December 2011 LSAT Study Group Forum

[LSAT Blog]

There is no explicit information alluding that there is a limit on non neutrinos. We only know that neutrinos are numerous from line 45, and that non neutrinos probably make up for the missing mass. However, there is no information about non neutrinos explicitly or implicitly referred to in the passage.. HTH

What about lines 24-26?

Lines 24-26 gives information about how neutrinos are the most numerous particle---etc. but although they may be the most numerous particle, it does not mean that together different types of non neutrinos that could or could not be particles together would be more than neutrinos.

Example: At the farmers market apples are the highest number of fruits visible in that market, however underground where we cannot see there are strawberries, blueberries, and jackberries that are grown undergrown and not visible to us as they are underground. These fruits together make up more than the apples that are in the market to our knowledge.

I am not saying this is what the argument is implying, because it doesn't imply such a thing. It just implies that we don't have the information of non neutrinos, so in the example we wouldn't have information on non apples. If we can come up with such a hypothetical with the information that is given, then we cannot assume that neutrinos are more than non neutrinos, AND the AR never explicitly states that there are more neutrinos than non neutrinos.. it only says in the lines referred that it is the most numerous TYPE known.

HTH

+1

This type of thinking is key on the LSAT - considering the possibility that something might be a different way than what one might initially assume or see explicitly stated. This mentality is important for mastery of all sections.

[Olive]

There is no explicit information alluding that there is a limit on non neutrinos. We only know that neutrinos are numerous from line 45, and that non neutrinos probably make up for the missing mass. However, there is no information about non neutrinos explicitly or implicitly referred to in the passage.. HTH

What about lines 24-26?

Lines 24-26 gives information about how neutrinos are the most numerous particle---etc. but although they may be the most numerous particle, it does not mean that together different types of non neutrinos that could or could not be particles together would be more than neutrinos.

Example: At the farmers market apples are the highest number of fruits visible in that market, however underground where we cannot see there are strawberries, blueberries, and jackberries that are grown undergrown and not visible to us as they are underground. These fruits together make up more than the apples that are in the market to our knowledge.

I am not saying this is what the argument is implying, because it doesn't imply such a thing. It just implies that we don't have the information of non neutrinos, so in the example we wouldn't have information on non apples. If we can come up with such a hypothetical with the information that is given, then we cannot assume that neutrinos are more than non neutrinos, AND the AR never explicitly states that there are more neutrinos than non neutrinos.. it only says in the lines referred that it is the most numerous TYPE known.

HTH

+1

This type of thinking is key on the LSAT - considering the possibility that something might be a different way than what one might initially assume or see explicitly stated. This mentality is important for mastery of all sections.

Okay, now I understand - great. Thanks, LSAT Blog and ngogirl.

[ngogirl]

There is no explicit information alluding that there is a limit on non neutrinos. We only know that neutrinos are numerous from line 45, and that non neutrinos probably make up for the missing mass. However, there is no information about non neutrinos explicitly or implicitly referred to in the passage.. HTH

What about lines 24-26?

Lines 24-26 gives information about how neutrinos are the most numerous particle---etc. but although they may be the most numerous particle, it does not mean that together different types of non neutrinos that could or could not be particles together would be more than neutrinos.

Example: At the farmers market apples are the highest number of fruits visible in that market, however underground where we cannot see there are strawberries, blueberries, and jackberries that are grown undergrown and not visible to us as they are underground. These fruits together make up more than the apples that are in the market to our knowledge.

I am not saying this is what the argument is implying, because it doesn't imply such a thing. It just implies that we don't have the information of non neutrinos, so in the example we wouldn't have information on non apples. If we can come up with such a hypothetical with the information that is given, then we cannot assume that neutrinos are more than non neutrinos, AND the AR never explicitly states that there are more neutrinos than non neutrinos.. it only says in the lines referred that it is the most numerous TYPE known.

HTH

+1

This type of thinking is key on the LSAT - considering the possibility that something might be a different way than what one might initially assume or see explicitly stated. This mentality is important for mastery of all sections.

[chuffedtobits]

Hello Decemberists, count me in. Anyone here from NYC or even NNJ? Took the LSAT 6 years ago with a 175. Took the LSAT yesterday and made a massive bubbling blunder on the LG section. I possibly got -5 on the last game because of the time spent panicking, which left me with about 3 minutes on the last game. I usually get -1 maximum on LG sections. Started studying in September and now starting all over again I suppose.

[bjarkasi]

hey, where in nnj? i took yesterday but probably retaking... message me

[ngogirl]

Hello Decemberists, count me in. Anyone here from NYC or even NNJ? Took the LSAT 6 years ago with a 175. Took the LSAT yesterday and made a massive bubbling blunder on the LG section. I possibly got -5 on the last game because of the time spent panicking, which left me with about 3 minutes on the last game. I usually get -1 maximum on LG sections. Started studying in September and now starting all over again I suppose.

I'm in NYC and would LOVE an in person study buddy!!! Please tell me your in NYC too!! PM me!!!

[xChiTowNx]

Hey all,

Jumping in -- end of October I could sense I was peaking, but I'm planning on going in for the December to see if I can bump up my score some more.

[Maye]

Since more people are in this thread after the Oct test, if anyone is in North Texas and wants to study together, PM me! I could use some more motivation

[dasani13]

Hi, everyone!

Just decided to cancel October as expected. My goal is to get a score that will give me a good chance at Cornell with a GPA right at their median. I was scoring in the low/mid-160s before going into October. I'm going to give it all that I have to try and achieve that in December because I'm really hoping to apply this cycle. If not, I'll have to take a second year off to study even more because I'm pretty sure I don't want to settle.

Phase II of studying starts tomorrow!

[Olive]

Welcome, October-people!

If you all are interested in joining the MLSAT room for weekly study meetings, check out the first post. I'm sure most of you all are familiar with how this works.

[maru]

Think I underperformed on Saturday, so will likely be joining you guys in December. Taking this week off from studying and then back to the grindstone next week! :/ Or at least until Oct scores come out and it turns out that by some miracle I didn't bomb (unlikely). :/

[Olive]

PT 40 Zephyr Airlines game.

I've checked the MLSAT site and I understand the questions and the game, but I felt like I was drowning when I was completing this game. I was able to answer most of the questions correctly, but I'm not satisfied with how I dealt with this game.

Does anyone have tips for handling weird games like this? I wan't to make sure come December that if I get a odd game game like this I'm not completely flustered.

[man_utd_4l]

For those of you using the Manhattan Logical Reasoning Strategy Guide, I have a question regarding the chapter on conditional reasoning. In the section that goes over the use of "Some" and "Most" the guide says that "many" is equivalent to "some (one or more)." Is this correct, or is it a misprint? The reason why I ask is because of question #4 of the "Drill IT" section that follows (page #363). The question is the one about dogs, and I read it as the following:

Some A's are B's and some A's are C's, which makes it a some + some overlap meaning that no inference can be drawn for the relationship between B and C.

I'm I reading this problem wrong? I can't see why (B) is correct for this problem. I know it is a small thing, but I want to make sure I have this down. If you can help I would appreciate it!

[Manhattan LSAT Noah]

For those of you using the Manhattan Logical Reasoning Strategy Guide, I have a question regarding the chapter on conditional reasoning. In the section that goes over the use of "Some" and "Most" the guide says that "many" is equivalent to "some (one or more)." Is this correct, or is it a misprint? The reason why I ask is because of question #4 of the "Drill IT" section that follows (page #363). The question is the one about dogs, and I read it as the following:

Some A's are B's and some A's are C's, which makes it a some + some overlap meaning that no inference can be drawn for the relationship between B and C.

I'm I reading this problem wrong? I can't see why (B) is correct for this problem. I know it is a small thing, but I want to make sure I have this down. If you can help I would appreciate it!

"Many" is a plural "some" - but the way the LSAT uses it, considering it as "some" is fine.

Good catch on #4! We've corrected that in subsequent printings, but it takes a while for those to hit the shelves. Here are all the substantive typos:

• Pg. 233 (middle) : argument core diagram contains a conclusion from a previous (gene variant) question
• Pg. 297 (first column top) : argument core diagram contains a conclusion from a previous question
• Pg. 309(#10): This is actually a biconditional → S → - V, - V → S, V → - S, -S → V
• Pg. 364: #4: The correct answer is (C)
• Pg. 547(bottom): “Draw a Conclusion” should be “Identify the Conclusion”

[apples252]

Count me in. By the way if anyone is Philly and would like an in-person study partner, pm me.

[Olive]

I posted this in the waiting thread, but I'm going to post this here for the October people joining the thread.

Good luck waiting for scores, all.

Now that you've taken the LSAT, what advice would you give about test day stress? Any insights and advice? Did something work or not work?

Any other general tips about the test while the test taking experience is still fresh would be really appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

[dasani13]

I posted this in the waiting thread, but I'm going to post this here for the October people joining the thread.

Good luck waiting for scores, all.

Now that you've taken the LSAT, what advice would you give about test day stress? Any insights and advice? Did something work or not work?

Any other general tips about the test while the test taking experience is still fresh would be really appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

I took the October test and, honestly, I think everyone exaggerates regarding test day nerves. Maybe it's because I was aware of the possibility that I could cancel and take it in December (if so, think the same way, I guess). But, for me, adrenaline took care of everything and I wasn't even bothered with noises (except for this kid who kept snorting and scaring me, but it was no big deal). A lot of people who freak out come on here and tell us their experience and the ones who don't freak out don't so I think there's a disproportionate amount of people complaining about test day nerves. I even worked much faster than usual because of the adrenaline.

[Olive]

I took the October test and, honestly, I think everyone exaggerates regarding test day nerves. Maybe it's because I was aware of the possibility that I could cancel and take it in December (if so, think the same way, I guess). But, for me, adrenaline took care of everything and I wasn't even bothered with noises (except for this kid who kept snorting and scaring me, but it was no big deal). A lot of people who freak out come on here and tell us their experience and the ones who don't freak out don't so I think there's a disproportionate amount of people complaining about test day nerves. I even worked much faster than usual because of the adrenaline.

Thanks. It's interesting you mention the possibility of December affecting your lack of test day nerves.

When I took the test two years ago I was surprisingly calm and very concentrated for the September test. I really didn't want to take the December test because I feared it would affect my cycle. I got a decent score but decided to take December for a higher score. I walked into the December administration more relaxed than September but nerves completely took me during the first section (LG) and I ended up canceling.

[Nishaz]

Hi Everyone,

Count me in as well.....Will be retaking the LSAT in December.....not too sure how my test went this past Saturday....

[JamMasterJ]

I posted this in the waiting thread, but I'm going to post this here for the October people joining the thread.

Good luck waiting for scores, all.

Now that you've taken the LSAT, what advice would you give about test day stress? Any insights and advice? Did something work or not work?

Any other general tips about the test while the test taking experience is still fresh would be really appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

Don't try to ignore it. You can't. Remember how you've approached every other test you've taken. Do each section the same way that you have in the past and understand that the stress is going to be there, but it doesn't have to cripple you

[wolfpack-avvocato]

Honestly, you need to practice exactly how you're going to take the test. My test could have gone very well, or completely disastrous. When I would do LR sections very fast, I would miss 8-10, if I went slow I would miss 3-4, but timing was a big problem. I never really practiced consistently going slow and accurate, which caused me to be short on time on all LR sections on the test. Now this may be fine If I only miss 3 on each LR.....but I don't know, I felt all knotted up and non-efficient.

Tl;DR: Study and practice exactly the way you plan on doing it on test day.

[Olive]

Honestly, you need to practice exactly how you're going to take the test. My test could have gone very well, or completely disastrous. When I would do LR sections very fast, I would miss 8-10, if I went slow I would miss 3-4, but timing was a big problem. I never really practiced consistently going slow and accurate, which caused me to be short on time on all LR sections on the test. Now this may be fine If I only miss 3 on each LR.....but I don't know, I felt all knotted up and non-efficient.

Tl;DR: Study and practice exactly the way you plan on doing it on test day.

Thanks. That's definitely good advice.

Reminds me of something I saw in the Dave Hall thread: How you practice will become how you test.

[ngogirl]

Hey guys!!

We have another session today.. It is at 8:00pm in the elluminate room, I will be leading the session!

On a side note, we are supposed to take PT 54 this week, I'm thinking of doing it tomorrow and am open for review Thursday or Friday at 8:00pm, anyone interested in joining me?

[Schang1]

Hey guys!!

We have another session today.. It is at 8:00pm in the elluminate room, I will be leading the session!

On a side note, we are supposed to take PT 54 this week, I'm thinking of doing it tomorrow and am open for review Thursday or Friday at 8:00pm, anyone interested in joining me?

I'd love to! I already took that one so am ready to discuss!

[tehrocstar]

blah...I know I agreed to review PT54, can't any longer, work is hella busy this week. Probably won't make tonight's session either.