The Official September 2014 Study Group

User avatar
Tyr
Posts: 247
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:15 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Tyr » Fri May 23, 2014 4:31 pm

cavalier2015 wrote:awesome thanks for the tips.

how do you guys approach sufficient assumptions? i feel like i am doing it wrong. i do the following:

1)read stem to see if its sufficient assumption quesiton
2)find conclusion and premise
3)look for term shifts between the premise and conclusion
and if term shifts are present, look for the answer choice that directly addresses these two terms and links them in some way
4)if term shifts are not apparent right away, look to eliminate wrong answers
i look for: conclusion redundancy, premise qualifiers, and out of scope answer choices
5)eliminate wrong answers and choose the answer left

I feel like this way is counter productive and takes too much time. have y'all found patterns in sufficient assumption questions that can speed up the process?


I think you're doing fine until step 3. I don't initially look for any one particular flaw in the logic. I identify the conclusion and the premises, then I identify the gap - whatever that may be. I think it is important to have a flexible understanding of the flaw because the correct answer could be something that you were able to pre-phrase or it could be something that approaches the flaw from an unexpected angle. Being set on simply looking for term shifts could trip you when the questions get more complex and the language is more "fuzzy."

cavalier2015
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 12:50 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby cavalier2015 » Fri May 23, 2014 4:39 pm

i'm just wondering why it would be helpful to identify the flaw if the chances that the flaw even comes up in the answer choices is a toss up.

wouldn't it be better to simply identify the conclusion and premise and eliminate wrong answers based on the manner they work with the argument core and then choose the right answer by seeing if it bridges the gap?

cavalier2015
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 12:50 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby cavalier2015 » Fri May 23, 2014 4:50 pm

found this advice by BPshiners and i've been using it and its really working wonders:

General advice:
SUFFICIENT ASSUMPTION questions:
1) You're looking for something that 100% guarantees the conclusion, so stronger answer choices are more likely to be correct.
2) The most common 'gap' that needs to be filled in a SA question is an equivocation between the premises and the conclusion. So spot the conclusion, and then compare the terms in it to the premises. If one of the terms doesn't show up in a premise, it MUST show up in the answer.
3) If 2 doesn't apply, then there's an equivocation/gap between two of the premises. Find out what terms aren't connected to another premise/the conclusion, and then find the answer choice that connects them.

EDIT: more advice from BPshiners

"The first is when there's a concept mentioned in the conclusion that hasn't yet shown up in a premise. If that's the case, eliminate any answer choice that doesn't mention that concept. It can't be a sufficient assumption for the argument. Now, you should have 2-3 answer left. Of those, 1 probably lacks a concept from a premise - get rid of it. The two that are left are usually converse of each other. If the conclusion has the new concept relying on the determination of another concept, pick the answer that does the same (premise concept->conclusion concept). Same with vice versa. These are the most common - new term in conclusion that has to be connected.

The second is where every concept in the conclusion shows up in a premise, and these are harder. You're going to end up with a gap in your premises - the concepts will all be there, but two of them that need to be connected by a statement won't be. The correct answer is the one that includes both concepts in this statement."
Last edited by cavalier2015 on Fri May 23, 2014 4:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mornincounselor
Posts: 1220
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 1:37 am

Post removed.

Postby mornincounselor » Fri May 23, 2014 4:52 pm

Post removed.
Last edited by mornincounselor on Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
BillPackets
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BillPackets » Fri May 23, 2014 5:19 pm

cavalier2015 wrote:awesome thanks for the tips.

how do you guys approach sufficient assumptions? i feel like i am doing it wrong. i do the following:

1)read stem to see if its sufficient assumption quesiton
2)find conclusion and premise
3)look for term shifts between the premise and conclusion
and if term shifts are present, look for the answer choice that directly addresses these two terms and links them in some way
4)if term shifts are not apparent right away, look to eliminate wrong answers
i look for: conclusion redundancy, premise qualifiers, and out of scope answer choices
5)eliminate wrong answers and choose the answer left

I feel like this way is counter productive and takes too much time. have y'all found patterns in sufficient assumption questions that can speed up the process?


That's basically right. Credited is:

1) read stem
2) identify conclusion
3) premise
4) identify flaw
5) eliminate wrong
6) select right

Adrian Monk
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 7:32 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Adrian Monk » Fri May 23, 2014 7:36 pm

Hey guys! anybody taking manhattan's lsat online class this summer? I am signed up for their class starting by july 28th and is taught by laura baragoana. Does anybody want to have like a manhattan online group over here or where we can help each other out, motivate each other and see how we progress along as a group.

User avatar
itsallinthesauce
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 1:34 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby itsallinthesauce » Sat May 24, 2014 12:26 am

Are September sign-ups out yet?

User avatar
BillPackets
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BillPackets » Sat May 24, 2014 3:28 pm

I bought a scientific American to read on a recent flight, and I think I read three articles that dealt with topics I've seen in LR and RC passages. I even read an article about North American loggerhead turtles. There is definitely an LR passage about loggerhead turtles. Anyway, I know I've read things where ppl recommend reading scientific American and the economist...turns out they're right.

User avatar
BillPackets
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BillPackets » Sat May 24, 2014 3:51 pm

If you buy the CPs make sure you hit "file-save as" instead of thinking you can't save the PDFs directly to your desktop or else you'll spend a lot of time making copies and rather than have easy to handle PDFs you'll have a bunch of fucking hard copies of all this shit.

Edit: I'm currently making a bunch of fucking copies.

User avatar
vracovino
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 2:46 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby vracovino » Sat May 24, 2014 3:57 pm

Is anyone at least loosely following Pithypike's method? For the first month he suggests we work through Necessary and Sufficient Assumption, Flaw, Strengthen and Weaken. I'm currently drilling Necessary Assumption with the Cambridge packets. What I'm wondering is should I mix all my drilling together? Or focus on one question type for a few days or a week and then move onto the next one? Basically, which of these is the correct option...

Option 1:

Week 1: Drill Necessary/Sufficient Assumption
Week 2: Drill Weaken
Week 3: Drill Strengthen
Week 4: Drill Flaw

or...

Option 2:
Week 1: Drill mix of all q types (one each day)
Week 2: Repeat
Week 3: repeat
Week 4: repeat

Anyone suggest a particular method?

User avatar
mornincounselor
Posts: 1220
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 1:37 am

Post removed.

Postby mornincounselor » Sat May 24, 2014 5:53 pm

Post removed.
Last edited by mornincounselor on Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
vracovino
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 2:46 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby vracovino » Sat May 24, 2014 8:52 pm

mornincounselor wrote:
vracovino wrote:Is anyone at least loosely following Pithypike's method? For the first month he suggests we work through Necessary and Sufficient Assumption, Flaw, Strengthen and Weaken. I'm currently drilling Necessary Assumption with the Cambridge packets. What I'm wondering is should I mix all my drilling together? Or focus on one question type for a few days or a week and then move onto the next one? Basically, which of these is the correct option...

Option 1:

Week 1: Drill Necessary/Sufficient Assumption
Week 2: Drill Weaken
Week 3: Drill Strengthen
Week 4: Drill Flaw

or...

Option 2:
Week 1: Drill mix of all q types (one each day)
Week 2: Repeat
Week 3: repeat
Week 4: repeat

Anyone suggest a particular method?


I didn't consciously choose to follow his timeline but I did start with Required and Sufficient Assumptions and now I'm on Flaws. I also am doing games along the way. Started with Advanced Linear Balanced then probably Basic Unbalanced. I think it's easier to recognize patterns when you do many of the same type of question consecutively. Although then your ability to recognize different types of questions quickly isn't tested to the same degree, but, during full tests it still will be.


Why'd you start with advanced linear instead of basic?

User avatar
mornincounselor
Posts: 1220
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 1:37 am

Post removed.

Postby mornincounselor » Sat May 24, 2014 9:14 pm

Post removed.
Last edited by mornincounselor on Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
churrochi
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 6:36 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby churrochi » Sat May 24, 2014 11:02 pm

A bit late, but I'm checking in. Had a short stint teaching English in Japan but now I'm back in the States and ready to buckle down.

Currently WL'ed at UCLA and priority WL'ed at Emory, so I may jump ship and go to whichever one accepts me...but my LSAT is so abysmal that I'm just preparing for the test anyway in the event that I don't get into either. Very encouraging to see lots of retakers on here. Will definitely post whenever I have questions this time around.

User avatar
itsallinthesauce
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 1:34 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby itsallinthesauce » Sun May 25, 2014 2:10 am

churrochi wrote:A bit late, but I'm checking in. Had a short stint teaching English in Japan but now I'm back in the States and ready to buckle down.

Currently WL'ed at UCLA and priority WL'ed at Emory, so I may jump ship and go to whichever one accepts me...but my LSAT is so abysmal that I'm just preparing for the test anyway in the event that I don't get into either. Very encouraging to see lots of retakers on here. Will definitely post whenever I have questions this time around.


What'd you score?

J L Pearson
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 10:48 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby J L Pearson » Sun May 25, 2014 3:02 pm

Checking in, hello everyone!

Rising senior here, sitting for the LSAT for the first time. A week ago I took my first PT (LSAC June 2007 PT) and got a 153. I see I have some serious studying to do and am still figuring out what would be the best method to study. I am interested in Straw_Mandible every Saturday PT plan, but don't know if I have enough knowledge yet. I'm casually reading PowerScore Bible LR right now but I know I must buckle down and read it with more of a plan. I have also read a few of the amazing guides on here and am debating whether or not to get 7Sages LSAT Premium Course or even sign up for a class in town.

This is what I have so far:
PowerScore Bibles LR and LG
LSAC PTs 52-61 and 62-71

Thanks!

User avatar
BillPackets
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BillPackets » Sun May 25, 2014 4:13 pm

J L Pearson wrote:Checking in, hello everyone!

Rising senior here, sitting for the LSAT for the first time. A week ago I took my first PT (LSAC June 2007 PT) and got a 153. I see I have some serious studying to do and am still figuring out what would be the best method to study. I am interested in Straw_Mandible every Saturday PT plan, but don't know if I have enough knowledge yet. I'm casually reading PowerScore Bible LR right now but I know I must buckle down and read it with more of a plan. I have also read a few of the amazing guides on here and am debating whether or not to get 7Sages LSAT Premium Course or even sign up for a class in town.

This is what I have so far:
PowerScore Bibles LR and LG
LSAC PTs 52-61 and 62-71

Thanks!


What's your GPA

User avatar
Ibn Battuta
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat May 24, 2014 9:38 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Ibn Battuta » Sun May 25, 2014 4:34 pm

Hi all,

I'm taking this test in September. Studied for a couple months last July and August but put it all on hold to wait until I could dedicate this entire summer. Should be fun and good luck everyone.

deebanger
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 11:40 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby deebanger » Mon May 26, 2014 2:08 pm

anybody taking manhattan's online course this summer?

User avatar
vracovino
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 2:46 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby vracovino » Mon May 26, 2014 2:49 pm

deebanger wrote:anybody taking manhattan's online course this summer?


Adrian Monk wrote:Hey guys! anybody taking manhattan's lsat online class this summer? I am signed up for their class starting by july 28th and is taught by laura baragoana. Does anybody want to have like a manhattan online group over here or where we can help each other out, motivate each other and see how we progress along as a group.


Go ahead and mingle, you two :wink:

DestroyingTheLSAT
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 4:19 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby DestroyingTheLSAT » Mon May 26, 2014 5:48 pm

Quick question on how to diagram this....

"Exactly two singers perform after S but before V"

I read it as "S _ _" and "_ _ V".
But Manhattan says its "S _ _ V".

Can someone help me make sense of this? My guess is that since LSAC introduced S and V together it implies its S _ _ V. But I am just confused by the statement - particularly why it has to be two gaps in between S and V. hahaha I hope I make sense and thanks!

User avatar
Toby Ziegler
Posts: 701
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 2:59 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Toby Ziegler » Mon May 26, 2014 5:59 pm

DestroyingTheLSAT wrote:Quick question on how to diagram this....

"Exactly two singers perform after S but before V"

I read it as "S _ _" and "_ _ V".
But Manhattan says its "S _ _ V".

Can someone help me make sense of this? My guess is that since LSAC introduced S and V together it implies its S _ _ V. But I am just confused by the statement - particularly why it has to be two gaps in between S and V. hahaha I hope I make sense and thanks!

The key is the fact that it says "exacty two" so you know there are only 2 variables that seperate "S" and "V" The verbiage being so precise is what gives it away.

Sometimes you have a rule that says, "At least two singers preform after S but before V." Which could mean there are only two spaces between the two, but we're not sure how many. But the "exactly two" is the key in this game.

Edit: so yes, MLSAT is correct.

DestroyingTheLSAT
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 4:19 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby DestroyingTheLSAT » Mon May 26, 2014 6:37 pm

Toby Ziegler wrote:
DestroyingTheLSAT wrote:Quick question on how to diagram this....

"Exactly two singers perform after S but before V"

I read it as "S _ _" and "_ _ V".
But Manhattan says its "S _ _ V".

Can someone help me make sense of this? My guess is that since LSAC introduced S and V together it implies its S _ _ V. But I am just confused by the statement - particularly why it has to be two gaps in between S and V. hahaha I hope I make sense and thanks!

The key is the fact that it says "exacty two" so you know there are only 2 variables that seperate "S" and "V" The verbiage being so precise is what gives it away.

Sometimes you have a rule that says, "At least two singers preform after S but before V." Which could mean there are only two spaces between the two, but we're not sure how many. But the "exactly two" is the key in this game.

Edit: so yes, MLSAT is correct.


Thanks buddy

User avatar
Toby Ziegler
Posts: 701
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 2:59 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Toby Ziegler » Mon May 26, 2014 7:06 pm

DestroyingTheLSAT wrote:
Toby Ziegler wrote:
DestroyingTheLSAT wrote:Quick question on how to diagram this....

"Exactly two singers perform after S but before V"

I read it as "S _ _" and "_ _ V".
But Manhattan says its "S _ _ V".

Can someone help me make sense of this? My guess is that since LSAC introduced S and V together it implies its S _ _ V. But I am just confused by the statement - particularly why it has to be two gaps in between S and V. hahaha I hope I make sense and thanks!

The key is the fact that it says "exacty two" so you know there are only 2 variables that seperate "S" and "V" The verbiage being so precise is what gives it away.

Sometimes you have a rule that says, "At least two singers preform after S but before V." Which could mean there are only two spaces between the two, but we're not sure how many. But the "exactly two" is the key in this game.

Edit: so yes, MLSAT is correct.


Thanks buddy

No problem, sport..

User avatar
BillPackets
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BillPackets » Mon May 26, 2014 7:09 pm

Toby Ziegler wrote:
DestroyingTheLSAT wrote:
Thanks buddy

No problem, sport..


You're both champs.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dontsaywhatyoumean and 8 guests