Work Log for September Sprint: 168 -> 175

Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 5:38 pm

Work Log for September Sprint: 168 -> 175

Postby kingstonboy » Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:42 am

Exactly one month remaining before the LSAT; good a place as any to start up a study diary.

Here's my deal: I've spent most of the past 2 months following a hybrid LSATblog-Pithypike schedule. With allowances for infrequent part-time job shifts. ...Plus the week-and-a-half I spent reading Medium Raw and The Imperfectionists and some other stuff. And generally neglecting my responsibilities.

Anyway, the point is, I now have a month to break through my pretty-constant 168 plateau and get up to consistent 175s. I'm hoping to realize some gains by consciously applying LRB and LGB techniques; up till now, it's been a read-the-bibles, do-the-PTs, osmosis-type process.

In line with this approach, I'm going to conduct far more involved deconstructions of my wrong answers than I've done thus far, which I'll post here. Particularly when it comes to games, which are my weakest section.

I'll be going from PT 48 onwards, maybe with a few detours into earlier, 1-14-ish PTs, cuz I have those sitting around.

Today was: PT 48. Raw Score: 88, converts to a 166. I decided to commemorate my first post with my absolutely lowest games score ever (14/22). Yee-haw.
Question/response deconstructions to come tomorrow.

Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:28 pm

Re: Work Log for September Sprint: 168 -> 175

Postby kpuc » Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:04 pm

Why are you missing so many LG questions? Fortunately, LG are probably the easiest to improve, because you can stick to a very methodical formula. Once you learn the standard methods, you can pretty much tackle any game.

Posts: 2526
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:12 am

Re: Work Log for September Sprint: 168 -> 175

Postby Sandro » Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:23 pm

I used to miss anywhere from 8-12 LG's on preptests on the regular. Granted, these were all old PTs and in the 20s and 30s, but still. I started doing LGs every day, redoing the ones I didnt do perfect on. It has definitely helped as you start to realize what they will be asking you to do is only a finite number of situations - theres only so many interactions between then setup, rules, and questions that can occur. Once you recognize these patterns it becomes much easier. My last two PTs (45 and 46) I missed -3 and -4 respectively.

Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 5:38 pm

Re: Work Log for September Sprint: 168 -> 175

Postby kingstonboy » Thu Sep 09, 2010 10:19 pm

Thanks for the encouragement guys, I do appreciate it. And it is heartening that games are, reputedly, so improvable.

Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 5:38 pm

Re: Work Log for September Sprint: 168 -> 175

Postby kingstonboy » Thu Sep 09, 2010 10:22 pm

LR - Section 1

#9: Justify the conclusion

“Theories generated by scientific research were used to develop several products that, although useful, damage the environment severely.

The scientists who conducted the research, however, should not be held responsible for that damage,

since they merely generated the theories and could neither foresee nor restrict the kinds of products that might be designed using those theories.”

My Response: E
“Individuals should be held responsible for the foreseeable undesirable consequences of the activities that they perform and receive credit for the foreseeable desirable consequences of those activities.”

Correct Response: D
“Individuals who perform an activity should not be held responsible for any unforeseen undesirable consequences that arise from the use to which others put the results of that activity.”

D’s ‘Others’ seemed out-of-scope to me. But on reflection, I missed the specification that the scientists “merely generated the theories,” and so were explicitly excluded from having contributed to the products’ development.

Plus, E fails to address the relationship between individuals and UNforeseen consequences. I was suckered in to a false inference, since E’s principles could be compatible with innocence relative to unforeseen consequences – but they don’t necessarily produce that outcome. Hence, we get no justifying effect.

#23: Method of Reasoning [flawed]

“Statistical analysis is a common tool for explaining in the physical sciences. It can only be used, however, to explain events that can be replicated to the last detail.

Since human mental events never precisely recur, statistical analysis cannot be employed to explain these events.

Therefore, they cannot be explained by the physical sciences.”

The stem reduces to: Subfield within branch of science can only be applied with total knowledge of subject.

Since a particular variety of subject can never be totally known, it can never be analyzed useing the aforementioned scientific subfield.

[Flaw] Therefore, the overarching branch of science can never successfully analyze that subject-type.

My Response: C
“The best way to explain why an object has a particular color is in terms of the interaction of light and matter. It is sometimes impossible to find out what kinds of matter constitutes an object. Therefore, the color of such objects has nothing to do with the interaction of light and matter.”

Reduces to:
A particular scientific approach [but not actual subfield] is identified as best method of analysis of a given subject-type.

It is sometimes impossible to acquire all necessary for that particular approach.

Thus, the aforementioned subject never has anything to do with the aforementioned scientific approach.

This is off in all sorts of ways, not least of which is the actual flaw is different from the stem flaw: self-contradictory rather than out-of-scope. I have no idea why I went with this one; it’s not even the most attractive wrong answer.

Correct Response: E
“A good way to explain historical events is to construct a coherent narrative about those events. In order to construct such a narrative, a great many details about the events must be known. Virtually no details can be known of certain very ancient historical events.

Therefore, no historical explanation can be given for these events.”

So, it names a good – though not ‘best’ – method of analysis for a particular subject-type. It names the information threshold necessary for that method’s successful application. It states that the examinations of the aforementioned subject-type always falls short of said threshold, and then concludes [same flaw as stem] that because that method can’t be applied to the subject-type, neither can any part of the overarching field.

S2 Qs18-22

18: [response: B - correct: A] I successful wrote off incorrect responses C-E, all being visible rule violations, but I missed the fact that B (GQH) would force L&T to share stage S. I have no idea what I thought was wrong with A.

19: [r: E - c: A] This is a direct application of rules 2 and 3. I didn’t get if H is placed in slot 4, then G must be place prior to slot 3 to avoid violating the _fQr block. Moreover, it can actually only be placed in s2, since P has to occupy s1.

21: [r: C - c: D] I got the obvious P and T inferences, avoiding violation of rules 1 and 4 respectively, but I missed the fact P>s1 and Q>s4 means that the HL folk-block must be in s3. Consequentially, G must be in south s2.

22: [r: E - c: B] This is a simple application of overlap principle accompanied by a recognition of the 10pm rock and folk blocks (QT vs HL). If I had understood those, I would have immediately seen that it produces an almost unvarying r/f distribution, alterable only by switching P between s1 or s4.

Part of my problem with this game was that I never made the leap of identifying the two discrete blocks that are produced by rules 1&3 and 2&3 – respectively, either QT or or HL must occupy slot 3 (10 pm). That produces consequences for where L (not stage w/T) and G (one of the slot-2/8pm spaces) must be located.

Basically, I missed the fact that the game can be broadly reduced to 2 templates.

The lesson is: when you recognize that you have a paucity of inferences relative to the number of setup rules, don’t be afraid to invest time in one or two hypotheticals. In this situation, it would have paid dividends in both speed and accuracy.

Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests