"Reviewing" Methods from Powerscore, Manhattan, etc.

tanyrseay
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 4:12 pm

"Reviewing" Methods from Powerscore, Manhattan, etc.

Postby tanyrseay » Wed Jul 31, 2013 8:53 pm

I've been studying for a while now. Long story short, I was supposed to take the June LSAT. Leading up to the test, I was doing tons of timed sections, practice tests, etc. I never reached the score I felt was possible nor did I have a good grasp of the fundamentals. I resorted to Powerscore and Manhattan (ditched Kaplan, thank god). After spending the past two months reading the books, doing lots of slow, untimed practice, I am about to start hardcore drilling tests and sections again with time. Before I do so, I want to make sure I have a very firm grasp on the methods. What is a good way to review methods diligently and efficiently without wasting my time with things I already know?

Here are some things I still feel uncomfortable with:

Logic Games that require a strong grasp of numerical distribution


Actually using formal logic on LR Qs(I can translate statements all day long, but seem to really f*** up when it comes to applying FL.)
All, some, none--"the some train"
Quickly answering questions with very dense reading material
Strengthen Questions

magickware
Posts: 359
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 1:27 pm

Re: "Reviewing" Methods from Powerscore, Manhattan, etc.

Postby magickware » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:53 pm

tanyrseay wrote:What is a good way to review methods diligently and efficiently without wasting my time with things I already know?


I would encourage that you study things you already know. You'll learn that you don't know them as well as you think you do.

tanyrseay wrote:Logic Games that require a strong grasp of numerical distribution

Can you give an example?

tanyrseay wrote:All, some, none--"the some train"


All+Some=Some
All+Most=most
Most+Some=Nothing
Most+Most=Some

Basic gist.

tanyrseay wrote:Quickly answering questions with very dense reading material


Get faster at reading =(

Spend your spare time reading dense material, then do brief summaries of them.

tanyrseay wrote:Strengthen Questions


What exact problem do you have with strengthen problems? I do agree that they're annoying though.

kiyoku
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 2:25 am

Re: "Reviewing" Methods from Powerscore, Manhattan, etc.

Postby kiyoku » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:10 pm

Magickware

what you posted refers to the minimum of the range ya? Like for the third line Most+some=nothing.. correct me if i'm wrong but this Most+some results in a range of nothing to all?

All+Some=Range of Some to All (this is repetitive I know because Some by default implies more than 1, but up to all)
All+Most=Range of Most to All (again repetitive but i'm trying to double check that I got it right here)
Most+Some=Range of Nothing to All
Most+Most=Range of Some to All

User avatar
Jeffort
Posts: 1896
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: "Reviewing" Methods from Powerscore, Manhattan, etc.

Postby Jeffort » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:22 pm

kiyoku wrote:Magickware

what you posted refers to the minimum of the range ya? Like for the third line Most+some=nothing.. correct me if i'm wrong but this Most+some results in a range of nothing to all?

All+Some=Range of Some to All (this is repetitive I know because Some by default implies more than 1, but up to all)
All+Most=Range of Most to All (again repetitive but i'm trying to double check that I got it right here)
Most+Some=Range of Nothing to All
Most+Most=Range of Some to All


What you describe as the minimum of the range is the largest quantity that the premises guarantee is true, and would therefore qualify as a valid conclusion based on the premises. Anything beyond the minimum that must be true only describes quantities that COULD BE TRUE based on the premises, but that are not guaranteed/could be false. That distinction is important because many trap answers on formal logic must be true questions use a quantifier that is larger than what the premises guarantee but state something that could be true.

magickware
Posts: 359
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 1:27 pm

Re: "Reviewing" Methods from Powerscore, Manhattan, etc.

Postby magickware » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:33 pm

kiyoku wrote:Magickware

what you posted refers to the minimum of the range ya? Like for the third line Most+some=nothing.. correct me if i'm wrong but this Most+some results in a range of nothing to all?

All+Some=Range of Some to All (this is repetitive I know because Some by default implies more than 1, but up to all)
All+Most=Range of Most to All (again repetitive but i'm trying to double check that I got it right here)
Most+Some=Range of Nothing to All
Most+Most=Range of Some to All


If you go by the term used in MLSAT,
Some=1-99
Most=50-99
All=100

Most + Some cannot equate anything because of the following hypothetical.

Most=51.
Some=49.

It is quite possible that the two never overlap, and as such you cannot make any concrete inference out of it.

Basically what Jeffort said.

kiyoku
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 2:25 am

Re: "Reviewing" Methods from Powerscore, Manhattan, etc.

Postby kiyoku » Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:21 am

I thought I read somewhere that some is 1 -100 and most is greater than half up to and including 100.

It didnt make sense to me in terms of how I usually use the language.. but I need to find the source where I got this from.. or maybe Im just remembering wrong.

magickware
Posts: 359
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 1:27 pm

Re: "Reviewing" Methods from Powerscore, Manhattan, etc.

Postby magickware » Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:35 am

In second thought, I think you're right.

But that still doesn't change the fact that Most + Some doesn't guarantee anything.

User avatar
Jeffort
Posts: 1896
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: "Reviewing" Methods from Powerscore, Manhattan, etc.

Postby Jeffort » Thu Aug 01, 2013 6:29 pm

kiyoku wrote:I thought I read somewhere that some is 1 -100 and most is greater than half up to and including 100.

It didnt make sense to me in terms of how I usually use the language.. but I need to find the source where I got this from.. or maybe Im just remembering wrong.


They key point for making valid inferences from combinations of formal logic quantifier premises is that you only treat the quantifier as establishing with certainty the minimum quantity of the range the quantifier could be used to refer to.

For SOME you only know for sure that at least ONE is true. Even though it could validly be used to describe a situation where in fact ALL is true, it also could also mean only one is true and validly be used to describe a situation where NOT ALL are true. Without other information you simply cannot be certain about any quantity greater than one. Same thing with MOST. You know with certainty that it describes more than half but cannot conclude with certainty a quantity greater than a bare majority.

This is the reason that some + some and some + most do not lead to any valid inferences from the combination of the premises. Even though both quantifiers could mean all, they only for sure establish at least one for some and at least one more than half for most. The minimums of the ranges are the only quantities you know must be true, quantities above the minimums could be true but also could be false.

The reason that LSAT prep sources teach students that some could mean anything from one to all is to make sure students do not make the false assumption that SOME also establishes NOT ALL. In everyday conversation when people use some as a quantifier they typically intend it to mean NOT ALL and people typically interpret it that way, but that is logically incorrect since some could validly be used to describe ALL. Some LSAT questions with formal logic quantifiers have trap answers designed to sucker people that incorrectly interpret SOME as if it establishes NOT ALL.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BOSStongrl, cherrygalore, freefish, Pozzo, Rio123, Yahoo [Bot] and 10 guests