Fix this LR!

User avatar
Blindc1rca
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:11 pm

Fix this LR!

Postby Blindc1rca » Sat Sep 04, 2010 3:03 pm

I have a highball full of flor de caña in which I plan to drown my sorrows. It's been at my side for review time after each of my last 3 PTs.

I've been hitting the LGs hard. My misses on this section in my last three PTs has been -3, -2, -1. Very happy about this.

but

I just took PT35 and got violated by LR Section 1.
8 MISSED. That's 3 more than I had ever missed on an LR section prior to this PT.
Did anyone else find this section deceptively hard?
I'm going to keep drinking until either the alcohol or some internet life form makes me feel like I'm capable of getting a 170 on test day. I'm now PTing between 167 and 171, I cold diagnosed at 165 and started studying 3 1/2 weeks ago. My fear is that these goddamn LR sections are only gonna get harder as my PTs get higher in number.

FMMFL

I will edit the name of this thread until I feel satisfied with its results. It's my goddamn right as an Amurrik'n goddammit! (Thanks for the input though. You guys are my [collective] savior).
Last edited by Blindc1rca on Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:28 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Knock
Posts: 5152
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:09 pm

Re: I'm becoming an alcoholic

Postby Knock » Sat Sep 04, 2010 3:53 pm

Welcome to the legal profession :P. Be sure to stock up for the ~2 week wait after you take the LSAT until you get your score.

User avatar
Blindc1rca
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:11 pm

Re: I'm becoming an alcoholic

Postby Blindc1rca » Sat Sep 04, 2010 4:23 pm

Knockglock wrote:Welcome to the legal profession :P. Be sure to stock up for the ~2 week wait after you take the LSAT until you get your score.


Ha! I appreciate this, and I absolutely will be stocking up. Especially considering the fact that I will be on a 10 day vacation back to the states when I take the test (I'm a current Peace Corps volunteer) and that my 22nd birthday falls five days after it's administered.

Dude I don't think I've ever wanted anything as bad as a 170 on this son of a bitch. Like ever in my life.

Let me put a little bit of substance behind my whining... Take a look at question 2 in section 1 on PT 35. The correct answer is supposedly D. I was frustrated by the fact that none of the answers seemed worthy. D was apparently correct, but it relies on a glaring assumption.

Look:

D states:: If a generalization is confirmed to the extent current science allows, then it is considered a scientific law.

Yet nowhere in the stimulus does the lecturer claim that the generalization has been confirmed to the extent that current science allows. In fact, his/her only comment on the matter is that the generalization "has not been falsified by any of [their] tests." There is no indication that the gamut of their tests represents the entire "extent that current science allows."

Therefore...

Question #2 was BULLshit. And that's not just the rum talkin'.

whymeohgodno
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: I'm becoming an alcoholic

Postby whymeohgodno » Sat Sep 04, 2010 4:28 pm

Blindc1rca wrote:
Knockglock wrote:Welcome to the legal profession :P. Be sure to stock up for the ~2 week wait after you take the LSAT until you get your score.


Ha! I appreciate this, and I absolutely will be stocking up. Especially considering the fact that I will be on a 10 day vacation back to the states when I take the test (I'm a current Peace Corps volunteer) and that my 22nd birthday falls five days after it's administered.

Dude I don't think I've ever wanted anything as bad as a 170 on this son of a bitch. Like ever in my life.

Let me put a little bit of substance behind my whining... Take a look at question 2 in section 1 on PT 35. The correct answer is supposedly D. I was frustrated by the fact that none of the answers seemed worthy. D was apparently correct, but it relies on a glaring assumption.

Look:

D states:: If a generalization is confirmed to the extent current science allows, then it is considered a scientific law.

Yet nowhere in the stimulus does the lecturer claim that the generalization has been confirmed to the extent that current science allows. In fact, his/her only comment on the matter is that the generalization "has not been falsified by any of [their] tests." There is no indication that the gamut of their tests represents the entire "extent that current science allows."

Therefore...

Question #2 was BULLshit. And that's not just the rum talkin'.


Yeh I agree.

There are a few questions like this on the older tests it seems. I haven't run into many like these after PT 50 though.

Edit: On second though the answer might be justified. There is a line in the question which states "has not been been falsified by any of their tests of that generalization".

The last part which talks about ANY of their tests of that generalization means that ALL of the current theories regarding this generalization has been tested.

User avatar
blhblahblah
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:54 pm

Re: Alcoholism doesn't preclude logic. See?!

Postby blhblahblah » Sat Sep 04, 2010 4:41 pm

Yet nowhere in the stimulus does the lecturer claim that the generalization has been confirmed to the extent that current science allows.


Dude, you're failing to read question on this one. This isn't a MBT question.

The question asks which of the following principles, if valid, most justifies the argument

The answer choice doesn't have to be found in the stimulus. Your job is to pick the answer choice that, if accepted, allows the author to draw his conclusion

The stimulus states that current science has not yet been able to falsify X. It then concludes that X is universally true and properly regarded as a scientific law.

Note the gap here.

D states that if a generalization (i.e., X) is confirmed to the extent that current science allows (i.e., withstood falsification), then it is considered a scientific law

The acceptance of D allows the conclusion to follow

User avatar
Blindc1rca
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:11 pm

Re: Alcoholism doesn't preclude logic. See?!

Postby Blindc1rca » Sat Sep 04, 2010 4:45 pm

yeah...but...

the statement:

"no tests that have been performed to test the validity of a certain generalization have falsified that generalization"

in no way implies:

"all tests that have been performed to test the validity of a certain generalization are the ONLY tests that current science allows to check the validity of that generalization."


and regarding blahblahblah, this statement doesn't necessarily allow the lecturer to draw that conclusion, as there is no confirmation that "any of our tests of generalization" represents "the extent that current science allows"

Kurst
Posts: 448
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:33 pm

Re: Fix this LG!

Postby Kurst » Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:27 pm

"Most justifies" is not the same as "justifies." The assumption on which the stimulus relies is not a sufficient assumption. The correct answer to a "most justifies" question strengthens the argument; it does not necessarily prove the argument.

User avatar
Blindc1rca
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:11 pm

Re: Fix this LG!

Postby Blindc1rca » Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:38 pm

Kurst wrote:"Most justifies" is not the same as "justifies." The assumption on which the stimulus relies is not a sufficient assumption. The correct answer to a "most justifies" question strengthens the argument; it does not necessarily prove the argument.


Tricky.

Thank you though. I appreciate your input. At the very least it allows the correct Q to be considered correct.

Moving onto Q13.

The "correct answer choice" states:

"Most of the subjects had acquired confirmation of their newly acquired beliefs by the time they were told that the original statements were false"

Yet the conclusion of the stimulus is that (paraphrased)
since most subjects persevered in their newly acquired beliefs even after being told that the original statements were false, humans continue to hold onto acquired beliefs even in the absence of any credible evidence to support them.

What confused me here was that the subjects' confirmation of their newly acquired beliefs came BEFORE they were told that their beliefs were false.

This (to me) implies that the 'confirmation' that they acquired was irrelevant because they subsequently were told that their original statements were false.

i.e. the order implies that their learning that the original statements were false refuted whatever they were told beforehand.

input?

Kurst
Posts: 448
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:33 pm

Re: Fix this LG!

Postby Kurst » Sat Sep 04, 2010 6:56 pm

Blindc1rca wrote:What confused me here was that the subjects' confirmation of their newly acquired beliefs came BEFORE they were told that their beliefs were false.

This (to me) implies that the 'confirmation' that they acquired was irrelevant because they subsequently were told that their original statements were false.

i.e. the order implies that their learning that the original statements were false refuted whatever they were told beforehand.

You are confusing confirmation of belief with confirmation of evidence. The credited answer does not state that the subjects acquired confirmation of the original evidence; it states that they acquired confirmation of their newly acquired beliefs.

User avatar
Blindc1rca
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:11 pm

Re: Fix this LR!

Postby Blindc1rca » Sat Sep 04, 2010 7:33 pm

...but they need confirmation of their EVIDENCE in order to undermine the argument

"in the absence of any credible evidence to support (their beliefs)"

Kurst
Posts: 448
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:33 pm

Re: Fix this LR!

Postby Kurst » Sat Sep 04, 2010 9:28 pm

Blindc1rca wrote:...but they need confirmation of their EVIDENCE in order to undermine the argument

"in the absence of any credible evidence to support (their beliefs)"

Your assumption that the only credible evidence is the original evidence is unwarranted, and perfectly captures the flawed reasoning in the stimulus. Consider the argument:

  • Subjects form new beliefs on the basis of original evidence.
  • Original evidence turns out to be false.
  • Therefore, subjects continue to hold onto beliefs even when there is no credible evidence to support their beliefs.

This argument relies on the assumption that there is no credible evidence other than the original evidence. This assumption is unwarranted.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bearedman8, jagerbom79, jen203, ucantcme and 13 guests