PT 59 Discussion HERE

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

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby juevonate » Sat Jun 05, 2010 9:51 am

Mal: maybe it's the fact that e says that once it is restored to normal they WILL NOT SUFFER from periodontis. This implies that if you have normal levels, you will not suffer.

But I agree, it is a trick one. I had both circled o my test.

User avatar
theavrock
Posts: 601
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby theavrock » Sat Jun 05, 2010 10:04 am

Got absolutely murdered on RC here -8. LR was a little more difficult than normal, but I basically made some dumb mistakes and LG was about par for the course. That being said I am still PTing within my general average so I feel pretty good going in.

The questions are just a lot different. I think someone said that they are almost similar to LR questions and I couldn't agree more. The Naguchi passage alone killed me with over half of my incorrects coming on that passage alone. It is reminiscent of my performance in June of 09 when I completely bombed the fractal passage on its RC.

WWAD
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:38 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby WWAD » Sat Jun 05, 2010 1:03 pm

I did not read this until I took the test. I am glad I did now. I felt terrible while taking the test but I chugged on any way. The first LR killed me. The RC and LG I did well on, for me. I could see what they were trying to do in the LG and RC, that first LR broadsided me, but I was also feeling my worst. It seems like I stick around a 162/3 when I feel like I have messed up and then I touch into 165-170 range every once in a while. I wish I hadn't because now I am having dreams of glory when I know I will be right at my average, which I am happy with, but what if.....

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

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby jmc8y » Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:05 pm

malfurion wrote:
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.

Thanks! I'm always worried about doing such an extensive diagram during an actual test because, you know, what if i do it and it doesn't really work or make sense. that's like 5 minutes down the drain.

but i can see that in a question like this, that may be best/only way to attack it properly. will keep it in mind if i see a question like that on test day

mz253
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:18 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby mz253 » Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:07 pm

i cannot agree more. i was -3 or -4 for two LR sections in most of my PT50s. but today, i just stopped after section 3. I think I need to take a break otherwise I will completely kill my confidence.

also the LG is annoying. the setup and deduction are nothing new. But they make elements complicated and write long answer choices. hate that!

honestabe84 wrote:I have never seen anything like PT 59. It seems like the creators of the LSAT made some big changes with this test, specifically with LR. I found LR (especially the first one) very strange and hard. There seemed to be many 'new' questions - I seriously think the creators of the LSAT are attempting to counteract the prep companies. The curve is the only thing on this test that saved my score - I scored maybe a point or two below my average. As for the other two sections, I thought LG was nothing unusual (maybe more time consuming, though), but RC was probably a little more difficult that usual.

Anyway, I figured many of you that are prepping for the 7th will be taking this PT soon (or have already), and I thought we could use this thread to discuss the test, especially some of the harder LR questions.

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

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby jmc8y » Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:08 pm

malfurion wrote: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?

I don't think it's C, but I think D and E are both right. E passess the negation test since if you negate it: A person whose Cap C level has been restored to normal WILL suffer from pero. so clearly fixing it won't solve the problem and this assumption is necessary.

Not sure how to negate D but it sounds like it says basically the same thing. I got this one wrong as well.

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

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby jmc8y » Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:10 pm

jmc8y wrote:
malfurion wrote: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?

I don't think it's C, but I think D and E are both right. E passess the negation test since if you negate it: A person whose Cap C level has been restored to normal WILL suffer from pero. so clearly fixing it won't solve the problem and this assumption is necessary.

Not sure how to negate D but it sounds like it says basically the same thing. I got this one wrong as well.

this is helpful: http://www.atlaslsat.com/forums/pt59-s3 ... -t940.html

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

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby jmc8y » Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:12 pm

by the way, pt59 was one giant mindfu$%

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

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby RTFM » Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:22 pm

jmc8y wrote:jmc8y wrote:
malfurion wrote:
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?

I don't think it's C, but I think D and E are both right. E passess the negation test since if you negate it: A person whose Cap C level has been restored to normal WILL suffer from pero. so clearly fixing it won't solve the problem and this assumption is necessary.

Not sure how to negate D but it sounds like it says basically the same thing. I got this one wrong as well.


I spent a really long time with these two answer choices too, and I originally chose D, but I think what it comes down to in D is that even if people do not have the genetic mutation, they could still have lower levels of Cap C for some other reason, in which case the researchers could be able to help them.

If you negate D, it says something like "people who do not have the genetic mutation do get gum disease." That seems like it destroys the conclusion, but what if they get gum disease because their Cap C is lowered for some other reason? Then when the researchers figure out how to restore it to normal levels, those people are okay too.

That's more of a stretch than I think is normal for LR, but it's the only way I can see D as being wrong.

User avatar
quishiclocus
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 5:55 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby quishiclocus » Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:37 pm

I am still not agreeing with the test writers on the gum disease question. To me it comes down to the word "eliminate", which makes both D and E true. E is required to prove that you can eliminate periodontitis in the population with the mutation. But D is required to prove that eliminating periodontitis in the population with the mutation is sufficient to eliminate periodontitis in general. I think they screwed up. In the end, with this curve it doesn't really matter, but it still bothers me.

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

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby malfurion » Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:59 pm

quishiclocus wrote:I am still not agreeing with the test writers on the gum disease question. To me it comes down to the word "eliminate", which makes both D and E true. E is required to prove that you can eliminate periodontitis in the population with the mutation. But D is required to prove that eliminating periodontitis in the population with the mutation is sufficient to eliminate periodontitis in general. I think they screwed up. In the end, with this curve it doesn't really matter, but it still bothers me.


Yeah, that's the part I'm still stuck on. If it said they could eliminate it in people with the mutation, then fine, but the way they worded it to me means eliminate it in the entire population. In fact, when I was doing the question, after reading the stimulus I assumed it was going to be a flaw question because that jumped out at me right away.

In any case, good to see that it was the same few LR questions that tripped up most of us, it appears. I also missed the one about slanted interpretations and the one about defective samples.

User avatar
FuManChusco
Posts: 1217
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:56 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby FuManChusco » Sat Jun 05, 2010 4:11 pm

So I just took it.

-0 LG
-1 LR
-2 LR
-4 RC

94 raw, 176 scaled

Found the LR to be fairly easy. Couple of stupid mistakes in all honesty. I think I'll actually be better under pressure with more focus on the little things. RC was tough. Surprised I got a -4. 2 wrong each on the Statutory and Noguchi passages. Probably could've gotten a -3 if I used my last 2 minutes to go over the Noguchi passage but I never re-check in PTs even if I have 10 minutes to spare. I figure I might not have the luxury on the real thing so why bother now. I'm happy with this score going into the test. I would take a -7 on a -10 curve any day of the week, so this will give me a boost of confidence going in, especially since people said the LR and RC were difficult.

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

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby zworykin » Sat Jun 05, 2010 4:16 pm

malfurion wrote:
Yeah, that's the part I'm still stuck on. If it said they could eliminate it in people with the mutation, then fine, but the way they worded it to me means eliminate it in the entire population.


I think this is the opposite of what they wanted us to do (I missed this one on my PT as well). I think they want us to realize that "they can eliminate perio" does not mean in the entire population. Literally all it means is they can eliminate at least one case. Otherwise they would have said "eliminate perio completely" or something like that. Yeah?

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

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby jmc8y » Sat Jun 05, 2010 4:32 pm

quishiclocus wrote:I am still not agreeing with the test writers on the gum disease question. To me it comes down to the word "eliminate", which makes both D and E true. E is required to prove that you can eliminate periodontitis in the population with the mutation. But D is required to prove that eliminating periodontitis in the population with the mutation is sufficient to eliminate periodontitis in general. I think they screwed up. In the end, with this curve it doesn't really matter, but it still bothers me.

I think they would argue that the assumption in D, that if you don't have the mutation, then you don't get gum disease isn't as important as the assumption in E. So, sure an absence of the mutation means you are free and clear. But what if you have the enzyme deficiency for other reasons?

but if the enzyme to disease link is the only one, then that subsumes the genetic mutation and any other cause that is mentioned in the passage.

i think this feeds on the fact that the passage never said that the genetic mutation is the only way to have lower enzyme levels. in other words, it's sufficient but not necessary.

i would still argue that this is way too in depth to get in 1:25.

User avatar
alphagamma
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:16 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby alphagamma » Sat Jun 05, 2010 5:33 pm

For the gum disease question, I found D to be obviously incorrect. It is not an assumption of the argument at all. People without the genetic mutation can get gum disease. 99% of the people who get the disease can be without the mutation. This is because they can have a deficiency of enzyme C without having the mutation. And the researchers don't care about the mutation. They're just trying to find a way to get people more of enzyme C.

You could actually say that the first half of the argument is fluff intended to throw you off. The argument is really:

1. Enzyme C helps prevent gum disease.

2. Some people have very little Enzyme C.

3. Researchers are searching for a way to give those people more Enzyme C.

4. Once that happens, there will be no more gum disease. Ever.

So really, genetic mutations have nothing to do with anything. The assumption is that a normal level of Enzyme C, which is only supposed to hinder gum disease, will completely prevent it. That's answer E.

...Or at least that's how I saw it.

nycparalegal
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 11:26 am

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby nycparalegal » Sat Jun 05, 2010 5:35 pm

I did terrible on logic games with a -4. Can anyone who got 0 wrong let me know how they set up the last two games?

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

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby LSAT Blog » Sat Jun 05, 2010 7:00 pm

Page 2 of this thread contains a link to my complete explanation of PT59, Game 4:

malfurion independently set it up the same way I did. He describes the approach in his words at the bottom of Page 2 of the thread.


Below is my setup for PT59, Game 3.

("I" means "IN", and "O" means "OUT", of course)

Image

User avatar
Sentry
Posts: 1235
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:38 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby Sentry » Sat Jun 05, 2010 7:05 pm

I took this test this morning. The LR sections did feel a little different, but I didn't think the LG or RC were particularly hard.

LG -0
LR1 -3
LR2 -3
RC -3

Raw score 93 converted 174.

Near
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 10:08 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby Near » Sat Jun 05, 2010 7:17 pm

Sentry wrote:I took this test this morning. The LR sections did feel a little different, but I didn't think the LG or RC were particularly hard.

LG -0
LR1 -3
LR2 -3
RC -3

Raw score 93 converted 174.

PT 59 does not have 102 questions. And a 93 doesn't convert to that score.

User avatar
Sentry
Posts: 1235
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:38 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby Sentry » Sat Jun 05, 2010 7:18 pm

Near wrote:
Sentry wrote:I took this test this morning. The LR sections did feel a little different, but I didn't think the LG or RC were particularly hard.

LG -0
LR1 -3
LR2 -3
RC -3

Raw score 93 converted 174.

PT 59 does not have 102 questions. And a 93 doesn't convert to that score.

I meant 92 for a converted 174. My mistake.

User avatar
alicrimson
Posts: 923
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 6:27 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby alicrimson » Sat Jun 05, 2010 7:21 pm

So I took most of PT 59 today. I decided I would do it in pacing sections. Games weren't too bad, though number 10 I straight up missed but no qualms because that was tough. LR 1 got me. I had all the answers picked but ended up second guessing myself and blowing it. Not to mention I took it in a very public place where a child was playing with a squeak toy non stop from 10-straight. Well, if anyone has squeak toys with them in the real test, I will be ready. I did LR2 after review because I was bumming and wanted to prove to myself I could do it. Well, it felt rough but I only missed two. One of which was correct and then changed. Granted, I revoked my first instinct four times for better choices and those were right...so win some, lose some. Saving RC for tomorrow, as I actually like it. Was going to save half but...you know. I had to conquer LR [or in my world conquer].

Near
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 10:08 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby Near » Sat Jun 05, 2010 7:23 pm

No worries, do that sort of thing all the time. Well done on the score regardless.

User avatar
Philipsssssss
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:57 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby Philipsssssss » Sat Jun 05, 2010 7:25 pm

FuManChusco wrote:So I just took it.

-0 LG
-1 LR
-2 LR
-4 RC

94 raw, 176 scaled

Found the LR to be fairly easy. Couple of stupid mistakes in all honesty. I think I'll actually be better under pressure with more focus on the little things. RC was tough. Surprised I got a -4. 2 wrong each on the Statutory and Noguchi passages. Probably could've gotten a -3 if I used my last 2 minutes to go over the Noguchi passage but I never re-check in PTs even if I have 10 minutes to spare. I figure I might not have the luxury on the real thing so why bother now. I'm happy with this score going into the test. I would take a -7 on a -10 curve any day of the week, so this will give me a boost of confidence going in, especially since people said the LR and RC were difficult.


Noguchi killed my score.

I got a 167 with all but one missed on Noguchi.

jjlaw
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:43 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby jjlaw » Sat Jun 05, 2010 7:55 pm

Can someone explain LG Section 2, Question 10 to me? It's the rule replacement question and I just couldn't wrap my mind around 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 8:37 pm

jjlaw wrote:Can someone explain LG Section 2, Question 10 to me? It's the rule replacement question and I just couldn't wrap my mind around it.


I missed it when I took the PT (my only miss on LG) because I picked an answer that looked good without actually thinking it through and then forgot to go back and look at it when I finished the other games. But having reviewed it now, I see a better way to approach it. Answer choices (A), (B), and (E) can all be insta-eliminated because they would cause the answer from question 6 (ILMHGKF) to be invalid. (C) can be eliminated by coming up with a hypo that satisfies (C) but does not satisfy the original rule. One that works is GKMHILF. Therefore, (D) is the answer.
Last edited by malfurion on Sat Jun 05, 2010 8:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 34iplaw, EWofNell, Instrumental, Pozzo, qemini1594, somedeadman, TomCruisin and 9 guests