June 2011 Study Group

User avatar
Eichörnchen
Posts: 1119
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:51 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby Eichörnchen » Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:39 am

coldshoulder wrote:That's it Eich! I was gonna say, the argument does say law-abiding citizens mostly create the environment, I guess the distinction is the 'all' used.
Thanks guys!

No prob! And soj - you were more succinct ;) And I hate when I type something out only to discover it's been addressed 8 times by the time I submit- happens to the best of us.

User avatar
geverett
Posts: 285
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby geverett » Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:57 am

Eichörnchen wrote:Just did PT 37-

RC: -2/26
LR1: -3/26
LG: -5/24
LR2: -0/25
raw 91
scaled 170
Very glad to get another PT in the 170s :). I was afraid I was going to do really poorly because I went to the neurologist and got an EEG and it took longer than I thought so I rushed home and sat down to PT right away. Turns out after you spend over an hour getting electrodes glued all over your head, then told to lay without moving a muscle for 20 minutes, then get strobe lights flashed in your eyes for a while (trippppyyy), then made to hyperventilate for 5 minutes and finally told to lay in a dark room and try to sleep, you feel kinda out of it for the LSAT you do immediately afterwards :lol: I guess it was good practice for whatever they do to us before the test starts. I'm also happy about my 3rd -0 on an LR section, but I think it's weird that I'll always get a -0 and then like -3. You'd think I'd get the hardest one or two from each instead of all right and then 3 wrong. Hmm. Well, I'm off to wash electrode glue out of my hair, it's been driving me nuts!
Edited for phone type fail


This is awesome! Congrats!

User avatar
dr123
Posts: 3503
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 2:38 am

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby dr123 » Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:00 am

RC is killin me. Anyone have any tips? I struggle with the questions more than the text itself. I feel like a major problem is Ive been approaching the Qs the same way I approach LR

User avatar
coldshoulder
Posts: 963
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 4:05 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby coldshoulder » Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:03 am

dr123 wrote:RC is killin me. Anyone have any tips? I struggle with the questions more than the text itself. I feel like a major problem is Ive been approaching the Qs the same way I approach LR


Which kinds of questions are you missing?

User avatar
dr123
Posts: 3503
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 2:38 am

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby dr123 » Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:06 am

All sorts to be honest, I'm really hit or miss with RC. Usually analogy and inference questions for the most part though.

User avatar
99.9luft
Posts: 1244
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:32 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby 99.9luft » Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:11 am

99.9luft wrote:
99.9luft wrote:
OhOkay wrote:
99.9luft wrote:Question: how do you guys a) classify and b) go about doing the following question stem:

"The columnist's reasoning above most closely conforms to which one of the following principles?"

From my understanding, we have to strengthen the principle below (after we find it) with the reasoning in the stimulus. The MLSAT goes over Principle Example questions, where an principle is on the top (stimulus) and the example/reasoning is on the bottom (answer choices), yet the guide does not mention a scenario where we are having the reasoning in the stimulus conform to the principle in the answer choices.

Feedback is much appreciated!


I think of it this way: the correct AC contains a principle that basically justifies the scenario in the stimulus.


Wait, according to what you just said, i.e. using the answer choice to justify a scenario in the stimulus - it is a Principle Support (strengthen) question and not a Principle Example question. Basically the difference between the two types comes down to who conforms to whom:

Ex 1: "The reasoning above most closely conforms to which one of the following principles?"
Ex 2: "Which of the principle below most closely conforms to the argument above?"

In both examples 'conforms' means 'supports' or 'justifies.' In ex 1, the conformity is top-down, when in ex 2 it is bottom-up.

Now, usually, the Principle Example questions (bottom-up) has the principle in the stimulus (e.g. "Which one of the following most closely conforms to the principle above?"). The reason for my confusion is because in my example (the bolded) the principle is on the bottom instead of on top.


Anyone else?

User avatar
Hunterrhoid
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:18 am

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby Hunterrhoid » Wed Apr 20, 2011 8:28 am

99.9luft wrote:Anyone else?


I'm a heavy user of the Question Families from LRB. So I classify this as 1st family: down-arrow, stim is true and unassailable, ACs are suspect, and 4 are wrong. I also use a modified PR/PF strategy for these. By that I mean that I look for something that matches the elements, thrust, and certainty of the stim, even though abstracted.

99.9luft wrote:In both examples 'conforms' means 'supports' or 'justifies.' In ex 1, the conformity is top-down, when in ex 2 it is bottom-up.


I disagree, and I think this might be the source of confusion. I think that in this case, 'conforms' is directionally neutral, like an equals (=) sign. I look at these questions more like a parallel reasoning question, but abstracted one degree.

In a PR question the question could read either:
1)Which one of the following is most parallel to the reasoning above?
2)The reasoning above is most parallel to which one of the following?

..and the question would be asking the same thing. 'conforms' doesn't ask you to fill in a reasoning gap, or support anything. It asks you to find something that is most like the stim.

IN FACT!
A PR question could say: Which one of the following most conforms to the reasoning above?/The reasoning above conforms most closely to which one of the following?


Example Question:
PT 59, LR1, Q23: The situation described above most closely conforms to which one of the following generalizations?

A: out because it introduces familiarity with aid workers, which isn't mentioned in the stim.

B: out because it introduces government aid, which isn't mentioned in the stim

C: 'highly publicized' is a red herring. It's only mentioned in regard to one disaster, but never another, so there is never a chance to establish the relative measure of publicity that this AC would require.

D: TCR. H-town helps more now than it did last time. Something that happened in-between last time and this time is that H-town got slammed by a tornado. This AC addresses the thrust and content of the stim.

E: out because it introduces dissimilar hardship, which isn't mentioned in the stim. There are only towns responding to natural disasters. One could argue that the flood, tornado, and earthquake are dissimilar hardships, but if that were the case, then 'E' would still be out because with this standard, there is no basis for similarity between the three that would be required by this AC. Either they are all similar, or all dissimilar, depending on your perspective. Cleverly written to accomplish that, I think.

User avatar
OhOkay
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:14 am

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby OhOkay » Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:02 am

Hunterrhoid wrote:
99.9luft wrote:In both examples 'conforms' means 'supports' or 'justifies.' In ex 1, the conformity is top-down, when in ex 2 it is bottom-up.

I disagree, and I think this might be the source of confusion. I think that in this case, 'conforms' is directionally neutral, like an equals (=) sign. I look at these questions more like a parallel reasoning question, but abstracted one degree.

This is a better explanation, especially as I don't really strictly follow any published guides and thus didn't realize that "justify" or "support" were translating to "fill a big gap in the reasoning."

I'll add this: although it is simplest to think of principle questions as questions where you are looking to parallel the principle with a specific scenario (regardless of which one comes in the stimulus), they are different from normal paralleling questions in that normal parallel questions are asking you to match the reasoning of two arguments. in a principle question, you may not necessarily be matching arguments, you could be matching statements. For instance, your specific scenario could be "John was wrong in saying he was born in 1980 when he was actually born in 1985," and the principle that conforms to it could be "All lying is wrong." What you are matching here is not reasoning, as there is no argument. You are matching content, such that the principle is (by definition) an abstract rule that, if assumed true, justifies a bunch of specific scenarios.

So, basically, you could approach these questions as paralleling questions, keeping in mind that the correct principle matches content on an abstract level (and could match reasoning if you're dealing with an argument and not a statement). You can test the correct AC by assuming it as true and seeing if the scenario in the stimulus is then justified. And yes, this would be the reverse of what you're doing in a question where you have the abstract principle in the stimulus, and then you pick the specific scenario that most closely demonstrates it.

Sorry if this is too confusing!

jim-green
Posts: 808
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:55 pm

Extra RC passage study

Postby jim-green » Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:32 am

Folks, I have pretty much seen all the PT RC passages, yet my RC scores are not too good. But redoing RC passages, I remember all the answers. Need some more practice. What do you recommend? I could read LSAT-sizes passages from journals and formulate the main point, author's purpose, and organization. Or I could buy the $70 Cambridge LSAT book of PTs 1-8, 17, 39 and 40. I already got it last year and filled it in, so I do know the passages, but haven't done them in 3 months. Don't want to spend the $70 again.
Are there any cheaper books by prep companies having fake RC passages?

xjykybl
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:50 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby xjykybl » Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:34 pm

pkpop wrote:Anyone know of a list or LR problem set that deals explicitly with numbers and percentages in questions? I'd like to get over the general discomfort I have when reading a stim that throws out percentages or numbers and you have to find the flaw/strengthen it/weaken it.

Edit: Nevermind. After searching a few different random terms in the forum, I found http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=108425

I'll just take the #s & % questions off of that. If you haven't seen this list though, it might be helpful to some of you for specific types.


This is very very very helpful!!
I put each type into an excel file, and start reviewing all the questions type by type. Really helps!
Thanks again.

User avatar
OhOkay
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:14 am

Re: Extra RC passage study

Postby OhOkay » Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:50 pm

jim-green wrote:Folks, I have pretty much seen all the PT RC passages, yet my RC scores are not too good. But redoing RC passages, I remember all the answers. Need some more practice. What do you recommend? I could read LSAT-sizes passages from journals and formulate the main point, author's purpose, and organization. Or I could buy the $70 Cambridge LSAT book of PTs 1-8, 17, 39 and 40. I already got it last year and filled it in, so I do know the passages, but haven't done them in 3 months. Don't want to spend the $70 again.
Are there any cheaper books by prep companies having fake RC passages?


I have heard (ok, read on this forum, haha) of people using MCAT reading comp passages. I don't think the questions would necessarily be similar, but maybe you could use the passages to practice your reading and deconstructing skills.

User avatar
coldshoulder
Posts: 963
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 4:05 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby coldshoulder » Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:08 pm

Starting prep test 31 today, come on 175!

User avatar
coldshoulder
Posts: 963
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 4:05 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby coldshoulder » Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:08 pm

. Not sure why double post occurred .

User avatar
geverett
Posts: 285
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby geverett » Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:17 pm

Alright here is a question for you. PT 40 Section 3 #17. I would like to hear a good explanation for A over B. The reason being on is a mistaken negation and the other is a mistaken reversal. Are they not logical equivalents? In this case should we just choose the MR over the MN since that is the same thing in the stimulus. Seems funny to me and somewhat inconsistent especially given the fact that a correct answer on another parallel question i had was a mistaken negation and the stimulus had a mistaken reversal. =) Perhaps I am missing something here.

User avatar
geverett
Posts: 285
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby geverett » Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:31 pm

Here is one more. PT 41 Section #1 question 23

User avatar
99.9luft
Posts: 1244
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:32 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby 99.9luft » Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:40 pm

Hunterrhoid and OhOkay - Thank you for your help! It does make more sense to look at it as a parallel reasoning question.

User avatar
OhOkay
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:14 am

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby OhOkay » Wed Apr 20, 2011 3:23 pm

geverett wrote:Here is one more. PT 41 Section #1 question 23

The flaw in the stimulus' reasoning is that it concludes on the basis of some examples that such is the case for all. Specifically, it says (in simplified form), there are many material objects we have beliefs about that we cannot perceive, thus it is impossible to perceive any material object that causes us to have beliefs about it.

So from the ACs, we are looking for a premise that states: "X is true/false in some cases where Z happens" and a conclusion that states: "X is true/false in all cases where Z happens." B) is not analogous because X is "liberty," and liberty does not appear in the premise. C) does not work because the Z is different in the premise and conclusion (premise: actually helping the problem, conclusion: attempting to solve problems and fulfill needs). D) does not work both because the premise is totally different from the conclusion (neither X nor Z reappear). E) is kinda like C). It doesn't work because the premise is about humans not understanding ultimate principles, whereas the conclusion is about Physics not being able to investigate ultimate principles.

A) fits the bill. Often (= in many cases) we have aesthetic reactions (= Z happens) even when stuff is not art (= X is not true). Therefore, it is impossible for art to be stuff that causes aesthetic reactions (X cannot be true in all cases where Z happens (or more specifically, and completely paralleling the stimulus, X cannot be true in all cases where X causes Z to happen)).

This one is kind of a headache to parse. I definitely didn't go through this deep level analysis when I was taking or even reviewing this PT... the wrong answers are very wrong, so I didn't try to prove to myself the right answer was completely parallel.

User avatar
OhOkay
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:14 am

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby OhOkay » Wed Apr 20, 2011 3:32 pm

geverett wrote:Alright here is a question for you. PT 40 Section 3 #17. I would like to hear a good explanation for A over B. The reason being on is a mistaken negation and the other is a mistaken reversal. Are they not logical equivalents? In this case should we just choose the MR over the MN since that is the same thing in the stimulus. Seems funny to me and somewhat inconsistent especially given the fact that a correct answer on another parallel question i had was a mistaken negation and the stimulus had a mistaken reversal. =) Perhaps I am missing something here.


Yeah, i guess since the stem asks for the AC that "most closely" parallels, in this case it would be something that is also an MR, since that's available. What was the parallel question where an MN was the correct answer to an MR stimulus? Perhaps in that case, if there were no MRs amongst the ACs, then an MN was the most closely paralleling AC.

maxpower430
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 9:16 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby maxpower430 » Wed Apr 20, 2011 3:44 pm

well i finally bit the bullet and ended up ordering the mlsat guides for lg and rc as well. i figure the main thorn in my side for lg is from grouping games, and at this point i'm open to anything to help me master those. i also think the rc guide may be a bit of over kill as i tend to do pretty well on rc (usually 0-3/4 wrong) but i want to get closer to 0 and since i plan on devoting almost all of my free time to lsat i figure hey why not. hopefully i can find a tidbit here or there to get me closer to my goal.

User avatar
tmon
Posts: 1242
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 10:52 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby tmon » Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:25 pm

Just took PT 52. Decent LR, but holy crap why am I so bad at RC?!

LR1: -3
LG: -1
LR2: -5
RC: -8(!!!)
-----------
-17/+82=164

So many things went wrong with RC. Didn't get to the last two questions (which I answered correctly after time was up, so that's a hypothetical +2). I've tried switching the order I read passages for the past couple tests, which actually is yielding good results on the last two passages (which I read first), got a -1, and then on the first two -7.

I'd say I need to slow down in RC, but I'm not even finishing. The -1 from the last two is definitely because I took those two slower though. Maybe if I do read a bit slower I'll be able to answer the questions faster, a la the LG section. This strategy also is paying off on LR I think. I was pushing myself too fast in the first 15 to read through stimuli/answer choices quickly instead of understanding things efficiently. If I can just get around -2/-3 on both sections, I'll be pretty happy (wouldn't we all).

Any suggestions on RC? I'm just not sure what to do. I still have plent of old passages, but taking/reviewing them hasn't seemed to help me much...


(edits to correct my acronyms...)

User avatar
99.9luft
Posts: 1244
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:32 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby 99.9luft » Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:55 pm

PT 42

-10/171. Details here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=140150

User avatar
99.9luft
Posts: 1244
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:32 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby 99.9luft » Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:56 pm

tmon wrote:Just took PT 52. Decent LR, but holy crap why am I so bad at RC?!

LR1: -3
LG: -1
LR2: -5
RC: -8(!!!)
-----------
-17/+82=164

So many things went wrong with RC. Didn't get to the last two questions (which I answered correctly after time was up, so that's a hypothetical +2). I've tried switching the order I read passages for the past couple tests, which actually is yielding good results on the last two passages (which I read first), got a -1, and then on the first two -7.

I'd say I need to slow down in RC, but I'm not even finishing. The -1 from the last two is definitely because I took those two slower though. Maybe if I do read a bit slower I'll be able to answer the questions faster, a la the LG section. This strategy also is paying off on LR I think. I was pushing myself too fast in the first 15 to read through stimuli/answer choices quickly instead of understanding things efficiently. If I can just get around -2/-3 on both sections, I'll be pretty happy (wouldn't we all).

Any suggestions on RC? I'm just not sure what to do. I still have plent of old passages, but taking/reviewing them hasn't seemed to help me much...


(edits to correct my acronyms...)


have you bought the MLSAT RC guide? if not, do it.

User avatar
tmon
Posts: 1242
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 10:52 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby tmon » Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:05 pm

99.9luft wrote:
tmon wrote:Just took PT 52. Decent LR, but holy crap why am I so bad at RC?!

LR1: -3
LG: -1
LR2: -5
RC: -8(!!!)
-----------
-17/+82=164

So many things went wrong with RC. Didn't get to the last two questions (which I answered correctly after time was up, so that's a hypothetical +2). I've tried switching the order I read passages for the past couple tests, which actually is yielding good results on the last two passages (which I read first), got a -1, and then on the first two -7.

I'd say I need to slow down in RC, but I'm not even finishing. The -1 from the last two is definitely because I took those two slower though. Maybe if I do read a bit slower I'll be able to answer the questions faster, a la the LG section. This strategy also is paying off on LR I think. I was pushing myself too fast in the first 15 to read through stimuli/answer choices quickly instead of understanding things efficiently. If I can just get around -2/-3 on both sections, I'll be pretty happy (wouldn't we all).

Any suggestions on RC? I'm just not sure what to do. I still have plent of old passages, but taking/reviewing them hasn't seemed to help me much...


(edits to correct my acronyms...)


have you bought the MLSAT RC guide? if not, do it.


Yes, I finished reading it all last week, but hadn't gotten to whole section practice at the very end. That's probably what I'll do after going over my test...

I feel like there's got to be something that I can change with the way I practice the section...it's just not working.

User avatar
soj
Posts: 7735
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby soj » Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:23 pm

Currently on break in the middle of PT41.

Seriously, that LG? I can feel the confidence I'd built from SuperPrep dissipating.

User avatar
tmon
Posts: 1242
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 10:52 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby tmon » Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:25 pm

Anyone have a good handle on why A is the best option on PT 52, LR1, #16?

First time around I totally whiffed on the specific flaw, and chose D. Second time, I chose E, but wasn't really sure between E and A. Neither are really satisfying because it seems like part of A's conclusion goes wrong.

I'm diagramming the stimulus as:

BE-->BUFO
~EUFO
-----------
~BE

(B= belief, E=existence)

And it seems to me, A is saying:

BU-->BC
~EC
-----------
~EU

So, since the conclusion it reaches is different (belief vs existence) I ruled it out. Is the issue that I'm interpreting "so there are no unicorns either" incorrectly or what?




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: #gobroncos, dontsaywhatyoumean, JoshLyman13, packerboy31489, SunDevil14, Tsubomi93, Vino.Veritas, Zoidberg747 and 21 guests