PT 59 Discussion HERE

JasonR
Posts: 421
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 9:09 am

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby JasonR » Thu Jun 03, 2010 6:58 pm

I thought the games were time-consuming on the Dec 09 test. Maybe there's some fast way to solve game 4 that I'm not seeing, but I thought it was a grind-it-out pain in the ass.

jarofsoup
Posts: 1952
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 2:41 am

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby jarofsoup » Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:09 pm

I didnt think LR was that bad. I got -6 on LR1 and -2 on LR2. I have noticed that all the tests tend to have one section that is more difficult than the others...


The reading comp was more abstract than usually.

Hey-O
Posts: 719
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:50 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby Hey-O » Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:15 pm

Also, I thought the parallel computation passage was actually very interesting.

User avatar
autarkh
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 9:05 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby autarkh » Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:15 pm

I didn't find LR or RC to be particularly difficult, but definitely not easy either. I did feel a time crunch on the first LR, whereas I normally finish with 3-5 mins to spare. Games, on the other hand, I absolutely bombed (-9). With the lax curve, I still managed a 170, which was good enough to get in where I wanted.

User avatar
LSAT Blog
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby LSAT Blog » Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:29 pm

JasonR wrote:I thought the games were time-consuming on the Dec 09 test. Maybe there's some fast way to solve game 4 that I'm not seeing, but I thought it was a grind-it-out pain in the ass.


I just wrote an explanation for Game 4. It's kinda just grinding everything out at the beginning. However, I find that it's less of a pain in the ass to do it all at once at the beginning than to randomly make hypotheticals for particular questions...AND it makes the questions a breeze. There are quite a few tough Qs that require to have a birds-eye view of most, if not all, of the possibilities. This gives it to you.

HTH

-Steve

User avatar
LSAT Blog
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby LSAT Blog » Thu Jun 03, 2010 9:35 pm

Hey-O wrote:
honestabe84 wrote:Can anyone help on number 20 of LR 1 (section 2). I don't understand why "D" is right and "B" and "C" are wrong. It's the one about field inspectors and defective samples of products from suppliers. Thank you for the help.


I second this request. I have read this question probably thirty times and I just don't see why D is right. How is D appreciably different from B?


The samples that the field inspectors selected have a 20% defectiveness rate.

The supplier is obligated to have only a 5% defectiveness rate.

The author of the stimulus concludes that, therefore, the supplier hasn't met the obligation.

However, what if the field inspectors purposely choose samples that are more likely than average to be defective? That would allow for the possibility that the samples they choose have a 20% defectiveness rate, while the overall defectiveness rate could still be less than 5%.

The argument never claims that the field inspectors were equally likely to pick something defective as something not defective.

BeMo
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 10:09 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby BeMo » Thu Jun 03, 2010 10:12 pm

LSAT Blog wrote:
Hey-O wrote:
honestabe84 wrote:Can anyone help on number 20 of LR 1 (section 2). I don't understand why "D" is right and "B" and "C" are wrong. It's the one about field inspectors and defective samples of products from suppliers. Thank you for the help.


I second this request. I have read this question probably thirty times and I just don't see why D is right. How is D appreciably different from B?


The samples that the field inspectors selected have a 20% defectiveness rate.

The supplier is obligated to have only a 5% defectiveness rate.

The author of the stimulus concludes that, therefore, the supplier hasn't met the obligation.

However, what if the field inspectors purposely choose samples that are more likely than average to be defective? That would allow for the possibility that the samples they choose have a 20% defectiveness rate, while the overall defectiveness rate could still be less than 5%.

The argument never claims that the field inspectors were equally likely to pick something defective as something not defective.


Yep. If the inspectors were EQUALLY likely to submit defective parts as non-defective ones, we would expect the defectiveness rate to be 50%. A defectiveness rate of 20% means there wasn't an equal likelihood.

EDIT for clarity: the wording in B that makes it incorrect relates to presuming that the inspectors were "just as likely" to choose a defective item as a non-defective item. If this were somehow the case, the reported defect rate would be 50%. Since the reported defect rate was 20%, the inspectors were actually 4 times as likely to choose non-defective items. The reasoning in the question is based on this rate, so it doesn't presume equal likelihood, as mentioned in B.
Last edited by BeMo on Tue Feb 01, 2011 12:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

honestabe84
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:47 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby honestabe84 » Thu Jun 03, 2010 10:34 pm

BeMo wrote:
LSAT Blog wrote:
Hey-O wrote:
honestabe84 wrote:Can anyone help on number 20 of LR 1 (section 2). I don't understand why "D" is right and "B" and "C" are wrong. It's the one about field inspectors and defective samples of products from suppliers. Thank you for the help.


I second this request. I have read this question probably thirty times and I just don't see why D is right. How is D appreciably different from B?


The samples that the field inspectors selected have a 20% defectiveness rate.

The supplier is obligated to have only a 5% defectiveness rate.

The author of the stimulus concludes that, therefore, the supplier hasn't met the obligation.

However, what if the field inspectors purposely choose samples that are more likely than average to be defective? That would allow for the possibility that the samples they choose have a 20% defectiveness rate, while the overall defectiveness rate could still be less than 5%.

The argument never claims that the field inspectors were equally likely to pick something defective as something not defective.


Yep. If the inspectors were EQUALLY likely to submit defective parts as non-defective ones, we would expect the defectiveness rate to be 50%. A defectiveness rate of 20% means there wasn't an equal likelihood.



No, not necessarily. There would only be a 50% defectiveness rate if 50% of the items were in fact defective.

shock259
Posts: 1737
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:30 am

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby shock259 » Thu Jun 03, 2010 10:49 pm

I'm glad that some others found PT58 more difficult than usual. I was about 5 points lower than my average PT's and my confidence has taken a mighty blow. Now I'm scared to do 59 tomorrow for fear that it will be even worse. Grrr

User avatar
juevonate
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:18 am

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby juevonate » Fri Jun 04, 2010 2:35 pm

What about problem 17 in the second section of LR? I gave it to my entire family, including my dad, who's a lawyer, and none of us could make any sense of it. Are we just assuming a correlation between people watching a movie and financial success?

Saltqjibo
Posts: 271
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 6:47 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby Saltqjibo » Fri Jun 04, 2010 6:50 pm

Pretty sure that's exactly what your doing... though I haven't checked the answer I just remember picking that answer (that's the correct one right? - or maybe i was wrong too).

As for game 4 I had no idea what was going on until one of the A.Cs had the answer choice x and x always must have two spaces between them. That sparked my brain and afterwords - using that as a new constraint- it was pretty simple plug and chug. If they hadn't have guided me a bit towards that inference I might have been screwed

Section 1 LR definitly stepped it up a notch in terms of difficult, lots of tricky questions with two really good looking answers. Overall though, I'll take a difficult test with a big curve over an easy one with a harsh curve, as most of my mistakes are due to carelessness rather than not understanding (I hope I didn't just jinx myself into a brutal LG)

RTFM
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:45 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby RTFM » Fri Jun 04, 2010 9:41 pm

One of the things I noticed after 58, and I'm noticing again as I'm going through 59 (went -2 on 58 LR but -7 on 59 LR, ack), is that there seem to be a lot of answer choices that are reversals of each other in very subtle ways. So you go into the answer choices thinking you know what you're looking for, and then there are two answers that seem to fit. Then it takes longer to figure out what the difference between the two is so you can figure out which is wrong. Anyone else experience this?

User avatar
DaveBear07
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:21 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby DaveBear07 » Fri Jun 04, 2010 9:44 pm

The RC on 59 absolutely murdered me. I lost 10 points of my score on that section. Seriously it was that bad.

I think it was a combo of it being the last section and being tired and not ready for such a beast of a RC.

But this was a good wake up call going into the real thing. I scored my lowest score of all my prep on this test. But after every low score during my prep I rebound with a great score... so let's hope the trend continues..!!

User avatar
jmc8y
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 1:16 am

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby jmc8y » Fri Jun 04, 2010 10:04 pm

-8lg -10LR -3 RC

honestly, i knew i had messed up the LGs, but thought my RC and LR would save it. thought i killed the LRs but somehow got -10 wrong. these new style are tricky in that you think you did fine, but it turns out there was some trick in there that effs your score.

sluguy14
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:47 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby sluguy14 » Fri Jun 04, 2010 10:08 pm

DaveBear07 wrote:The RC on 59 absolutely murdered me. I lost 10 points of my score on that section. Seriously it was that bad.

I think it was a combo of it being the last section and being tired and not ready for such a beast of a RC.

But this was a good wake up call going into the real thing. I scored my lowest score of all my prep on this test. But after every low score during my prep I rebound with a great score... so let's hope the trend continues..!!


I'm in the same boat: scores below my average are immediately followed by scores above my average. And it seems like the lower I score on one, the higher I score on the next. PT 59 was the lowest score I've gotten in months...

Just sayin.

OhWell
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 10:28 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby OhWell » Fri Jun 04, 2010 10:24 pm

I did not like the Noguchi passage in the RC.. Can anyone explain #16 to me?

edit: Omg, I just got it... one paragraph later "permanently reflective surface" grr...

Did people find that the generous scale made up for the fact that they made more mistakes than usual?

User avatar
jmc8y
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 1:16 am

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby jmc8y » Fri Jun 04, 2010 10:43 pm

OhWell wrote:I did not like the Noguchi passage in the RC.. Can anyone explain #16 to me?

edit: Omg, I just got it... one paragraph later "permanently reflective surface" grr...

Did people find that the generous scale made up for the fact that they made more mistakes than usual?

Yeah, it got me back to what I was at on 58. But not the score I desire. Although I think a 170 is in sight if I can get 2 or 3 more on LGs and limit stupid mistakes on LR. Realizing they are including a lot of grammatical tricks that the old ones didn't used to have. section 2 question 20 is a good example. i'm getting very good at spotting flaws in reasoning and assumptions so it was easy to see that maybe the field inspector was sending over the ones he thought were defective. and if you are just looking for that B looks perfect. And there is a reason D isn't option A - because you'd realize the problem with B that way. But regarding B, it's perfectly natural to read that as inspectors were sending over samples indiscriminately. But now, we have to watch for that shit. I think knowing this, however, we just have to be more careful at reading each choice and looking for these little assumptions that question READERS make. Not really sure what skill/ability this is supposed to test however.

User avatar
Chimica
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 3:30 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby Chimica » Sat Jun 05, 2010 12:27 am

Just finished 59 and the games killed me (-9).

I found the first LR quite easy (-1) and then the second one threw me (-4). My mistakes were on 4 of the last 5 questions. I just didn't leave enough time for the trickier last few questions. On the first one, I did the first 10, then the last 5 and then started with the 11 again.

Are the last few LR always harder or is it just me panicking as the time counts down?

Anyhow, I'm spending the weekend with quality time with some LG.

User avatar
jmc8y
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 1:16 am

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby jmc8y » Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:11 am

anyone have a strategy for approaching the last LG (annual meetings in los angeles...)?

I was terrible on it and question 18 was funny in that it basically introduced a new rule. i had to adopt it (N and M are separated by two spaces) by process of elimination and it helped later on. but i would have never deduced that myself.

much obliged

wjun15
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:09 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby wjun15 » Sat Jun 05, 2010 5:17 am

someone explain #17 on the second LR section. I see all of the of the answer choices contributing to an explanation of the discrepancy...

User avatar
zworykin
Posts: 449
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 4:18 am

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby zworykin » Sat Jun 05, 2010 8:01 am

wjun15 wrote:someone explain #17 on the second LR section. I see all of the of the answer choices contributing to an explanation of the discrepancy...


59.3.17)

We're looking to contribute to an explanation of why people enjoy seeing many movies a year even though they often have recycled plots.

Answer A says that movies with recycled plots are more likely to be successful than original ones. Really, though, that's irrelevant. We don't care about how successful the movies with recycled plots are relative to ones with original plots. We're trying to explain why people enjoy seeing movies despite the fact that they may have recycled plots. The fact that they do enjoy seeing them (which explains why they're financially successful) has already been established.

B, C, D and E do all help contribute to an explanation of why people see so many movies even when many plots are reused.
(B--They see the plots as different if the details are different;
C---There are so many movies, people rarely see the same plot twice anyway;
D---People just plain like to see variations on a theme;
E---Most of the plots being reused haven't been used for 50+ years so presumably most people haven't seen them yet.)

RPK34
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:31 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby RPK34 » Sat Jun 05, 2010 8:31 am

BeMo wrote:
LSAT Blog wrote:
Hey-O wrote:
honestabe84 wrote:Can anyone help on number 20 of LR 1 (section 2). I don't understand why "D" is right and "B" and "C" are wrong. It's the one about field inspectors and defective samples of products from suppliers. Thank you for the help.


I second this request. I have read this question probably thirty times and I just don't see why D is right. How is D appreciably different from B?


The samples that the field inspectors selected have a 20% defectiveness rate.

The supplier is obligated to have only a 5% defectiveness rate.

The author of the stimulus concludes that, therefore, the supplier hasn't met the obligation.

However, what if the field inspectors purposely choose samples that are more likely than average to be defective? That would allow for the possibility that the samples they choose have a 20% defectiveness rate, while the overall defectiveness rate could still be less than 5%.

The argument never claims that the field inspectors were equally likely to pick something defective as something not defective.


Yep. If the inspectors were EQUALLY likely to submit defective parts as non-defective ones, we would expect the defectiveness rate to be 50%. A defectiveness rate of 20% means there wasn't an equal likelihood.


Not correct. All it means is that they have an equal chance of being chosen. Not that they will equally be chosen. So if you have a sample of 100 boxes, 20 are red and 80 are blue, if each has a random chance of being chosen, you wouldn't expect a 50/50 split at all.

User avatar
malfurion
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:40 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby malfurion » Sat Jun 05, 2010 8:59 am

jmc8y wrote:anyone have a strategy for approaching the last LG (annual meetings in los angeles...)?


For that one, I went through and figured out all the possibilities before answering the questions. It took a while but then I was able to fly through the questions in no time at all. It's one of those where it's tough to just look at the rules and come up with "not laws" and standard inferences to put on your main diagram, but the fact that there are those blocks means it is really restricted and there has to be a rather limited number of possibilities. So I just chose the L _ _ V / V _ _ L block first, there are only five places that it can fit (L2V5, L3V6, V1L4, V2L5, V3L6). For three of them, there is only one solution, one has two solutions, and the other has a simple template. Once you have those possibilities listed out, it goes incredibly fast because you can just look and immediately see, for example, is L ever next to N, or what are all the possible locations of W. You could do it with the M-T block instead also, it might even be more efficient, but I just picked one and went with it.

User avatar
malfurion
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:40 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby malfurion » Sat Jun 05, 2010 9:05 am

malfurion wrote:
jmc8y wrote:anyone have a strategy for approaching the last LG (annual meetings in los angeles...)?


For that one, I went through and figured out all the possibilities before answering the questions. It took a while but then I was able to fly through the questions in no time at all. It's one of those where it's tough to just look at the rules and come up with "not laws" and standard inferences to put on your main diagram, but the fact that there are those blocks means it is really restricted and there has to be a rather limited number of possibilities. So I just chose the L _ _ V / V _ _ L block first, there are only five places that it can fit (L2V5, L3V6, V1L4, V2L5, V3L6). For three of them, there is only one solution, one has two solutions, and the other has a simple template. Once you have those possibilities listed out, it goes incredibly fast because you can just look and immediately see, for example, is L ever next to N, or what are all the possible locations of W. You could do it with the M-T block instead also, it might even be more efficient, but I just picked one and went with it.


Cool, I just read LSATBlog's explanation after I posted this and he did pretty much the exact same thing I did. If you have trouble visualizing what I was trying to say there, check out his explanation where he actually shows the diagrams and all that.

User avatar
malfurion
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:40 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby malfurion » Sat Jun 05, 2010 9:12 am

In section 3 (2nd LR section) #16, I still don't see how (E) is correct. Even if you make that assumption, how does that "eliminate periodontitis"? The first sentence says that lower levels of cat. C reduce the ability to ward off perio. Hence there must be people with normal levels of cat. C that still get perio, they are just less likely to get it. Even if you make the assumption in (E) the people whose levels did not have to be "restored to normal" would still have perio, so the disease is not eliminated. What am I missing here?




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 34iplaw, DumbHollywoodActor, eastring, JD_Kingfish, Thomas Hagan, ESQ., VMars, Vursz, Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests