In SIMPLE terms, how to attack Application, Principle in LR?

Pinky Dinky
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:56 pm

In SIMPLE terms, how to attack Application, Principle in LR?

Postby Pinky Dinky » Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:07 am

I have done quite a few of these (I think these questions started appearing in the late 50ish to present PTs), but in simple terms, can someone please state what to look for when attacking a "justify the above application of the principle" stem with the stimulus and answer choices? :)

Please don't get too technical. Thanks.

User avatar
RhymesLikeDimes
Posts: 403
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:58 pm

Re: In SIMPLE terms, how to attack Application, Principle in LR?

Postby RhymesLikeDimes » Thu Feb 07, 2013 9:00 am

I'd love to hear a break-down of these. I usually get them right, but even after I confirm my answer, I'm still not totally sure about them.

Pinky Dinky
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: In SIMPLE terms, how to attack Application, Principle in LR?

Postby Pinky Dinky » Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:18 pm

Yup. Same here. I usually get most of them right, but I really don't have a good idea how I come to the right (or wrong) answer choices.

The last few PTs (PT 64 to PT68) have had quite a few of these types. It might be a safe bet to expect some of these for the February test.

Only 2 days before the test it won't make much of a difference, but I am curious to know if there's any way to eliminate the wrong answer choices right off the bat.

Any LSAT instructors (Steve's blog, Blue Print, etc) wanna chime in?

User avatar
LSAT Hacks (Graeme)
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 9:18 pm

Re: In SIMPLE terms, how to attack Application, Principle in LR?

Postby LSAT Hacks (Graeme) » Fri Feb 08, 2013 6:11 pm

Principle Application questions often involve formal logic. Your job is to find out exactly what the rule says. Then you need to find the answer that obeys that rule.

Often, it will be a fact that meets the sufficient condition.

--------------------
Example
--------------------

It's always easier with an example. Check out LSAT 66, section IV, question 16.

The principle says that employees shouldn't do anything to make customers hate their clients.

The application is that an employee shouldn't try to talk customers into buying, if they've said they're not interested.

A diagram for the principle: Make hate --> Don't do

The application says: They said no, but try to sell --> Don't do

This is actually a bit like a sufficient assumption question. We need to show that if they say no, and the employee persists, then that will make the customer hate the company.

Said no, persist --> Customers hates the company --> Don't do it

(I never draw diagrams like this - I'm using full words so this explanation is easier to follow)

Once I figured out what to look for, I just skimmed the answers until I got to C, which said that if you keep trying to sell to someone, they'll hate your client. I skipped B, because it just said 'Some'. Useless.

---------------------

Hope that helps. I'd be happy to walk you through another question if you post the test + question and section number. We also have a few lessons on how principle questions are sometimes similar to SA questions in 7Sage's LR mini-course.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anervouslsater, applejacks888, beancounter15, Blueprint Mithun, BrainsyK, glockov, Instrumental, jdanz, monsterman, Pozzo, Snuffles1 and 23 guests