Top Law Schools

Anyone find that Powerscore's greater than signs and the dotted lines are superfluous? Perhaps I am missing some underlying advantage in Powerscore's method that has some overarching benefit through the entire LG section. However, I do not think this is the case.

Powerscore's method is terrible.... so so bad.

Use a tree.

RobertGolddust wrote:Anyone find that Powerscore's greater than signs and the dotted lines are superfluous? Perhaps I am missing some underlying advantage in Powerscore's method that has some overarching benefit through the entire LG section. However, I do not think this is the case.

Nope. That diagramming method blows. Use the dashed lines as directed by Manhattan and BP. For example if we're looking at a track meet with five runners, G, H, K, J, M, and we have the following rules:

G must run in the lane numbered one lower than M
M must run in a lower numbered lane than H and J
K runs in a higher numbered lane than H or J, but not both

Then we have:

GM - H/J - K - H/J

Pretty easy hypothetical LSAT stimulus. I need a new hobby.

An ordering map (or tree diagram as Manhattan calls it) is much simpler and easier to read than the kind PS advocates. The preview of Manhattan LSAT's LG guide on our prep book excerpts explains the method in detail.

Thanks, any other Powerscore methods that I should be suspicious about?

RobertGolddust wrote:Thanks, any other Powerscore methods that I should be suspicious about?

This is from memory, but if I remember correctly, other than sequencing, their method for in-out games was the only other method I take issue with. For in-out games use basic conditionals. Manhattan suggests a logic chain approach, which has some value, but I think they introduce it in order to prod the reader along to the advanced concept of basic conditionals.

To illustrate the issues with Powerscore's diagramming method, I'll provide an example. So we have five people, J, K, L, M, and N. They are going to sit on a sofa with three cushions, each person can take up no more or less than one cushion. The assignment of people to cushions is governed by the following rules:

If J sits on the couch then M does not
If M does not sit on the couch then K and N do
If N sits on the couch then L does not.

So, using basic conditionals we have:

J --> ~M ---> K and N ---> ~L

(contrapositive) L ---> ~(K or N) ---> M ---> ~J

Using Powerscore's method we have:

J <--I--> M ---> K and N <--I--> L

The issue with Powerscore's method is that it doesn't accommodate for the (~M), Because the first rule, according to Powerscore is translated as: J <--I--> M, however the second is translated as: ~M ---> K and N. This discrepancy forces you to use basic conditionals. I must concede that since I haven't been through Powerscore in over six months, I could be distorting this relationship, but I don't think I am. Regardless, what you end up realizing is that while each method, and there's only two that I know of (Powerscore's, Manhattan's) which don't use basic conditionals, they are representing relationships which are most accurately depicted in one form, basic conditionals, thus for accuracy, you should use basic conditionals.

I'll concede that the K and N rule, and N's relationship with L could be represented more accurately. However, I don't feel like uploading anything right now, and I think the above diagrams, while imperfect, accurately depict the issue I was trying to describe.

Powerscore's method is awful. Definitely use the 7sage/LSAT Blog method.

http://lsatblog.blogspot.ca/2009/09/log ... agram.html

To add to DD's post, PS unnecessarily complicates things in the grouping section. For instance, the explanation to PT45-S3-G3 (photographs in an album) derives numerous inferences from combining various subsets of the rules. Although not all In/Out Grouping games lend themselves to this, when the rules can be combined into a big-picture diagram (a chain and its contrapositive), it simplifies things greatly.

Cambridge, any thoughts you care to spare about PS approach to LR?

I haven't looked at the LR Bible in quite a while, but I'm sure there are others here who have worked through it more recently.

Powerscore does some things better than any other prep book in specific areas of the LRB: flaws, S/A questions, causation, conditional logic, and formal logic. My issue with the LRB is that arguments require flexibility, the student must be able to recognize the abstract elements of the stimulus and do a few other things, and the LRB’s approach is not quite as flexible as I think it should be. That being said, the LRB, through its rigid structure, does very well at establishing a foundation of LR knowledge.

The approach of the LRB is not the issue, but rather, the lack of a comprehensive approach. Powerscore emphasizes the subtleties of each question type in the LR Bible, which is very valuable at the beginning of prep, but its scope is too narrow. To use an analogy, the LRB is very similar to the stimulus of a game, it lays out the rules for each question type, but I feel that it falls short in the application of those rules, an area where Manhattan excels.

Here's my take as someone who started with PS LGB and transitioned to 7Sage videos.

PS LGB allowed me to understand what type of questions I would face on the LG sections. I found many of their methodologies inefficient. As you mentioned, PS's method for solving sequencing games is so inefficient that I just didn't even bother using it.

I understood the underlying principles better in the PS LGB as the language is far simpler to understand compared to MLSAT.

7Sage does a better job at diagramming (imo) than PS, but the concepts I picked up from PS allowed me to easily tackle any LGs I came across.

PS LGB = build a good foundation
7sage = build up from there

I took a PS class, which is mostly just an in-depth version of the bibles. LR is the one section I didn't buy additional prep books for. I usually score between -1 to -3 combined between the 2 LR sections during PTs. For LGs, PS is good, but Manhattan had some alternate strategies that I mixed into PS methods.

I spent the week using 7 sage's sequencing tree and PS's LR techniques. I did all the MBT practice problems provided by PS and did 100 MBT questions on my own. I made some significant improvements in LR just by focusing on indicator words and identifying the common wrong answers. However, I completely discarded PS's pure sequencing techniques.