Top Law Schools

No specifics given. But one question in the LR section did ask a question that outside information could answer, and in fact did answer.

Most people wont know it, but it is actually well known what the answer should have been, and using the same basic logic in the LR question, that answer was derived in real life.

Interesting to see what LSAC does.

Pretty sure this has been mentioned before in one of the hundred threads on test questions. Involved a play?

wont say, but found the answer using google.

wildcatmccane wrote:wont say, but found the answer using google.

You can talk about questions. Just can't talk about answers or be overly specific about questions.

That question didn't require outside knowledge. If I remember correctly, the answer choice was very explicit.

ya no outside knowledge needed, it was common sense. YES if you did know the outside knowledge it couldve helped a tad, but I think a lot of questions are like that. For example, I did a yearlong project on groupthink in college and for one LSAT RC on groupthink I couldve answered 3-4 of the questions by POE from outside knowledge

3|ink wrote:That question didn't require outside knowledge. If I remember correctly, the answer choice was very explicit.

+11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

Why are people so wrapped up in this simple question.

It makes logical sense, the correct answer. But anyone knowing Shakespeare would know the answer without reading the question because the same logic was used by historians to figure out that exact same answer.

3|ink wrote:That question didn't require outside knowledge. If I remember correctly, the answer choice was very explicit.

From what I remember, there are questions on the LSAT where outside knowledge can be helpful and it doesn't make it an illegitimate questions. I don't remember which one, but I was taking a practice test a few months back that had a LR question about poisoning rodents/pests and bird deaths or something like that (it's been a while), and I knew the answer halfway through reading the question, before reading any answer choices or doing any logical thinking breakdown in my head, because it was referencing a real world problem that I'd read about before.

Of course, this probably happens more in RC than in LR.

I firmly believed it was overly ambiguous. I've since been convinced that when I see the question later today, I will facepalm, hard, when I see the question for over-thinking it. Is sort of lame that outside knowledge could help you answer. But there've been other LR ones that have in the past- I remember one about Tokugawa Japan, for instance.

Arbiter213 wrote: Is sort of lame that outside knowledge could help you answer.

I feel like this will always happen with RCs. (I'm specifically thinking about Riddled Basins here, which I only understood because of my math background.)

To be honest, I think you COULD get to the AC without outside knowledge (I did), but it required a bit of a logical leap that I personally originally felt uncomfortable making. Now that I have had a few weeks to think about it, I see more and more how the AC was accessible without the outside knowledge.

That said, I am SURE I got it right. That was just a weird question, unlike any I came across in my LSAT study.

If I posted the specific real life exmaple of where this comes from would it be breaking the rules?

wildcatmccane wrote:If I posted the specific real life exmaple of where this comes from would it be breaking the rules?

Yah. Wait till scores release later today and it will be more ok i believe.

There was an assumption that had to be made to get to that answer. We all know that presuming something without justification is a flaw in reasoning.

Arbiter213 wrote:

wildcatmccane wrote:If I posted the specific real life exmaple of where this comes from would it be breaking the rules?

Yah. Wait till scores release later today and it will be more ok i believe.

Wrong. Rules here clearly state we can't discuss until it is a preptest.

This thread is three weeks late. Chill for a few more hours.

Bildungsroman wrote:

3|ink wrote:That question didn't require outside knowledge. If I remember correctly, the answer choice was very explicit.

From what I remember, there are questions on the LSAT where outside knowledge can be helpful and it doesn't make it an illegitimate questions. I don't remember which one, but I was taking a practice test a few months back that had a LR question about poisoning rodents/pests and bird deaths or something like that (it's been a while), and I knew the answer halfway through reading the question, before reading any answer choices or doing any logical thinking breakdown in my head, because it was referencing a real world problem that I'd read about before.

Of course, this probably happens more in RC than in LR.

I do remember that one. I also remember another principle question that required knowing that a mother not loving a son would be hurtful to the son. I suppose that follows logically, but I was expecting the AC to be a little more explicit.

Shmuckluk wrote:There was an assumption that had to be made to get to that answer. We all know that presuming something without justification is a flaw in reasoning.

There would have to be assumptions made for any of the answers. Perhaps the test was testing your ability to make the most plausible assumptions.

Was the Shakespeare answer a really obvious one? If not, then I must have not understood the question. =[

Shmuckluk wrote:There was an assumption that had to be made to get to that answer. We all know that presuming something without justification is a flaw in reasoning.

Perhaps you should re-read the question stem when it comes out today. The question stem left room for assumptions. There's a difference between 'What is most supported?' and 'What can reasonably be inferred?'

Did I just cross the line?

3|ink wrote:

Shmuckluk wrote:There was an assumption that had to be made to get to that answer. We all know that presuming something without justification is a flaw in reasoning.

Perhaps you should re-read the question stem when it comes out today. The question stem left room for assumptions. There's a difference between 'What is most supported?' and 'What can reasonably be inferred?'

Did I just cross the line?

No idea, but your point about the question stem is, I think critical to the whole debate and I haven't seen it before. Well done.

Possibly crossed a line.

But does someone who built a house at one time still have access to those plans after it was built?

*