't do other things (like make me sleepy). Don't read in limitations where none have been given to you!

2) You've picked up on the fact this is talking about the wrong factories, but it's not just the phrase "into the future" that clues us in to that, but also the word "automated". While factories are not strictly binary, the author is contrasting "traditional apparel factories" (line 3) to the "automated apparel factories of the future" (last two lines).

For the purpose of this issue, let's go ahead and assume that issue #1 was correct - that the jobs listed are the ONLY things these traditional apparel worker do. You're taking the traditional apparel workers and trying to insert them into the factories of the future. It's as if Joe the traditional apparel worker originally did a few things: operate the sewing machine, monitor the needles, and replace them. Now, under automation, the robots operate the sewing machine, and the fancypants acoustical device monitors the needles. You're assuming that Joe sticks around to continue replacing the needles.

Do we know that the factory will continue to employ Joe just as a needle replacer? Maybe the factory automates that too, and Joe just gets fired!

3) There's a third issue though, that should have caught your eye even if the two above issues were both resolved.

So, let's assume that Joe is still working at the new automated factory of the future, and his sole job is 'needle replacer'. Does that mean that EACH employee of the future factory only performs one type of task? Seems to me that we only know about the needle replacers - but aren't there potentially lots of other kinds of employees at the apparel factory? Quality control people, managers, janitors, packagers, box movers, etc? Do we know anything about those people?

Even if the first two assumptions you'd made were correct, we still can't prove anything about "each" employee! Just a certain subset of them!

So, there are actually a series of assumptions you're forced to make to decide that (B) is provable. Each one of them alone would make this the wrong answer. Fortunately, all of these issues are ones that you're likely to see again - don't make assumptions about limitations that aren't given, and don't assume that something true about certain people applies to all people!

What do you think?

User avatar
flash21
Posts: 1536
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby flash21 » Fri Aug 15, 2014 11:31 am

Christine (MLSAT) wrote:
flash21 wrote:In regard to your question,

I found out (B) was wrong basically after I got it wrong, and then the wrong-ness became more apparent after I looked into the language more (and the part about going into the future). When I'm not really sure, I can bend the logic to make it seem as though an answer choice is correct when its actually not, but I digress.

(B) I saw from the stimulus that "the people who operate the sewing machines monitor the needles and replace those that begin to wear out". I took this statement as meaning that these are the ONLY two tasks these people do, and when the machine that monitors it is implemented, they will only need to replace the needles, resulting in them only having to do one task.

Is this wrong because of the part mentioning "into the future" in addition to me wrongly assuming these are the ONLY two tasks that they do? Is it the only two tasks that they do only if the LSAT explicitly states that its the only task that they do?

Thanks! Hope you enjoy my interesting logic.


Ahh, I see what you did now.

There are a number of things that are wrong with (B), some of which you've identified already:

1) You're right - you absolutely cannot assume that operating the sewing machine and checking the needles are the only two things those employees do!! Imagine if I told you that I baked cookies on Saturday - can you assume that's the ONLY thing I did on Saturday? Of course not! I haven't limited my language in any way to indicate that I did that AND ONLY THAT.

This is exactly the same issue that often occurs in conditionals. Consider the statement: If I eat chocolate, then I am happy. This doesn't mean that chocolate is the ONLY way to be happy, nor does it mean that chocolate doesn't do other things (like make me sleepy). Don't read in limitations where none have been given to you!

2) You've picked up on the fact this is talking about the wrong factories, but it's not just the phrase "into the future" that clues us in to that, but also the word "automated". While factories are not strictly binary, the author is contrasting "traditional apparel factories" (line 3) to the "automated apparel factories of the future" (last two lines).

For the purpose of this issue, let's go ahead and assume that issue #1 was correct - that the jobs listed are the ONLY things these traditional apparel worker do. You're taking the traditional apparel workers and trying to insert them into the factories of the future. It's as if Joe the traditional apparel worker originally did a few things: operate the sewing machine, monitor the needles, and replace them. Now, under automation, the robots operate the sewing machine, and the fancypants acoustical device monitors the needles. You're assuming that Joe sticks around to continue replacing the needles.

Do we know that the factory will continue to employ Joe just as a needle replacer? Maybe the factory automates that too, and Joe just gets fired!

3) There's a third issue though, that should have caught your eye even if the two above issues were both resolved.

So, let's assume that Joe is still working at the new automated factory of the future, and his sole job is 'needle replacer'. Does that mean that EACH employee of the future factory only performs one type of task? Seems to me that we only know about the needle replacers - but aren't there potentially lots of other kinds of employees at the apparel factory? Quality control people, managers, janitors, packagers, box movers, etc? Do we know anything about those people?

Even if the first two assumptions you'd made were correct, we still can't prove anything about "each" employee! Just a certain subset of them!

So, there are actually a series of assumptions you're forced to make to decide that (B) is provable. Each one of them alone would make this the wrong answer. Fortunately, all of these issues are ones that you're likely to see again - don't make assumptions about limitations that aren't given, and don't assume that something true about certain people applies to all people!

What do you think?


Yeah this makes a lot of sense. I'll definitely keep my eye out for similar errors. I guess I was just looking for something that seemed super inconsequential to be the correct answer since it was a level 4, but in doing so assumed a lot of things that weren't true in addition to simply over looking a bunch of flaws in the argument.

I realize now that I've simply gotta slow down on these inference questions. I don't know if this is true, but I feel as though MSS and MBT play most off of the flaw of wrong language in answer choices. Whether it be scope, making things into the future or in the case the automated vs traditional, all things I feel like are easy to overlook but are super common in the WRONG answer choices of these inference type questions. I think I've learned my lesson and the fact there was so many things wrong with (B) is a bit depressing lol. Its good though, I now realize many of the wrong AC's share similar patterns.

Appreciate all of the help once again, Christine.

User avatar
flash21
Posts: 1536
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby flash21 » Fri Aug 15, 2014 4:15 pm

flash21 wrote:
Christine (MLSAT) wrote:
flash21 wrote:In regard to your question,

I found out (B) was wrong basically after I got it wrong, and then the wrong-ness became more apparent after I looked into the language more (and the part about going into the future). When I'm not really sure, I can bend the logic to make it seem as though an answer choice is correct when its actually not, but I digress.

(B) I saw from the stimulus that "the people who operate the sewing machines monitor the needles and replace those that begin to wear out". I took this statement as meaning that these are the ONLY two tasks these people do, and when the machine that monitors it is implemented, they will only need to replace the needles, resulting in them only having to do one task.

Is this wrong because of the part mentioning "into the future" in addition to me wrongly assuming these are the ONLY two tasks that they do? Is it the only two tasks that they do only if the LSAT explicitly states that its the only task that they do?

Thanks! Hope you enjoy my interesting logic.


Ahh, I see what you did now.

There are a number of things that are wrong with (B), some of which you've identified already:

1) You're right - you absolutely cannot assume that operating the sewing machine and checking the needles are the only two things those employees do!! Imagine if I told you that I baked cookies on Saturday - can you assume that's the ONLY thing I did on Saturday? Of course not! I haven't limited my language in any way to indicate that I did that AND ONLY THAT.

This is exactly the same issue that often occurs in conditionals. Consider the statement: If I eat chocolate, then I am happy. This doesn't mean that chocolate is the ONLY way to be happy, nor does it mean that chocolate doesn't do other things (like make me sleepy). Don't read in limitations where none have been given to you!

2) You've picked up on the fact this is talking about the wrong factories, but it's not just the phrase "into the future" that clues us in to that, but also the word "automated". While factories are not strictly binary, the author is contrasting "traditional apparel factories" (line 3) to the "automated apparel factories of the future" (last two lines).

For the purpose of this issue, let's go ahead and assume that issue #1 was correct - that the jobs listed are the ONLY things these traditional apparel worker do. You're taking the traditional apparel workers and trying to insert them into the factories of the future. It's as if Joe the traditional apparel worker originally did a few things: operate the sewing machine, monitor the needles, and replace them. Now, under automation, the robots operate the sewing machine, and the fancypants acoustical device monitors the needles. You're assuming that Joe sticks around to continue replacing the needles.

Do we know that the factory will continue to employ Joe just as a needle replacer? Maybe the factory automates that too, and Joe just gets fired!

3) There's a third issue though, that should have caught your eye even if the two above issues were both resolved.

So, let's assume that Joe is still working at the new automated factory of the future, and his sole job is 'needle replacer'. Does that mean that EACH employee of the future factory only performs one type of task? Seems to me that we only know about the needle replacers - but aren't there potentially lots of other kinds of employees at the apparel factory? Quality control people, managers, janitors, packagers, box movers, etc? Do we know anything about those people?

Even if the first two assumptions you'd made were correct, we still can't prove anything about "each" employee! Just a certain subset of them!

So, there are actually a series of assumptions you're forced to make to decide that (B) is provable. Each one of them alone would make this the wrong answer. Fortunately, all of these issues are ones that you're likely to see again - don't make assumptions about limitations that aren't given, and don't assume that something true about certain people applies to all people!

What do you think?



Yeah this makes a lot of sense. I'll definitely keep my eye out for similar errors. I guess I was just looking for something that seemed super inconsequential to be the correct answer (as often times I find it is, or it seems that way to me atleast) since it was a level 4, but in doing so assumed a lot of things that weren't true in addition to simply over looking a bunch of flaws in the answer choice.

I realize now that I've simply gotta slow down on these inference questions. I don't know if this is true, but I feel as though MSS and MBT play most off of the flaw of wrong language in answer choices. Whether it be scope, making things into the future or in the case the automated vs traditional, all things I feel like are easy to overlook but are super common in the WRONG answer choices of these inference type questions. I think I've learned my lesson and the fact there was so many things wrong with (B) is a bit depressing lol. Its good though, I now realize many of the wrong AC's share similar patterns.

Appreciate all of the help once again, Christine.

User avatar
Christine (MLSAT)
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:41 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby Christine (MLSAT) » Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:10 am

HeirCroc wrote:PT 63 LR 2 Question 2.

So, I can see why TCR is correct. It's a classic LSAT flaw: the shift from people the artist knows and 'everyone in this country' is an outrageous assumption/gap. We don't know if his pals/colleagues/whoever are representative of the country as a whole.

I'm wondering, however, why E is wrong. It seems to me the argument is treating 'hoping to make a living as an artist' as 'wanting to be an artist'. This seems like an unjustified shift, but as I read it now it seems like maybe it’s one of those ‘common sense’ term-shifts/assumptions that are justified? That's my guess at to why E is wrong. I mean, the argument it seems to me is definitely 'doing' E.



Really interesting question, HeirCroc! (And sorry for a bit of delay in responding to your post!)

I totally understand your thoughts that perhaps this is simply a common sense connection. However, I think there's actually something else that we can rely on that is a bit more concrete.

Consider this slightly altered argument:
    PREMISE: Joe hopes to someday make a living as an artist.
    CONCLUSION: Joe wants to be an artist.

Now, "make a living" and "wants to be" are not the same thing. However, this argument seems pretty solid. Why? Because wanting to BE an artist is a larger, more general idea, and hoping to "make a living" is a very narrow, specific version of that idea. If we knew the specific version was true, then we'd know the general idea was true.

But watch what happens when I flip them:
    PREMISE: Joe wants to be an artist.
    CONCLUSION: Joe wants to make a living as an artist.

Once I flip it, the argument is no longer good. Just knowing the general idea that Joe wants to be an artist is not specific enough to support a conclusion that he "wants to make a living" as an artist. Maybe he just wants to be a hobby artist, or maybe he wants to be a completely anti-commercial artist who only produces art for free.

In this particular situation, moving from a more specific premise to a more general conclusion is really not a problem - and therefore, even though "make a living" and "wants to be an artist" are different things, the argument does not NEED to make a distinction between them to be valid.

I will point out though that it's not always allowed to go from specific to general. Let me quote myself on some examples I spoke about once before:
Christine (MLSAT) wrote: I just want to caution you about the application of this idea to other examples - whether the shift from narrow->broad or broad->narrow is okay depends on what kind of shift is being made.

Two different examples of narrow->broad:

    PREMISE: Arsenic killed him
    CONCLUSION: Therefore poison killed him

    PREMISE: Arsenic smells like almonds
    CONCLUSION: Therefore poison smells like almonds

The first is totally legit. We know that a specific poison killed him, so we can more generally conclude that 'a poison' killed him. But the second scenario takes a characteristic we only know to be true about one specific poison and concludes, inappropriately, that it's true for ALL poisons. The primary difference here is that the first one is simply genericizing (totally a word) a fact we know, while the second is generalizing to a broader category.

Similarly, if we flip both of these around to broad->narrow, the legitimacy flips too:
    PREMISE: Poison killed him
    CONCLUSION: Therefore arsenic killed him

    PREMISE: Poison smells like almonds
    CONCLUSION: Therefore arsenic smells like almonds

Now the first argument is bad: we only know a general category to be responsible for his death - placing blame into a sub-part of that category is unsupported. But the second argument becomes legit - we know the entire category has a characteristic of smelling like almonds, so it's safe to say that a particular sub-part of that category has the same characteristic. We might have phrased the first arguments premise as "A poison killed him", and the second argument's premise is understood to be "ALL poison smells like almonds". And that's the fundamental difference in whether we're allowed to move from narrow->broad or broad->narrow.



To sum up, you're right that the argument does not make a distinction between "wanting to be an artist" and "making a living as an artist". However, this distinction isn't NEEDED, since knowing that someone wants to make a living as an artist (premise) would tell you that they want to be an artist (conclusion)!

Let me know what you think!

User avatar
Christine (MLSAT)
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:41 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby Christine (MLSAT) » Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:46 am

lsat_hopeful wrote:Here's a more general study question that I'd like your input on:

Study 10 LSAT PTs thoroughly or try to do as many PTs as possible, even if that means going through them less thoroughly.

(I know this sounds like a noob question, but I'd really like to get your insight.)


I am SO glad you asked this question, because I have some very strong feelings about this!

There's never any question that doing fewer PTs, but more thoroughly is VASTLY SUPERIOR to doing more PTs, less thoroughly. The adage about quality over quantity is extremely applicable here. You should never do more PTs than you have time to completely and thoroughly review.

The reality is that you learn very little from the act of taking a full length exam. It builds up endurance, which is certainly a good thing, but it's not learning - it does not deepen our understanding. We only learn through careful after-the-fact analysis of our thought process, review of our mistakes, and reflection on the common patterns in both argument structures and wrong answer choices. All of that takes substantial time per question. Blowing through a high number of PTs without this analysis robs us of our most valuable available resource for learning, and wastes time and material alike.

Another complementary reality is that there are truly only so many argument structures that exist. If we can take one example of some repeated structure and really unravel it to its bare bits, then we'll have a substantially increased capacity to tackle new questions that use the same structure, even with the details altered. Because of this, the substantial time investment made into the review of a single question can have extraordinary effects on general performance.

If you are planning on taking the September exam, then now is the time to write out a calendar from now until test day. Ask yourself how many PTs you can reasonably expect yourself to be able to do each week, taking into account the deep and thorough review of each that you must commit to. Don't forget that you should also be continuing to do question-type or concept specific drilling, as well as some single-section timed runs in addition to any full length PTs, and that each of these exercises will also require that deep and thorough review.

Please let me know your thoughts on this, as I'd be happy to chat about this more!!


Return to “Free Help and Advice from Professionals”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests