PT 59 Discussion HERE

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

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby Philipsssssss » 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.


Tricky.

answer d:

1) ~H2---> M>H>GK

2) suppose you put H in 2...
so...

1) Lets say you do not put H in 2, so... you cannot put H in 1, because, according to our rule, it must be between M and G. So technically, the original rule that H cannot be in 1 is forced here!

2) Ok now, lets 'negate' the sufficient. H2 (H is in 2).... well, you can either have M1>H>GK or you don't have to! H is in 2, and it will be forced to be before GK anyways... M is free to be in M1 or M2...

Essentially, anyway you play with this rule... H wont ever be in position 1, and will always be forced to be before GK.

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

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby zworykin » Sat Jun 05, 2010 8:39 pm

59.1.10)

In this case, the original rule H before K but not first, when combined with other rules, let's you make a sequential diagram something like:

xH-[GK] ([LI]/[IL]) (M=1/2/3) (F=1/7)


D) Unless H=2, M-H-G or G-H-M.
This means H can't be first, since it couldn't be between M and G if it was first.
If it's second, [GK] doesn't fit in front of it and must come after it. M could be 1 or 3.
If it's third, M has to be 1 or 2 which means G (and therefore [GK]) must come after it.
If it's fourth, M is in front of it (1/2/3) and so G=>[GK] must come after it.
If it's fifth, M has to be in front (1/2/3) and so G=>[GK] must come after it.
It can't be sixth or seventh because [GK] wouldn't fit after it.

So that's both parts of the original rule replicated--H can't be first, and under every allowable scenario it is before K.

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby d34d9823 » Sat Jun 05, 2010 9:21 pm

malfurion wrote:
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.

The intuitive way to do it is to realize that for D:
    - H is second implies that:
      -H is before K, since GK cannot fit in front of second
      -H is not first
    - H is between M and G implies that:
      -H is before K, since G is before K
      -H is not first, since it is after M
Thus, D = the original constraint
Last edited by d34d9823 on Sat Jun 05, 2010 9:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

rklafehn
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 6:59 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby rklafehn » Sat Jun 05, 2010 9:42 pm

LG Question #5

The question is worded incorrectly right?

It should say cannot be true of must be false right?

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

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby zworykin » Sat Jun 05, 2010 9:48 pm

rklafehn wrote:LG Question #5

The question is worded incorrectly right?

It should say cannot be true of must be false right?



It says must be true, which is correct.

P=T and P=2 along with exactly two others

So:

____
PTx
____

H has to be directly above I, so that's 1+2 or 2+3, so one or the other has to fill the third and last slot on the second floor. L has to be alone on either 1 or 3.

So two options are possible:
HFS
PTI
L

or
L
PTH
IFS
Last edited by zworykin on Sat Jun 05, 2010 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby d34d9823 » Sat Jun 05, 2010 9:50 pm

rklafehn wrote:LG Question #5

The question is worded incorrectly right?

It should say cannot be true of must be false right?

First off, the LSAT questions are never wrong. They take the ones that get successfully protested out of the PrepTests.

Second, your question is barely coherent. I don't think questioning the test writers makes you come off well.

Third, the question is correctly written. The two possible configurations are:
L
HPT
ISF

and

HSF
IPT
L

Thus, F and S must be on the same floor.

onthemoney
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:41 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby onthemoney » Sat Jun 05, 2010 10:07 pm

Can s/o explain the answer for Section 2 Question 25 to me? If there is less methane then it follows that there is less CO2 (today). That supports the argument?!!!!!

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby d34d9823 » Sat Jun 05, 2010 10:10 pm

onthemoney wrote:Can s/o explain the answer for Section 2 Question 25 to me? If there is less methane then it follows that there is less CO2 (today). That supports the argument?!!!!!

The argument concludes that there is less CO2 today based on the fact that there are less greenhouse gases today. However, there is an alternate explanation: a decrease in methane would also lower the amount of greenhouse gases. In fact, it is possible that a slight increase in CO2 was offset by a significant decrease in methane. This significantly weakens the argument.

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

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby malfurion » Sat Jun 05, 2010 10:12 pm

onthemoney wrote:Can s/o explain the answer for Section 2 Question 25 to me? If there is less methane then it follows that there is less CO2 (today). That supports the argument?!!!!!


(B) says that there is much less methane today than there was in the past. The passage implies that methane could be responsible for trapping heat, just like CO2. So if there was more methane in the past, that gives an alternate explanation that takes away the need for there to have been more CO2 in the past, so that weakens the argument.

onthemoney
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:41 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby onthemoney » Sat Jun 05, 2010 10:37 pm

Thanks to the 2 posters above - I'd confused CO2 and methane as two interchangeable properties.

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby d34d9823 » Sat Jun 05, 2010 11:45 pm

.
Last edited by d34d9823 on Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
a11 1n
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:48 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby a11 1n » Sun Jun 06, 2010 12:12 am

-4 on the first LR, -0 on the second.

I typically get between -0 and -2 on LR. thought the first section was abnormally difficult when I was going through it. The wording just seemed different and I was getting bogged down on a lot of the early questions. I can only hope Monday's exam is not that abnormal. I finished the second LR before the 5 minute mark.

RC was ok, I got 4 wrong total, 2 of them coming on the sculpture passage. I agree with some of you all in that I found the sculpture passage to be an easy read with some tough questions. -4 is pretty much my average on RC though so I cannot say I found it abnormally difficult.

The LG sucked. -2 is terrible for me and I ended up getting 4 wrong. Number 10 was a tricky one and I just skipped right passed it when I read option B. I took a little more time than I should of on the third game because I finished the first two so quickly and I got slammed on that last game. I panicked on question 18 and ended up getting 3 of the next 5 wrong. When I reviewed the game though I figured it out. Question 18 is definitely a bone being tossed our way by those punks at LSAC, really opens up the game. I definitely consider it a difficult LG section though.

Overall: -11 and a 171

Cannot complain but I was hoping to be a few points higher on my FINAL PREP TEST EVAR!

Monday, can you please come and go already?

astrosag
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:26 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby astrosag » Sun Jun 06, 2010 12:33 am

Just completed the last and final Preptest.

59 was indeed a bit more difficult than 58. The 59 LG though was extraordinarly simple - I had 5 minutes left over!...wish I could have used that to review my LR section.

LR: -9 not hot at all. Its entirely frustrating. Reviewing them, I could have easily have gotten 3-4 correct. A few I can tell would not have gone my way regardless. I think the reading is just too exhausting for me.

RC: - 5 Also not great but the last two passages were more difficult than usual.

170. Just bums me out that it could have easily been a 174-175.

Good luck to all of you come Monday. Hope you relax tomorrow - don't fret!

Go Lakers!

astrosag
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:26 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby astrosag » Sun Jun 06, 2010 12:37 am

a11 1n wrote:-4 on the first LR, -0 on the second.

I typically get between -0 and -2 on LR. thought the first section was abnormally difficult when I was going through it. The wording just seemed different and I was getting bogged down on a lot of the early questions. I can only hope Monday's exam is not that abnormal. I finished the second LR before the 5 minute mark.

RC was ok, I got 4 wrong total, 2 of them coming on the sculpture passage. I agree with some of you all in that I found the sculpture passage to be an easy read with some tough questions. -4 is pretty much my average on RC though so I cannot say I found it abnormally difficult.

The LG sucked. -2 is terrible for me and I ended up getting 4 wrong. Number 10 was a tricky one and I just skipped right passed it when I read option B. I took a little more time than I should of on the third game because I finished the first two so quickly and I got slammed on that last game. I panicked on question 18 and ended up getting 3 of the next 5 wrong. When I reviewed the game though I figured it out. Question 18 is definitely a bone being tossed our way by those punks at LSAC, really opens up the game. I definitely consider it a difficult LG section though.

Overall: -11 and a 171

Cannot complain but I was hoping to be a few points higher on my FINAL PREP TEST EVAR!

Monday, can you please come and go already?


I don't how you do that...-0 on an entire LR section. :shock:

User avatar
a11 1n
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:48 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby a11 1n » Sun Jun 06, 2010 12:42 am

astrosag wrote:
a11 1n wrote:-4 on the first LR, -0 on the second.

I typically get between -0 and -2 on LR. thought the first section was abnormally difficult when I was going through it. The wording just seemed different and I was getting bogged down on a lot of the early questions. I can only hope Monday's exam is not that abnormal. I finished the second LR before the 5 minute mark.

RC was ok, I got 4 wrong total, 2 of them coming on the sculpture passage. I agree with some of you all in that I found the sculpture passage to be an easy read with some tough questions. -4 is pretty much my average on RC though so I cannot say I found it abnormally difficult.

The LG sucked. -2 is terrible for me and I ended up getting 4 wrong. Number 10 was a tricky one and I just skipped right passed it when I read option B. I took a little more time than I should of on the third game because I finished the first two so quickly and I got slammed on that last game. I panicked on question 18 and ended up getting 3 of the next 5 wrong. When I reviewed the game though I figured it out. Question 18 is definitely a bone being tossed our way by those punks at LSAC, really opens up the game. I definitely consider it a difficult LG section though.

Overall: -11 and a 171

Cannot complain but I was hoping to be a few points higher on my FINAL PREP TEST EVAR!

Monday, can you please come and go already?


I don't how you do that...-0 on an entire LR section. :shock:


For me I just get into a zone with LR. It came with practice though, I read the entire LR Bible twice through and just always made sure to review my incorrect answers. At some point it just clicked.

astrosag
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:26 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby astrosag » Sun Jun 06, 2010 12:56 am

I read the LR Bible once. I guess it just hasn't clicked in. I can always narrow any question to 2 choices (which isn't saying much). About 70-80% of the time I select the right one.

The biggest problem for me is keeping absolute focus so I don't miss things...that alone would have shaved off 3-4 on my missed section.

I work like that with LG. Wish this test was full LG - 180 no problem! :D

am060459
Posts: 609
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:14 am

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby am060459 » Sun Jun 06, 2010 1:47 pm

i think PT 58 was a lot harder than PT 59.

sections difficulty for PT 59: LG (average), LR (average), LR (average [harder than the first LR]), and RC (slightly above average)

good luck to all.

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

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby jjlaw » Sun Jun 06, 2010 7:20 pm

Did anyone else have a hard time with LR1, Q7 - the role of the statement question? I had the hardest time wrapping my mind around that one. It's definitely one of the more complex Role of the Statement questions I've seen.

am060459
Posts: 609
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:14 am

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby am060459 » Sun Jun 06, 2010 7:28 pm

can anyone explain section 3 number 20 (peppered moth)?

TIA

am060459
Posts: 609
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:14 am

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby am060459 » Sun Jun 06, 2010 7:30 pm

jjlaw wrote:Did anyone else have a hard time with LR1, Q7 - the role of the statement question? I had the hardest time wrapping my mind around that one. It's definitely one of the more complex Role of the Statement questions I've seen.



i agree. i narrowed it down to D and E and as usual ended up picking the wrong one.

explanation of this answer is provided by Noah from Atlas LSAT prep (http://www.atlaslsat.com/forums/pt-59-s ... -t596.html)



The conclusion of this argument, as is often the case, can be found in the middle. A typical structure is:

What some folks say.
But, I disagree.
Here's why.

And with this structure, the "I disagree" is the conclusion. In this argument, there's an additional sentence in the beginning -- the one we care about -- that is a phenomenon that some folks try to explain (with a theory that the columnist argues against).

So, the conclusion is that "there must be some other reason..." The next sentence is a premise supporting that conclusion (it's an example of when not seeing the performer did not matter). To back up to the sentence we're interested in, the first sentence is a given fact ("it's been noted"), followed by an explanation for that fact. The conclusion is that that explanation is insufficient.

An analogous argument would be: "It's been noted that chocolate ice cream is more popular than vanilla. Some say it's because it's darker. However, there must be another reason, since strawberry ice cream is less dark yet more popular than chocolate."

The question asks us what role the first sentence plays. In the analogy above, it's the fact that the second sentence attempts to explain -- and it is that explanation that the conclusion attempts to debunk. There are many trap answers that we can predict; one trap is to think that the conclusion attempts to explain or refute the given fact/phenomenon. In the LSAT's argument, the first sentence plays the same role -- as (E) notes -- the columnist disagrees with an explanation that attempts to explain the phenomenon described in that sentence. That's a mouthful!

(A) is a version of the trap mentioned above. The columnist is not trying to explain the phenomenon, he or she is arguing that a specific explanation is insufficient.

(B) is incorrect because the columnist is not attempting to undermine a claim; it's an explanation that is being discussed.

(C) is tempting, however the columnist does not provide an explanation -- only an argument against an explanation.

(D) is a similar to (A). It should be clear now that the columnist is not refuting the phenomenon described in the first sentence, but he or she is arguing against an explanation for that phenomenon.

User avatar
BigA
Posts: 448
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:22 am

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby BigA » Sun Jun 06, 2010 7:32 pm

astrosag wrote:I don't how you do that...-0 on an entire LR section. :shock:


I don't know how the poster got a 171 with -11 :shock: The curve was -14

User avatar
a11 1n
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:48 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby a11 1n » Sun Jun 06, 2010 7:38 pm

BigA wrote:
astrosag wrote:I don't how you do that...-0 on an entire LR section. :shock:


I don't know how the poster got a 171 with -11 :shock: The curve was -14


I clearly cannot type. -12 and a 171.

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

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby zworykin » Sun Jun 06, 2010 7:46 pm

am060459 wrote:can anyone explain section 3 number 20 (peppered moth)?

TIA


The lightest had the most contrast and were the most likely to be eaten. Therefore, the darkest had the least contrast and were the least likely.

Find the flaw.



Well, the flaw here is that the argument assumes there are no shades of gray. Say we're talking on a scale of 0-10 in terms of light/dark. Say the background was a 6. The lightest moths were the furthest away, certainly. But the darkest moths weren't the closest--they were still 4 away. Any moth in the range of 2<moth<10 would have contrasted less than the darkest moths.

User avatar
BigA
Posts: 448
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:22 am

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby BigA » Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:52 pm

damn I skipped that first game because it looked tough, and never got back to it. Just went back and did it now and took me under 8 minutes. Makes me wonder if I should always just do the first game

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

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby honestabe84 » Sun Jun 06, 2010 9:52 pm

BigA wrote:damn I skipped that first game because it looked tough, and never got back to it. Just went back and did it now and took me under 8 minutes. Makes me wonder if I should always just do the first game



I have found that the first game and first RC passage tends to be the easiest.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests