The Official June 2014 Study Group

User avatar
alexrodriguez
Posts: 841
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 4:59 am

Re: The Official June 2014 Study Group

Postby alexrodriguez » Wed May 07, 2014 1:52 am

thanx for the help...

I must be really tired.. I was looking at my work for like 20 minutes thinking that LSAC screwed something up before I realized I had two skirts under mannequin 2

User avatar
dd235
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 1:33 am

Re: The Official June 2014 Study Group

Postby dd235 » Wed May 07, 2014 1:59 am

louierodriguez wrote:thanx for the help...

I must be really tired.. I was looking at my work for like 20 minutes thinking that LSAC screwed something up before I realized I had two skirts under mannequin 2


Haha it happens. There are times when I am convinced that I found a major flaw with an LSAC question, then after about 10 minutes of frustration I realize how idiotic I am.

User avatar
alexrodriguez
Posts: 841
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 4:59 am

Re: The Official June 2014 Study Group

Postby alexrodriguez » Wed May 07, 2014 12:57 pm

Doing a 100 Logical Reasoning PT today.

PT 46 and 47

Learn_Live_Hope
Posts: 1016
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: The Official June 2014 Study Group

Postby Learn_Live_Hope » Wed May 07, 2014 12:58 pm

louierodriguez wrote:I'm gonna open up my own firm one day.

There's a few people in this group who I'd love to work with.

You all know who you are.


huh?

User avatar
BaberhamLincoln
Posts: 2973
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:50 pm

Re: The Official June 2014 Study Group

Postby BaberhamLincoln » Wed May 07, 2014 1:07 pm

Going to see my sis in Cali for 6 days. Planning on doing a shit-load of studying while she is working and kids are in school. Oh an during the two long-ass flights.
Wooooo just over a month now

User avatar
santoki
Posts: 867
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:19 pm

Re: The Official June 2014 Study Group

Postby santoki » Wed May 07, 2014 4:34 pm

somewhat related to the LSAT:

I wanna buy a hamster :D

User avatar
alexrodriguez
Posts: 841
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 4:59 am

Re: The Official June 2014 Study Group

Postby alexrodriguez » Wed May 07, 2014 4:58 pm

100 LR questions timed is exhausting.

now I have to review :(

User avatar
dardardelight
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 6:17 pm

Re: The Official June 2014 Study Group

Postby dardardelight » Wed May 07, 2014 5:52 pm

Totally botched PT 52 today.. everything was fucked

LR -7
LG -4
LR -5
RC -6

Didn't even calculate my score... I think I'm going to take another PT tonight to see how I do. I'm behind my PT schedule anyways

User avatar
Louis1127
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:12 pm

Re: The Official June 2014 Study Group

Postby Louis1127 » Wed May 07, 2014 6:39 pm

Careful, dardy, that's a shit ton of LSAT in one day. But if you think you can do it without pulling your hair out, go dominiate that next one!

Learn_Live_Hope
Posts: 1016
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: The Official June 2014 Study Group

Postby Learn_Live_Hope » Wed May 07, 2014 7:15 pm

leigh912198972 wrote:Going to see my sis in Cali for 6 days. Planning on doing a shit-load of studying while she is working and kids are in school. Oh an during the two long-ass flights.
Wooooo just over a month now


Kind of crazy that there is only a month left...

User avatar
alexrodriguez
Posts: 841
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 4:59 am

Re: The Official June 2014 Study Group

Postby alexrodriguez » Wed May 07, 2014 11:05 pm

Do you guys review right after you take a PT.

I can't seem to do that.

Taking a PT and reviewing is like a two day process. Maybe I'm lazy :/

User avatar
dardardelight
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 6:17 pm

Re: The Official June 2014 Study Group

Postby dardardelight » Thu May 08, 2014 12:57 am

I cannot believe this! Just took PT 53 after scoring like a 163 on PT 52 this morning.. and the results are shocking:

PT 53: Score 172

LR -2
LG -1
LR -0
RC -6


Got my first perfect LR section ever ! I have yet to review, but I probably made a stupid mistake in a game such as reading the question stem wrong. LOUIS 1127 called this for me. Gotta keep it up.. we shall see after PT 54 tomorrow : /

Let's not get too high or too low guys. I could have easily hung my head after the shitty morning performance today and questioned my ability.. but I knew I was better than that and got right back to work. Now my job is to assume that this score will not just be handed to me after every PT from here on out.. Let's earn the reward, fellas!

User avatar
dardardelight
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 6:17 pm

Re: The Official June 2014 Study Group

Postby dardardelight » Thu May 08, 2014 1:19 am

And where the hell is jaylawyer? I suspect he changed his username and is mostly lurking these days

User avatar
sashafierce
Posts: 454
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 11:44 am

Re: The Official June 2014 Study Group

Postby sashafierce » Thu May 08, 2014 1:42 pm

Can someone help me with this question please:

PT58 Section 1 question 11 (Flaw)

So this question has me really confused, prior to this question I thought that correlation does not imply causation which I perfectly understand but now I am realizing that a lack of correlation also does not imply a lack of causation :?

7sage explanation for this question was spot on:

When there is lightning, trees usually catch fire

Sometime trees catch fire without lightning

So lightning does not cause tress to catch fire

That is a flawed argument which I totally understand so I get why A is the correct answer BUT I don't understand why E is wrong. I thought that any argument that tried to establish causation based on correlation is automatically flawed hence even if the argument is reversed i.e. lack of causation based on because of a lack of correlation the argument is STILL flawed because it tried to establish a link between correlation and causation. I am confused :?

Finally, would answer choice E be correct if it said that the argument presumes, without providing warrant, that a lack of correlation implies a lack of causation? (rather that what is actually says which is correlation implies causation???)

User avatar
alexrodriguez
Posts: 841
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 4:59 am

Re: The Official June 2014 Study Group

Postby alexrodriguez » Thu May 08, 2014 1:55 pm

edit

I have no idea what I'm talking about
Last edited by alexrodriguez on Thu May 08, 2014 2:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
alexrodriguez
Posts: 841
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 4:59 am

Re: The Official June 2014 Study Group

Postby alexrodriguez » Thu May 08, 2014 1:56 pm

dardardelight wrote:And where the hell is jaylawyer? I suspect he changed his username and is mostly lurking these days


aha! you are jaylawer!

User avatar
Christine (MLSAT)
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:41 pm

Re: The Official June 2014 Study Group

Postby Christine (MLSAT) » Thu May 08, 2014 1:57 pm

sashafierce wrote:Can someone help me with this question please:

PT58 Section 1 question 11 (Flaw)

So this question has me really confused, prior to this question I thought that correlation does not imply causation which I perfectly understand but now I am realizing that a lack of correlation also does not imply a lack of causation :?

7sage explanation for this question was spot on:

When there is lightning, trees usually catch fire

Sometime trees catch fire without lightning

So lightning does not cause tress to catch fire

That is a flawed argument which I totally understand so I get why A is the correct answer BUT I don't understand why E is wrong. I thought that any argument that tried to establish causation based on correlation is automatically flawed hence even if the argument is reversed i.e. lack of causation based on because of a lack of correlation the argument is STILL flawed because it tried to establish a link between correlation and causation. I am confused :?

Finally, would answer choice E be correct if it said that the argument presumes, without providing warrant, that a lack of correlation implies a lack of causation? (rather that what is actually says which is correlation implies causation???)

But the argument does not use a LACK of correlation to try to prove lack of causation. The stimulus clearly states that there *is* in fact a correlation between chromosome-6 damage and schizophrenia. The argument is just saying that this correlation isn't 100% perfect correlation. So if you were going to go this route, you'd need an answer choice that said that the argument assumes that imperfect correlation implies a lack of causation.

Also, you're right assuming lack of correlation implies lack of causation would be a flaw. And if this argument were doing that (which it isn't), you'd need an answer choice that actually said THAT (specifically about the lack of each), rather than simply "assumes that correlation implies causation".

These are all flaws, but you can't express them all with the statement in (E). Since we don't have a conclusion of causation, there's no way (E) can be correct. A conclusion of a LACK of causation may be just as flawed, but it's a different conclusion.

User avatar
sashafierce
Posts: 454
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 11:44 am

Re: The Official June 2014 Study Group

Postby sashafierce » Thu May 08, 2014 2:16 pm

Christine (MLSAT) wrote:
sashafierce wrote:Can someone help me with this question please:

PT58 Section 1 question 11 (Flaw)

So this question has me really confused, prior to this question I thought that correlation does not imply causation which I perfectly understand but now I am realizing that a lack of correlation also does not imply a lack of causation :?

7sage explanation for this question was spot on:

When there is lightning, trees usually catch fire

Sometime trees catch fire without lightning

So lightning does not cause tress to catch fire

That is a flawed argument which I totally understand so I get why A is the correct answer BUT I don't understand why E is wrong. I thought that any argument that tried to establish causation based on correlation is automatically flawed hence even if the argument is reversed i.e. lack of causation based on because of a lack of correlation the argument is STILL flawed because it tried to establish a link between correlation and causation. I am confused :?

Finally, would answer choice E be correct if it said that the argument presumes, without providing warrant, that a lack of correlation implies a lack of causation? (rather that what is actually says which is correlation implies causation???)

But the argument does not use a LACK of correlation to try to prove lack of causation. The stimulus clearly states that there *is* in fact a correlation between chromosome-6 damage and schizophrenia. The argument is just saying that this correlation isn't 100% perfect correlation. So if you were going to go this route, you'd need an answer choice that said that the argument assumes that imperfect correlation implies a lack of causation.

Also, you're right assuming lack of correlation implies lack of causation would be a flaw. And if this argument were doing that (which it isn't), you'd need an answer choice that actually said THAT (specifically about the lack of each), rather than simply "assumes that correlation implies causation".

These are all flaws, but you can't express them all with the statement in (E). Since we don't have a conclusion of causation, there's no way (E) can be correct. A conclusion of a LACK of causation may be just as flawed, but it's a different conclusion.


I just read the Manhattan forum responses for this question and it helped alot, also I totally misinterpreted the argument, it is saying that the correlation is imperfect not that there is a lack of correlation. Thanks!

User avatar
dardardelight
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 6:17 pm

Re: The Official June 2014 Study Group

Postby dardardelight » Thu May 08, 2014 2:22 pm

lol I'm definitely not jaylawyer . I can promise you that

User avatar
alexrodriguez
Posts: 841
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 4:59 am

Re: The Official June 2014 Study Group

Postby alexrodriguez » Thu May 08, 2014 4:03 pm

Jay Lawyer has made an oath to himself.

The oath goes like this:

I will stay far far away from TLS until I score 170's all day everyday.

Jay Lawyer is a beast. He's literally a mythical creature who feeds on LSAT questions.

He will never teach, however. He will only do.

Long Live Jay

User avatar
BaberhamLincoln
Posts: 2973
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:50 pm

Re: The Official June 2014 Study Group

Postby BaberhamLincoln » Fri May 09, 2014 11:19 am

As my countdown app alerted me early this morning:

ONE MONTH!

User avatar
santoki
Posts: 867
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:19 pm

Re: The Official June 2014 Study Group

Postby santoki » Fri May 09, 2014 12:29 pm

im hoping this doesnt turn into a "29 days left, 28 days left, 27 days left..." ordeal. it makes it too much of a big deal in my head, making it difficult to treat it as a normal PT.

not a knock on you, leigh, the one month warning is a good wakeup call to those of us slackers!

User avatar
alexrodriguez
Posts: 841
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 4:59 am

Re: The Official June 2014 Study Group

Postby alexrodriguez » Fri May 09, 2014 12:35 pm

The way I see it... none of us are slackers.

A lot of people don't even bother to study.

User avatar
santoki
Posts: 867
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:19 pm

Re: The Official June 2014 Study Group

Postby santoki » Fri May 09, 2014 12:38 pm

louierodriguez wrote:The way I see it... none of us are slackers.

A lot of people don't even bother to study.


but those people are not even worth comparing ourselves with- we aren't trying to be above average. we are trying to be EXCELLENT.

rebexness
Posts: 4163
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:24 am

Re: The Official June 2014 Study Group

Postby rebexness » Fri May 09, 2014 2:25 pm

louierodriguez wrote:The way I see it... none of us are slackers.

A lot of people don't even bother to study.


Just because others may slack more- doesn't mean none of us are slackers. I consider myself very slackery.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], cianchetta0, dontsaywhatyoumean, DumbHollywoodActor and 9 guests