June 2014 Retakers

User avatar
withoutapaddle
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:29 pm

Re: June 2014 Retakers

Postby withoutapaddle » Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:54 pm

Welcome to the retake arena!

may the odds be ever in your favor :)

User avatar
santoki
Posts: 867
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:19 pm

Re: June 2014 Retakers

Postby santoki » Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:56 pm

hey all, gonna ask yall for a little help on a q...

pt30, sec.4, #14. the "joseph: my encyclopedia" question.

im trying to tell myself that im thinking of this in the right way.

so im thinking that C is correct because joseph is saying that since Fermat's theorem wasnt proven, he was lying or mistaken.

Laura is saying that is theorem WAS proven, so he WASNT lying or mistaken.

that to me is simply an incorrect negation.

however, the answer choice basically reads that she mistakes something necessary for something sufficient. to me, that means she mistakes ONE thing for a sufficient, whereas a complete incorrect negation means she would mistake TWO things. does this mean that going forward i can take those answer choices to mean that it could be both sides of the argument that she mistook?

^ i made it pretty confusing but hopefully you guys get the gist of it...thanks in advance!

NoDayButToday
Posts: 1031
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:34 pm

Re: June 2014 Retakers

Postby NoDayButToday » Mon Mar 17, 2014 12:02 am

.
Last edited by NoDayButToday on Tue Mar 22, 2016 12:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
FlyingNorth
Posts: 408
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:25 am

Re: June 2014 Retakers

Postby FlyingNorth » Mon Mar 17, 2014 12:54 am

PT 41
LR: -1
LG: -2
LR: -7 :shock:
RC: -2

171

Don't ask me wtf happened on that second LR section...I haven't taken this PT before though, so I've got that going for me which is nice.

User avatar
FlyingNorth
Posts: 408
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:25 am

Re: June 2014 Retakers

Postby FlyingNorth » Mon Mar 17, 2014 12:57 am

santoki wrote:hey all, gonna ask yall for a little help on a q...

pt30, sec.4, #14. the "joseph: my encyclopedia" question.

im trying to tell myself that im thinking of this in the right way.

so im thinking that C is correct because joseph is saying that since Fermat's theorem wasnt proven, he was lying or mistaken.

Laura is saying that is theorem WAS proven, so he WASNT lying or mistaken.

that to me is simply an incorrect negation.

however, the answer choice basically reads that she mistakes something necessary for something sufficient. to me, that means she mistakes ONE thing for a sufficient, whereas a complete incorrect negation means she would mistake TWO things. does this mean that going forward i can take those answer choices to mean that it could be both sides of the argument that she mistook?

^ i made it pretty confusing but hopefully you guys get the gist of it...thanks in advance!


Full disclosure, this is from the MLSAT forums. Check out their explanations of LR questions:

"Here I will diagram out both Joseph and Laura's arguments for you. It might clear up some of the confusion between the arguments.

Joseph basically says "Since no one has been able to prove the theorem it most likely cannot be proved, and since it cannot be proved that most likely Fermat was lying or mistaken." Some pretty bold claims, but here is how this would be diagramed to make finding the core of the argument much simpler.

Theorem not proven -> Prob. can't be proved -> lie or mistake

Laura then counters that recently his theorem was proved and so this shows that Ferman was not lying and he was not mistaken. So she takes Joseph's argument which says this:

Theorem not proven -> Prob. can't be proved -> lie or mistake

And she reaches a conclusion that says this:

Theorem proven ---> ~lying and ~mistaken

If you compare this diagram to the one up top you will see that Laura has taken Joseph's argument and negated the sufficient condition and negated the necessary condition. This is known as a mistaken negation in conditional logic. (If you are not seeing this then take the time to check out pages 61-63 of the manhattan Logical Reasoning guide.)

Now you might ask "Okay, but how does a mistaken negation allow us to come to the answer choice presented in C where it says: "It mistakes something that is necessary for its conclusion to follow for something that ensures that the conclusion follows."

The term ensures is synonymous with sufficient so what the answer choice is saying is that "It mistakes a necessary condition for a sufficient condition." If you put it in the context of the argument it is saying "Laura takes the conditional relationship that Joseph gives us and commits a mistaken reversal with it. A mistaken reversal is the contrapositive or logical equivalent of a mistaken negation which allows us to infer answer choice C.

On another note conditional logic is one of the most frequently tested concepts of this test. Being able to do it backwards, forward, in your sleep, find it in arguments in the newspaper, on NPR, and the myriad other places you can encounter it in daily life will only serve to help you succeed on this test. I highly suggest to anyone to study it inside and out and really internalize it.

Let me know if you need anything clarified in my explanation."

User avatar
withoutapaddle
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:29 pm

Re: June 2014 Retakers

Postby withoutapaddle » Mon Mar 17, 2014 2:09 am

Good job on the 171!

rebexness
Posts: 4163
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:24 am

Re: June 2014 Retakers

Postby rebexness » Mon Mar 17, 2014 2:25 am

FlyingNorth wrote:PT 41
LR: -1
LG: -2
LR: -7 :shock:
RC: -2

171

Don't ask me wtf happened on that second LR section...I haven't taken this PT before though, so I've got that going for me which is nice.


That LR 2 was a bitch. Good job killing the rest of it though!

charlesriver
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:38 pm

Re: June 2014 Retakers

Postby charlesriver » Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:35 am

FlyingNorth wrote:PT 41
LR: -1
LG: -2
LR: -7 :shock:
RC: -2

171

Don't ask me wtf happened on that second LR section...I haven't taken this PT before though, so I've got that going for me which is nice.

jealous of your RC.

User avatar
FlyingNorth
Posts: 408
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:25 am

Re: June 2014 Retakers

Postby FlyingNorth » Mon Mar 17, 2014 12:22 pm

rebexness wrote:
FlyingNorth wrote:PT 41
LR: -1
LG: -2
LR: -7 :shock:
RC: -2

171

Don't ask me wtf happened on that second LR section...I haven't taken this PT before though, so I've got that going for me which is nice.


That LR 2 was a bitch. Good job killing the rest of it though!


Good to know. I missed a lot of them even after blind review.

ETA: Congrats on the same score on your PT, reb!

User avatar
alecks
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:24 pm

Re: June 2014 Retakers

Postby alecks » Mon Mar 17, 2014 2:05 pm

starting the trainer today! think I can get through it in 2 weeks?

rebexness
Posts: 4163
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:24 am

Re: June 2014 Retakers

Postby rebexness » Mon Mar 17, 2014 2:07 pm

alecks wrote:starting the trainer today! think I can get through it in 2 weeks?


How many hours per day are you planning to study?
I'm pretty sure Mike Kim said either on the website, in the book, or in the thread, that the minimum time you should spend is 4 weeks, and even that is probably too abbreviated.

User avatar
FlyingNorth
Posts: 408
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:25 am

Re: June 2014 Retakers

Postby FlyingNorth » Mon Mar 17, 2014 2:36 pm

rebexness wrote:
alecks wrote:starting the trainer today! think I can get through it in 2 weeks?


How many hours per day are you planning to study?
I'm pretty sure Mike Kim said either on the website, in the book, or in the thread, that the minimum time you should spend is 4 weeks, and even that is probably too abbreviated.


I agree. You could probably skim through it without doing the drilling exercises in 2 weeks, but you wouldn't be getting the most out of the lessons imo.

User avatar
dasani13
Posts: 1055
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 3:21 pm

Re: June 2014 Retakers

Postby dasani13 » Mon Mar 17, 2014 2:57 pm

alecks wrote:starting the trainer today! think I can get through it in 2 weeks?


If you're really strong in Games already you could skip those sections. I didn't like his take on Games so I wish I had skipped it and saved some time. Everything else is excellent, though.

User avatar
dd235
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 1:33 am

Re: June 2014 Retakers

Postby dd235 » Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:00 pm

alecks wrote:starting the trainer today! think I can get through it in 2 weeks?


I went through it in 2 weeks the last time I took the LSAT, but would not recommend it.

This time around I did it more casually in about 4 weeks and I think it was much more effective.

User avatar
foamborn
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 2:29 pm

Re: June 2014 Retakers

Postby foamborn » Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:50 pm

What's so awesome about this Trainer? I don't think it was out last time I was studying.

rebexness
Posts: 4163
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:24 am

Re: June 2014 Retakers

Postby rebexness » Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:09 pm

foamborn wrote:What's so awesome about this Trainer? I don't think it was out last time I was studying.


Its the best.
I think it came out last April/May.
It works through all three sections without resorting to any gimmicky nonsense.

User avatar
FlyingNorth
Posts: 408
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:25 am

Re: June 2014 Retakers

Postby FlyingNorth » Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:20 pm

foamborn wrote:What's so awesome about this Trainer? I don't think it was out last time I was studying.


Highly recommend that you get it.

http://www.amazon.com/The-LSAT-Trainer- ... at+trainer

User avatar
foamborn
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 2:29 pm

Re: June 2014 Retakers

Postby foamborn » Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:40 pm

Cool, cool. Will do. I royally messed up a PT today and am kind of shocked as I go back and look at the questions I missed.

User avatar
Lightworks
Posts: 277
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 3:15 pm

Re: June 2014 Retakers

Postby Lightworks » Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:45 pm

Checking in.

Took the June and October tests last year. I'm applying this cycle, but thinking about holding out for 2014/2015 and taking a shot at H if I can kick ass in June. Good luck, all.

User avatar
FlyingNorth
Posts: 408
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:25 am

Re: June 2014 Retakers

Postby FlyingNorth » Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:16 pm

Lightworks wrote:Checking in.

Took the June and October tests last year. I'm applying this cycle, but thinking about holding out for 2014/2015 and taking a shot at H if I can kick ass in June. Good luck, all.


Welcome.

What's everyone working on today?

User avatar
withoutapaddle
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:29 pm

Re: June 2014 Retakers

Postby withoutapaddle » Mon Mar 17, 2014 10:42 pm

Linear logic games. I keep getting 1 wrong in each game

rebexness
Posts: 4163
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:24 am

Re: June 2014 Retakers

Postby rebexness » Mon Mar 17, 2014 10:51 pm

Manhattan LR today. And the last two chapters of the Trainer that I hadn't bothered to make myself read yet.

eddiemen2a
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:51 am

Re: June 2014 Retakers

Postby eddiemen2a » Mon Mar 17, 2014 11:11 pm

What is the proper way to drill? I know that you drill the corresponding problems to whatever it is you're currently working in your book, but how many each day? Ive gone through LG and LR bible, and im now gonna do the Manhattan LR after about a month break. I just got the cambridge flaw questions and assumption questions from PT 1-38 in order of difficulty. Can someone tell me how to properly use these, maybe a regime? Thanks!

User avatar
jk148706
Posts: 2499
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 11:14 am

Re: June 2014 Retakers

Postby jk148706 » Mon Mar 17, 2014 11:23 pm

rebexness wrote:Manhattan LR today.


Same here. Guys, it's a really good book.

User avatar
withoutapaddle
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:29 pm

Re: June 2014 Retakers

Postby withoutapaddle » Mon Mar 17, 2014 11:32 pm

52 out of 61... 85% or roughly 20/23 on the normal test

Hopefully employers will be impressed with my math skills at oci haha




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 34iplaw, mav1993, Pozzo, usaorbust, Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests