JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread Forum

[objection_your_honor]

You know something that I've always wondered if they would pull, is instead of naming the elements for games with different prefixes/first letters, such as Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon, Zeta, Eta, Theta, Iota, Kappa, etc. if they just did words that started with the same letter, but were slightly different just to fuck with us. But that's probably just me thinking of different things that will never happen.

Easy version of that in PT 66 (two restaurants).

You could also go with the second or last letter, or use a two letter abbreviation such as Tu/Th for Tuesday/Thursday.

I sort of want to see a 5+ ply grouping game (we have to go deeper).

[Daily_Double]

Here's a classic N/A question for you guys:

Physician: Vigorous exercise improves peoples' health by producing chemical changes in the brain. Thus, physicians will eventually be able to improve peoples' health as effectively through pharmacological intervention in the brain's neurochemistry as through vigorous exercise.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the physician's argument depends?

[wtrc]

Does anyone have thoughts as to how accurate PTs are in gauging scores if someone took, and lightly reviewed, the same PT a year or 18 months ago? I don't have any awesome memory or anything, so don't consciously recall the right answers, but I wonder if it affects LG setup or RC retention.

[CardozoLaw09]

Here's a classic N/A question for you guys:

Physician: Vigorous exercise improves peoples' health by producing chemical changes in the brain. Thus, physicians will eventually be able to improve peoples' health as effectively through pharmacological intervention in the brain's neurochemistry as through vigorous exercise.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the physician's argument depends?

The side effects associated with pharmacological intervention in the brain's neurochemistry are just as non existent as vigorous exercise.

[Daily_Double]

Here's a classic N/A question for you guys:

Physician: Vigorous exercise improves peoples' health by producing chemical changes in the brain. Thus, physicians will eventually be able to improve peoples' health as effectively through pharmacological intervention in the brain's neurochemistry as through vigorous exercise.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the physician's argument depends?

The side effects associated with pharmacological intervention in the brain's neurochemistry are just as non existent as vigorous exercise.

Ah, I would actually eliminate this, what if both have different side effects, but different quantities of resulting health benefits that when compared equal the total net benefit of each other (as effectively)?

There's something more here.

[CardozoLaw09]

Here's a classic N/A question for you guys:

Physician: Vigorous exercise improves peoples' health by producing chemical changes in the brain. Thus, physicians will eventually be able to improve peoples' health as effectively through pharmacological intervention in the brain's neurochemistry as through vigorous exercise.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the physician's argument depends?

The side effects associated with pharmacological intervention in the brain's neurochemistry are just as non existent as vigorous exercise.

Ah, I would actually eliminate this, what if both have different side effects, but different quantities of resulting health benefits that when compared equal the total net benefit of each other (as effectively)?

There's something more here.

True^^

1) Pharamcological intervention in the brain's neurochemistry does not alter the brain's neural connections in a way that diminishes cognitive functioning.


2) Pharmacological intervention in the brain's neurochemistry does not produce less chemical changes in the brain than does vigorous exercise.

[wtrc]

Btw, assuming everyone saw the new rankings? Harvard and Stanford now tied at #2.

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandr ... w-rankings

[rebexness]

Assumes that the same chemical changes can be replicated with pharmacology as were created by Vigorous exercise.

[wtrc]

Here's a classic N/A question for you guys:

Physician: Vigorous exercise improves peoples' health by producing chemical changes in the brain. Thus, physicians will eventually be able to improve peoples' health as effectively through pharmacological intervention in the brain's neurochemistry as through vigorous exercise.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the physician's argument depends?

Sort of what everyone has already said IMO. I would think it would be something centering around whether or not it is feasible for physicians to change brain chemistry in a way that will produce positive health changes without side effects that outweigh the effectiveness?

As in an answer choice would be

It is possible to produce changes in neurochemistry using pharmacological means that do not have negative side effects that make them as a whole less effective than vigorous exercise?

[Daily_Double]

Physician: Vigorous exercise improves peoples' health by producing chemical changes in the brain. Thus, physicians will eventually be able to improve peoples' health as effectively through pharmacological intervention in the brain's neurochemistry as through vigorous exercise.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the physician's argument depends?

All great points, all N/A, but looking a little closer, we know the medicine in question only affects the brain's neurochemistry, but we don't don't that the only benefits of vigorous exercise are related to chemical changes in the brain, this is a huge gap. What if the benefits of vigorous exercise are not only related to the brain's chemistry, but also related to physical appearance?

So the correct answer, that I would expect, would be something along the lines of:

Improvements in a person's health produced by vigorous exercise only occur though chemical changes in the brain.

The reason I pointed this out, is because many questions will proceed something along the lines of A helps do some thing by doing X, so B which only helps by doing X, must be as effective as A in helping do that thing.

[wtrc]

Physician: Vigorous exercise improves peoples' health by producing chemical changes in the brain. Thus, physicians will eventually be able to improve peoples' health as effectively through pharmacological intervention in the brain's neurochemistry as through vigorous exercise.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the physician's argument depends?

All great points, all N/A, but looking a little closer, we know the medicine in question only affects the brain's neurochemistry, but we don't don't that the only benefits of vigorous exercise are related to chemical changes in the brain, this is a huge gap. What if the benefits of vigorous exercise are not only related to the brain's chemistry, but also related to physical appearance?

So the correct answer, that I would expect, would be something along the lines of:

Improvements in a person's health produced by vigorous exercise only occur though chemical changes in the brain.

Hmm. I considered that, DD, but I thought the "...by producing chemical changes in the brain" implied that the only way it was improved (for the purposes of this argument) was through the chemical changes. Do you think the argument is lacking if it does not say "improves peoples' health only by..."?

[Daily_Double]

Physician: Vigorous exercise improves peoples' health by producing chemical changes in the brain. Thus, physicians will eventually be able to improve peoples' health as effectively through pharmacological intervention in the brain's neurochemistry as through vigorous exercise.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the physician's argument depends?

All great points, all N/A, but looking a little closer, we know the medicine in question only affects the brain's neurochemistry, but we don't don't that the only benefits of vigorous exercise are related to chemical changes in the brain, this is a huge gap. What if the benefits of vigorous exercise are not only related to the brain's chemistry, but also related to physical appearance?

So the correct answer, that I would expect, would be something along the lines of:

Improvements in a person's health produced by vigorous exercise only occur though chemical changes in the brain.

Hmm. I considered that, DD, but I thought the "...by producing chemical changes in the brain" implied that the only way it was improved (for the purposes of this argument) was through the chemical changes. Do you think the argument is lacking if it does not say "improves peoples' health only by..."?

Yeah, I do, especially in N/A questions. We know that vigorous exercise helps by doing something, but is that the only way it helps? The argument assumes that it is. That's the gap. Keep in mind, that these are not official stimuli, but based upon them in a way which I believe conveys the principles involved in the example I based this off. Technically I based this off a couple questions, there was a flagellum question in PT 51, a funding question in 67, and this one, which is similar to those, but is based off the traditional talk therapy question in PT 66

[objection_your_honor]

Does anyone have thoughts as to how accurate PTs are in gauging scores if someone took, and lightly reviewed, the same PT a year or 18 months ago? I don't have any awesome memory or anything, so don't consciously recall the right answers, but I wonder if it affects LG setup or RC retention.

I'm doing the same thing. I think it's important to not assume the score is an accurate representation of your skills and just focus on the process.

In truth, especially with that kind of timeline, there is likely only a very small bump.

[kendradh]

Here's a little passage from Powerscore's LRB I'm hoping a few people will get a good laugh from.

"In the majority of LSAT questions with two speakers - one male and the other female. The male makes a mistake or an error of reasoning and the female uses sound reasoning. This does not occur in every problem, but it occurs enough to be more than random. Why? The thinking goes that in order for Law Services to protect themselves against accusations that they are biased against women, they create problems where the male is clearly the one using faulty reasoning."

God Bless America.

Ha, I just read that passage last night and laughed.

[jrobsontampa]

Hey guys! I recently received my score from the previous administration and after allowing myself a few days to drink off the disappointment, I am ready to start preparing for the June exam. LET'S DO THIS!

[rebexness]

I oddly enjoy grouping games.

[Daily_Double]

I oddly enjoy grouping games.

I'm a big fan of ordering with less than five elements.

[bdeans91]

I oddly enjoy grouping games.

I find them tougher but also agree with you. Actually, maybe that's why I like them.

[steven21]

Just took PT 30.5(Superprep C) Score 165, LG -5(Usually do better), LR -13, RC -4. LR section is killing me

[Fianna13]

Hey DD,

I know you've posted a picture of your in/out diagram before. After doing it your way, I found that it saves me a lot of time not having to draw out the t chart and just follow the conditional chains. Is it possible for you to post pics of some grouping games as well? pike the pic of your main diagram and the sub-diagrams for each question?

[Soryu]

I've decided to throw my hat into the ring. It's not the best time for me but I should probably give myself some leeway in case I need to go at it again in October.

I managed a 170 for the June 2010 exam but I chose not attend law school for various reasons.

My diagnostic for this second effort was a 165 on Test 61 with a -6 LR, -6 LG, -6 RC. As I recall, I am back to virtually the same level as my very first practice exam in 2010.

Last time, the only resources I used were Powerscore (but only barely; I flipped through a few chapters halfheartedly before getting bored) and a load of practice exams. I'm certain my limitations then were a product of being too lazy to analyze my wrong answers and trying to eke out improvements via repetition and feeling. This time, I intend to cleave to a system religiously.

[Daily_Double]

Hey DD,

I know you've posted a picture of your in/out diagram before. After doing it your way, I found that it saves me a lot of time not having to draw out the t chart and just follow the conditional chains. Is it possible for you to post pics of some grouping games as well? pike the pic of your main diagram and the sub-diagrams for each question?

Sure. Throw me some games, PT#, and G#, and I'll do it.

[lsatkid007]

Hey DD,

I know you've posted a picture of your in/out diagram before. After doing it your way, I found that it saves me a lot of time not having to draw out the t chart and just follow the conditional chains. Is it possible for you to post pics of some grouping games as well? pike the pic of your main diagram and the sub-diagrams for each question?

Sure. Throw me some games, PT#, and G#, and I'll do it.

How about the new and used CDs. I think it's pt 31 game 2.

[crazyrobin]

I haven't been able to check in for three days due to local power shortage.

It's great to be back again.

[Daily_Double]

How about the new and used CDs. I think it's pt 31 game 2.

Just finished, 7:51, -0, very weird game, technically it's an in-out game, although I would classify it as grouping, then In-Out, I remember seeing this long ago, but I didn't remember the details, probably because once you get past the complex relationships, the questions are very easy. Because I have the old PTs in books, which I use for RC, and the old LR and LG from 1-38 from Cambridge, I just used my book. But I'll transfer over how I approached it to a blank page later tonight and post it. But unfortunately, I really don't think it will help you very much, this game requires a very thorough knowledge of conditional logic, I just wrote the rules, connected them, and went from there. What the game revolves around is the relationship:

If A + A ---> ~B + ~B

taking the contrapositive we have:

B or B ---> ~A or ~A

I definitely recommend the other LG guys to look into this one. It's kinda fun once you get to the questions, but it's definitely a funky one.