Skimming in RC sections

Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:58 pm

Re: Skimming in RC sections

Postby bilbaosan » Sat Aug 31, 2013 7:28 pm

bp shinners wrote:That game gives you everything you need to know regardless if you don't even know what a dormitory is. There are four dorms and each is split into a North part and a South part. Again, if you're not familiar of the definition of "wing" as a section of a building, it might take you an extra second or two to figure it out. But they give you enough context to do so.

Using your description it would, but the game mentions "four dormitories each consisting of North wing and South wing". Nowhere it says "part". Took me Google search to find out what the game is even talking about.

I'm not going to get into a debate about a random law review article. If you buy her argument, cool.


I do, because it matches my own observations.
Last edited by bilbaosan on Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:58 pm

Re: Skimming in RC sections

Postby bilbaosan » Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:12 pm

bp shinners wrote:You should have been able to tell that it was an art style in context, and the fact that there is a different name for it than postmodernism or realism tells you that they are different. if I saw a sentence that said, "Dali painted almost exclusively in the figugjehrtgtt style, which had certain key differences from kjhuiogyf and pupfgrdturtj,", then I would assume that the f one was an art style that is different than art styles such as k and p.

That's problematic. How useful is this kind of reading outside LSAT? I can surely say it would be useless in engineering; in fact I fail to see where it would be useful.
And if it is only for LSAT then yes, it is a problem because at the large picture the test has very limited value.

It's general knowledge of the English language that is being tested. You never know what words are going to show up in a case. When you're entering a profession that requires a deep understanding of the importance of language and the subtleties of it, it's important that you have a deep understanding of the importance of language and the subtleties of the language in which you are going to practice. "Protagonist" is a word that is in regular use in the English language, so it's fair game for a test that serves as an entrance exam for a profession that requires fluency in the language.

I might have accepted your argument if we were talking about the bar exam. But it is an admission exam, there will be at least four years of learning before the first case. And claiming that someone who doesn't know what "protagonist" means is less qualified to study law is really far-fetching. I'd love to see the LSAC expert testimony in a court where they'd attempt to prove it is relevant and valid criteria.

Even the case argument isn't that sound-proof. You're not locked up in a LSAT-like test environment when you work on a case. You have access to dictionaries and other people you can ask to explain. I have no problems reading court decisions or law textbooks, it is the art/poetry which constantly brings up new words.

My answer wasn't vague - I was saying that I have experience in the area in which you're questioning my experience. I wasn't trying to back it up with numbers. I don't have specific ROI data because I have no reason to collect that specific information, but the point is that any increase in points is a worthwhile ROI until you start talking about hundreds of hours.

I'm not questioning your conclusion, just your sample.
You're concluding on a sample which is highly non-representative. You're getting the people who a) believe they could improve and b) value the test results enough that they are willing to put in significant effort in terms of time and money. There are people for whom a one point increase is worth some major effort. But looking at test results distribution there are very few of them.

But then, if admission is considered, it looks like the best way to improve one's chances is to simply wait. Not only the number of takers is declining dramatically, which makes it really bad for those schools which are below top20, but at least here in CA we've got several distance-learning law schools. Very few of them so far, and it is quite restrictive in terms of what you can do, but they don't require (or consider) LSAT at all - and the online education is the future anyway.

No problem! And it does matter, because you can learn from stuff like this and take it to the future parts of the LSAT. Even if you don't know what sociopolitical commitment is, English is very much a language of root words. So you might not know the exact definition of sociopolitical commitment, but you can be pretty sure that it has to do with social and political issues since they share roots.

You're right. Too bad I already wrote off those questions (together with parallel flaw and any question which I didn't get the argument after reading it twice); this time is better used elsewhere.

Haha, yea, this test can lead to crazy results sometimes. Not because it's subjective, but because people's approaches to it can be ;-).

Indeed. And I was completely sure those two are the wrongest answers possible. Shit happens.

Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:58 pm

Re: Skimming in RC sections

Postby bilbaosan » Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:17 pm

neprep wrote:I'm here 21 years and have no clue about baseball. I'm still waiting for the LSAC to do a logic game about golf: A player is selecting 9 holes to play during a round of practice, with the round's total being a par 30, and each hole being either a par 3, par 4 or par 5. There can be rules about how holes of different pars are ordered. It would be sublime.

Can someone write one? PLEASE. I'll pay you in New Yorker subscriptions.

That's too little. LSAC would probably need at least 2000x this amount to cover their legal fees once they're sued by NBA, NFL, NHL, USPA and everyone else in a sports-discrimination lawsuit.

Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests