The Official September 2014 Study Group

aliraza580
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 3:06 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby aliraza580 » Tue Sep 16, 2014 8:30 pm

ErgoSum wrote:
Jgoods wrote:
PeanutsNJam wrote:
aliraza580 wrote:So I took a course that started Mid-July for LSAT prep, and i had signed up for the September LSAT, which is in two weeks, im barely breaking mid 140s, my last diag was a 144. Things click slowly for me and i just made an 8 point jump within the last couple weeks, so i was wondering if you guys think its a bad idea to take this LSAT in two weeks, should i just push it back to December and really focus more on it? Or go hard these next couple weeks and see where i am? i want to at least hit mid 150s. My most trouble comes with the games and LR, although i've steadily been improving with my LR the games still give me trouble--Any advice would be helpful.

My other concern with taking a december LSAT is it would be very late, as i'm wanting to apply to UNLV and they do rolling admissions...thoughts?


UNLV's medians haven't been released, but the school's upper 75% median for LSAT scores should be between 156-159 according ot the rankings. 8 point jump from 144 means 152, right? Assuming you're PTing around 152 currently, you have about two weeks to improve that to 160 if you want an almost-guaranteed shot at admissions.

Yes, you want to be scoring at or above their median if you're putting a lot of eggs into that basket, so aim for 155+. Whether you can reach that score in 2 weeks is entirely up to you. All I can say is it's very possible to improve to 155 in 2 weeks, but your case might be unique.



Did not really expect to see that^ lol but I do agree, if you were reaching a little higher I'd say think about waiting however getting to around 155 is doable... I mean I have to believe that since I'm shooting for a similar jump (or more) with mine.


I think if you focused on getting near perfect on LG, everything would come together for you and you could be around 155 at least. LG is one of the easier sections to master, and if you get to consistently getting less than 3 wrong, you'll see an improvement in your overall score. That is said, however, without knowing how you are already scoring in that section.

Also, if RC is messing you up, I would just focus on finishing 2 or maybe 3 of the passages with the majority of the answers correct instead of rushing and trying to complete all 4, and still getting a ton wrong.

Ultimately it's up to you, but if you go hardcore Liu Kang mode on LG and perfect 1 or 2 question types on LR this week, you will be able to do it. It just takes doing LG/Question types over and over again. And then again once more.

But, I have no idea what I am talking about. I'm taking the test just like you and am no expert tbh


I'm sorry i should have been more clear, i was at a 136, and i jumped to a 144 after focusing on LR. I am currently testing around 143-44. So i still have yet to break 150. Last years statistics of UNLV say that the 25th percentile was a 154...so i am a little worried.



I think your advise on RC is sound, i usually rush and don't get to the 4th section, so i should probably just slow down and get more correct answers, thanks. As for your advice on LG i agree, it just its so hit or miss with me on the games...currently i get about 10 right...so meaning i miss 12-15 every time, i get about half the answers on each game can't ever finish a game fully i always miss key deductions. Thanks for the advice guys
.

User avatar
sfoglia
Posts: 1758
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 1:30 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby sfoglia » Tue Sep 16, 2014 8:31 pm

BillPackets wrote:I heard they were actually adding in an audio portion where various members of SCOTUS would read the LR sections n they would record them n then u would have 2 listen n choose the right answer using a clicker click 1x for A 2x for B 3x for C 4x for D 5x for E apparently tho they tested this out on some kids n their clickers were too touchy so kids were clicking too many times n there r no take backs cuz it's the LSAT so they're still working on developing the less touchy clickers apparently some recent innovations in nanotechnology r really speeding along this process

Edit: Shitpoasting brb actually studying guys


Ahahahahaha.

Okay, comedians. I'm going to go make dinner and study.

User avatar
Colonel_funkadunk
Posts: 2791
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:03 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Colonel_funkadunk » Tue Sep 16, 2014 8:37 pm

aliraza580 wrote:
I'm sorry i should have been more clear, i was at a 136, and i jumped to a 144 after focusing on LR. I am currently testing around 143-44. So i still have yet to break 150. Last years statistics of UNLV say that the 25th percentile was a 154...so i am a little worried.



I think your advise on RC is sound, i usually rush and don't get to the 4th section, so i should probably just slow down and get more correct answers, thanks. As for your advice on LG i agree, it just its so hit or miss with me on the games...currently i get about 10 right...so meaning i miss 12-15 every time, i get about half the answers on each game can't ever finish a game fully i always miss key deductions. Thanks for the advice guys
.


I'm probably gonna sound like a downer but it is gonna be really tough to make the jump you wanna make in a week and a half

It sounds like you've come a long way and you could keep pushin Til decemeber

User avatar
Smallville
Posts: 4747
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 11:57 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Smallville » Tue Sep 16, 2014 8:38 pm

Any1 else feel this thread is counterproductive? lol I try to study (using manhattan lsat for explanations otherwise my comp would be closed) and wanna keep checking the thread despite the countless pointless posts

User avatar
unodostres
Posts: 551
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 1:01 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby unodostres » Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:05 pm

Colonel_funkadunk wrote:
aliraza580 wrote:
I'm sorry i should have been more clear, i was at a 136, and i jumped to a 144 after focusing on LR. I am currently testing around 143-44. So i still have yet to break 150. Last years statistics of UNLV say that the 25th percentile was a 154...so i am a little worried.



I think your advise on RC is sound, i usually rush and don't get to the 4th section, so i should probably just slow down and get more correct answers, thanks. As for your advice on LG i agree, it just its so hit or miss with me on the games...currently i get about 10 right...so meaning i miss 12-15 every time, i get about half the answers on each game can't ever finish a game fully i always miss key deductions. Thanks for the advice guys
.


I'm probably gonna sound like a downer but it is gonna be really tough to make the jump you wanna make in a week and a half

It sounds like you've come a long way and you could keep pushin Til decemeber


its realistic. and yet, i dont even think its the right choice. hes going to go for sticker, and its a death knell.

User avatar
hetookmetoamovie
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:03 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby hetookmetoamovie » Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:14 pm

I've changed the qualifying terms of my LSAT reward from "if I get X score" to "if I'm still alive on 9/28."

User avatar
ErgoSum
Posts: 427
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:35 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby ErgoSum » Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:15 pm

Jgoods wrote:Any1 else feel this thread is counterproductive? lol I try to study (using manhattan lsat for explanations otherwise my comp would be closed) and wanna keep checking the thread despite the countless pointless posts



Haha yea. Self control!

I got off of work early tonight! Wooooo. Now I can do some Principle Questions and go to sleep early.


Taking PT 68 to pound town tomorrow morning. Pumped.

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

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BillPackets » Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:21 pm

Jgoods wrote:Any1 else feel this thread is counterproductive? lol I try to study (using manhattan lsat for explanations otherwise my comp would be closed) and wanna keep checking the thread despite the countless pointless posts

This is a common accusation made against us ITT and it has been rebutted numerous times*. If you have a question regarding the LSAT, simply ask, and I promise you almost every person ITT will give you a thoughtful response. The majority of regular poasters ITT score at or above a 170, making this thread highly out of the ordinary among the vast majority (~97%) of test takers. And despite these scores, we all consider ourselves students of the LSAT and constantly strive to learn more and develop new techniques in order to master the LSAT. I know that I enjoy when someone asks about a specific question because it gives me the chance to revisit a question that I've (most likely) done in the past and see if my thoughts/approach to that particular question has changed/stayed the same.

So I'm just going to go ahead and give you a collective answer for everyone ITT: no, this thread is in no way counter productive to LSAT studies, and has the exact opposite effect for everyone who cares to stay ITT e.g. helping to improve one's LSAT acumen.

/proper use of grammar from bill

BJS
Posts: 291
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 7:30 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BJS » Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:24 pm

fra wrote:I have issues with the way that lsatqa graphs the section scores. The graphs are unnecessarily noisy.
Since lsatqa graphs the number of credited responses per section and since the number of questions vary between sections (e.g. 23 questions in LG in one test, 24 in another), you could get 100% of questions right all of the time and still have a noisy graph.

I started recording my scores in a spreadsheet and graphing the percent of credited responses plus the running average from my last five tests so that I could get better graphs than the ones provided by lsatqa.

TLDR, it's difficult to get any information about the variation in your section scores from the lsatqa graphs.


This is awesome. Love the spreadsheet idea. Overall, however, LSATqa has been invaluable to my studying. Anyone who really wants to study effectively should use it (or 7sage, depending on preference).

aliraza580
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 3:06 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby aliraza580 » Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:27 pm

unodostres wrote:
Colonel_funkadunk wrote:
aliraza580 wrote:
I'm sorry i should have been more clear, i was at a 136, and i jumped to a 144 after focusing on LR. I am currently testing around 143-44. So i still have yet to break 150. Last years statistics of UNLV say that the 25th percentile was a 154...so i am a little worried.



I think your advise on RC is sound, i usually rush and don't get to the 4th section, so i should probably just slow down and get more correct answers, thanks. As for your advice on LG i agree, it just its so hit or miss with me on the games...currently i get about 10 right...so meaning i miss 12-15 every time, i get about half the answers on each game can't ever finish a game fully i always miss key deductions. Thanks for the advice guys
.


I'm probably gonna sound like a downer but it is gonna be really tough to make the jump you wanna make in a week and a half

It sounds like you've come a long way and you could keep pushin Til decemeber


its realistic. and yet, i dont even think its the right choice. hes going to go for sticker, and its a death knell.



youre not being a downer, just being realistic, i'm fine with taking a december LSAT and keep on pushing, only reason i really wanted to take sept so i could focus on my last semester and not be studying for my lsat as well as finals.

I feel as if i'm going to be taking loans anyway, my UG was all paid for. was bound to have debt at some point.

User avatar
Smallville
Posts: 4747
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 11:57 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Smallville » Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:28 pm

BillPackets wrote:
Jgoods wrote:Any1 else feel this thread is counterproductive? lol I try to study (using manhattan lsat for explanations otherwise my comp would be closed) and wanna keep checking the thread despite the countless pointless posts

This is a common accusation made against us ITT and it has been rebutted numerous times*. If you have a question regarding the LSAT, simply ask, and I promise you almost every person ITT will give you a thoughtful response. The majority of regular poasters ITT score at or above a 170, making this thread highly out of the ordinary among the vast majority (~97%) of test takers. And despite these scores, we all consider ourselves students of the LSAT and constantly strive to learn more and develop new techniques in order to master the LSAT. I know that I enjoy when someone asks about a specific question because it gives me the chance to revisit a question that I've (most likely) done in the past and see if my thoughts/approach to that particular question has changed/stayed the same.

So I'm just going to go ahead and give you a collective answer for everyone ITT: no, this thread is in no way counter productive to LSAT studies, and has the exact opposite effect for everyone who cares to stay ITT e.g. helping to improve one's LSAT acumen.

/proper use of grammar from bill


Didn't mean it wasn't useful, was a little sarcastic maybe? IDK, just ignore me -_- lol I'm outy (gunna at least try to not check back until tomorrow morning)

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

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BillPackets » Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:28 pm

aliraza580 wrote:
I'm sorry i should have been more clear, i was at a 136, and i jumped to a 144 after focusing on LR. I am currently testing around 143-44. So i still have yet to break 150. Last years statistics of UNLV say that the 25th percentile was a 154...so i am a little worried.



I think your advise on RC is sound, i usually rush and don't get to the 4th section, so i should probably just slow down and get more correct answers, thanks. As for your advice on LG i agree, it just its so hit or miss with me on the games...currently i get about 10 right...so meaning i miss 12-15 every time, i get about half the answers on each game can't ever finish a game fully i always miss key deductions. Thanks for the advice guys
.

Idk nething bout the labor market for lawyers in NV n whether unlv is worth attending but regardless of that u should sit for the LSAT again after a good 4-6 months of studying there's no reason to b missing that many on lg or not getting thru every passage on RC plz just if u r already signed up for the 27th then fine whatever u can sit for it but u should sign up again IMHO for either feb or June n sit out this cycle bc w your current LSAT score I will b taking out tons of cash money loans to attend a regional school n that's NTCR

Edit obvs that last I is supposed to b a U n n regards to your last poast bout debt I mean of u r goin 2 law school ur prolly at least goin 2 have 2 take out COL living loans unless you're wealthy in which case yes I'm mad jellz but u should b tryin 2 reduce that debt at all costs
Last edited by BillPackets on Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Rigo
Posts: 11953
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:19 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Rigo » Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:29 pm

:mrgreen:
Last edited by Rigo on Sat Jan 03, 2015 12:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Smallville
Posts: 4747
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 11:57 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Smallville » Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:45 pm

Ok so I lied... but legit question (for those of you who haven't taken PT 68, Spoiler alert)




So I feel like I overanalyze some LR questions which causes me to eliminate the correct answer and it has happened to me more than once... For instance on PT 68, S3 Q18 I eliminated the correct answer

from manhattan explanation "(E) The move will not be accompanied by a pay raise. I will admit, on my first rundown I thought that this was out of scope. However, when I applied the negation test --> The move WILL be accompanied by a pay raise. If that is the case then the argument falls apart as it destroy the Premise that they cannot afford to live within a 30 minute commute. If there wages are increased then perhaps they can!" I look at that as even if the move accompanied the pay raise, who's to say its enough to allow employees to afford housing within 30mins? since it is a necessary assumption I see that as a flawed assumption that shouldn't be considered "required"

edit: How do I fix this thinking/what should I do to prevent this??

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

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BillPackets » Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:50 pm

Jgoods wrote:Ok so I lied... but legit question (for those of you who haven't taken PT 68, Spoiler alert)




So I feel like I overanalyze some LR questions which causes me to eliminate the correct answer and it has happened to me more than once... For instance on PT 68, S3 Q18 I eliminated the correct answer

from manhattan explanation "(E) The move will not be accompanied by a pay raise. I will admit, on my first rundown I thought that this was out of scope. However, when I applied the negation test --> The move WILL be accompanied by a pay raise. If that is the case then the argument falls apart as it destroy the Premise that they cannot afford to live within a 30 minute commute. If there wages are increased then perhaps they can!" I look at that as even if the move accompanied the pay raise, who's to say its enough to allow employees to afford housing within 30mins? since it is a necessary assumption I see that as a flawed assumption that shouldn't be considered "required"

I'm kind of confused by the "from manhattan explanation" so idk what is your thought or if u r quoting something but that last part leaves out a key detail in AC E in that E states that "...will not be accompanied by a SIGNIFICANT pay raise..." so if the AC did not say significant then the last part of your argument would hold up but since it says significant it makes it a NA

Do u see how significant makes E TCR? What did u put

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

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BillPackets » Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:55 pm

Jgoods wrote:edit: How do I fix this thinking/what should I do to prevent this??

1) drill more 2) idk what other Qs u have probz w but in addition to drill more u need 2 revues everything u need to review wrong ACs n explain y they are wrong n look for patterns in trap ACs bc that is like crazy helpful 3) review 4) review 5) review 6) review

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

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BillPackets » Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:57 pm

Will sum1 plz tell LLH to get to this thread now to see bill handing out practical useful LSAT advice like cray

User avatar
Smallville
Posts: 4747
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 11:57 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Smallville » Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:16 pm

BillPackets wrote:
Jgoods wrote:Ok so I lied... but legit question (for those of you who haven't taken PT 68, Spoiler alert)




So I feel like I overanalyze some LR questions which causes me to eliminate the correct answer and it has happened to me more than once... For instance on PT 68, S3 Q18 I eliminated the correct answer

from manhattan explanation "(E) The move will not be accompanied by a pay raise. I will admit, on my first rundown I thought that this was out of scope. However, when I applied the negation test --> The move WILL be accompanied by a pay raise. If that is the case then the argument falls apart as it destroy the Premise that they cannot afford to live within a 30 minute commute. If there wages are increased then perhaps they can!" I look at that as even if the move accompanied the pay raise, who's to say its enough to allow employees to afford housing within 30mins? since it is a necessary assumption I see that as a flawed assumption that shouldn't be considered "required"

I'm kind of confused by the "from manhattan explanation" so idk what is your thought or if u r quoting something but that last part leaves out a key detail in AC E in that E states that "...will not be accompanied by a SIGNIFICANT pay raise..." so if the AC did not say significant then the last part of your argument would hold up but since it says significant it makes it a NA

Do u see how significant makes E TCR? What did u put

It was from manhattans blog where they have explanations for PT questions... should have been more clear there, my B... but I still see it as significant doesn't equal sufficient here... I mean I understand why it is correct and all that, but when first reading the answer I get too critical and think of extremes where a significant pay raise still wouldn't be enough to cover the new living expenses. I guess I'll just have to work through it and try to be more reasonable. As for what I put... I was stupid and I'm pretty sure I picked a random one because I thought they were all eliminatable (should be a real word) questions and wanted to move on (took it yesterday so don't fully remember my thought process... but yeah I deff gotta avoid doing that
Thanks

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

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BillPackets » Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:21 pm

What u did was make an unwarranted assumption about answer choice E look
answers on the LSAT will never ever ever b perfect except 4 maybe the occasional flaw Q the flaw is a causation correlation issue n it will just say "mistakes correlation 4 causation" but u need 2 b flexible when going into the answer choices who knows what sufficient even is in that case I mean u would need 2 know a whole host of info to kno what sufficient it would b for that Q so E just takes away all that impossible guess work n says significant

But I think the bigger issue u r askin about here is what I was getting at w bein flexible when approaching the answer choices

R u reviewing a lot j goods what's ur studying like

User avatar
Colonel_funkadunk
Posts: 2791
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:03 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Colonel_funkadunk » Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:33 pm

Hey everyone bills holdin down the thread tonight.

User avatar
sfoglia
Posts: 1758
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 1:30 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby sfoglia » Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:35 pm

Jgoods wrote:Ok so I lied... but legit question (for those of you who haven't taken PT 68, Spoiler alert)




So I feel like I overanalyze some LR questions which causes me to eliminate the correct answer and it has happened to me more than once... For instance on PT 68, S3 Q18 I eliminated the correct answer

from manhattan explanation "(E) The move will not be accompanied by a pay raise. I will admit, on my first rundown I thought that this was out of scope. However, when I applied the negation test --> The move WILL be accompanied by a pay raise. If that is the case then the argument falls apart as it destroy the Premise that they cannot afford to live within a 30 minute commute. If there wages are increased then perhaps they can!" I look at that as even if the move accompanied the pay raise, who's to say its enough to allow employees to afford housing within 30mins? since it is a necessary assumption I see that as a flawed assumption that shouldn't be considered "required"

edit: How do I fix this thinking/what should I do to prevent this??


For the negation test, it doesn't have to destroy the argument in the sense that it proves it incorrect, but just the CERTAINTY of it. It is absolutely necessary that the move does not include a pay raise, because if it does, then the argument is no longer air tight.

Example:

So Beyonce is at a bar looking all delicious, looking major, major Beyonce. And Ryan Gosling walks in, his biceps glistening with the glow of a god. Now let's say Ryan's spent some time in Europe, and now he can't remember whether Americans wear their wedding rings on their left or right hand. (It's the left.) Ryan heard Bey and Jay were on the outs. Ryan likes it, and he wants to put a ring on it. But first he needs to see if Beyonce has separated from Jay Z...

So, he looks at Bey's hands, and he notices that she's not wearing any ring at all. RYAN GON' GET IT. That's like a sufficient assumption. If she is not wearing any ring, that means she has separated from Jay for absolute certainty. It is more than we need, because just her not having one on her left would be good enough.

But, instead, say that Bey is wearing a ring on her left. UH-OH NO GO. Failure to launch. We have just flunked the necessary assumption. The necessary assumption is that she is not wearing a ring on her left. She can be wearing a ring on her right hand, but that doesn't mean anything in America.

Illustrations:

Exhibit A: Ryan Godsling
Image

Image

Figure 1.1: Beyonce be Ready
--ImageRemoved--

Figure 1.2: Beyonce is Married
Image

Originally this was an epic tale about me and the Colonel but then it got to be too risque and after all my edits, I'm not even sure it is at all helpful in explaining SA and NA. But I spent a good ten minutes on this, so enjoy. Bed time story. Bill, please edit to make this make LSAT sense. Save it from meaninglessness.

Also I have officially lost my shit, but I am just going to go with it.
Last edited by sfoglia on Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Smallville
Posts: 4747
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 11:57 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Smallville » Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:37 pm

BillPackets wrote:What u did was make an unwarranted assumption about answer choice E look
answers on the LSAT will never ever ever b perfect except 4 maybe the occasional flaw Q the flaw is a causation correlation issue n it will just say "mistakes correlation 4 causation" but u need 2 b flexible when going into the answer choices who knows what sufficient even is in that case I mean u would need 2 know a whole host of info to kno what sufficient it would b for that Q so E just takes away all that impossible guess work n says significant

But I think the bigger issue u r askin about here is what I was getting at w bein flexible when approaching the answer choices

R u reviewing a lot j goods what's ur studying like


Honestly it was more putting it out there to see what people say, I've done it before like I said (only like once or twice) and just wondered if I was the only one thinking like that. But currently because of work I really only have after 6 to study, which I normally come home and have dinner right away cutting my available time down (without staying up too late leaving me with little sleep) so I'll take a PT then the next day go over and review the PT (both WA and uncomfortable answers) and then try to get a section or two in before sleep and try and review it the next day on lunch break at work and do another PT after work etc.
I've never been a fantastic studier in school, I get distracted easily when studying (as I'm sure many others do)

User avatar
Colonel_funkadunk
Posts: 2791
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:03 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Colonel_funkadunk » Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:38 pm

sfoglia wrote:
Jgoods wrote:Ok so I lied... but legit question (for those of you who haven't taken PT 68, Spoiler alert)




So I feel like I overanalyze some LR questions which causes me to eliminate the correct answer and it has happened to me more than once... For instance on PT 68, S3 Q18 I eliminated the correct answer

from manhattan explanation "(E) The move will not be accompanied by a pay raise. I will admit, on my first rundown I thought that this was out of scope. However, when I applied the negation test --> The move WILL be accompanied by a pay raise. If that is the case then the argument falls apart as it destroy the Premise that they cannot afford to live within a 30 minute commute. If there wages are increased then perhaps they can!" I look at that as even if the move accompanied the pay raise, who's to say its enough to allow employees to afford housing within 30mins? since it is a necessary assumption I see that as a flawed assumption that shouldn't be considered "required"

edit: How do I fix this thinking/what should I do to prevent this??


For the negation test, it doesn't have to destroy the argument in the sense that it proves it incorrect, but just the CERTAINTY of it. It is absolutely necessary that the move does not include a pay raise, because if it does, then the argument is no longer air tight.

Example:

So Beyonce is at a bar looking all delicious, looking major, major Beyonce. And Ryan Gosling walks in, his biceps glistening with the glow of a god. Now let's say Ryan's spent some time in Europe, and now he can't remember whether Americans wear their wedding rings on their left or right hand. (It's the left.) Ryan heard Bey and Jay were on the outs. Ryan likes it, and he wants to put a ring on it. But first he needs to see if Beyonce has separated from Jay Z...

So, he looks at Bey's hands, and he notices that she's not wearing any ring at all. RYAN GON' GET IT. That's like a sufficient assumption. If she is not wearing any ring, that means she has separated from Jay for absolute certainty. It is more than we need, because just her not having one on her left would be good enough.

But, instead, say that Bey is wearing a ring on her left. UH-OH NO GO. Failure to launch. We have just flunked the necessary assumption. The necessary assumption is that she is not wearing a ring on her left. She can be wearing a ring on her right hand, but that doesn't mean anything in America.

Illustrations:

Exhibit A: Ryan Godsling
Image

Image

Figure 1.1: Beyonce be Ready
--ImageRemoved--

Figure 1.2: Beyonce is Married
Image

Originally this was an epic tale about me and the Colonel but then it got to be too risque and after all my edits, I'm not even sure it is at all helpful in explaining SA and NA. But I spent a good ten minutes on this, so enjoy. Bed time story. Bill, please edit to make this make LSAT sense. Save it from meaninglessness.

Also I have officially lost my shit, but I am just going to go with it.



I'm all ears for a risqué tale I'm involved in


Eta: that was ridic n hilarious

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

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BillPackets » Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:41 pm

Idk wut 2 say bout that poast in regards to it's usefulness as advice but I'll use it as an example for something I said earlier along the lines of "if you ask a question ITT, everyone will provide you with a thoughtful response" well a NA of that statement is that all responses to your Q in this thread are actually thoughtful n that poast pretty well destroys my argument

User avatar
sfoglia
Posts: 1758
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 1:30 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby sfoglia » Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:43 pm

Colonel_funkadunk wrote:I'm all ears for a risqué tale I'm involved in


In the movie adaption to this epic tale, I would play Beyonce and you would play Gosling. There were jokes about having the greatest hair of all time (me) and biceps to move mountains (you).

Did I do it right? I don't think I did. I feel like it was the perfect example in my head but then it just unraveled more and more as I made changes.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cherrygalore, etramak, Vino.Veritas and 6 guests