JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread Forum
-
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:45 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
bdeans91, no other flaws were in the answer choices, well I mean one said sampling but phrased it incorrectly, one used some very poor logic, the others were out of scope, but the reason I liked this stimulus is because it's a simple question that would almost be easier without answers. I like the process of covering the answers on review and just trying to answer them myself, just because one wrong answer might have been tempting if you hadn't already figured out what the flaw was, which is what I'm kind of trying to give to you guys through these examples.
And John_rizzy_rawls, the answer you mentioned, at least I think described the people surveyed, in this example dentists, as being unqualified to opine upon the subject which the product related to. In both this example and in the actual question I based this off of, some experts in a field which the product related to were surveyed, so it's not an improper lay opinion. Furthermore, it's not appealing to the public, which would be saying that the public says X, therefore it is X, it's simply saying that you should do this because some amount of experts said it's better than the rest.
And John_rizzy_rawls, the answer you mentioned, at least I think described the people surveyed, in this example dentists, as being unqualified to opine upon the subject which the product related to. In both this example and in the actual question I based this off of, some experts in a field which the product related to were surveyed, so it's not an improper lay opinion. Furthermore, it's not appealing to the public, which would be saying that the public says X, therefore it is X, it's simply saying that you should do this because some amount of experts said it's better than the rest.
-
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 1:43 am
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
When I am doing LR questions by type (to learn the question types), should I be drilling them (timed, in sets of 10 or 20 questions) or should I be just trying to do as many of the questions as possible and going 100% for accuracy?
I am also going to be doing a bunch of PTs and 10 sets of full LR sections over the next few months so I will be exposed to a lot of timed LR.
I have been doing the drilling method, but right now I just casually did 25 flaw questions with a little less pressure on me and I feel like I am actually breaking down the argument more, practicing pre-phrasing, etc. Instead of just worrying about my time I am focused more on quality.
Thoughts?
I am also going to be doing a bunch of PTs and 10 sets of full LR sections over the next few months so I will be exposed to a lot of timed LR.
I have been doing the drilling method, but right now I just casually did 25 flaw questions with a little less pressure on me and I feel like I am actually breaking down the argument more, practicing pre-phrasing, etc. Instead of just worrying about my time I am focused more on quality.
Thoughts?
- wtrc
- Posts: 2053
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 9:37 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
Do you have trouble with timing on LR during PT's?bdeans91 wrote:When I am doing LR questions by type (to learn the question types), should I be drilling them (timed, in sets of 10 or 20 questions) or should I be just trying to do as many of the questions as possible and going 100% for accuracy?
I am also going to be doing a bunch of PTs and 10 sets of full LR sections over the next few months so I will be exposed to a lot of timed LR.
I have been doing the drilling method, but right now I just casually did 25 flaw questions with a little less pressure on me and I feel like I am actually breaking down the argument more, practicing pre-phrasing, etc. Instead of just worrying about my time I am focused more on quality.
Thoughts?
When I started drilling each type I wanted to primarily focus on accuracy. I would time myself- but not look at the time until I did 25 (or, sometimes 15, or 20, or 30, etc.) questions. Then I'd make a note of any types where timing really was an issue. But timing has never really been an issue in LR for me- accuracy is my problem- so I guess it really depends. If not timing yourself means you are "breaking down the argument more... and focused on quality" then I think you answered your own question . We've got more than 3 months, still time to hammer out the fundamentals.
- crazyrobin
- Posts: 442
- Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:52 am
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
bdeans91, we are in a similar situation. What I am doing now is do untimed drilling, I focus on accuracy only. But I do 1-2 timed LR every day or every other day.
For both timed and untimed LR I will blind review if I get anything wrong. I also implement DD's suggestion, namely go deep into Qs (which means when you are asked to identify a flaw, I go deep to think about strengthen/weaken answer choices). This method helps a lot, now I am semi-confident about LR. Within couple days, if not weeks, I think I will be on track with full time PT.
For both timed and untimed LR I will blind review if I get anything wrong. I also implement DD's suggestion, namely go deep into Qs (which means when you are asked to identify a flaw, I go deep to think about strengthen/weaken answer choices). This method helps a lot, now I am semi-confident about LR. Within couple days, if not weeks, I think I will be on track with full time PT.
- bmore_md
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 9:52 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
Does anyone else strangely enjoy studying for the LSAT? As a competitive person I find it interesting and easy to find motivation somewhat like a sporting event.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- John_rizzy_rawls
- Posts: 3468
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:44 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
Yup. Big time, more fun than I've ever had doing schoolwork. Shit's like a puzzle I know I can make my bitch. I enjoy that feeling.bmore_md wrote:Does anyone else strangely enjoy studying for the LSAT? As a competitive person I find it interesting and easy to find motivation somewhat like a sporting event.
IB4WeirdInterpretations
-
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:45 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
Same.bmore_md wrote:Does anyone else strangely enjoy studying for the LSAT? As a competitive person I find it interesting and easy to find motivation somewhat like a sporting event.
- CardozoLaw09
- Posts: 2232
- Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:58 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
+1Daily_Double wrote:Same.bmore_md wrote:Does anyone else strangely enjoy studying for the LSAT? As a competitive person I find it interesting and easy to find motivation somewhat like a sporting event.
- crazyrobin
- Posts: 442
- Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:52 am
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
+2CardozoLaw09 wrote:+1Daily_Double wrote:Same.bmore_md wrote:Does anyone else strangely enjoy studying for the LSAT? As a competitive person I find it interesting and easy to find motivation somewhat like a sporting event.
- wtrc
- Posts: 2053
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 9:37 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
+3. I <3 this thread sometimescrazyrobin wrote:+2CardozoLaw09 wrote:+1Daily_Double wrote:Same.bmore_md wrote:Does anyone else strangely enjoy studying for the LSAT? As a competitive person I find it interesting and easy to find motivation somewhat like a sporting event.
- Sourrudedude
- Posts: 415
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:34 pm
- warandpeace
- Posts: 301
- Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 1:43 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
Hey everyone. Will anyone repost the list of PTs (in the order you guys are taking them)? I've searched the thread and couldn't find it.
Much appreciated!
Much appreciated!
-
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 1:43 am
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
But not RC. RC is like the drama/artsy kids.crazyrobin wrote:+2CardozoLaw09 wrote:+1Daily_Double wrote:Same.bmore_md wrote:Does anyone else strangely enjoy studying for the LSAT? As a competitive person I find it interesting and easy to find motivation somewhat like a sporting event.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Sourrudedude
- Posts: 415
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:34 pm
-
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:45 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
Just know that they are relative, people are busy and it's impossible to stick to a PT plan religiously, technically I'm behind in my own PT plan, although I knew that would happen at the beginning so at the end of my plan is about three weeks of make up time.Sourrudedude wrote:Look on the first page in the second comment.warandpeace wrote:Hey everyone. Will anyone repost the list of PTs (in the order you guys are taking them)? I've searched the thread and couldn't find it.
Much appreciated!
- the_pakalypse
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 3:34 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
Hey all. Retaker here, good to see everyone's progress.
I'm a bit unsure whether we need to check a conditional statement AND its contrapositives to see if a hypothetical is correct.
For example, if A -> B. And the sufficient condition is missing, then we wouldn't need to check the contrapositive of not B -> not A because the negation of the sufficient condition satisfies the necessary condition in the contrapositive. Seems pretty obvious but I'm just wondering if I'm missing an exception or something...
I'm a bit unsure whether we need to check a conditional statement AND its contrapositives to see if a hypothetical is correct.
For example, if A -> B. And the sufficient condition is missing, then we wouldn't need to check the contrapositive of not B -> not A because the negation of the sufficient condition satisfies the necessary condition in the contrapositive. Seems pretty obvious but I'm just wondering if I'm missing an exception or something...
-
- Posts: 4155
- Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:24 am
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
I resemble this remark.bdeans91 wrote:
But not RC. RC is like the drama/artsy kids.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:45 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
This isn't a pattern, it's just the subject of one of my assignments. So I reworded it and thought it would be appropriate in the form of an LSAT question.
Moran: Although the district judge made a legal error which led to his acquittal of Lamar Evans, because Evans was acquitted, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars further retrial. Therefore, if the acquittal, however it is labeled, constitutes a determination on the merits that the government failed to prove its case, then jeopardy attaches, and Evans should not be retried.
Baughman: By making a legal error, the district judge essentially forced the prosecution to prove an additional element, and the resulting acquittal was a determination of a crime which was not the one for which he was charged. Therefore his acquittal was not proper and the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar further retrial in this matter.
The dialogue above most strongly supports the claim that Moran and Baughman disagree with each other about which of the following?
Moran: Although the district judge made a legal error which led to his acquittal of Lamar Evans, because Evans was acquitted, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars further retrial. Therefore, if the acquittal, however it is labeled, constitutes a determination on the merits that the government failed to prove its case, then jeopardy attaches, and Evans should not be retried.
Baughman: By making a legal error, the district judge essentially forced the prosecution to prove an additional element, and the resulting acquittal was a determination of a crime which was not the one for which he was charged. Therefore his acquittal was not proper and the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar further retrial in this matter.
The dialogue above most strongly supports the claim that Moran and Baughman disagree with each other about which of the following?
-
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:04 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
Taking a stab at this — whether the DJ clause bars further retrial?Daily_Double wrote:Moran: Although the district judge made a legal error which led to his acquittal of Lamar Evans, because Evans was acquitted, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars further retrial. Therefore, if the acquittal, however it is labeled, constitutes a determination on the merits that the government failed to prove its case, then jeopardy attaches, and Evans should not be retried.
Baughman: By making a legal error, the district judge essentially forced the prosecution to prove an additional element, and the resulting acquittal was a determination of a crime which was not the one for which he was charged. Therefore his acquittal was not proper and the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar further retrial in this matter.
The dialogue above most strongly supports the claim that Moran and Baughman disagree with each other about which of the following?
- wtrc
- Posts: 2053
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 9:37 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
Whether the Double Jeopardy clause, which bars retrial, still applies in acquittals due to legal error.Daily_Double wrote:This isn't a pattern, it's just the subject of one of my assignments. So I reworded it and thought it would be appropriate in the form of an LSAT question.
Moran: Although the district judge made a legal error which led to his acquittal of Lamar Evans, because Evans was acquitted, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars further retrial. Therefore, if the acquittal, however it is labeled, constitutes a determination on the merits that the government failed to prove its case, then jeopardy attaches, and Evans should not be retried.
Baughman: By making a legal error, the district judge essentially forced the prosecution to prove an additional element, and the resulting acquittal was a determination of a crime which was not the one for which he was charged. Therefore his acquittal was not proper and the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar further retrial in this matter.
The dialogue above most strongly supports the claim that Moran and Baughman disagree with each other about which of the following?
- eliztudorr
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:50 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
you totally categorized RC for me...rebexness wrote:I resemble this remark.bdeans91 wrote:
But not RC. RC is like the drama/artsy kids.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- redecember
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:38 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
Motivation + Sports = http://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/19 ... _athletic/bmore_md wrote:Does anyone else strangely enjoy studying for the LSAT? As a competitive person I find it interesting and easy to find motivation somewhat like a sporting event.
thought you guys would appreciate. Let's kill PT69
- CardozoLaw09
- Posts: 2232
- Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:58 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
Sick article, Kobe is a beast - thanks for sharing.redecember wrote:Motivation + Sports = http://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/19 ... _athletic/bmore_md wrote:Does anyone else strangely enjoy studying for the LSAT? As a competitive person I find it interesting and easy to find motivation somewhat like a sporting event.
thought you guys would appreciate. Let's kill PT69
-
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 1:43 am
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
Whether the Double Jeopardy clause attaches from the acquittal.weathercoins wrote:Whether the Double Jeopardy clause, which bars retrial, still applies in acquittals due to legal error.Daily_Double wrote:This isn't a pattern, it's just the subject of one of my assignments. So I reworded it and thought it would be appropriate in the form of an LSAT question.
Moran: Although the district judge made a legal error which led to his acquittal of Lamar Evans, because Evans was acquitted, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars further retrial. Therefore, if the acquittal, however it is labeled, constitutes a determination on the merits that the government failed to prove its case, then jeopardy attaches, and Evans should not be retried.
Baughman: By making a legal error, the district judge essentially forced the prosecution to prove an additional element, and the resulting acquittal was a determination of a crime which was not the one for which he was charged. Therefore his acquittal was not proper and the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar further retrial in this matter.
The dialogue above most strongly supports the claim that Moran and Baughman disagree with each other about which of the following?
-
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 10:26 am
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
Taking this week sort of easy...hopefully will get back on the grizzy this Sunday. Five to six hours a day and hopefully PTing for the first time next weekend.
I feel a lot more confident in Logic Reasoning and Reading Comp...still struggling on some of the advanced LG's and obviously grouping.
I drill ten games a day and still find myself getting a few wrong. Any suggestions?
I feel a lot more confident in Logic Reasoning and Reading Comp...still struggling on some of the advanced LG's and obviously grouping.
I drill ten games a day and still find myself getting a few wrong. Any suggestions?
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login