Mike's Trainer Thread

Special forum where professionals are encouraged to help law school applicants, students, and graduates.
User avatar
The LSAT Trainer
Posts: 621
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Mike, author of the LSAT Trainer, answering questions

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Thu Jan 02, 2014 2:45 pm

CocoSunshine wrote:Hi Mike!

I have a general question concerning Strengthen/Weaken question. Is an answer choice that strengthens/weakens the conclusion while has nothing to do with the premise a valid answer? Or it has to address the reasoning of the argument?

Thank you in advance and happy new year!


Hi CocoSunshine! Happy New Year --

99% of the time, the question will ask for us to strengthen or weaken an argument --

We can think of an argument as the relationship between support and conclusion --

And so, absolutely, the right answer must, per the task, relate to the support and the conclusion.

Not only that, separating out the argument correctly and seeing the issue(s) in the link between support and conclusion is absolutely the key to making these questions easier on yourself.

It's very helpful to know that, unless it's an EXCEPT question, even when a q stem says "most weakens" or "most strengthens," the question will actually only have one answer that can reasonably be seen as matching the task (I talk more about why q's are designed this way in the trainer) -- the clearer your sense of the argument, the easier it will be to separate that one answer out.

The 1% where the answer doesn't have to go between support and conclusion will have stimuli that don't have arguments -- the stimulus will just have an opinion with no support, or b/g with opinion, or a conclusion that counters something, again with no support (An example would be "Most people believe admissions counselors are helpful. I do not." Notice the conclusion, "I do not," has no support -- so, it's not an argument, it's just an opinion.)

For this 1%, you will not be asked, in the question stem, to strengthen/weaken an argument -- instead it will specifically state that you strengthen or weaken the author's claim (or some other terminology for opinion). Note that these types of q's are very rare, and I can't recall seeing even one in the last few years.

HTH -- mikekim

blackbirdfly
Posts: 313
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:04 pm

Re: Mike, author of the LSAT Trainer, answering questions

Postby blackbirdfly » Thu Jan 02, 2014 6:08 pm

Got my December LSAT score. The LSAT Trainer made a difference. Thanks, Mike!

User avatar
Louis1127
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:12 pm

Re: Mike, author of the LSAT Trainer, answering questions

Postby Louis1127 » Thu Jan 02, 2014 6:39 pm

Hello Mike,

I am going through the Trainer as my main study guide and am a little less than half way through it. I already feel like I am better at diagramming games and finding flaws in arguments for LR questions that require us to find a flaw. I have hit a snag in Logic Games and have a specific question about one of your drills:

On page 213 on the second logic game drill (the one about players on the Varsity team and players on the Junior Varsity team), I am having trouble with some conditional logic on this question in this drill.

If taking Varsity to be "in" and Junior Varsity to be "out", as you do in your solution, I got the following conditionals:

S--> ~W and its contrapositive: W-->~S

~T--> W and its contrapositive: ~W-->T

Since every variable in this drill is either "in" or "out", I combined them into a logic chain (which is how I would solve the "Birds in the forest" game for example) that looks like this:

S--> ~W--> T

But this caused me to miss (and not understand) the first question because if S is out (which we get by using other rules), then W is in (by my logic chain above) and consequently T is out, which means Tim is on Junior Varsity, so answer choice (E) cannot be correct.

Also, I created a logic chain for some other rules and it looks like this:

R--> ~N--> ~O

Also, for the record, I have a conditional shooting out from R that says R--> ~Q. This logic chain did not result in me missing the other question, which was question 2.

Is the issue with my logic chain? Is the other one also incorrect or is it just the one that combines S, T, and W that is not correct?

I thank you so much in advance, Mike. I am not a natural at games to say the least, and although I am only a little less than two weeks into my LSAT prep, I feel like your guide is helping me develop the right habits and skills so that once I drill and PT I will be rocking and rolling in June on gameday.

User avatar
Dr. Dre
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: Mike, author of the LSAT Trainer, answering questions

Postby Dr. Dre » Thu Jan 02, 2014 7:49 pm

173 on Dec 13 LSAT, thanks LSAT Trainer for that book

muzzy
Posts: 488
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:01 pm

Re: Mike, author of the LSAT Trainer, answering questions

Postby muzzy » Thu Jan 02, 2014 7:52 pm

.
Last edited by muzzy on Mon Jan 06, 2014 2:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The LSAT Trainer
Posts: 621
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Mike, author of the LSAT Trainer, answering questions

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Fri Jan 03, 2014 5:06 pm

muzzy wrote:Another happy customer. 165 (Oct) -> 172 (Dec). Great material, Mike. Thanks.


that's awesome to hear -- congrats and thanks for sharing the good news!

User avatar
The LSAT Trainer
Posts: 621
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Mike, author of the LSAT Trainer, answering questions

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Fri Jan 03, 2014 5:25 pm

Louis1127 wrote:Hello Mike,

I am going through the Trainer as my main study guide and am a little less than half way through it. I already feel like I am better at diagramming games and finding flaws in arguments for LR questions that require us to find a flaw. I have hit a snag in Logic Games and have a specific question about one of your drills:

On page 213 on the second logic game drill (the one about players on the Varsity team and players on the Junior Varsity team), I am having trouble with some conditional logic on this question in this drill.

If taking Varsity to be "in" and Junior Varsity to be "out", as you do in your solution, I got the following conditionals:

S--> ~W and its contrapositive: W-->~S

~T--> W and its contrapositive: ~W-->T

Since every variable in this drill is either "in" or "out", I combined them into a logic chain (which is how I would solve the "Birds in the forest" game for example) that looks like this:

S--> ~W--> T

But this caused me to miss (and not understand) the first question because if S is out (which we get by using other rules), then W is in (by my logic chain above) and consequently T is out, which means Tim is on Junior Varsity, so answer choice (E) cannot be correct.

Also, I created a logic chain for some other rules and it looks like this:

R--> ~N--> ~O

Also, for the record, I have a conditional shooting out from R that says R--> ~Q. This logic chain did not result in me missing the other question, which was question 2.

Is the issue with my logic chain? Is the other one also incorrect or is it just the one that combines S, T, and W that is not correct?

I thank you so much in advance, Mike. I am not a natural at games to say the least, and although I am only a little less than two weeks into my LSAT prep, I feel like your guide is helping me develop the right habits and skills so that once I drill and PT I will be rocking and rolling in June on gameday.


Hello Louis! -- it seems, to me, like you are very close to getting it all -- here are the things that are important for you to consider:

1) The most important thing I think you need to remember is that you cannot simply negate a conditional -- thus, if I have W --> ~ X, I cannot infer from this that ~ W --> X.

You had a link S --> ~ W --> T. If you take the contrapositive of this, you would get the valid inference - T --> W --> - S.

However, what u did, in the reasoning you described, was negate the original -- you said "If S is out, W must be in, and T must be out" -- you cannot infer by negating that way.

Keep in mind that incorrect negation is, by far, the most common error you can make w/conditionals, and q's are set up to trap those who do -- if the above doesn't make sense, please pm me and we can discuss further, but if it does make sense, make sure you never, ever infer just by negating.

2) BTW, in general, I'm a fan of linking up rules the way you described -- (in fact, you can see a solution to birds in the forest using that type of solution on page 312) -- I think u were asking if the trainer systems are compatible with such links -- they definitely are.

3) In a game like this, biconditionals are some of the most useful rules you can possibly get, and so you want to be on the lookout for them, and, when you find them, you want to make sure to prioritize them.

The second rule about Sara and Wilma is an example of such a biconditional -- there is nothing false about what you wrote (S --> ~ W, which is true), but if you think about it, there are two teams, and exactly one of Selma and Wilma must be on the j.v. , so the other one must be on varsity. So, it must either be S on variety, W on jv, or W on Varsity, S on JV -- there are no other possibilities -- seeing this rule as a biconditional and representing it as such (as I did in the solution, or by using the biconditional to create two diagrams -- one w/Sv, Wj, the other with Wv, Sj) makes it much easier to think about the game and bring together the other rules.

A huge percentage of conditional heavy games do have such bicons, and they are often hidden the way mine was -- again, I encourage you to keep working getting better at spotting them and utilizing them.

Well, as I often do, went a little off-topic, but I hope that answers your q and that the additional info is useful -- if you have any follow up q's, or need anything else at all, just let me know -- Mike

User avatar
The LSAT Trainer
Posts: 621
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Mike, author of the LSAT Trainer, answering questions

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Fri Jan 03, 2014 5:26 pm

Dr. Dre wrote:173 on Dec 13 LSAT, thanks LSAT Trainer for that book


You were one of my first supporters Dre -- I am so, so happy for you -- you deserve it -- thanks for the thanks -- Mike

inlovewithpiper
Posts: 137
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2013 5:20 pm

Re: Mike, author of the LSAT Trainer, answering questions

Postby inlovewithpiper » Fri Jan 03, 2014 6:42 pm

Hi Mike!

I've been recommended your book twice already and am considering ordering it.

Just wanted to find out something, though: I took the LSAT in June '13 for a 162 and December '13 for a 165. I am really hoping to get that to a 170 next month.

Is your book helpful when it comes to fine-tuning already-ingrained habits (and, of course, correcting already-established bad ones), or is more geared toward the LSAT novice?

Thanks for the help and guidance!

User avatar
The LSAT Trainer
Posts: 621
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Mike, author of the LSAT Trainer, answering questions

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Fri Jan 03, 2014 7:21 pm

inlovewithpiper wrote:Hi Mike!

I've been recommended your book twice already and am considering ordering it.

Just wanted to find out something, though: I took the LSAT in June '13 for a 162 and December '13 for a 165. I am really hoping to get that to a 170 next month.

Is your book helpful when it comes to fine-tuning already-ingrained habits (and, of course, correcting already-established bad ones), or is more geared toward the LSAT novice?

Thanks for the help and guidance!


Hi there --

I think the trainer can be extremely helpful for someone in your situation -- in fact, since it was released in May, I think the most common, and most popular, perception of the book is that it's something people in the 160's use in order to consistently get into the 170's (I think this perception is changing because more and more people are now using the trainer from the beginning of their prep). If you look at TLS posts from a few months back, a common suggestion was that you should use other materials to get into the 160's and then use the Trainer to get over that hump. While I never agreed with that (I don't think you need to use other materials before you use the trainer), there is a ton of evidence, here in this thread, and on the june, oct, and dec study group threads, and in the amazon reviews, of people in the 160's successfully using the trainer to get into the 170's (check out the Dre and Muzzy comments above for reference). So, I do think this may be something that's worth your time.

Having said that, every student is different, and it may be that, for you, it's better to focus more exclusively on drills and pt's -- I offer the first 5 chapters of the book for free on my website -- my suggestion is that you take a look at those -- especially the first lesson -- it should give you a clear sense of whether the trainer is what you need or not.

Whether you pick up the book or not, please feel free to write here or pm if you have any q's or need any other advice -- hth -- Mike

All Star
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 2:45 pm

Re: Mike, author of the LSAT Trainer, answering questions

Postby All Star » Fri Jan 03, 2014 9:27 pm

Hi Mike, I just received my December score, and am quite disappointed with it, and will now be preparing for a retake in June. I have two trainer and study questions I would like to ask you:

1) I went over the Trainer's LG rule substitution question chapter back in October, and felt confident on those types of questions, only to go 0/2 on the rule substitution questions on the December test. What suggestions do you have for me to prepare for that question type? Do you believe that going back to the trainer and your drills on special game questions would be my best option?

2)I also only read about 1/2-2/3 of the trainer to prepare for December, so do you recommend that I restart the trainer and follow your 16 week study regimen? I'm thinking that an organized, structured schedule may be ideal for me this time around.

Thanks again for your help!

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

Re: Mike, author of the LSAT Trainer, answering questions

Postby lsat_hopeful » Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:30 pm

Hi!

If the question stem in RC states "the author is primarily concerned with", would you categorize this as a main point/main purpose question (I am referring to your "Strategies for Structure Questions" in Lesson 35 of the Trainer)?

What exactly is this question asking? (Is it asking me what the author's motivation is in regards to writing the passage or what the overall main point of the passage is? Are these two things the same?)

Thank you in advance and Happy New Year!

User avatar
Louis1127
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:12 pm

Re: Mike, author of the LSAT Trainer, answering questions

Postby Louis1127 » Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:21 pm

The LSAT Trainer wrote:
Louis1127 wrote:Hello Mike,

I am going through the Trainer as my main study guide and am a little less than half way through it. I already feel like I am better at diagramming games and finding flaws in arguments for LR questions that require us to find a flaw. I have hit a snag in Logic Games and have a specific question about one of your drills:

On page 213 on the second logic game drill (the one about players on the Varsity team and players on the Junior Varsity team), I am having trouble with some conditional logic on this question in this drill.

If taking Varsity to be "in" and Junior Varsity to be "out", as you do in your solution, I got the following conditionals:

S--> ~W and its contrapositive: W-->~S

~T--> W and its contrapositive: ~W-->T

Since every variable in this drill is either "in" or "out", I combined them into a logic chain (which is how I would solve the "Birds in the forest" game for example) that looks like this:

S--> ~W--> T

But this caused me to miss (and not understand) the first question because if S is out (which we get by using other rules), then W is in (by my logic chain above) and consequently T is out, which means Tim is on Junior Varsity, so answer choice (E) cannot be correct.

Also, I created a logic chain for some other rules and it looks like this:

R--> ~N--> ~O

Also, for the record, I have a conditional shooting out from R that says R--> ~Q. This logic chain did not result in me missing the other question, which was question 2.

Is the issue with my logic chain? Is the other one also incorrect or is it just the one that combines S, T, and W that is not correct?

I thank you so much in advance, Mike. I am not a natural at games to say the least, and although I am only a little less than two weeks into my LSAT prep, I feel like your guide is helping me develop the right habits and skills so that once I drill and PT I will be rocking and rolling in June on gameday.


Hello Louis! -- it seems, to me, like you are very close to getting it all -- here are the things that are important for you to consider:

1) The most important thing I think you need to remember is that you cannot simply negate a conditional -- thus, if I have W --> ~ X, I cannot infer from this that ~ W --> X.

You had a link S --> ~ W --> T. If you take the contrapositive of this, you would get the valid inference - T --> W --> - S.

However, what u did, in the reasoning you described, was negate the original -- you said "If S is out, W must be in, and T must be out" -- you cannot infer by negating that way.

Keep in mind that incorrect negation is, by far, the most common error you can make w/conditionals, and q's are set up to trap those who do -- if the above doesn't make sense, please pm me and we can discuss further, but if it does make sense, make sure you never, ever infer just by negating.

2) BTW, in general, I'm a fan of linking up rules the way you described -- (in fact, you can see a solution to birds in the forest using that type of solution on page 312) -- I think u were asking if the trainer systems are compatible with such links -- they definitely are.

3) In a game like this, biconditionals are some of the most useful rules you can possibly get, and so you want to be on the lookout for them, and, when you find them, you want to make sure to prioritize them.

The second rule about Sara and Wilma is an example of such a biconditional -- there is nothing false about what you wrote (S --> ~ W, which is true), but if you think about it, there are two teams, and exactly one of Selma and Wilma must be on the j.v. , so the other one must be on varsity. So, it must either be S on variety, W on jv, or W on Varsity, S on JV -- there are no other possibilities -- seeing this rule as a biconditional and representing it as such (as I did in the solution, or by using the biconditional to create two diagrams -- one w/Sv, Wj, the other with Wv, Sj) makes it much easier to think about the game and bring together the other rules.

A huge percentage of conditional heavy games do have such bicons, and they are often hidden the way mine was -- again, I encourage you to keep working getting better at spotting them and utilizing them.

Well, as I often do, went a little off-topic, but I hope that answers your q and that the additional info is useful -- if you have any follow up q's, or need anything else at all, just let me know -- Mike


Thank you for the detailed response, Mike. I now see the fallacy that I was unknowingly committing by negating the sufficient condition and falsely inferring something from that.

I realize my question involved digging into the details and a bit of work on your part that you did not have to do. But you did. Again, thanks, and I'll let you know how I progress periodically throughout my prep.

User avatar
The LSAT Trainer
Posts: 621
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Mike, author of the LSAT Trainer, answering questions

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:59 pm

lsat_hopeful wrote:Hi!

If the question stem in RC states "the author is primarily concerned with", would you categorize this as a main point/main purpose question (I am referring to your "Strategies for Structure Questions" in Lesson 35 of the Trainer)?

What exactly is this question asking? (Is it asking me what the author's motivation is in regards to writing the passage or what the overall main point of the passage is? Are these two things the same?)

Thank you in advance and Happy New Year!


Happy New Year! And good q --

Yeah, I would categorize "The author is primarily concerned with" as a main point/main purpose q -- when it comes to the LSAT, motivation/what they want to convey is pretty much the same thing (I realize this is not true in other types of writing) -- for the LSAT, the author's motivation is always to convey some point (usually about the relationship between two ideas/subjects etc.) --

Hope that hits on what you were asking -- if it doesn't, please feel free to follow up!-- mk

User avatar
The LSAT Trainer
Posts: 621
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Mike, author of the LSAT Trainer, answering questions

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Sun Jan 05, 2014 6:33 pm

All Star wrote:Hi Mike, I just received my December score, and am quite disappointed with it, and will now be preparing for a retake in June. I have two trainer and study questions I would like to ask you:

1) I went over the Trainer's LG rule substitution question chapter back in October, and felt confident on those types of questions, only to go 0/2 on the rule substitution questions on the December test. What suggestions do you have for me to prepare for that question type? Do you believe that going back to the trainer and your drills on special game questions would be my best option?

2)I also only read about 1/2-2/3 of the trainer to prepare for December, so do you recommend that I restart the trainer and follow your 16 week study regimen? I'm thinking that an organized, structured schedule may be ideal for me this time around.

Thanks again for your help!


Hi there --

Sorry to hear about your score --

I know you'd prefer not to think about the LSAT again, BUT (and please don't get annoyed at me for saying this) --

There is a chance that underperforming in Dec was the very best thing that could have happened to you -- there are so, so many stories of people on TLS having to retake, then eventually scoring higher than they ever could have hoped to the first time around --

Here are the answers to your q's --

1) I think the big keys to success on these q's are

a) having a really strong understanding of exactly what the rule means, and the one or two key implications of the rule (what else u deduce when you combine the rule with other constraints) -- you don't have to keep everything in your head -- just the most important things u can figure out --

also keep in mind there is an inverse relationship between how complicated the rule in q is and how many inferences u r expected to see -- that is, if you have to substitute for a really complex rule, chances are more likely the right/wrong answers will depend on correct/incorrect translations of that rule; if you have to substitute for a simple rule, chances are more likely that right/wrong will depend on correct/incorrect understanding of the implications of that rule (the inferences that can be made).

Even if it takes you a little extra time, make sure to have a clear a sense as possible before evaluating answers -- otherwise, the evaluation process will be much slower and much less accurate.

b) focusing most of your energy on the elimination process -- with a strong sense of the rule/implications, go into the answers and see which ones tell you something different -- either allowing you to have fewer options than the original rule, or (more commonly) more options than the original rule. For these q's especially, elimination is markedly easier than selecting the right answer (if I were given 20 substitution q's, and for 10 of them I could only eliminate wrongs, and for 10 of them I only tried to see how each answer was right until I found the correct one, I'm guessing it would take me about half the time using the elimination strategy).

Finally, a few years back, I wrote this loooong paper just about substitution q's -- http://www.manhattanlsat.com/equivalent-rule.cfm -- you can check that out if you'd like.

2) I think that's a very good idea, but considering that you are a retaker, I really encourage you to adapt the schedule to your needs. This doesn't mean allowing yourself off the hook to do whatever you feel like (I agree that a structured schedule is very important to your prep), it means consistently (perhaps on a week-by-week basis) assessing how well your prep is working out for you, and what changes might make it work better for you.

As a retaker, you probably have a very strong sense of your strengths and weaknesses (more on this in just a bit) -- use this to feel free to speed up when you are comfortable with something, slow down when you are not, add extra drill sets when appropriate, return to earlier lessons, etc. --

In terms of controlling/adapting your schedule, I think it's very useful to --

a) keep a visceral memory of the test experience -- try to remember and recreate the pressure of the exam and to think about the real exam experience as you are working on your strategies and whatnot. I think the first time students prep, they are drawn to strategies that seem to "magically" make problems easier, or allows them to take shortcuts -- the second time through, students are more likely to be attracted to strategies that while efficient are most importantly highly dependable -- I think remembering the "feeling" of the test can help steer you toward that sort of mindset.

b) think of weaknesses/areas of improvement as falling into the following general categories: you need to increase/improve your understanding of the exam, you need to learn better strategies/you need to be better at applying that understanding and strategies -- when you run into trouble spots, assess whether they are due to understanding, strategies, or application, and focus your energy appropriately, either by doing extra work in the trainer, or on drill sets of q's.

The last thing I'll mention is somewhat off-topic, but I just read an article about a self-assessment exercise, and I realized this is something I do a lot, without really thinking about it, and it's something that's very useful for me personally --

Basically, on both a macro- and micro- level, you want to constantly ask yourself how surprised you might feel if you didn't achieve your goals. Let's imagine you are really good at basic ordering games -- you want to ask yourself, "How surprised would I be if I ran into a basic ordering game that took me way too much time to solve?" Try your best to think of that actually happening -- if you do end up spending too much time, what likely caused it? Imagine how surprised you might be at missing several q's association with an RC passage. If you wouldn't be too surprised, why not? What are the most common/likely reasons you might run into trouble? How surprised would be to run out of time for an LR section? If you do run out of time, why will that be? What types of problems/issues will cause that?

When you study for the LSAT, there is so, so much to think about, and you are constantly needing to make sure that you have all your bases covered, and that you are spending your prep time wisely -- on the issues you need to spend it on most. I think the above rhetorical exercise can help illuminate areas of strength and weakness -- and, consistently thinking on these terms also helps you know, for sure, when you've really nailed something -- it's an amazing feeling to know "hey, there is no way I am going to run out of time on an LG section," etc. -- constantly assessing, and addressing, any weaknesses that could cause trouble is obviously very helpful for getting to that point --

Whew! That's way too long -- sorry about that, but I hope you found at least some of it helpful -- good luck, and get in touch if you need anything else -- Mike

User avatar
Tyr
Posts: 247
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:15 pm

Re: Mike, author of the LSAT Trainer, answering questions

Postby Tyr » Mon Jan 06, 2014 1:49 pm

Hi Mike,
I recently went back through your drills in The Trainer in the first 9 lessons. I'm finding that while I'm coming to the same answer as you in your explanations of the flaws, I'm not coming up with the same wording such as "the author fails to consider that, the argument takes for granted that, the author falsely assumes..."

For example, on page 117, question 16. You have "Takes for granted..." while I said something along the lines of "The author is assuming that..." Does this matter that I'm not getting the same wording? I'm coming up with mostly the same explanation overall, but I almost never begin my explanation way.

Thanks!

All Star
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 2:45 pm

Re: Mike, author of the LSAT Trainer, answering questions

Postby All Star » Mon Jan 06, 2014 3:47 pm

The LSAT Trainer wrote:
All Star wrote:Hi Mike, I just received my December score, and am quite disappointed with it, and will now be preparing for a retake in June. I have two trainer and study questions I would like to ask you:

1) I went over the Trainer's LG rule substitution question chapter back in October, and felt confident on those types of questions, only to go 0/2 on the rule substitution questions on the December test. What suggestions do you have for me to prepare for that question type? Do you believe that going back to the trainer and your drills on special game questions would be my best option?

2)I also only read about 1/2-2/3 of the trainer to prepare for December, so do you recommend that I restart the trainer and follow your 16 week study regimen? I'm thinking that an organized, structured schedule may be ideal for me this time around.

Thanks again for your help!


Hi there --

Sorry to hear about your score --

I know you'd prefer not to think about the LSAT again, BUT (and please don't get annoyed at me for saying this) --

There is a chance that underperforming in Dec was the very best thing that could have happened to you -- there are so, so many stories of people on TLS having to retake, then eventually scoring higher than they ever could have hoped to the first time around --

Here are the answers to your q's --

1) I think the big keys to success on these q's are

a) having a really strong understanding of exactly what the rule means, and the one or two key implications of the rule (what else u deduce when you combine the rule with other constraints) -- you don't have to keep everything in your head -- just the most important things u can figure out --

also keep in mind there is an inverse relationship between how complicated the rule in q is and how many inferences u r expected to see -- that is, if you have to substitute for a really complex rule, chances are more likely the right/wrong answers will depend on correct/incorrect translations of that rule; if you have to substitute for a simple rule, chances are more likely that right/wrong will depend on correct/incorrect understanding of the implications of that rule (the inferences that can be made).

Even if it takes you a little extra time, make sure to have a clear a sense as possible before evaluating answers -- otherwise, the evaluation process will be much slower and much less accurate.

b) focusing most of your energy on the elimination process -- with a strong sense of the rule/implications, go into the answers and see which ones tell you something different -- either allowing you to have fewer options than the original rule, or (more commonly) more options than the original rule. For these q's especially, elimination is markedly easier than selecting the right answer (if I were given 20 substitution q's, and for 10 of them I could only eliminate wrongs, and for 10 of them I only tried to see how each answer was right until I found the correct one, I'm guessing it would take me about half the time using the elimination strategy).

Finally, a few years back, I wrote this loooong paper just about substitution q's -- http://www.manhattanlsat.com/equivalent-rule.cfm -- you can check that out if you'd like.

2) I think that's a very good idea, but considering that you are a retaker, I really encourage you to adapt the schedule to your needs. This doesn't mean allowing yourself off the hook to do whatever you feel like (I agree that a structured schedule is very important to your prep), it means consistently (perhaps on a week-by-week basis) assessing how well your prep is working out for you, and what changes might make it work better for you.

As a retaker, you probably have a very strong sense of your strengths and weaknesses (more on this in just a bit) -- use this to feel free to speed up when you are comfortable with something, slow down when you are not, add extra drill sets when appropriate, return to earlier lessons, etc. --

In terms of controlling/adapting your schedule, I think it's very useful to --

a) keep a visceral memory of the test experience -- try to remember and recreate the pressure of the exam and to think about the real exam experience as you are working on your strategies and whatnot. I think the first time students prep, they are drawn to strategies that seem to "magically" make problems easier, or allows them to take shortcuts -- the second time through, students are more likely to be attracted to strategies that while efficient are most importantly highly dependable -- I think remembering the "feeling" of the test can help steer you toward that sort of mindset.

b) think of weaknesses/areas of improvement as falling into the following general categories: you need to increase/improve your understanding of the exam, you need to learn better strategies/you need to be better at applying that understanding and strategies -- when you run into trouble spots, assess whether they are due to understanding, strategies, or application, and focus your energy appropriately, either by doing extra work in the trainer, or on drill sets of q's.

The last thing I'll mention is somewhat off-topic, but I just read an article about a self-assessment exercise, and I realized this is something I do a lot, without really thinking about it, and it's something that's very useful for me personally --

Basically, on both a macro- and micro- level, you want to constantly ask yourself how surprised you might feel if you didn't achieve your goals. Let's imagine you are really good at basic ordering games -- you want to ask yourself, "How surprised would I be if I ran into a basic ordering game that took me way too much time to solve?" Try your best to think of that actually happening -- if you do end up spending too much time, what likely caused it? Imagine how surprised you might be at missing several q's association with an RC passage. If you wouldn't be too surprised, why not? What are the most common/likely reasons you might run into trouble? How surprised would be to run out of time for an LR section? If you do run out of time, why will that be? What types of problems/issues will cause that?

When you study for the LSAT, there is so, so much to think about, and you are constantly needing to make sure that you have all your bases covered, and that you are spending your prep time wisely -- on the issues you need to spend it on most. I think the above rhetorical exercise can help illuminate areas of strength and weakness -- and, consistently thinking on these terms also helps you know, for sure, when you've really nailed something -- it's an amazing feeling to know "hey, there is no way I am going to run out of time on an LG section," etc. -- constantly assessing, and addressing, any weaknesses that could cause trouble is obviously very helpful for getting to that point --

Whew! That's way too long -- sorry about that, but I hope you found at least some of it helpful -- good luck, and get in touch if you need anything else -- Mike


Thank you very much for your response; I sincerely appreciate it. I will look through your paper on rule substitution q's and think that it will be a great supplement for that chapter in the trainer! I also think that some of the mindset suggestions will be of great value to me throughout my prep. Thanks again Mike! It's great to see that you're always available to take students' questions!

User avatar
The LSAT Trainer
Posts: 621
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Mike, author of the LSAT Trainer, answering questions

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:05 pm

Tyr wrote:Hi Mike,
I recently went back through your drills in The Trainer in the first 9 lessons. I'm finding that while I'm coming to the same answer as you in your explanations of the flaws, I'm not coming up with the same wording such as "the author fails to consider that, the argument takes for granted that, the author falsely assumes..."

For example, on page 117, question 16. You have "Takes for granted..." while I said something along the lines of "The author is assuming that..." Does this matter that I'm not getting the same wording? I'm coming up with mostly the same explanation overall, but I almost never begin my explanation way.

Thanks!


Hey --

I think it's absolutely fine for you to naturally think of/word flaws in a different way than how I write about them in the solutions -- however, I do want to mention a couple of things --

1) The reason I like saying to myself "takes for granted" and "fails to consider" and even "falsely assumes that," is that all of these phrases have a negative connotation, and I think that helps put you in a critical mindset.

In real life, making an assumption is not necessarily a negative thing -- we make assumptions all the time, and it's not wrong to do so -- so, if u r going to go with "assumptions" instead of other similar phrases, just make sure you don't lose your critical perspective. (It also helps that the authors of the LSAT also use "takes for granted" and "fails to consider" a ton.)

2) Ideally, you want to get to a point where you are very comfortable thinking about/seeing a flaw in different ways/using different terminology -- first off, if you can describe a flaw in two or more different ways, and feel comfortable doing so, it's a very good sign that you absolutely understand the flaw; secondly, one of the most common ways in which flaw q's are made more difficult is that the right answer will describe the flaw, or come at the flaw, in a way that is very different from how you might do so. If you've already built flexibility into how you think about/word flaws, it obviously makes it easier to adapt and stay open-minded in these moments --

HTH -- reach out if you need anything else -- Mike

User avatar
WaltGrace83
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Mike, author of the LSAT Trainer, answering questions

Postby WaltGrace83 » Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:23 pm

Mike,

1. I just completed your LG games in Chapter 15 of the Trainer. I learned a lot from them. I either aced the game or really flubbed a few things up. However, the second game from Set 1 and the first game from Set 2 were the most problematic and for some reason I really just cannot figure them out. It is quite odd because usually after some review the mistake hits me hard in the face. I did alright on the Set 2 Game 1, getting both questions right, but it didn't feel "right" to me. I didn't feel confident and I was even more confused when I looked at the key and there was a contradiction between my diagram and yours. I just want to know my mistakes in these games and I was hoping you would have the time to help me.

I attached a document with my thought process. The big red X's are questions/concerns I have.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz5CMl ... sp=sharing


2a. On the Flaw Drill on page 89, you state the following on example #1:
"In order to build a desk, one simply needs ample wood, a saw, nails, and a hammer. I have all of those things, so I should be able to build a desk."

My question is about the word simply here. Wouldn't simply mean a sufficient? I totally understand that there could be other requirements other than the wood, saw, nails, etc. to build a desk. It could require patience; it could require time; it could even require other tools not mentioned. However, I would only think this way if the word simply was not used. If I said, "I simply need $2.00 to buy that ice cream cone," would it not imply that $2 --> ice cream cone? Would it not be saying that $2 guarantees that you would get the ice cream cone?

2b. On the same drill, you say on #4 the following about the service plans sold by consumer electronic stores:
"The stores claim that their service provides a benefit for consumers, but a leading independent consumer magazine recently published statistics showing that person would earn more income investing their money rather than using it for various such insurance plans [...] Therefore, the claim that the stores make [that the plans provide a benefit for the customer] is false."

My question here is about magazines/studies/third parties in general. On the LSAT, what function do they serve? A lot of LR questions deal with studies. Studies show "x" and then proceeds to make a conclusion regarding the information from the studies. This one does it too. How much weight do we give to these studies in question when we are analyzing arguments?

I understand that sometimes the studies are flawed altogether. For example, in 53.3.6 we have a study which was looking at the bird diets and the study was only conducted in the morning. It proceeds to say that its findings show what is generally true about bird diets. This is clearly flawed because we cannot say that a small sample in the morning is representative of the entire diet of a bird throughout the day (as the correct answer shows). However, I am not really talking about those "clearly flawed" studies. I am talking about the studies that are shown in this question - the studies that are just "studies" and never discuss how many people were analyzed, over what period of time, etc. They are just "studies." What role do they play? I hope that makes sense!

3. What is your view on the Manhattan Logic Chain for in/out games? I think that is what you call it - here is a Google Image of it: http://i49.tinypic.com/2z8ym3r.jpg

4. When I review LR questions (and LG too I suppose), it could literally take me 30 minutes per LR question. I write out the argument, why the right answer is right, and why the wrong answer is wrong on the computer before looking at what the actual answer actually is. I fill up spaces with analogies to help me remember things and I have a little bit of fun with it, writing like I would be having a conversation with an illogical person. I feel like it is a good exercise but it can take me as much as 3-4 hours to review a drill (one of those 7-10 question things from LSATs in the 50s as per your study schedule). I want to be as effective as possible and I also have LOTS of time on my hands. I graduated a semester early just to study for the LSAT and only work one day a week so I can knock it out in June. However, I also don't want to be verbose. I know that only I can know the true answer to this question probably but what do you think about this?

I also wanted to say another time, thank you SO MUCH for your involvement on the forum. I have been recommending your book to everyone I know taking the LSAT. I really hope that your sales increase with the amount of work you do with us. I think all of TLS wants to make you rich!

User avatar
The LSAT Trainer
Posts: 621
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Mike, author of the LSAT Trainer, answering questions

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:21 pm

WaltGrace83 wrote:Mike,

1. I just completed your LG games in Chapter 15 of the Trainer. I learned a lot from them. I either aced the game or really flubbed a few things up. However, the second game from Set 1 and the first game from Set 2 were the most problematic and for some reason I really just cannot figure them out. It is quite odd because usually after some review the mistake hits me hard in the face. I did alright on the Set 2 Game 1, getting both questions right, but it didn't feel "right" to me. I didn't feel confident and I was even more confused when I looked at the key and there was a contradiction between my diagram and yours. I just want to know my mistakes in these games and I was hoping you would have the time to help me.

I attached a document with my thought process. The big red X's are questions/concerns I have.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz5CMl ... sp=sharing


2a. On the Flaw Drill on page 89, you state the following on example #1:
"In order to build a desk, one simply needs ample wood, a saw, nails, and a hammer. I have all of those things, so I should be able to build a desk."

My question is about the word simply here. Wouldn't simply mean a sufficient? I totally understand that there could be other requirements other than the wood, saw, nails, etc. to build a desk. It could require patience; it could require time; it could even require other tools not mentioned. However, I would only think this way if the word simply was not used. If I said, "I simply need $2.00 to buy that ice cream cone," would it not imply that $2 --> ice cream cone? Would it not be saying that $2 guarantees that you would get the ice cream cone?

2b. On the same drill, you say on #4 the following about the service plans sold by consumer electronic stores:
"The stores claim that their service provides a benefit for consumers, but a leading independent consumer magazine recently published statistics showing that person would earn more income investing their money rather than using it for various such insurance plans [...] Therefore, the claim that the stores make [that the plans provide a benefit for the customer] is false."

My question here is about magazines/studies/third parties in general. On the LSAT, what function do they serve? A lot of LR questions deal with studies. Studies show "x" and then proceeds to make a conclusion regarding the information from the studies. This one does it too. How much weight do we give to these studies in question when we are analyzing arguments?

I understand that sometimes the studies are flawed altogether. For example, in 53.3.6 we have a study which was looking at the bird diets and the study was only conducted in the morning. It proceeds to say that its findings show what is generally true about bird diets. This is clearly flawed because we cannot say that a small sample in the morning is representative of the entire diet of a bird throughout the day (as the correct answer shows). However, I am not really talking about those "clearly flawed" studies. I am talking about the studies that are shown in this question - the studies that are just "studies" and never discuss how many people were analyzed, over what period of time, etc. They are just "studies." What role do they play? I hope that makes sense!

3. What is your view on the Manhattan Logic Chain for in/out games? I think that is what you call it - here is a Google Image of it: http://i49.tinypic.com/2z8ym3r.jpg

4. When I review LR questions (and LG too I suppose), it could literally take me 30 minutes per LR question. I write out the argument, why the right answer is right, and why the wrong answer is wrong on the computer before looking at what the actual answer actually is. I fill up spaces with analogies to help me remember things and I have a little bit of fun with it, writing like I would be having a conversation with an illogical person. I feel like it is a good exercise but it can take me as much as 3-4 hours to review a drill (one of those 7-10 question things from LSATs in the 50s as per your study schedule). I want to be as effective as possible and I also have LOTS of time on my hands. I graduated a semester early just to study for the LSAT and only work one day a week so I can knock it out in June. However, I also don't want to be verbose. I know that only I can know the true answer to this question probably but what do you think about this?

I also wanted to say another time, thank you SO MUCH for your involvement on the forum. I have been recommending your book to everyone I know taking the LSAT. I really hope that your sales increase with the amount of work you do with us. I think all of TLS wants to make you rich!


Hey --

Really, really appreciate all the support, but I do think that maybe you're just buttering me up to answer all these q's! --

Hope you don't mind, but for time's sake I think I may have to do so in two installments -- I'll answer back about the google doc here or through pm tomorrow --

Alright -- here we go on everything else --

2a. Great q -- The argument would be even more compelling if it said "all you need is..." and I could see how simply means pretty much the same thing, in this context, as "all."

Let me ask you a question back -- what level of necessity proves sufficiency? If you have everything you could possible need for a certain outcome, does it guarantee that outcome?

No. You could have everything you need, but that doesn't mean things have to work out. So, I know it's tempting, but don't use necessity, no matter how much or how strong, to try and validate sufficiency.

2b. Another great q -- it has to do with whether the findings are the conclusion (in which case we should doubt them) or in the premise (in which case we shouldn't) -- and you want to pay specific attention to the language used --

Be suspicious of finding: "A new study claims Drug X will slow down hair loss in humans, but I'm not so sure. The study was only conducted on mice, and not real people."

Don't be suspicious of finding (more common) but rather how it is being used: "A study shows that drug X slows down hair loss. Thus, those who use drug X will never lose their hair." In this case, we shouldn't question the findings of the study.

3. I actually invented the Logic Chain when I was at Manhattan --

I'm proud of how clever it is, but ultimately I decided to stop teaching it to students, and I decided not to include it in the trainer.

The main benefit of the chain is that once you set it up correctly for the right type of game, it can help you go very quickly, and get into "automatic mode." Birds in the forest for example -- my guess is that I could probably solve that game about 25% faster using the logic chain rather than not using it, and, once I had the chain set up, solving each q would definitely feel a bit easier.

On the flip side, there are some significant reasons not to use the chain -- mainly --
a) the #1 issue students run into for such games is misunderstanding/mis-notating rules, and the chain doesn't do anything to help with this; in fact, by adding in an additional layer of work, it increases your chances of making some sort of error, especially w/the contrapositive. In my experience, the vast majority of students have to deal with a high rate of error in using the chain, and need a lot of practice in order to lower that rate.
b) The chain is not naturally designed to help you prioritize biconditionals (in fact, biconditionals are arguably the "messiest" part of the chain, with the double arrows) -- the reason this is an issue is that typically these biconditionals are the most important rules you will get for such a game, and you want a system that helps encourage you to prioritize them.
c) most importantly, it's very difficult to tell when the chain will be useful and when it won't (try using the chain on new/used cd's for an example of the latter) -- and this is a tough and unnecessary decision to have to make under the pressure of the exam. And if you decide incorrectly, you waste time and open yourself up to error for no benefit.

So ultimately, I think it's better to simply use the conditional rules in their basic form, or to set up very simple inference chains (like I do on page 312). It's a bit less sexy, and it decreases the likelihood of that game you finish in 3 minutes that makes you feel like a superhero, but, if you invest all the energy that would have been required to master the chain into just getting automatic at conditionals, and faster and faster at playing around with them and linking them when and how questions as you to, at the end of the day, you'll end up being plenty fast enough and far, far more consistent.

4. I really applaud your focus and your effort -- I don't think I would have the patience to study each LR problem for 30 minutes at a time -- the thing I worry about is that you are thinking about too much, rather than working on thinking about exactly the right things. Remember, you are training yourself to, when you run into that tough argument for example, not think about all the various things you could possibly think about, but rather to focus in on exactly the right things to think about. I'm not sure it should take 30 minutes to figure out such priorities, and, again, I worry just a little bit that you may be over-doing it to the point of losing a bit of focus.

The other thing I want to remind you of is to pay attention to both understanding and process -- that is, make sure you understand what the argument means, why right is right, wrong is wrong, etc. but even more importantly, review a problem in terms of the action steps you took -- how you solved it -- did you zero in on the correct core, and, if so, did that help you differentiate between answers? If you didn't, or if it doesn't impact your answer process, why not? Were you able to get rid of all four wrong answers for specific reasons? Were the reasons you noticed ultimately the most obvious ones? If not, what did you miss? I think that shaping your review around your actions helps you get better faster and easier.

Whew! Sorry for the length -- Hope at least some of that was helpful -- I'll be back tomorrow to write some more -- Mike

User avatar
WaltGrace83
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Mike, author of the LSAT Trainer, answering questions

Postby WaltGrace83 » Tue Jan 07, 2014 10:03 pm

Really, really appreciate all the support, but I do think that maybe you're just buttering me up to answer all these q's! --


Well now I'm self-conscious :D

Thanks for the reply! Look forward to hearing back from you soon.

User avatar
FlyingNorth
Posts: 408
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:25 am

Re: Mike, author of the LSAT Trainer, answering questions

Postby FlyingNorth » Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:32 pm

Hey Mike,

I used The Trainer to study for my first take in December and it helped immensely! I ended up scoring in the high 160's and although I'm happy with my score, I'm positive that I can leap into the mid 170 range.

My question is how do you think I should go about studying for this retake (June 2014) using The Trainer again? I plan to go through it again using the 16-week study schedule instead of the 8-week schedule that I used last time. My problem is that I completed all of the assigned drills and I'm worried I won't get as much out of them due to familiarity.

Is there a similar break-down of questions that I should drill from the earlier tests (1-40) instead? Or is there something that you recommend I invest in to drill with? Such as the Cambridge packets for LR and LG?

Thanks for everything, you're a great resource!

FN

User avatar
The LSAT Trainer
Posts: 621
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Mike, author of the LSAT Trainer, answering questions

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:30 pm

FlyingNorth wrote:Hey Mike,

I used The Trainer to study for my first take in December and it helped immensely! I ended up scoring in the high 160's and although I'm happy with my score, I'm positive that I can leap into the mid 170 range.

My question is how do you think I should go about studying for this retake (June 2014) using The Trainer again? I plan to go through it again using the 16-week study schedule instead of the 8-week schedule that I used last time. My problem is that I completed all of the assigned drills and I'm worried I won't get as much out of them due to familiarity.

Is there a similar break-down of questions that I should drill from the earlier tests (1-40) instead? Or is there something that you recommend I invest in to drill with? Such as the Cambridge packets for LR and LG?

Thanks for everything, you're a great resource!

FN


Hi FN --

Glad you've found the trainer useful, and impressed you are retaking even with such a high score under your belt --

Here are some thoughts for you --

1) Do an assessment of where you stand currently; your strengths and weaknesses. Do this without reviewing your notes, performance trackers, etc (until later in your eval, anyway) -- make the eval all about what is currently at the forefront of your mind, without the aid of outside resources.

One big advantage you have as a retaker is that having gone through the real exam before, you should have a far more accurate gauge of your own readiness and your own strengths and weaknesses. (For example, knowing what the pressure of the exam feels like, you should be much better able to tell whether you can really depend on a particular ability, such as your ability to correctly recognize, translate, and notate a biconditional, or whether it feels a little bit shaky). A thorough, hyper-critical evaluation early on in your process can help you make much more efficient use of your study time.

Some tips on how to assess: For LR, create a notecard for each q type (do not look up q types -- it'll reveal something to you if you "forget" to make a card for a question type) -- on one side, put your basic step-by-step strategy for that q type, and on the other side, put the keys/most important reminders for that q type.

Imagine yourself missing that q type during the real exam. Are you very surprised? If you would be completely shocked, that's obviously a good sign. If you wouldn't be surprised to miss that q type, what are the reasons you can see as causing you to miss? These are the areas you will know to focus on most during your prep.

For LG, please refer to my comment to baby_got_feuerbach from 12/30 on pg 23 of this thread -- there I give some suggestions for how to assess LG mastery.

For RC, I don't have anything quite as clear cut, but it can also be helpful, like with LR, to try to list out your basic reading strategies, and strategies/mindset for each q type. Especially if you find yourself going blank (What is my strategy for this q type?) you'll know you've got something to work on.

When you think about how ready you are for RC, you should include in your consideration these three areas --
1) how helpful your read is for answering q's -- this is the best gauge of effective reading -- if you read the passage correctly and got out of it what you were supposed to, it should make sense to you why the test asks the q's it does, and your initial read should do a lot of the work for you in terms of making certain answers obviously wrong, or attractive.
2) how confidently you can consistently eliminate four wrongs and confirm one right -- imagine someone like me sitting next to you -- can you tell me, explicitly, why you know for sure the answers you eliminate are incorrect?
3) how rarely you are left stuck not knowing what to do (that is, how comfortable you are with strategies, and how automatic you are at employing them).

2. Once you've got a sense of your weaker areas -- dig a little deeper into why, and I suggest trying to think about it in terms of understanding (i need to know what's going on in these questions/this situation a little better), strategies (i need a better approach here; i need a backup strategy for this situation), or skills/habits (man, why did i do y? i know i'm supposed to do x!)

If your issues are related more to understanding/strategies, you want to rely more on the trainer & perhaps other learning resources as well; if it's more a matter of skills and habit, it's going to be drilling and reviewing that's probably more important.

3. Don't get too ahead of yourself in your prep, and reassess your schedule every couple of weeks -- if you need more time with something, adjust, and if a part of the restudy is going really easy for you, don't be afraid to push the pace. Again, you should expect a lot more self-awareness the second time around, and you want give yourself license to use that to adjust things.

For most retakers, a big key is putting a bit more of a priority on drilling and pt's (the first time studying, they got most of strategies/understanding down, but didn't do enough work to turn that info into skills/habits -- second time around, it makes sense, then, to continue development by focusing more on skills/habits part), but of course it's a bit different for everyone.

4. Finally, in answer to your specific q about drilling -- I think it's fine to switch out the given assignments for question sets from 1-40 -- i love cambridge lsat, and i think it's a good idea to get questions from them; i'm sorry to say i don't have q's from those exams categorized for you yet (I'm working with Cambridge on drill sets that specifically correspond to the trainer, but that probably won't be out for a few months) --

However, especially as a retaker, I actually think it's more effective for you to drill by going through full exams and looking for that q type yourself (for example, for a flaw q drill, you can take 5 exams worth of LR sections, and scan through them, stopping at every flaw q and solving it).

I know this may be a bit more time consuming and cumbersome, but I think there is a distinct training advantage to drilling in this way:

One of the big keys to high level success, for all sections but especially LR, is your ability to cleanly jump from one task to another -- the vast majority of test takers suffer from fuzziness in this regard -- if they see, for example, a strengthen q followed by an inference q followed by an id the conclusion q, whether they realize it or not, they carry over a certain amount of their mindset from one q to another.

One of the big reasons that I strongly advocate reading the q stem first is that it acts as a trigger for you to get into a certain mindset, and for you to correctly associate the situation you are in with others most similar to it.

If you drill a pre-organized set of questions, you may read the q stem for the first few, but after that, you aren't going to really notice the question stem, even if you want to -- if you know u have necessary assumption q's, for example, what interest does your brain have in what the q stem says? It's not really going to pay attention. So, you'll still get the benefit of working on n.a. q's and getting better at them, but you won't get any work at "triggering" a certain mindset based on the q stem.

If you go through a full section of q's looking for particular types of q stems, then stop and do your work when you find them, I believe it will help you get better at "triggering" the right mindset in the right moment --

Not a huge thing, but I definitely do think it is good for you --

Best of luck -- if you have any follow up or need anything else at all, please don't hesitate to write here or through pm --

Mike

Lsataddict175
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2013 9:32 pm

Re: Mike, author of the LSAT Trainer, answering questions

Postby Lsataddict175 » Mon Jan 13, 2014 3:55 am

Hi Mike,

Just started the RC portion of your book. So far I've found your "read for reasoning structure" method extremely helpful. I'm now able to complete a majority of the questions in a short amount of time and with accuracy. However, I do have one concern. I'm now so focused on reading for structure that sometimes I find myself neglecting essential details. Consequently, when I'm faced with a detail-type question, I either take way too much time or I get the question wrong. So my question is how do I maintain the perfect balance--- reading primarily for reasoning structure but at the same time retaining essential details so that I can answer questions pertaining to the content of the passage. Again, using your method, I'm fairly confident that I can get 85% of the questions correct. What worries me is the other 15%. My goal is to not get more than 3 wrong per RC section, and therefore, that 15% is crucial.

Secondly, how do you recommend I drill RC? Should I drill each passage individually or should I drill by section? Should I drill timed or untimed? I'm just beginning my RC prep so I'm not really sure how to handle this.

Thirdly, I'm also having a difficult time distinguishing between the author's main point(s) and opinion(s). For example, in some of your RC drills in the Trainer, you classify a sentence as the author's opinion whereas I believe it to be a main point. Do the two sometimes overlap? How do I prevent these misinterpretations?

And lastly, I just wanted to thank you for the amazing book. I wanted to know though if you ever plan on making an online course similar to 7sage and Velocity. I really hope this is a possibility since I and many others find your methods and strategies to be second to none. Like your book, I think such course would be really successful (and lucrative :P).

Thank you in advance for all your help and sorry for bombarding you with many questions. Looking forward to your response!

Baby_Got_Feuerbach
Posts: 977
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2013 7:22 pm

Re: Mike, author of the LSAT Trainer, answering questions

Postby Baby_Got_Feuerbach » Tue Jan 14, 2014 1:31 pm

Mike, I finished The Trainer late last week and immediately afterward got my best score ever on a PT.

...But then something happened, and I reverted to my old score-range. (Bad habits again?)

...And then an even better score than before.

Do you have any general advice on how to find consistency? Is it too close to the test day (3.5 weeks out) to find it?

Loved the book and will be recommending it to friends regardless of my final score -- it's obvious that it's the most quality book on the market.

Thanks,
BGF


Return to “Free Help and Advice from Professionals”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest