Mike's Trainer Thread

Special forum where professionals are encouraged to help law school applicants, students, and graduates.
jmjm
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:59 am

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby jmjm » Fri May 30, 2014 2:23 am

Adding an example for the previous post.

Duke's basketball team has tall players
Being tall helps with playing basketball
John who recently matriculated at Duke is tall
Thus, John plays basketball

Which choices are str/wkn/neutral?
a) Duke's basketball team members are also physically fit which helps with playing basketball and John is not physically fit
b) Victor who is in Duke's basketball team is physically fit which helps with playing basketball and John is not physically fit
c) Victor who is in Duke's basketball team is physically fit which helps with playing basketball and John is more likely to be physically fit than not
d) Duke's basketball team members are also physically fit which helps with playing basketball and John is more likely to be physically fit than not

User avatar
AOT
Posts: 1317
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 4:34 pm

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby AOT » Sat May 31, 2014 11:49 am

Hi Mike - thank you so much for doing this! I have a question about the Game 4, on page 201. One of the rules states that "J and I will either be teamed with F or G". Which I interpreted as J could be teamed with F or G, and I could be (separately) teamed with F or G. Is this a common wording issue I should look out for? How can I be sure that I've understood correctly?

Thanks again!

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

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Mon Jun 02, 2014 1:40 pm

alloverthat wrote:Hi Mike - thank you so much for doing this! I have a question about the Game 4, on page 201. One of the rules states that "J and I will either be teamed with F or G". Which I interpreted as J could be teamed with F or G, and I could be (separately) teamed with F or G. Is this a common wording issue I should look out for? How can I be sure that I've understood correctly?

Thanks again!


(sorry for skipping over you jmjm -- I'm preparing a longer response for you, as you know) --

Hi there a.o.t. --

There are certainly some confusing phrases that come up in LG and require some careful interpretation, but I think that in the case of this particular phrase, I was perhaps more vague than the test writers would be -- the phrase is a part of the trainer error list that can be found here --

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=229327

Sorry about that, and hope it didn't cause you too much trouble (good eye btw) --

Also hope the studying is going well otherwise -- please reach out if you need anything else -- Mike

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

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Tue Jun 03, 2014 4:50 pm

jmjm wrote:Adding an example for the previous post.

Duke's basketball team has tall players
Being tall helps with playing basketball
John who recently matriculated at Duke is tall
Thus, John plays basketball

Which choices are str/wkn/neutral?
a) Duke's basketball team members are also physically fit which helps with playing basketball and John is not physically fit
b) Victor who is in Duke's basketball team is physically fit which helps with playing basketball and John is not physically fit
c) Victor who is in Duke's basketball team is physically fit which helps with playing basketball and John is more likely to be physically fit than not
d) Duke's basketball team members are also physically fit which helps with playing basketball and John is more likely to be physically fit than not


Hey Jmjm --

Thanks for your patience -- I’ve read over everything you wrote carefully, and I think I have a better sense of your questions -- and if I'm reading you correctly, I also most definitely understand why what you are thinking about would make you concerned--

Along with my usual disclaimer that I may be seeing your issues incorrectly or unclearly, my big general point is that I think you are casting a wider net than you need to with regard to argument gaps, and, as a related consequence, overly concerned about answers that are only tangentially related. I think you’ll be happy to know that the gaps tend to be clearer than what you fear, and right answers always more directly related to the reasoning.

I’m going to warn you ahead of time that this is a very long post -- sorry about that -- I was trying to figure out a way to make my point more efficiently but I couldn’t -- what I’d like to do is first address your hypos, then I’d like to show you a quick summary of all the s & w q’s from one particular test (I chose pt 38 b/c it happens to be right by me). What I hope to show you with this survey of all S/W from one test is the general “size/scope” of the gap you in reasoning that you are expected to see, as well as the fact that every correct answer, though it may not have a giant impact, will most definitely have a very clear impact on the reasoning.

Your hypo one:

A study of students showed that those who eat less perform better in exam.
Thus eating less can improve exam performance.

a) all students in the study are similar in age and grade
b) students are not more likely to eat less than the general public
c) students are more likely to eat less than the general public
d) students are more likely to eat significantly less than the general public

Sorry I missed your point earlier --

So, we can either interpret the premise to mean a) students who eat less than they would otherwise or b) students who eat less relative to other students (by the way, I don’t think the LSAT will build in such ambiguity in phrasing an important premise -- if this were an LSAT q, I think it would be more obvious which way we are supposed to interpret this premise) --

In any case, yes, there is a flaw in jumping from talking about students to those who generally take exams.

However, I still don’t think any of the answers strengthen or weaken the reasoning.

(A) relates to standard deviation -- if they were of different ages and grades, unclear how that would impact reasoning.
(B) and C, and (D) do discuss one difference between students and the general public, but not in a way that impacts the reasoning. The “less likely to eat” comparison between students and general public has nothing to do with the “less likely to eat” reasoning in the premise (which again, has to do w/students vs themselves or other students). So, (B) and C) and (D), to me at least, literally have as much impact as does a statement like “students tend to like video games more than the general public” -- it tells us about a difference, but not a difference that we can know has any specific relevance on the reasoning.

Your hypo two:

Duke's basketball team has tall players
Being tall helps with playing basketball
John who recently matriculated at Duke is tall
Thus, John plays basketball

Which choices are str/wkn/neutral?
a) Duke's basketball team members are also physically fit which helps with playing basketball and John is not physically fit
b) Victor who is in Duke's basketball team is physically fit which helps with playing basketball and John is not physically fit
c) Victor who is in Duke's basketball team is physically fit which helps with playing basketball and John is more likely to be physically fit than not
d) Duke's basketball team members are also physically fit which helps with playing basketball and John is more likely to be physically fit than not

For the reasons I mentioned initially (cleaner gaps, more directly relevant right answers), I do personally think this hypo is very, very different from the types of arguments you will see on the LSAT, and so please keep that in mind as I explain my reasoning --

I think the way I was meant to read this argument is -
Point: John plays basketball.
Support: Duke basketball team has tall players. John goes to Duke and is tall. Being tall helps with playing basketball.

Underlying reasoning:
Author is trying to prove that John has a general characteristic (plays basketball) by showing that there is a possibility that he is a part of a small group of individuals that presumably have that characteristic (Duke basketball team members).

The premises connect as follows:
Going to Duke and being tall both increase odds of being on Duke basketball team. The author also falsely presumes that being on basketball team guarantees that he plays basketball.

a) - I guess it weakens but in a very indirect way -- if it helps play basketball, that might make it more likely the person makes the team (we don’t know, btw, that those who are better at playing b-ball are the ones who make the team).
b) - might be 2% better than a) b/c at least it helps link being better at b-ball and making the team, but like a it is still very indirectly related to the reasoning.
c) is very similar to b) in impact, but on the strengthen side
d) helps a little more than c) I guess, because it does just a bit more to increase the mathematical odds that John is on the team.

Having said that, I want to emphasize that my main point is that none of those answers are anything like what you will see as the right answer to an actual LSAT strengthen or weaken q -- right answers to LSAT q’s have to play a more clearly definable role relative to the reasoning --
all of these answers, even if you could argue they have an impact, are too indirectly related, and to secondary issues at that, to play such a direct role.

Again, I think your q’s (if I’m understanding them correctly) are completely understandable, and I also think it’s very helpful to know that LSAT q’s will not be as unpredictable/messy as the examples you brought up. To illustrate, here are short summaries of all the S/W q’s from 38, along w/ descriptions of how right answers are relevant. I don’t mean for you to solve all these q’s yourself -- hopefully just seeing the solutions helps align your internal gauge on the “level” of connection between right answer and argument, and hopefully the whole will help you develop a stronger sense of the “boundary lines” of these q types -- sorry if I overlook some small points in these q’s -- I’m going fairly quickly and paraphrasing my thought process --

1-4 S

Point - Not reporting negative results wasn’t fraud.
Support - Negative test invalid b/c dropped in acid
Right answer - Supports by showing that dropping in acid would definitely hurt validity of negative results.

1-10 S

Point: layout of keyboard is not designed to slow down speed.
Support: though slower speed may have been necessary for previous devices (early typewriters), not necessary for modern devices.
Right answer -- Supports by showing how slower speed of the past relevant to modern design (b/c it made people get comfortable with, and want to stick w/QWERTY keyboards).

1 - 17 W (fun q)

Point: premiums should increase w/frequency with which person drives.
Support: more times a person drives, more chances of accident.
Reasoning flaw: this is a very subtle flaw and tough to see, because perhaps for each individual, per the premise, the more that particular individual drives the more often he/she has a chance of having a mishap. What the reasoning fails to take into account is that driving ability might impact how often one drives in the first place -- perhaps those who drive most happen to do so because they are the best drivers -- if that’s the case, premiums should not increase w/frequency with which person drives.
Right answer -- exposes this issue by showing that those who drive less might have greater percentage odds per trip of having a mishap than those who drive more.

4 - 5 S except

Point: General public exposed to MBTE will suffer increased headaches etc.
Support: Oil refinery workers exposed to MBTE suffered increased headaches etc.
Flaw: Fails to consider differences between oil refinery workers and general public -- specifically, their work might expose them to other things that make them more likely have headaches etc.
4 Strengthen answers -- all clearly help support idea that MBTE might have his effect on general public/oil refinery workers representative of public.
1 Right answer has nothing to do w/reasoning

(Note that refinery workers vs public is similar to issues in your hypos -- the key thing to note here is that the difference between the two groups is central to the author’s reasoning, and so we should expect answers that address it.)

13 - W
Point: TV advertising does not significantly impact children’s cereal decisions.
Support: Those who watched commercials and those who didn’t behaved same
Right answer -- weakens by showing that those who watch the commercials influence those who don’t.

15 - W
Point: Baja turtles hatched in Japanese water.
Support: DNA 95% match.
Reasoning issue: Is 95% good or bad? Maybe same/better match w/turtles hatched elsewhere.
Right answer -- weakens argument by showing the the 95% isn’t special -- these turtles also have same % DNA match w/turtles born elsewhere.

Again, notice that in every instance there is a very clear connection between the right answer and the reasoning issue.

Whew! Sorry again for the length of the response, and at this point I do really hope at least some of it was relevant to your q and helpful! Please follow up if need be -- MK

jmjm
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:59 am

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby jmjm » Fri Jun 13, 2014 10:37 pm

The LSAT Trainer wrote:
jmjm wrote:Adding an example for the previous post.

Duke's basketball team has tall players
Being tall helps with playing basketball
John who recently matriculated at Duke is tall
Thus, John plays basketball

Which choices are str/wkn/neutral?
a) Duke's basketball team members are also physically fit which helps with playing basketball and John is not physically fit
b) Victor who is in Duke's basketball team is physically fit which helps with playing basketball and John is not physically fit
c) Victor who is in Duke's basketball team is physically fit which helps with playing basketball and John is more likely to be physically fit than not
d) Duke's basketball team members are also physically fit which helps with playing basketball and John is more likely to be physically fit than not


Hey Jmjm --

Thanks for your patience -- I’ve read over everything you wrote carefully, and I think I have a better sense of your questions -- and if I'm reading you correctly, I also most definitely understand why what you are thinking about would make you concerned--

Along with my usual disclaimer that I may be seeing your issues incorrectly or unclearly, my big general point is that I think you are casting a wider net than you need to with regard to argument gaps, and, as a related consequence, overly concerned about answers that are only tangentially related. I think you’ll be happy to know that the gaps tend to be clearer than what you fear, and right answers always more directly related to the reasoning.

I’m going to warn you ahead of time that this is a very long post -- sorry about that -- I was trying to figure out a way to make my point more efficiently but I couldn’t -- what I’d like to do is first address your hypos, then I’d like to show you a quick summary of all the s & w q’s from one particular test (I chose pt 38 b/c it happens to be right by me). What I hope to show you with this survey of all S/W from one test is the general “size/scope” of the gap you in reasoning that you are expected to see, as well as the fact that every correct answer, though it may not have a giant impact, will most definitely have a very clear impact on the reasoning.

Your hypo one:

A study of students showed that those who eat less perform better in exam.
Thus eating less can improve exam performance.

a) all students in the study are similar in age and grade
b) students are not more likely to eat less than the general public
c) students are more likely to eat less than the general public
d) students are more likely to eat significantly less than the general public

Sorry I missed your point earlier --

So, we can either interpret the premise to mean a) students who eat less than they would otherwise or b) students who eat less relative to other students (by the way, I don’t think the LSAT will build in such ambiguity in phrasing an important premise -- if this were an LSAT q, I think it would be more obvious which way we are supposed to interpret this premise) --

In any case, yes, there is a flaw in jumping from talking about students to those who generally take exams.

However, I still don’t think any of the answers strengthen or weaken the reasoning.

(A) relates to standard deviation -- if they were of different ages and grades, unclear how that would impact reasoning.
(B) and C, and (D) do discuss one difference between students and the general public, but not in a way that impacts the reasoning. The “less likely to eat” comparison between students and general public has nothing to do with the “less likely to eat” reasoning in the premise (which again, has to do w/students vs themselves or other students). So, (B) and C) and (D), to me at least, literally have as much impact as does a statement like “students tend to like video games more than the general public” -- it tells us about a difference, but not a difference that we can know has any specific relevance on the reasoning.

Your hypo two:

Duke's basketball team has tall players
Being tall helps with playing basketball
John who recently matriculated at Duke is tall
Thus, John plays basketball

Which choices are str/wkn/neutral?
a) Duke's basketball team members are also physically fit which helps with playing basketball and John is not physically fit
b) Victor who is in Duke's basketball team is physically fit which helps with playing basketball and John is not physically fit
c) Victor who is in Duke's basketball team is physically fit which helps with playing basketball and John is more likely to be physically fit than not
d) Duke's basketball team members are also physically fit which helps with playing basketball and John is more likely to be physically fit than not

For the reasons I mentioned initially (cleaner gaps, more directly relevant right answers), I do personally think this hypo is very, very different from the types of arguments you will see on the LSAT, and so please keep that in mind as I explain my reasoning --

I think the way I was meant to read this argument is -
Point: John plays basketball.
Support: Duke basketball team has tall players. John goes to Duke and is tall. Being tall helps with playing basketball.

Underlying reasoning:
Author is trying to prove that John has a general characteristic (plays basketball) by showing that there is a possibility that he is a part of a small group of individuals that presumably have that characteristic (Duke basketball team members).

The premises connect as follows:
Going to Duke and being tall both increase odds of being on Duke basketball team. The author also falsely presumes that being on basketball team guarantees that he plays basketball.

a) - I guess it weakens but in a very indirect way -- if it helps play basketball, that might make it more likely the person makes the team (we don’t know, btw, that those who are better at playing b-ball are the ones who make the team).
b) - might be 2% better than a) b/c at least it helps link being better at b-ball and making the team, but like a it is still very indirectly related to the reasoning.
c) is very similar to b) in impact, but on the strengthen side
d) helps a little more than c) I guess, because it does just a bit more to increase the mathematical odds that John is on the team.

Having said that, I want to emphasize that my main point is that none of those answers are anything like what you will see as the right answer to an actual LSAT strengthen or weaken q -- right answers to LSAT q’s have to play a more clearly definable role relative to the reasoning --
all of these answers, even if you could argue they have an impact, are too indirectly related, and to secondary issues at that, to play such a direct role.

Again, I think your q’s (if I’m understanding them correctly) are completely understandable, and I also think it’s very helpful to know that LSAT q’s will not be as unpredictable/messy as the examples you brought up. To illustrate, here are short summaries of all the S/W q’s from 38, along w/ descriptions of how right answers are relevant. I don’t mean for you to solve all these q’s yourself -- hopefully just seeing the solutions helps align your internal gauge on the “level” of connection between right answer and argument, and hopefully the whole will help you develop a stronger sense of the “boundary lines” of these q types -- sorry if I overlook some small points in these q’s -- I’m going fairly quickly and paraphrasing my thought process --

1-4 S

Point - Not reporting negative results wasn’t fraud.
Support - Negative test invalid b/c dropped in acid
Right answer - Supports by showing that dropping in acid would definitely hurt validity of negative results.

1-10 S

Point: layout of keyboard is not designed to slow down speed.
Support: though slower speed may have been necessary for previous devices (early typewriters), not necessary for modern devices.
Right answer -- Supports by showing how slower speed of the past relevant to modern design (b/c it made people get comfortable with, and want to stick w/QWERTY keyboards).

1 - 17 W (fun q)

Point: premiums should increase w/frequency with which person drives.
Support: more times a person drives, more chances of accident.
Reasoning flaw: this is a very subtle flaw and tough to see, because perhaps for each individual, per the premise, the more that particular individual drives the more often he/she has a chance of having a mishap. What the reasoning fails to take into account is that driving ability might impact how often one drives in the first place -- perhaps those who drive most happen to do so because they are the best drivers -- if that’s the case, premiums should not increase w/frequency with which person drives.
Right answer -- exposes this issue by showing that those who drive less might have greater percentage odds per trip of having a mishap than those who drive more.

4 - 5 S except

Point: General public exposed to MBTE will suffer increased headaches etc.
Support: Oil refinery workers exposed to MBTE suffered increased headaches etc.
Flaw: Fails to consider differences between oil refinery workers and general public -- specifically, their work might expose them to other things that make them more likely have headaches etc.
4 Strengthen answers -- all clearly help support idea that MBTE might have his effect on general public/oil refinery workers representative of public.
1 Right answer has nothing to do w/reasoning

(Note that refinery workers vs public is similar to issues in your hypos -- the key thing to note here is that the difference between the two groups is central to the author’s reasoning, and so we should expect answers that address it.)

13 - W
Point: TV advertising does not significantly impact children’s cereal decisions.
Support: Those who watched commercials and those who didn’t behaved same
Right answer -- weakens by showing that those who watch the commercials influence those who don’t.

15 - W
Point: Baja turtles hatched in Japanese water.
Support: DNA 95% match.
Reasoning issue: Is 95% good or bad? Maybe same/better match w/turtles hatched elsewhere.
Right answer -- weakens argument by showing the the 95% isn’t special -- these turtles also have same % DNA match w/turtles born elsewhere.

Again, notice that in every instance there is a very clear connection between the right answer and the reasoning issue.

Whew! Sorry again for the length of the response, and at this point I do really hope at least some of it was relevant to your q and helpful! Please follow up if need be -- MK


It's good to see your take on the hypo example. Thanks for writing this.

User avatar
mindarmed
Posts: 959
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 2:16 pm

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby mindarmed » Sat Jun 14, 2014 10:29 am

Hey Mike I was tutoring a student this morning and he was using your 16 week study schedule using PTs 41-67. I noticed there was a typo on the "Drill 17: Strengthen" line item. The line reads "53.1.11, 6,10" when it should probably read "53.1.1,6,10"

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

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:27 am

mindarmed wrote:Hey Mike I was tutoring a student this morning and he was using your 16 week study schedule using PTs 41-67. I noticed there was a typo on the "Drill 17: Strengthen" line item. The line reads "53.1.11, 6,10" when it should probably read "53.1.1,6,10"


Ugh -- please apologize to your student for me, and thanks for catching it and letting me know --

MK

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

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:42 pm

Hi --

Just wanted to let everyone know that version 1.4 of the book is now available on Amazon. It is exactly the same as version 1.3, but with some clean up of typos and such. Thanks again to all those who helped improve version 1.3.

If you are purchasing the book from a bookstore, a different website, or a third party seller, it will likely be another couple of weeks before they start shipping out the latest version. You can tell which version you have by taking a look at the copyright page. If it has "3 4 5" you have version 1.3, and if it just has "4 5" you have version 1.4.

-- MK

agp2111
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2014 10:40 pm

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby agp2111 » Wed Jun 18, 2014 1:43 am

Hi Mike,

I just got your book in the mail today, on the recommendation of a couple friends, and I'm really excited to get started. To make sure I stay on top of it all, I printed out your organizer notes. Funny thing is, I don't really understand how best to use the Games Notes, Questions Notes, and Passage Notes. The instructions in the Organizer are not very clear to me, although those for the Review Notes are clear.

Any chance you can share an example of what some of those Notes might be like? I understand this probably sounds a little pedantic, but I just really, really want to make sure I maximize effectiveness with your materials.

I also submitted this question through your website (first name: AJ) just now, but am not sure which you read first, so I thought I'd post it in both places. Feel free to respond to either.

Thanks for your help!

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

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:25 pm

agp2111 wrote:Hi Mike,

I just got your book in the mail today, on the recommendation of a couple friends, and I'm really excited to get started. To make sure I stay on top of it all, I printed out your organizer notes. Funny thing is, I don't really understand how best to use the Games Notes, Questions Notes, and Passage Notes. The instructions in the Organizer are not very clear to me, although those for the Review Notes are clear.

Any chance you can share an example of what some of those Notes might be like? I understand this probably sounds a little pedantic, but I just really, really want to make sure I maximize effectiveness with your materials.

I also submitted this question through your website (first name: AJ) just now, but am not sure which you read first, so I thought I'd post it in both places. Feel free to respond to either.

Thanks for your help!


Hi AJ --

Nice to meet you online and thanks for picking up my book -- figured I should respond here instead of by email in case others are wondering about it as well --

I've purposely left these organizer pages flexible, and the instructions a bit open-ended, because I know different students will want to use them in different ways --

In general, I recommend that you use the Game, Passage, and Question Note pages to record your actual experience solving problems (you can choose to take notes on just the hardest/most interesting passages/games, etc., or take notes on every question that you try -- up to you). I think that having such a record of work done can be very helpful for self-assessment throughout your study period.

To use the L.G. Games Notes as an example (and the same ideas apply to LR and RC) --

You can use the space on top to write out your diagram, then you can use the boxes below to write out how you solved each problem. In general, I recommend you cross out answer choices that you know for certain are wrong, underline answers you read but then didn't make a yes/no decision about, leave alone the ones you didn't get to, and circle the answer you selected. (you can use any other notational system you feel comfortable with as well.)

Imagine that for a particular question you have a record of (A) through (C) all crossed out, then (D) with underline, then (E) selected. Then you will know that when you were solving this problem, you figured out for certain that (A) - (C) were wrong, weren't sure about (D), then saw that (E) was correct.

Additionally, there is space next to the answers in case you feel like writing out notes about the problem or a particular answer choice. Again, you can choose to be as detailed as you'd like -- maybe for an easier q you don't need to write out any notes -- maybe for another q u needed to draw out two separate diagrams and want to take note of it, or maybe a particular wrong answer was super attractive and you want to remember why it was so (maybe you write out next to an answer "tempting false inference").

Imagine you try playing the same game a month later, and maybe this time you tweak a diagram a bit and it's just a little bit more effective, and maybe you are a bit more efficient with the questions, and you have an easier time overall with the game. You review your notes, and they will help you reflect not only on how your diagrams were different, but also the ramifications this had on your problem-solving process. For example, maybe you'll see that the seemingly impossible problem was only that way because your mindset about the game or your approach to the type of question was wrong.

Hope that clears things up a bit, and wish you the best --

MK

User avatar
mindarmed
Posts: 959
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 2:16 pm

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby mindarmed » Fri Jun 20, 2014 3:07 pm

The LSAT Trainer wrote:
mindarmed wrote:Hey Mike I was tutoring a student this morning and he was using your 16 week study schedule using PTs 41-67. I noticed there was a typo on the "Drill 17: Strengthen" line item. The line reads "53.1.11, 6,10" when it should probably read "53.1.1,6,10"


Ugh -- please apologize to your student for me, and thanks for catching it and letting me know --

MK


No worries man - just figured I'd point it out to you. Is there a list of corrected typos anywhere? I've tagged some stuff that I've picked up in the book too, but I'd have to go back and check which version I have to make sure they werent already picked up

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

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Fri Jun 20, 2014 11:25 pm

mindarmed wrote:
The LSAT Trainer wrote:
mindarmed wrote:Hey Mike I was tutoring a student this morning and he was using your 16 week study schedule using PTs 41-67. I noticed there was a typo on the "Drill 17: Strengthen" line item. The line reads "53.1.11, 6,10" when it should probably read "53.1.1,6,10"


Ugh -- please apologize to your student for me, and thanks for catching it and letting me know --

MK


No worries man - just figured I'd point it out to you. Is there a list of corrected typos anywhere? I've tagged some stuff that I've picked up in the book too, but I'd have to go back and check which version I have to make sure they weren't already picked up


I just released version 1.4 a couple of days ago -- here's a link to the latest typos list --

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=229327

which has instructions at the top for figuring out which version you have -- if you've noticed anything else that hasn't been notated or corrected, please pm me -- thanks again -- MK

User avatar
mornincounselor
Posts: 1220
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 1:37 am

Post removed.

Postby mornincounselor » Sun Jun 22, 2014 1:22 am

Post removed.
Last edited by mornincounselor on Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Sun Jun 22, 2014 1:45 pm

mornincounselor wrote:How does a person go about reviewing RC sections in order to develop good habits?

I started "drilling" them tonight. By that, I mean simply starting at PT 1 and running through each passage and keeping track of timing. So now I have questions I missed tagged, but all I really have been doing is returning to the passage and seeing where the crucial information was hiding. I'm not sure how to take knowledge of what I missed and apply it to future passages.

With LR I turn all missed questions into flashcards and list out the Conclusion, Support, and any flaws I see on the back. For difficult Conditional Logic questions I can draw out the relationships.

For LG I can do the games over and over again until the inferences become second nature.

With RC it's just "Yup, I missed/mis-interpreted x sentence" ---> I need to read more carefully in the future.


Hey MC --

Have you read this post about it? - viewtopic.php?f=6&t=209759#p6768135 -

In my opinion, the two big-picture goals of drilling RC should be
1) developing a more complete and accurate sense of your "ideal" reading strategies
2) work to be more consistent and efficient at applying these strategies

To that end (and sorry if I'm just repeating things I've already written elsewhere), here are two more-specific suggestions --

1) think about what the questions as a whole indicate you should have gotten out of your read

There are some rogue one-off q's, but the vast majority of questions for every single passage will relate in some way to the reasoning structure of the passage. Individual q's can enlighten you about certain aspects of a passage, but it is the collection of questions that can give you the most accurate sense of "how you should have read the passage."

Think about the thoughts you went into the q's with initially, and after-the-fact evaluate how they ended up relating to the questions. You should see a direct impact on the vast majority of q's, and that's a good sign you've read the passage correctly. If what you thought about/focused on during your read only impacts a minority of q's, this is a strong sign that your approach to the passage/what you got out of it was less than ideal. By studying both of these types of circumstances, you can develop a more accurate sense of how you ought to read.

2) Think about how they came up with the wrong answers

I know I've said this elsewhere, but just to say it again -- wrong answers are incredibly valuable for understanding what the test writers are thinking about - especially now that you have some RC experience under your belt, I think careful analysis of these answers can help take your understanding to the next level (I know it did for me). These wrong answers are not made out of thin air -- they are very carefully constructed to match up with the types of challenges built into the passage and the task presented in the stem. It's extremely tedious to study wrong answer choices, especially after you've gotten a question right, but if you put in the time, they can be very helpful for understanding "what's at play" when it comes to differentiating between right and wrong.

Those are the thoughts that come to mind -- hope they help -- I've got a gazillion other suggestions, and we've got plenty of time before Sept*, so if they don't address your issues, or if you need any other advice/ideas, just let me know --

MK

* please see next post

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

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Sun Jun 22, 2014 1:47 pm

Just a quick note -- I will be away from work for a couple of weeks starting today, and will be responding to all questions/comments when I return -- thanks everyone -- Mike

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

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Mon Jul 07, 2014 5:13 pm

The LSAT Trainer wrote:Just a quick note -- I will be away from work for a couple of weeks starting today, and will be responding to all questions/comments when I return -- thanks everyone -- Mike


Hi everyone -- I am back, and will be returning all pms and messages over the next couple of days -- thanks -- MK

ILikeKneadedErasers
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 10:26 am

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby ILikeKneadedErasers » Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:50 am

Hi Mike,
I had a few RC questions. I haven't finished all the sections on RC in the Trainer yet, but even with the solutions provided I haven't been able to fully understand why I missed a few of the drill questions in Lesson 24.

For example, Drill passage 3 number 19. I had gotten it down to C and E. I was thrown off a little by the word "unintentionally" in C and the lines about "elite initiated reforms...to legitimize their own" sounded sort of like E to me. It was sort of a coin toss answer.

Number 22 in Drill passage 4 was another that I missed. I chose A. I felt that B only described half of the passage and had eliminated it pretty quickly with all the other answers. The only reason I can kind of come up with for why A is wrong is because spirituality isn't really a religion per se? Maybe? Not too familiar with the subject of spirituality/mysticism. Am I also wrong for thinking that the phrasing "the importance of" could also be thought of as how un-important something is? My thinking process had been that the passage had seemed very concerned about how little importance religion/spirituality had to do with Luminist art. It wasn't an answer I really liked and I probably spent a bit too long with myself debating whether "the importance" could mean just the level of importance or if it just meant that it was very important, but ultimately went with it because B had seemed very implausible.

Is there something I am not getting when it comes to these answers and any skills in particular I should work on? I know that this is a very limited number of questions to answer that off of and there's another swatch of RC lessons to come, but I had thought that I was pretty comfortable with the reasoning structure discussed so far so I'm a bit at a loss as to where exactly I'm going wrong and it's got me really nervous.

brooklynboy
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 10:58 pm

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby brooklynboy » Sun Jul 13, 2014 4:46 pm

Mike,

I have been using The Trainer for three weeks now (for about 2-3 hours a day, plus Cambridge drills and reading over all of this thread!) and it has really made the difference. Two weeks ago, I took PT 52 and scored a 165 (I did think that was an anomaly, as my cold diagnostic was 166 and I had gone through the PowerScore LR and LG Bibles, plus Manhattan's RC book). This afternoon, however, I took PT 57 and not only did I score a 175, I earned my first ever -0 on RC and on a section of LR. (I still need to work heavily on Games -- The Trainer's Mastery Challenge really knocked the wind out of me!) In addition, over the past few days, I did one section each of PT 54 for recent section drills, and my sum score was 176. And I still have 10 chapters of The Trainer to go!

I feel like my understanding of LR in particular is miles and miles ahead of where it was just a few weeks ago, and that it is only continuing to improve daily. Your emphasis on eliminating wrongs, and then verifying right, is phenomenal. There were some tough questions (like PT 54.2.24) that would have taken me much longer to figure out had I focused on determining precisely why the right answer was right, rather than first eliminating four wrongs.

I am still struggling with Identify the Principle questions, however. Both of my LR misses on PT 54 were of that type, as was one of my LR misses on PT 57. As I said, I haven't finished The Trainer yet, but I don't see principle questions referenced in the glossary. Is there a place I can look that would be helpful for those? I feel like I don't understand the task of those questions as well as I do, say, for weaken or sufficient assumption questions, where I find it easy to test answers by "fitting" them between the support and the conclusion of the premise. It seems that these questions are sort of similar in mindset to Main Point RC questions, in that it's hard to look at specific places of the stimulus/passage to check an answer.

I figure it would be helpful for me and for others if I explained my thought process for a Principle question I got wrong, and then maybe you could provide some guidance.

Specifically, I'll discuss 57.3.16, as I worked the problem for the first time just a few hours ago. What I took from the stimulus was that faster-paced lives have made people feel that they are never able to achieve what they want. I kept that line in my head as I reviewed the choices.

I looked at (A) and it seemed like a pretty great version of my understanding of the stimulus. I kept it as a strong contender. I quickly eliminated (B) because the stimulus did not discuss the relative weight of technology's advantages and disadvantages, and even if it had, the word "often" did not seem to be supported. I read (C) and also thought it was pretty good, so I left it. I eliminated (D) because the stimulus never suggested that technological process made it more difficult for people to know what they want, just that technology has made it difficult for us to feel like we have time to get what we think we want. I then quickly eliminated (E), as the stimulus did not describe what caused the drive for technological advancement, just its results.

At this point I was left with (A) and (C). I looked at the question stem again and focused on "most closely conform." While the choices both seemed to accurately describe the stimulus, I felt that (A) was more comprehensive, and so more closely conformed to the critic's assessment. I picked (A).

In reading over the choices now, I do notice that the stimulus merely says that technological change has made us feel that we never have enough time, whereas (A) asserts that the fast pace of life has made it difficult for people to achieve their goals. That didn't strike me as an issue when I first worked the question, as I figured that if someone feels that they can't achieve what they want then surely that person isn't achieving his or her goals! But now I'm thinking maybe that is a significant difference that the test expected me to pick up on. Is that the key distinguishing factor, or am I missing something else?

I realize this was a long question, but I do hope that exploring this will be helpful both for myself and others! If you'd like me to go into any of the other Principle questions I missed, I can do that as well.

Thank you so so much. You perform an invaluable service to those of us preparing for this test, and I appreciate it greatly.

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

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:06 pm

ILikeKneadedErasers wrote:Hi Mike,
I had a few RC questions. I haven't finished all the sections on RC in the Trainer yet, but even with the solutions provided I haven't been able to fully understand why I missed a few of the drill questions in Lesson 24.

For example, Drill passage 3 number 19. I had gotten it down to C and E. I was thrown off a little by the word "unintentionally" in C and the lines about "elite initiated reforms...to legitimize their own" sounded sort of like E to me. It was sort of a coin toss answer.

Number 22 in Drill passage 4 was another that I missed. I chose A. I felt that B only described half of the passage and had eliminated it pretty quickly with all the other answers. The only reason I can kind of come up with for why A is wrong is because spirituality isn't really a religion per se? Maybe? Not too familiar with the subject of spirituality/mysticism. Am I also wrong for thinking that the phrasing "the importance of" could also be thought of as how un-important something is? My thinking process had been that the passage had seemed very concerned about how little importance religion/spirituality had to do with Luminist art. It wasn't an answer I really liked and I probably spent a bit too long with myself debating whether "the importance" could mean just the level of importance or if it just meant that it was very important, but ultimately went with it because B had seemed very implausible.

Is there something I am not getting when it comes to these answers and any skills in particular I should work on? I know that this is a very limited number of questions to answer that off of and there's another swatch of RC lessons to come, but I had thought that I was pretty comfortable with the reasoning structure discussed so far so I'm a bit at a loss as to where exactly I'm going wrong and it's got me really nervous.


Hi there -- sorry for the delay, and I hope this gets to you in time to be of use --

Passage 3, Q 19 --

Notice this is a question about specific information mentioned in the passage --

For these q's, you typically want to first use your general structural understanding to eliminate obvious wrong choices and to recognize which attractive answer choices, and you want to use your general structural sense to get a head start on finding the relevant information in the text.

Then, you want to make sure to verify the remaining answer choice against the specific details of the passage -- again, because this q says "according to the passage" rather than something like "the passage suggests," you really need to stay very close to the text

I can see how a general structural understanding gets you down to (C) and (E) --

At this point, for this type of q, you want to to back to the text and see which one most directly relates --

(C) is a very direct match for the sentence starting "The missionaries tendency..." If you look up just a few lines from that, you'll see the reference to "unintended," and, in general, the idea that the changes were different from what the missionaries planned is consistent with the themes of the entire passage.

If you take a look at (E), which I definitely can see as being tempting, it seems to go a bit beyond the information in the text, and the thing that first jumped out at me was "Cherokee council" -- looking back through the text, I can use that piece to confirm that the passage did not talk about the specific information in (E) -- thus, (C) is correct.

Passage 4, Q 22

I definitely see that (B) is a tough answer to pick here, and if this were on a real exam, I would certainly only pick it after being absolutely sure of my other four eliminations -- this is not uncommon; tough general q's often have not-so-great right answers, and these problems require both an ability to be highly critical of incorrect choices, and the ability to be flexible about how you see the general design of the passage.

If you see the first two paragraphs as giving background on the tradition of luminist painting, and then the third as an illustration of that understanding to a particular artist and situation (notice, just looking at volume, that that third paragraph comprises the majority of passage text) -- this justifies (B) enough. It's not a summary I would have come up if asked about the passage, but it's not wrong either.

I can definitely see why you'd be tempted by (A) here, and you are right that if you interpret "the importance" to mean that the passage is meant to gauge a level of importance, it becomes even more attractive. One thing that that interpretation doesn't account for,though, is the "flip side" -- the passage isn't just talking about the lack of importance of spiritual influence, but using that as a springboard to discuss the important influence of modernization/taming of nature -- just discussing the level of importance of the spiritual doesn't quite represent that as completely as I'd like. In addition, (A) brings in the idea of religion -- though "spiritual" and "mysticism" certainly relate to religion, this passage is more specifically about a certain awe/sense of wonder about the natural world, and it seems like a bit of a stretch to connect that to the concept of "religion," (the strength of that connection, I guess, depends on your definition of religion). And then finally, "the art" generalizes too much -- we are talking about the work of one movement, and mostly one artist within that one movement, and "the art" is too broad a subject. Bring all three of those things together, and (A) is, overall, not a great representation of the passage.

I hope those explanations help clarify a bit - if you have any follow up or need anything else, let me know --

One last thing I want to mention is that being really good at LSAT RC requires you to bring a lot of skills together. Improvement on the LSAT is not linear -- it's not like you will learn one thing, and improve on one type of q because of that, then learn another thing for another type of q, and so on. Instead, hopefully what will happen is that you build up a variety of skills, and get better and better at applying this variety of skills to a variety of situations. The first swatch of RC lessons is meant to give you an underlying structural understanding, then the second swatch will discuss question strategies more specifically, and talk a lot about how to apply this structural understanding to different situations. All that is to say -- please don't be nervous -- this is just the beginning of a long process, and as long as you are setting the right foundation, I expect you'll get better and better and a lot more comfortable w/time and practice. If you need me at any point along the way, I'll be here --

Mike

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

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:46 pm

brooklynboy wrote:Mike,

I have been using The Trainer for three weeks now (for about 2-3 hours a day, plus Cambridge drills and reading over all of this thread!) and it has really made the difference. Two weeks ago, I took PT 52 and scored a 165 (I did think that was an anomaly, as my cold diagnostic was 166 and I had gone through the PowerScore LR and LG Bibles, plus Manhattan's RC book). This afternoon, however, I took PT 57 and not only did I score a 175, I earned my first ever -0 on RC and on a section of LR. (I still need to work heavily on Games -- The Trainer's Mastery Challenge really knocked the wind out of me!) In addition, over the past few days, I did one section each of PT 54 for recent section drills, and my sum score was 176. And I still have 10 chapters of The Trainer to go!

I feel like my understanding of LR in particular is miles and miles ahead of where it was just a few weeks ago, and that it is only continuing to improve daily. Your emphasis on eliminating wrongs, and then verifying right, is phenomenal. There were some tough questions (like PT 54.2.24) that would have taken me much longer to figure out had I focused on determining precisely why the right answer was right, rather than first eliminating four wrongs.

I am still struggling with Identify the Principle questions, however. Both of my LR misses on PT 54 were of that type, as was one of my LR misses on PT 57. As I said, I haven't finished The Trainer yet, but I don't see principle questions referenced in the glossary. Is there a place I can look that would be helpful for those? I feel like I don't understand the task of those questions as well as I do, say, for weaken or sufficient assumption questions, where I find it easy to test answers by "fitting" them between the support and the conclusion of the premise. It seems that these questions are sort of similar in mindset to Main Point RC questions, in that it's hard to look at specific places of the stimulus/passage to check an answer.

I figure it would be helpful for me and for others if I explained my thought process for a Principle question I got wrong, and then maybe you could provide some guidance.

Specifically, I'll discuss 57.3.16, as I worked the problem for the first time just a few hours ago. What I took from the stimulus was that faster-paced lives have made people feel that they are never able to achieve what they want. I kept that line in my head as I reviewed the choices.

I looked at (A) and it seemed like a pretty great version of my understanding of the stimulus. I kept it as a strong contender. I quickly eliminated (B) because the stimulus did not discuss the relative weight of technology's advantages and disadvantages, and even if it had, the word "often" did not seem to be supported. I read (C) and also thought it was pretty good, so I left it. I eliminated (D) because the stimulus never suggested that technological process made it more difficult for people to know what they want, just that technology has made it difficult for us to feel like we have time to get what we think we want. I then quickly eliminated (E), as the stimulus did not describe what caused the drive for technological advancement, just its results.

At this point I was left with (A) and (C). I looked at the question stem again and focused on "most closely conform." While the choices both seemed to accurately describe the stimulus, I felt that (A) was more comprehensive, and so more closely conformed to the critic's assessment. I picked (A).

In reading over the choices now, I do notice that the stimulus merely says that technological change has made us feel that we never have enough time, whereas (A) asserts that the fast pace of life has made it difficult for people to achieve their goals. That didn't strike me as an issue when I first worked the question, as I figured that if someone feels that they can't achieve what they want then surely that person isn't achieving his or her goals! But now I'm thinking maybe that is a significant difference that the test expected me to pick up on. Is that the key distinguishing factor, or am I missing something else?

I realize this was a long question, but I do hope that exploring this will be helpful both for myself and others! If you'd like me to go into any of the other Principle questions I missed, I can do that as well.

Thank you so so much. You perform an invaluable service to those of us preparing for this test, and I appreciate it greatly.


Hi there --

Thanks so much for your comments and it's great to hear that your prep is going so well --

I talk about conform to principle q's briefly in Chapter 18 -- I've gotten several messages similar to yours about them, and so I will probably be expanding that discussion in future editions of the book --

Principle Conform stimuli will have conclusions and support -- instead of seeing the space in between the two as a flaw, you think of it more as an opinion. You are definitely right that it rewards some of the same instincts as an RC main point q -- it's okay to be a bit general, but you don't want to pick an answer that is unjustifiable -- somewhat vague is okay, unwarranted is not.

I just tried the problem you brought up, and had many of the same thoughts you did -- I also agree w/you that "feelings" vs actual is the big issue w/A --

In terms of this q, a couple of suggestions --

1) It's less about which answer is more comprehensive -- it's, like the RC main point q's you mentioned, all about which answer is most defendable. When you see one answer choice with more specifics than another, it's the more specific choice you ought to be more suspicious of, for it has a lot more that needs to be defended/justified/matched up. From a mindset of "defendable," (C) is very attractive -- there is nothing in it that can't be justified using the stimulus.

2) It's definitely easy to miss something like "feelings" as the difference between (A) and the original stimulus. One thing you want to do in these situations is to compare the remaining answer choices to one another. In comparing the two, you aren't focused on which one seems more "right," but rather what the specific differences between them are.

For this problem, if you compare (A) and (C), other than (C) being, in general, more vague than (A), you might also notice, at that point, the difference between feelings and actual reality -- you notice it, say to yourself "is this a difference that is relevant to the stimulus?" then, maybe at that point, you notice that the stimulus focuses on feelings rather than actual (and the aside starting with "-or" seems to be there just to help you know that we are definitely not talking about actual reality).

So, at that point, (A) becomes more difficult to defend -- the stimulus does not talk about actual outcomes -- is (C) defendable?

"Changes in people's feelings can result" -- this is justified by the text because it talks about the fact the speed "created feelings of..."

"From technological changes" -- this can be justified because the stimulus is indeed about tech. changes.

So, there is no reason we can say (C) is wrong, making it right.


Hope that helps -- if you have any follow up, or other examples of similar q's you are having trouble with, let me know and I'll be happy to continue the conversation --

MK

jj4557
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 9:16 pm

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby jj4557 » Thu Jul 17, 2014 4:39 am

Hi Mike,

I've been using The Trainer and found it very helpful. I am aiming for 170+ for the September test, and I am having timing issues. My pt average is about 166, mostly because I don't have enough time to answer all the questions (When I blind-review, I get many of them right, my blind-review score being above 170, usually around 175). So these days, I am just drilling each section in order to become more efficient with the test, and here comes my question.

In the Trainer, when it comes to LR, you suggest we get rid of wrong answer choices for every question. I totally understand your point (once you get so used to it, it will be much faster and more accurate in the long run). And I also see the importance of process of elimination when it comes to the most difficult LR questions. Yet, for certain questions (usually easy ones), there are instances where a correct answer (ex: obvious flaw question) is so obvious that I am almost 99% sure that this answer choice is correct even without going over the rest ones. Given my timing situation (I am missing an average of 3-4 questions per each LR section, guessing 2-3 questions due to time constraints) do you suggest I just pick the correct answer that pops out to me and move on, or do you still recommend going over all the other answer choices?

Thank you in advance!

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

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Thu Jul 17, 2014 8:36 pm

jj4557 wrote:Hi Mike,

I've been using The Trainer and found it very helpful. I am aiming for 170+ for the September test, and I am having timing issues. My pt average is about 166, mostly because I don't have enough time to answer all the questions (When I blind-review, I get many of them right, my blind-review score being above 170, usually around 175). So these days, I am just drilling each section in order to become more efficient with the test, and here comes my question.

In the Trainer, when it comes to LR, you suggest we get rid of wrong answer choices for every question. I totally understand your point (once you get so used to it, it will be much faster and more accurate in the long run). And I also see the importance of process of elimination when it comes to the most difficult LR questions. Yet, for certain questions (usually easy ones), there are instances where a correct answer (ex: obvious flaw question) is so obvious that I am almost 99% sure that this answer choice is correct even without going over the rest ones. Given my timing situation (I am missing an average of 3-4 questions per each LR section, guessing 2-3 questions due to time constraints) do you suggest I just pick the correct answer that pops out to me and move on, or do you still recommend going over all the other answer choices?

Thank you in advance!


Hi JJ --

Thanks for the note and nice to meet you online --

As you said, I definitely do feel that the elimination process will, over the long haul, help you get both faster and more accurate. And, with this much time left before the exam, and with work in the trainer and drilling still to do, I think you should expect that you'll continue to get much faster -- so I wouldn't recommend that, at this point, you build in any shortcuts for the sake of time. For now, I encourage you to keep working on eliminations, but with the expectation that they should help you get faster (that is, try to pay attention to when the elimination process slows you down, expect that it typically shouldn't, and try to address those issues) --

Having said all that, at some point (much closer to the exam than now) you are going to want to design the ideal test-day strategy for yourself, based on your own particular strengths, weaknesses, and timing patterns -- and it is then (typically, when you are done with the learning and drilling, and focusing mostly on pt's) that -- if you are still having timing issues -- you may want to consider ignoring my general advice and (once in a while) pick answers you feel certain about without eliminating the others.

One way to think about it is that in order to get a 170+ on the exam, you are going to have room to miss about 5 LR q's (give or take based your own strengths and weaknesses, the actual exam, etc.) --

You can bucket these misses into three rough categories:

1) Q's you should definitely get right, but miss -- either because you go too fast, or misread or skip a word, etc.

2) Questions that are challenging for you -- these are the main ones that will make or break your score -- the ones right at the upper cusp of your comfort level -- the ones you have a really tough time with under timed conditions but can generally understand for yourself (without an "expert" explanation) in your review.

3) Questions that are impossible for you -- the type you don't get even after reviewing, reading forum explanations etc., and can't imagine getting right on test day.

To be at the 170+ level, hopefully there are very few (if any) q's you encounter that you would put into bucket 3, and so your timing decisions will mostly be about how to best control the misses in buckets 1 & 2 --

You don't want to go so fast that you consistently miss q's in bucket 1, but at the same time --

You want to give yourself as much time as possible for those in bucket 2.

So, if you aren't prone to making smaller errors, misreading, etc., and if you try saving some time not eliminating wrongs on easier q's and it doesn't hurt your accuracy, at that point it'd make a lot of sense for you to adopt that strategy.

If, by that point in your prep, you don't find too many q's fitting into bucket 2, or find (because you've gotten more efficient) that you've got plenty of time for those challenge q's, but keep missing easier problems because of small, unnecessary oversights, maybe at that point you choose to focus even more on steps to confirm eliminations.

Hope that all makes sense, and hope it helps -- as always, if you have any follow up or need anything else, please get in touch -- MK

tweedledee
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2014 4:16 pm

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby tweedledee » Thu Jul 17, 2014 10:11 pm

Hi Mike,

First off, I want to say thank you! I've been using the Trainer for my LSAT prep since April while working full-time, and I've finished the book while following your 16 week schedule with exams 41-68. Your book is amazing and I've gone from a 160 diagnostic to a 172 on my last PT! I originally thought that I'd have to use multiple books but I think the Trainer is truly comprehensive and so, so insightful. I couldn't have made a better purchase! I'm signed up to take the Sept. 27th exam and I was hoping to get some advice on how to finish my prep out strong so that I use full PTs, drills and reviews effectively?

I've only taken a few PTs thus far and my score range since I finished the last chapter of the Trainer has been between 169-172. I'm aiming to score 173+ on test day, and really hoping to get as close to 180 as possible. After finishing the Trainer, my biggest issue was timing for LG. After reviewing your post on this thread about how to speed up, reviewing relevant chapters, and drilling a lot, I've finally gotten my timing in order (thanks for that!). Now, my biggest issue is LR, as I score between -5 and -2 per section. For RC and LG, I average -2 per section. When I review my wrong Qs, some are just stupid careless mistakes and some are though ones. How would you recommend I structure the rest of my time? Should PTs be spread out evenly or should I take less now and more as I get closer to the exam? Should I focus on drills/sections rather than full PTs? Should I take PTs in noisy places like coffee shops to make sure I'm ready for anything on test day?

Also, I have this giant fear of getting a super hard logic game on the day of the test. On a "normal" section, I can finish under 35 mins and get around -2 wrong. But I've found with sections with the harder games (like the one from your mastery challenge/ones from released Feb exams), I can get the right answers (mostly), but typically go over on time. Do you have any advice on how to prep for that?

Thanks for all your help!

AJ_NY
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 4:53 pm

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby AJ_NY » Mon Jul 21, 2014 10:53 pm

Hi all -

I'm having a hard time doing the 'extreme links' drills at the end of Chapter 31- LSAT Vocabulary (p.460). Could anyone explain what we need to do here?

For example, I don't see how we can know whether this statement - 'If Sarah attends, Fred will not' - is provable/not provable. I don't see how we can make any inference from Sarah's attendance. I don't think I'm getting this exercise. Please help!

User avatar
jk148706
Posts: 2499
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 11:14 am

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby jk148706 » Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:17 pm

.
Last edited by jk148706 on Tue Jun 16, 2015 1:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Free Help and Advice from Professionals”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests