Am I just an idiot and have no hope....

[Deep Trench]

All good advice.

That's pretty much how I am reviewing my PTs after I take them. I try and dissect why the answer I initially put was wrong and why the right answer is right. This process still isn't perfect for me by any means. There are still around 2-4 questions per PT that I literally look at and have 0 clue how and why the correct answer is correct. That's very off putting for me, but it's a reality I am dealing with right now. In all honestly, I think having a study partner would help, but I seem to be out of those at the moment.

It's a little odd too when I come across questions like that. A lot of time I am prephrasing after I read a stimulus only to find no contenders which fit my prephrase in the answer choices. It doesn't happen a lot, but I will find questions like these on every test.

For example:

PT 22 LR section 4, #17.

I really have no clue why the answer is D. I can't see how D is a resolution. Maybe I'm confusing some relationship between individual rights and property ownership rights?


Anyway, more on this later. I am going to re-read the LR bible in the hopes I might pick up more from it this time than I did the first time around.

I will try an analogy for LR question that you're asking about. If Department of Homeland Security imposes tough screening procedure at airports, one way to interpret what the department is doing is that it does not value people's right of privacy. However, another way to interpret it is that they value people's right to remain safe during their flights. With the second interpretation, the government can conduct body scanning at airports while claiming that the individual rights are still very important to them without conflicting themselves.

[darkatillam2]

I guess that makes a little more sense. The only problem I'm still having with the answer choice is the relationship of one individual vs. another. They say we believe in strong individual rights, but we only allow X and Y and NOT Z. Resolve the paradox.

I feel like D doesn't seem perfect because it contradicts "strong individual rights". How can one person's rights step on another person's while having that premise stay intact. It would seem the act of "infringing" upon someone else's property rights might in itself, violate the infringee's own sense of ownership rights.

Your analogy makes a lot more sense to me if the infringing was done by a 3rd party (in your case, the airport security), and not by another individual.

Something I am still missing? (obv I guess, still not getting why the answer is D)

[amorfati]

FWIW, overall my first three preptests were my worst, and the third was literally my worst ever. Compared to that PT, my test day score was 16 points higher (13 higher than my first PT).

Moral of the story being, I think it's normal to have a bit of a plateau at the beginning, or perhaps even get worse for a bit. It's a natural consequence of your trying to apply all the new methods and strategies you're learning. At the very least, with regular practice you can expect to improve big time on the games - it just takes a lot of practice. You will also gain more of an instinct for LR questions through repeat exposure.

Also, you said you did 19-21, right? If I remember correctly, I don't think those are very good indicators of likely performance on the more recent tests.... I don't exactly remember what makes those so much different, though. What I do remember from my experience is that I started with PTs in the mid-30's, which are largely considered to be pretty easy (especially for games). I think it was a good place to start, though, because starting with earlier/later (read: harder) tests could have really would have killed my confidence. As I progressed, I found that my improvement compensated for the gradual increase difficulty, so that I was still improving overall even as tests got harder. Personally, I think this was a good way to go. (FYI, I got my study schedule from the LSAT Blog, and overall I think it was an excellent study plan.)

[Deep Trench]

I guess that makes a little more sense. The only problem I'm still having with the answer choice is the relationship of one individual vs. another. They say we believe in strong individual rights, but we only allow X and Y and NOT Z. Resolve the paradox.

I feel like D doesn't seem perfect because it contradicts "strong individual rights". How can one person's rights step on another person's while having that premise stay intact. It would seem the act of "infringing" upon someone else's property rights might in itself, violate the infringee's own sense of ownership rights.

Your analogy makes a lot more sense to me if the infringing was done by a 3rd party (in your case, the airport security), and not by another individual.

Something I am still missing? (obv I guess, still not getting why the answer is D)

I know this thread is not about answering a specific LSAT question, but let me take another stab at it just for fun. If I am still not giving you a satisfying explanation, that is OK. It is my fault for not articulating my thought very well.

There are two different types of individual property rights that are under discussion here. One is more conventional type: right of property owner to do what he wants to do with his property. The second type of individual property right is one given by the answer choice D: right of property owner to avoid major changes being done to his adjacent properties. You may think that the first type trumps the second type. You may even think that the second type is not really a legitimate individual property right. However, when you are solving paradox questions, you have to think, "Assuming that the answer choice is true, does it resolve the paradox?" Thus, the question is, "If the second type of property right is legitimate, can it make the city council's action consistent with its belief?" If the first type and the second type are both legitimate individual property rights, then the city council's action only depends on what it thinks is more important right. Again, it does not matter what you think is more important. The key here is that the city council may regard the second type more important individual property right. If the council thinks that the second type of individual right is more important, it is consistent for it to restrict property modifications and be true to its belief.