TLSHome Law SchoolAdmissions LawSchools LawStudents TLSForums
 Forum Index     Latest Posts     Forum Search     Mobile (on/off)     Forum Archives     See Also: Rankings/Profiles   Interviews   LSAT Prep   TLS Stats

 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

 Page 5 of 41 [ 1005 posts ] Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 41  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hoursPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:35 pm

Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:47 pm
Posts: 11979
bp shinners wrote:
nmop_apisdn wrote:
While doing a bundle of MBT questions, I missed PT11-S2-Q12.

This isn't the best example of these types of questions, as this one relies on more than your ability to combine quantified statements.

However, in general, my rules for combining quantifiers:
the SUFFICIENT condition of your STRONGEST statement must be SHARED. (Lot of S's for mnemonic effect). You usually end up with a SOME statement (one exception, noted below). Again, the S repeats: easy to remember - Sufficient of Strongest gives you a Some. If both statements are of equal strength, you need both to have the same sufficient condition.

You can't combine a Most and a Some or two Somes. Ever.

The one exception is if the sufficient condition of an All statement overlaps with the Necessary condition of a Most.
Most Michael Bay movies have Ben Affleck.
All Ben Affleck films are terrible.
I have a most and an all; the sufficient of the stronger is shared; however, I end up with a most statement:
Most Michael Bay movies are terrible.
I can get this stronger because of the way it's set up; let's make up some numbers.
Michael Bay has made exactly 100 movies. Based on my first statement, at least 51 feature Ben Affleck. Of those 51+ Michael Bay movies featuring Ben Affleck, 100% (i.e. all 51+) are terrible. That means that of Michael Bay's 100 movies, at least 51+ are terrible; or Most Michael Bay movies are terrible.

Learning these can suck, and it is going to require a bit of memorization. If you remember that the sufficient of the strongest has to be shared to give you a sum (with an asterisk for the situation that gives you a most), you're more than halfway there.

Now, on to that question.

Here, I'm told that all T->Older than M
S-m->Older than M
S-s->Younger than M (because of the not all - don't forget this one, as it's important)
M -> Older than D
I don't share terms here in a way that would allow me to combine them, but my Older than M is comparative to M, which does let me combine them, to a certain extent. This is actually closer to ordering rules in a Logic Game than it is a LR question. If I'm arranging them from oldest to youngest, I'd have:
T and some S are older than M is older than D and some S
A) MBF - All T older than all M which is older than all D; some D can't be as old as any T
B) Could be true - I know that some sycamores and all dogwoods are younger than some maples; however, I don't get a comparison ever between those young S and the D, so I can't say B for sure.
C) Again, CBT for the same reason as B. This and B are essentially the same answer, which should have been a tipoff that neither are correct.
D) CBT again. And for the same reasons as B and C. I never compare these groups (oldest S and T), so I can't say this for sure.
E) Now, I've got something. Look back at my chain. I have T older than M and some S younger than M. That means that some S have to be younger than T. I have compared these groups because I've compared them both to M, and they fell on different sides. All the other comparisons that could be true (B C and D) talked about things on the same side of M on my chain.

Thank you! I will definitely review your response more thoroughly once I am home.

Top

 Post subject: Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hoursPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 1:32 pm

Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 11:18 am
Posts: 88
Hi BP.......

I'm kind of struggling w/a couple of these Flaw Questions.

(1) Prep Test 41, Section 1, Question 20. This question is about the televised debate between political candidates.

(A) Exciting debate?
(B) This is the correct answer. I had crossed it off though because...... "I thought because the stimulus is not talking about the voting behavior of people who don't watch a debate."
(C) Difference's of opinion?
(D) I chose this answer but I'm not sure why.........
(E) This answer also sounded good.

(2) Prep Test 37, Section 4, Question 16 (Question about Rembrandt):

My explanations for each of the answer choices was as follows:

(A) Anybody? They're talking about connoisseur's here.
(B) No
(C) Not sure. (This is actually the correct answer)
(D) No
(E) Sounds good

I was debating between (A) & (E) and chose (E).

I just didn't understand the flaw in this question or what they were really trying to get at.

It's really hard trying to write out explanations....how can I get better at that??

Top

 Post subject: Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hoursPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:08 pm

Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm
Posts: 3008
MissJenna wrote:
(1) Prep Test 41, Section 1, Question 20. This question is about the televised debate between political candidates.

Here, I'm talking about televised debates and how they affect elections.

I'm told that most of those watching the debate have already made up their minds. Those who watch the debate and haven't made up their minds don't really make up their minds while watching the debate (if they had, they would have picked that person as the winner; since they didn't pick a winner, they still haven't made up their minds).

Well, what's missing here? I've established that the people who watch the debate don't change their minds, or make up their minds. However, I haven't talked at all about another important group - those who didn't watch the debates. While it might seem like common-sense to say that if you didn't watch the debate, it won't affect how you vote, that's not something we can say on the LSAT.

So, in abstract terms, my flaw here is that it draws a general conclusion (winning a debate doesn't enhance your chances of winning an election) when I only know about a subset of the population (those who watch the debate). Whenever I ignore a group that plays into my conclusion, I have a flaw.

Quote:
(A) Exciting debate?
(B) This is the correct answer. I had crossed it off though because...... "I thought because the stimulus is not talking about the voting behavior of people who don't watch a debate."
(C) Difference's of opinion?
(D) I chose this answer but I'm not sure why.........
(E) This answer also sounded good.

A) Exciting debate gives me problems. Also, I know my flaw is that I ignored those who don't watch the debate; this answer choice is talking about those who do watch the debate.

B) Ah, here we go. It's telling me that I'm ignoring the people who didn't watch the debate. This is a specific example of that flaw, but that's fine - as long as it highlights the gap in my argument. Here, those who didn't watch have their minds made up by those who report on it. I've ignored that group, and B points it out.

C) Yep, you got it.

D) I think you were thinking, "Well, if it's unpredictable, then maybe winning the debate doesn't lead to winning the election." However, I'm told in the stimulus that people who watched the debate either already made up their minds or didn't make up their minds even after watching the debate. D is saying those groups responded in unpredictable ways. I'm still talking about those who watched the debates (not what I'm looking for), and D seems to contradict the stimulus (if it does anything), so it can't be the right answer.

E) This might be a specific way that the argument's conclusion could work, but it's not an actual flaw that the argument makes. Sure, if people vote even if their guy gets dismembered in the election, then winning an election doesn't guarantee a win. But that's not what the argument does - it's not talking about percentages of support that vote. It's talking about the effect of debates on who people vote for, not whether they vote. Extraneous to the argument, so not correct.

Quote:
(2) Prep Test 37, Section 4, Question 16 (Question about Rembrandt):

There's a ton of background in this stimulus. Connoisseurs make one argument: Emotional impact should be considered in the determination of authenticity.

The author only has one premise (the 'but' statement) to back up his conclusion:
Emotional impact differs wildly from person to person
Therefore
Connoisseur's assessment can't be given credence.

Well, there's a big jump there between the average person ('person to person') and a connoisseur. I don't know that they have the same reaction to paintings, and the author of the stimulus gives me no reason to think that they do.

So it's possible that, while reactions differ wildly from person to person, the subset of people we call connoisseur's all react in the same way to authentic/inauthentic pieces. Whenever I shift from one group to another, I have a problem.

Quote:
(A) Anybody? They're talking about connoisseur's here.
(B) No
(C) Not sure. (This is actually the correct answer)
(D) No
(E) Sounds good

I was debating between (A) & (E) and chose (E).

A) It seems to absolutely rely on that fact that anyone can have an opinion; I'm with you on this one.
B) The Rembrandt example is the basis for the connoisseur's argument, not the author's.
C) Bingo - the average person differs in opinion, but the connoisseur's don't. These two groups differ in some fundamental way according to C, and that's what I'm looking for.
D) He does give justification (the fact that it differs wildly) - just because that's bad evidence doesn't mean that it isn't evidence.
E) Again, the Rembrandt example is used in the connoisseur's argument. If the Author's premise was, "But the degree to which Rembrandt's artwork...", we could talk more about E. But since his premise is about all artwork, he doesn't make a jump from one artist to all others.

I've bolded the way that I would describe the flaw in each stimulus. That's how you should be writing it out - relating it to a common flaw archetype, and writing it in a way that conveys what the argument does that it can't do. Nothing long and intense, just something simple like that.

For the answer choices, I think you're spot on when you know an answer choice is wrong. For the others, I think having a better idea of what you're looking for going in will help you eliminate the ones that aren't relevant.

Top

 Post subject: Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hoursPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:50 pm

Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 11:18 am
Posts: 88
Well you're very helpful.....thank u. Where do u live btw?

Am I on the right track w/trying to explain why the answers are wrong & why the correct answer is right? I mean is this something I should even bother doing? Basically, I need to get better at this section & I'll do whatever it takes.

bp shinners wrote:
MissJenna wrote:
(1) Prep Test 41, Section 1, Question 20. This question is about the televised debate between political candidates.

Here, I'm talking about televised debates and how they affect elections.

I'm told that most of those watching the debate have already made up their minds. Those who watch the debate and haven't made up their minds don't really make up their minds while watching the debate (if they had, they would have picked that person as the winner; since they didn't pick a winner, they still haven't made up their minds).

Well, what's missing here? I've established that the people who watch the debate don't change their minds, or make up their minds. However, I haven't talked at all about another important group - those who didn't watch the debates. While it might seem like common-sense to say that if you didn't watch the debate, it won't affect how you vote, that's not something we can say on the LSAT.

So, in abstract terms, my flaw here is that it draws a general conclusion (winning a debate doesn't enhance your chances of winning an election) when I only know about a subset of the population (those who watch the debate). Whenever I ignore a group that plays into my conclusion, I have a flaw.

Quote:
(A) Exciting debate?
(B) This is the correct answer. I had crossed it off though because...... "I thought because the stimulus is not talking about the voting behavior of people who don't watch a debate."
(C) Difference's of opinion?
(D) I chose this answer but I'm not sure why.........
(E) This answer also sounded good.

A) Exciting debate gives me problems. Also, I know my flaw is that I ignored those who don't watch the debate; this answer choice is talking about those who do watch the debate.

B) Ah, here we go. It's telling me that I'm ignoring the people who didn't watch the debate. This is a specific example of that flaw, but that's fine - as long as it highlights the gap in my argument. Here, those who didn't watch have their minds made up by those who report on it. I've ignored that group, and B points it out.

C) Yep, you got it.

D) I think you were thinking, "Well, if it's unpredictable, then maybe winning the debate doesn't lead to winning the election." However, I'm told in the stimulus that people who watched the debate either already made up their minds or didn't make up their minds even after watching the debate. D is saying those groups responded in unpredictable ways. I'm still talking about those who watched the debates (not what I'm looking for), and D seems to contradict the stimulus (if it does anything), so it can't be the right answer.

E) This might be a specific way that the argument's conclusion could work, but it's not an actual flaw that the argument makes. Sure, if people vote even if their guy gets dismembered in the election, then winning an election doesn't guarantee a win. But that's not what the argument does - it's not talking about percentages of support that vote. It's talking about the effect of debates on who people vote for, not whether they vote. Extraneous to the argument, so not correct.

Quote:
(2) Prep Test 37, Section 4, Question 16 (Question about Rembrandt):

There's a ton of background in this stimulus. Connoisseurs make one argument: Emotional impact should be considered in the determination of authenticity.

The author only has one premise (the 'but' statement) to back up his conclusion:
Emotional impact differs wildly from person to person
Therefore
Connoisseur's assessment can't be given credence.

Well, there's a big jump there between the average person ('person to person') and a connoisseur. I don't know that they have the same reaction to paintings, and the author of the stimulus gives me no reason to think that they do.

So it's possible that, while reactions differ wildly from person to person, the subset of people we call connoisseur's all react in the same way to authentic/inauthentic pieces. Whenever I shift from one group to another, I have a problem.

Quote:
(A) Anybody? They're talking about connoisseur's here.
(B) No
(C) Not sure. (This is actually the correct answer)
(D) No
(E) Sounds good

I was debating between (A) & (E) and chose (E).

A) It seems to absolutely rely on that fact that anyone can have an opinion; I'm with you on this one.
B) The Rembrandt example is the basis for the connoisseur's argument, not the author's.
C) Bingo - the average person differs in opinion, but the connoisseur's don't. These two groups differ in some fundamental way according to C, and that's what I'm looking for.
D) He does give justification (the fact that it differs wildly) - just because that's bad evidence doesn't mean that it isn't evidence.
E) Again, the Rembrandt example is used in the connoisseur's argument. If the Author's premise was, "But the degree to which Rembrandt's artwork...", we could talk more about E. But since his premise is about all artwork, he doesn't make a jump from one artist to all others.

I've bolded the way that I would describe the flaw in each stimulus. That's how you should be writing it out - relating it to a common flaw archetype, and writing it in a way that conveys what the argument does that it can't do. Nothing long and intense, just something simple like that.

For the answer choices, I think you're spot on when you know an answer choice is wrong. For the others, I think having a better idea of what you're looking for going in will help you eliminate the ones that aren't relevant.

Top

 Post subject: Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hoursPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:38 pm

Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 11:18 am
Posts: 88
Another question I wanted to ask you was regarding the reading comprehension section. What do you feel is the best way to review passages and to drill?

When I get questions wrong, all I do is go back is to the passages and write down the lines referencing the answers to each question I got wrong. I mean I guess it sorta helps but I'm still getting lots of questions wrong so my technique is not that great. Any other ideas??

And as far as drilling......any ideas just on different ways you would recommend I go about it?

Thanks again:-)

Top

 Post subject: Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hoursPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:20 am

Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:35 pm
Posts: 58
MissJenna wrote:
Well you're very helpful.....thank u. Where do u live btw?

Am I on the right track w/trying to explain why the answers are wrong & why the correct answer is right? I mean is this something I should even bother doing? Basically, I need to get better at this section & I'll do whatever it takes.
[u][/u]

bp shinners wrote:
MissJenna wrote:
(1) Prep Test 41, Section 1, Question 20. This question is about the televised debate between political candidates.

Here, I'm talking about televised debates and how they affect elections.

I'm told that most of those watching the debate have already made up their minds. Those who watch the debate and haven't made up their minds don't really make up their minds while watching the debate (if they had, they would have picked that person as the winner; since they didn't pick a winner, they still haven't made up their minds).

Well, what's missing here? I've established that the people who watch the debate don't change their minds, or make up their minds. However, I haven't talked at all about another important group - those who didn't watch the debates. While it might seem like common-sense to say that if you didn't watch the debate, it won't affect how you vote, that's not something we can say on the LSAT.

So, in abstract terms, my flaw here is that it draws a general conclusion (winning a debate doesn't enhance your chances of winning an election) when I only know about a subset of the population (those who watch the debate). Whenever I ignore a group that plays into my conclusion, I have a flaw.

Quote:
(A) Exciting debate?
(B) This is the correct answer. I had crossed it off though because...... "I thought because the stimulus is not talking about the voting behavior of people who don't watch a debate."
(C) Difference's of opinion?
(D) I chose this answer but I'm not sure why.........
(E) This answer also sounded good.

A) Exciting debate gives me problems. Also, I know my flaw is that I ignored those who don't watch the debate; this answer choice is talking about those who do watch the debate.

B) Ah, here we go. It's telling me that I'm ignoring the people who didn't watch the debate. This is a specific example of that flaw, but that's fine - as long as it highlights the gap in my argument. Here, those who didn't watch have their minds made up by those who report on it. I've ignored that group, and B points it out.

C) Yep, you got it.

D) I think you were thinking, "Well, if it's unpredictable, then maybe winning the debate doesn't lead to winning the election." However, I'm told in the stimulus that people who watched the debate either already made up their minds or didn't make up their minds even after watching the debate. D is saying those groups responded in unpredictable ways. I'm still talking about those who watched the debates (not what I'm looking for), and D seems to contradict the stimulus (if it does anything), so it can't be the right answer.

E) This might be a specific way that the argument's conclusion could work, but it's not an actual flaw that the argument makes. Sure, if people vote even if their guy gets dismembered in the election, then winning an election doesn't guarantee a win. But that's not what the argument does - it's not talking about percentages of support that vote. It's talking about the effect of debates on who people vote for, not whether they vote. Extraneous to the argument, so not correct.

Quote:
(2) Prep Test 37, Section 4, Question 16 (Question about Rembrandt):

There's a ton of background in this stimulus. Connoisseurs make one argument: Emotional impact should be considered in the determination of authenticity.

The author only has one premise (the 'but' statement) to back up his conclusion:
Emotional impact differs wildly from person to person
Therefore
Connoisseur's assessment can't be given credence.

Well, there's a big jump there between the average person ('person to person') and a connoisseur. I don't know that they have the same reaction to paintings, and the author of the stimulus gives me no reason to think that they do.

So it's possible that, while reactions differ wildly from person to person, the subset of people we call connoisseur's all react in the same way to authentic/inauthentic pieces. Whenever I shift from one group to another, I have a problem.

Quote:
(A) Anybody? They're talking about connoisseur's here.
(B) No
(C) Not sure. (This is actually the correct answer)
(D) No
(E) Sounds good

I was debating between (A) & (E) and chose (E).

A) It seems to absolutely rely on that fact that anyone can have an opinion; I'm with you on this one.
B) The Rembrandt example is the basis for the connoisseur's argument, not the author's.
C) Bingo - the average person differs in opinion, but the connoisseur's don't. These two groups differ in some fundamental way according to C, and that's what I'm looking for.
D) He does give justification (the fact that it differs wildly) - just because that's bad evidence doesn't mean that it isn't evidence.
E) Again, the Rembrandt example is used in the connoisseur's argument. If the Author's premise was, "But the degree to which Rembrandt's artwork...", we could talk more about E. But since his premise is about all artwork, he doesn't make a jump from one artist to all others.

I've bolded the way that I would describe the flaw in each stimulus. That's how you should be writing it out - relating it to a common flaw archetype, and writing it in a way that conveys what the argument does that it can't do. Nothing long and intense, just something simple like that.

For the answer choices, I think you're spot on when you know an answer choice is wrong. For the others, I think having a better idea of what you're looking for going in will help you eliminate the ones that aren't relevant.

Wow, hmmm sounds like quite an appetizing offer......

Top

 Post subject: Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hoursPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:50 am

Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm
Posts: 3008
MissJenna wrote:
Well you're very helpful.....thank u. Where do u live btw?

With my girlfriend

Quote:
Am I on the right track w/trying to explain why the answers are wrong & why the correct answer is right? I mean is this something I should even bother doing? Basically, I need to get better at this section & I'll do whatever it takes.

Yep - definitely! Just keep it up and you'll start to notice patterns to what you get wrong and how they trick you. It might take a few dozen to notice a pattern, but I promise one will emerge.

Top

 Post subject: Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hoursPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:58 am

Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm
Posts: 3008
MissJenna wrote:
Another question I wanted to ask you was regarding the reading comprehension section. What do you feel is the best way to review passages and to drill?

When I get questions wrong, all I do is go back is to the passages and write down the lines referencing the answers to each question I got wrong. I mean I guess it sorta helps but I'm still getting lots of questions wrong so my technique is not that great. Any other ideas??

And as far as drilling......any ideas just on different ways you would recommend I go about it?

Thanks again:-)

When reviewing, don't just find the information. You also have to 'describe' that information as presented in the passage. Come up with a phrase that describes it; common ones are 'Commonly Held Belief' or 'Comparison'; something simple like that. What you're trying to do is figure out which features of a passage are likely to show up in questions (those two listed before are two features that will be asked about, in my experience). After you do this a few times, you start to realize the same features show up in the questions again and again; those are the ones you should be annotating.

Also, notice the stuff you mark up that doesn't answer questions most of the time. Stop marking those sections up - they're red herrings that waste time.

For drilling, it's just a matter of doing the passages over and over again and reviewing as stated above until you notice patterns both in what features of the passage they ask about and what language they use in correct answers. For the most part, you're looking for more neutral positions with slight biases than strongly held beliefs. That tends to manifest in milder language.

Top

 Post subject: Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hoursPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:22 pm

Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm
Posts: 3008
Fire away.

Top

 Post subject: Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hoursPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:32 pm

Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 11:18 am
Posts: 88
I was thinking of getting the Manhattan RC guide but was wondering what u thought?

I have powerscore's and tons of RC passages.

bp shinners wrote:
MissJenna wrote:
Another question I wanted to ask you was regarding the reading comprehension section. What do you feel is the best way to review passages and to drill?

When I get questions wrong, all I do is go back is to the passages and write down the lines referencing the answers to each question I got wrong. I mean I guess it sorta helps but I'm still getting lots of questions wrong so my technique is not that great. Any other ideas??

And as far as drilling......any ideas just on different ways you would recommend I go about it?

Thanks again:-)

When reviewing, don't just find the information. You also have to 'describe' that information as presented in the passage. Come up with a phrase that describes it; common ones are 'Commonly Held Belief' or 'Comparison'; something simple like that. What you're trying to do is figure out which features of a passage are likely to show up in questions (those two listed before are two features that will be asked about, in my experience). After you do this a few times, you start to realize the same features show up in the questions again and again; those are the ones you should be annotating.

Also, notice the stuff you mark up that doesn't answer questions most of the time. Stop marking those sections up - they're red herrings that waste time.

For drilling, it's just a matter of doing the passages over and over again and reviewing as stated above until you notice patterns both in what features of the passage they ask about and what language they use in correct answers. For the most part, you're looking for more neutral positions with slight biases than strongly held beliefs. That tends to manifest in milder language.

Top

 Post subject: Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hoursPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:34 pm

Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 11:18 am
Posts: 88
bp shinners wrote:
Fire away.

I had a few more flaw questions to post but I thoroughly wanted to review them myself before posting them.

I'm trying really hard to paraphrase an answer (ANY answer) before looking at the answer choices but it's so hard. There are some (well actually quite a few) questions where I could literally sit there for 5 min trying to come up w/something!!!!!!! Arghhhhhh!!! When does it get easier????!!!!!!!!!!

Top

 Post subject: Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hoursPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:49 pm

Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm
Posts: 3008
MissJenna wrote:
I was thinking of getting the Manhattan RC guide but was wondering what u thought?

I have powerscore's and tons of RC passages.

Since they're both our competitors, no comment .

Top

 Post subject: Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hoursPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:54 pm

Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm
Posts: 3008
MissJenna wrote:
I'm trying really hard to paraphrase an answer (ANY answer) before looking at the answer choices but it's so hard. There are some (well actually quite a few) questions where I could literally sit there for 5 min trying to come up w/something!!!!!!! Arghhhhhh!!! When does it get easier????!!!!!!!!!!

You need to stop trying to divine what the flaw is, and instead have a process for getting through them.

My process?

1) Did something jump out at me as wrong while reading the stimulus? (this is as close as you'll get to divining an answer, but trust your instincts)
if no, then
2) Does this stimulus feature one of the common elements that suggests a certain flaw type? (see the previous page, an answer to one of your questions, for a list of these)?
if I'm still stuck, then
3) Ask yourself this question: How can the conclusion be false even if I accept everything else as true?
if you can answer this, you have a specific statement of the flaw

If you're still stuck, you're in trouble. It means either the question is really tricky, or you're missing something and need to go back to 2.

That list that I gave you on the previous page - it's not something you should look over and then try your hand at. You should spend a lot of time memorizing it. Try to figure out why those features of stimuli lend themselves towards particular flaws. Print it out and go through it like a checklist while doing flaw questions. Eventually, you'll internalize it - that takes time, however. Luckily, about 25% of the exam is your ability to spot flaws, so it's time well spent.

Top

 Post subject: Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hoursPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:06 pm

Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm
Posts: 3008
Let's get this show on the road.

Top

 Post subject: Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hoursPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:17 pm
 Arbiter of Proledom

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:44 pm
Posts: 31461
Sup shinners? Thanks for doing this.

PrepTest 19, Section 2, Q 15 (Rhinos and poaching)

This assumption question threw me through a loop. I understand why B) is correct if the focus is on preserving the species from extinction, but I tried to attack the final sentence: "thereby eliminating the motivation for poaching". When you negate A), it seems to directly attack (shifting poaching elsewhere), so I chose A). Is A) wrong because it's out of scope? I see why B) is correct, I guess I'm not sure why A) is incorrect.

I'm guessing I just tried to undermine the wrong part. How can I avoid doing this again?

Top

 Post subject: Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hoursPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:27 pm

Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm
Posts: 3008
flem wrote:
Sup shinners? Thanks for doing this.

PrepTest 19, Section 2, Q 15 (Rhinos and poaching)

This assumption question threw me through a loop. I understand why B) is correct if the focus is on preserving the species from extinction, but I tried to attack the final sentence: "thereby eliminating the motivation for poaching". When you negate A), it seems to directly attack (shifting poaching elsewhere), so I chose A). Is A) wrong because it's out of scope? I see why B) is correct, I guess I'm not sure why A) is incorrect.

"...thereby eliminating the motivation for poaching." is part of an explanation for my conclusion - I conclude that an effective way to ensure survival is to trim off the horns, and the reason that's true is that this would eliminate the motivation for poaching. So when you're trying to attack that, you're essentially attacking a premise.

To put it another way, I could rephrase the end of this stimulus to read (after 'nearly to extinction'): Periodically trimming off the horns of all rhinoceroses would eliminate the motivation for poaching. Therefore, this is an effective way of ensuring their survival.

Makes it clear that the conclusion is ensuring survival, which is why B is right - I have to assume that doing this won't completely kill their ability to mate.

I have two problems with A. First off, it starts with 'most' - that's usually too strong for a Necessary Assumption question. What if there's one poacher out there who is single-handedly wiping out the rhinos? If that's the case, I can assume something about most hunters and still get my rhinos wiped out. So as soon as you see 'most', think that it's probably too strong to be something that I MUST assume.

Second, this is telling me that if I discourage most poachers from hunting rhinos, they won't hunt something else for their horn. So what? That doesn't help me get to my conclusion about extinction, and it certainly doesn't help the rhinos.

If I negate A, it would read: "Most poachers who are discouraged from hunting rhinos are likely to hunt other animals for their horns." If I was trying to get to, "thereby eliminating the motivation for poaching," this might be a good answer - the conclusion might be too broad (just poaching, not rhino poaching) and too strong (eliminating, not lessening). However, as stated above, that's not what I'm trying to get to. So this isn't my answer.

So, to get back to your explanation, I wouldn't say that A is outside the scope - it leaves that door open by having a premise about all poaching and not just rhino poaching. However, it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not rhinos survive, which is what I really care about/am trying to prove.

How to avoid doing this again? When you have a complex conclusion sentence, like here, see which parts of it are actual conclusion, and which parts are explanation/facts. "Thereby" is also a word that generally precedes a red herring on the LSAT, as well, so look out for it (not really a red herring, but something that sounds like a conclusion but is actually a carefully concealed premise).

Last edited by bp shinners on Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hoursPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:29 pm
 Arbiter of Proledom

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:44 pm
Posts: 31461
Thanks brother

Top

 Post subject: Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hoursPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:00 pm

Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm
Posts: 3008
Hit me with your best shot.

Top

 Post subject: Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hoursPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:05 pm

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 5:06 pm
Posts: 113
BP,

My problem with LR revolves around constantly talking myself out of the write answer, or quickly eliminating 3 incorrect ACs and fretting over which of the remaining two is right and wrong. I consistently get -15 combined but these silly mistakes often represent half of my LR mistakes per test. I worry that by taking 1.5 minutes to find the wrong answer rather than 20 seconds to accept the right one, I'm going down a very dark road in terms of self-confidence...

Is this something that will correct itself with time? I have every test in my possession and plan to take October, but for now mastering LR is my lone goal.

Top

 Post subject: Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hoursPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:16 pm

Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm
Posts: 3008
theprophet89 wrote:
Is this something that will correct itself with time?

If you just bull-headedly go through question after question, no, it won't correct itself with time.

Instead, you have to figure out what's tripping you up.

First off, if you're between two answers, always compare each one back to the conclusion (or just the premises, if there is no conclusion). Most of the time, you'll be able to figure out which one is 'closer' (same terms, same logical force) to the conclusion - that one's usually the right answer.

Second, it seems like your problem isn't that you eliminate the correct answer - that's good. That means that the LSAT isn't tricking you into thinking the right answer is wrong; instead, it's tricking you into thinking the wrong answer is right.

To correct for this, start figuring out which elements of a wrong answer you commonly overlook. That answer has a specific reason why it's wrong - either it equivocates between itself and a term similar to the stimulus, or it has a certain logical force, or it is outside the scope but just barely. Start tracking which type of these sucker choice answers you keep falling for. When you notice a pattern, you're halfway to stopping it.

Third, the human brain is a funny thing. It's first instinct is right the vast majority of the time. If you have an answer you like, but thinking about it constantly has you switch to the wrong answer, stop thinking about it. Make a note (a dot on the answer sheet next to the question) to come back to it, but don't spend a lot of time on it. Try this a few times to see if it improves your score.

Top

 Post subject: Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hoursPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 12:31 am

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:07 am
Posts: 35
Hi BP Shinners

I am pretty sure you've gotten many of these questions before.
Ive studied Lsat for a while around a year ago for around 4-5 months and becaused i used a wrong approach (focusing on content, not the patterns), ive decided to push back the exam.
Since then (december 2011), I have not done anything LSAT related, until I resumed my studies last month.
Now I am doing all the sections pattern driven, and I can immediately feel how much it can boost my confidence and performance.
But one thing that worries me is whether even a subconscious memory of the question content is contributing at all to my increased performance.
In timing and solving questions under pressure, i realized that I do not have much leeway in remembering the content of the questions...but still, I just wanted to know what you think about such situation...in which there is that slight possibility of the memory inflating the score without even my knowing it.

Thanks!!

Top

 Post subject: Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hoursPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:20 pm

Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm
Posts: 3008
timeless wrote:
Hi BP Shinners

I am pretty sure you've gotten many of these questions before.
Ive studied Lsat for a while around a year ago for around 4-5 months and becaused i used a wrong approach (focusing on content, not the patterns), ive decided to push back the exam.
Since then (december 2011), I have not done anything LSAT related, until I resumed my studies last month.
Now I am doing all the sections pattern driven, and I can immediately feel how much it can boost my confidence and performance.
But one thing that worries me is whether even a subconscious memory of the question content is contributing at all to my increased performance.
In timing and solving questions under pressure, i realized that I do not have much leeway in remembering the content of the questions...but still, I just wanted to know what you think about such situation...in which there is that slight possibility of the memory inflating the score without even my knowing it.

Thanks!!

If your memory is inflating your score (which I'm not going to take as a given), I wouldn't expect it to be more than a couple of points. I've been teaching this test for years, and I still don't have a lot of the questions memorized. I wouldn't worry too much about it because:
1) I don't necessarily think it's a problem, and
2) If it is, there's not much you can do about it!

Top

 Post subject: Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hoursPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:24 pm

Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:36 pm
Posts: 129
Hey BP
Is it me or do all NA questions seem to have the exclusivity flaw? For some reason they all lead to that flaw in a very generic way.

Thanks
God bless

Top

 Post subject: Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hoursPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:23 pm

Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm
Posts: 3008
meandme wrote:
Hey BP
Is it me or do all NA questions seem to have the exclusivity flaw? For some reason they all lead to that flaw in a very generic way.

Thanks
God bless

I wouldn't say they all do. Many will, however.

Exclusivity is one of the three most-common flaws, and it also overlaps a lot with other flaws (i.e. a causality flaw could be stated in exclusivity terms, as you're assuming that one cause is exclusive).

Top

 Post subject: Re: bp shinners’ semi-weekly office hoursPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:21 pm
 Arbiter of Proledom

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:44 pm
Posts: 31461
Ayo Shinners: PT 34, Section 4, questions 19-24

What in the actual fuck is this? The conditional chain with deductions leads to a contradiction with L. HELP PLS

Top

 Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending
 Page 5 of 41 [ 1005 posts ] Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 41  Next

 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

#### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cloy26, raindrop, RCO2012, RightGuard, wealtheow and 30 guests

Search for:
 Jump to:  Select a forum ------------------ Law School Admissions Forum Law School Personal Statements LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum Law School FAQ Law School Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists Talk About Law School Visits, Open Houses, Admit Days Choosing a Law School What are my chances? Under Represented Law Student Forum Financial Aid Ask a Law Student / Graduate TLS Content Competitions Students and Graduates    Forum for Law School Students    Transfers    Legal Employment    Judicial Clerkships Class Forums    TLS Class of 2017 Forum    TLS Class of 2016 Forum    TLS Class of 2015 Forum    TLS Class of 2014 Forum    TLS Class of 2013 Forum    TLS Class of 2012 Forum    TLS Class of 2011 Forum Lounge - Social Networking - Off Topic Buy - Exchange - Giveaway - Sell TLS Web Logs (Blogs)