. Forum

[The LSAT Trainer]

Hi everyone --

The trainer error drive is now closed -- you can see a cleaned up list of the issues spotted here --http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=229327.

Thank you, thank you thank you to all of you who participated in this -- I'll be tallying up the totals and getting in touch with you by tomorrow so I can get you your gift cards.

Mike

[mornincounselor]

Post removed.

[The LSAT Trainer]

Question 26 on page 335 asks how best to weaken the argument in lines 35-47 but doesn't number the lines, or give the (sentence ending in "") supplement. It does cite to the preptest though.

thanks - added it to the list.

[gandalf]

Minor error on p. 263, in the third line of the second paragraph.

The line "... tend to be less absolute and abstract that those in Sufficient Assumption..." should have "than" instead of "that."

[gandalf]

Another minor error on p. 72, third paragraph, third line.

The sentence "... that we know the flaw, when fact we don't" should read as "... that we know the flaw, when in fact we don't."

[The LSAT Trainer]

Thanks Gandalf, but I believe you have an older version of the book? You can check the copyright page to see -- the latest version has a line that says "3 4 5" -- older versions will say "1 2 3 4 5" or "2 3 4 5" -- both of those issues you mentioned have been fixed --

In any case, appreciate it --

Mike

[aegor]

p. 199:

Rule says that "Twice as many books will go on the bottom shelf as go on the top shelf" with no other general restrictions; solution does not account for scenario in which there are 0 books on B/T shelves and all are on the middle shelf. The answers are correct, but there is theoretically a third split while the solution only acknowledges 2.

[The LSAT Trainer]

p. 199:

Rule says that "Twice as many books will go on the bottom shelf as go on the top shelf" with no other general restrictions; solution does not account for scenario in which there are 0 books on B/T shelves and all are on the middle shelf. The answers are correct, but there is theoretically a third split while the solution only acknowledges 2.

Hey Aegor,

Sorry but I'm not quite following you -- if there are no books on either the top or bottom shelf, how can there be twice as many books on the bottom shelf?

My guess (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that you are saying 2 X 0 = 0, so, technically speaking, you could say, if both shelves don't have books, that one shelf has a thousand times more books than the other. While I do see a mathematical justification, I think, per the common use understanding of these terms (one doesn't think of 0 as being twice as big as 0), LSAC probably wouldn't expect you to think 0,0 would be a possibility here.

[aegor]

Hey Aegor,

Sorry but I'm not quite following you -- if there are no books on either the top or bottom shelf, how can there be twice as many books on the bottom shelf?

My guess (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that you are saying 2 X 0 = 0, so, technically speaking, you could say, if both shelves don't have books, that one shelf has a thousand times more books than the other. While I do see a mathematical justification, I think, per the common use understanding of these terms (one doesn't think of 0 as being twice as big as 0), LSAC probably wouldn't expect you to think 0,0 would be a possibility here.

Your understanding is correct. I guess I was simply assuming that the wording would be as specific as possible (consistent with the inclusive definition of "or," etc.), so I suppose I am glad to know that I need to make fewer diagrams in the future.


On a different note, p. 233 has, "the age demographic that has traditionally bought the most games is shrinking in kids." I could be wrong, but it seems that "kids" would be better as "size." Regardless, neither would match the recap on the next page (the solutions), which ends in "shrinking." I realize this is a pretty minor typo.

[180kickflip]

On page 209, in the fourth paragraph under "Four: Use effective question strategies,"
it says "Just being mindful of the importance of process is half the battle."

I'm not sure if this is an error or not, but it sounded a bit off when I read it...like it needed a "the" or "your" or something before process. Maybe it's just me.

[mornincounselor]

Post removed.

[Afterthought]

Just a tiny typo where of should be or.

Page 524 (Passage 2, paragraph 2): "She proposes two intriguing answers, depending on whether the time is before of after the end of slavery."

There were other small typos I encountered before.

I'll try going back for em when I get a chance.

[odela]

On page 397 explanation for number 7, the left most hypothetical to the right of the worded explanation makes it appear as if L and O are unbound elements/free to float as it is written (L, M, O). Technically it is not incorrect, but it can make the written explanation confusing to some as it seems like answer choice (B) G,L,O,P can be correct alongside answer (D).

Maybe writing the conditional L --> ~O under the hypothetical can clear any possible confusion.

[The LSAT Trainer]

thanks everyone for the replies so far -- i'll check on all the issues and edit the list at the end of the week, and, since a lot of you are working through the trainer right now, I'll keep this thread open for another few weeks -- mk

[Parteek]

On page 372, fifth paragraph, last sentence. It says "this tends to happen when there is not enough uncertainly left in the game . . ." I'm quite sure it should say "uncertainty."

I found a few others on previous pages. I'll let you know if I find them.

Thanks for the awesome book.

[odela]

Page 432, explanation for question 16. The 3rd paragraph for this explanation says that "P and F or N need to occupy 2 and 3." N is not an element in this game and should instead say R.

[Parteek]

On Page 389, Question 2 Solution, there is no "L" slot.

[SpiritofFire]

Pg 461 oldie's Diner

Second question is not provable

The overlap between unhealthy and special could come with free fries only and still follow the rules. I think for it to be provable, the rule should read: all dishes available as a special have the option of free fries or soda.

[SpiritofFire]

Pg 460

Dolls

Question one is provable.

Red dress = clear glass slippers
No red dress = purple slippers

It shows full universe so glass slippers require red dress. Unless it's reasonable to believe that dolls can wear clear glass slippers and purple slippers at the same time.... Maybe layer them like socks lol.

[The LSAT Trainer]

On Page 389, Question 2 Solution, there is no "L" slot.

thank you parteek - i don't think that's an error that could trip anyone up, but it is a pretty big omission, so I've put in the $10 category.

[The LSAT Trainer]

Pg 460

Dolls

Question one is provable.

Red dress = clear glass slippers
No red dress = purple slippers

It shows full universe so glass slippers require red dress. Unless it's reasonable to believe that dolls can wear clear glass slippers and purple slippers at the same time.... Maybe layer them like socks lol.

Thanks SF --

Going to disagree on slippers -- I don't think you can assume a doll can only wear one pair of slippers -- but agree w/you on Diner (and you nailed it in terms of what I intended to mean) -- great catch -- mk

[Parteek]

Page 395, Question #6 stimulus ends with "would have the same effect on the order of songs played," but the game is about shift work, not songs played. The same wording is found on Page 397, Question #6 Solution.

Page 396, Question #1 Solution states: "The first rule allows use to get rid of (B). The third (C). The fourth (E). The last (E). The last rule which states that "F works the second shift" would eliminate option D.

I am not sure if this is an error or not, but on page 396, #4 solution states that "(C) G, L, M, O" is correct. According to the rules if "L works the first shift, N and O will work the second shift." Wouldn't that mean that O could not be included in the list, and that "(B) G, L, M" is the correct answer?

I am also not sure if this is considered an error or not. On page 397, question #6 solution states, "We know that P and N have to work the same shift, and so being told that H and N work different shifts would be the same as being told that P and N work different shifts." We are not told H and N work different shifts, but are told P and H will work different shifts. Would it make more sense if the sentence was reworded to say, "We know that P and N have to work the same shift, and so being told that P and H work different shifts would be the same as being told that H and N work different shifts"?

Thanks.

[mornincounselor]

Post removed.

[hiltopp01]

Page 330; 3rd paragraph. I think a "you" is missing after "what" in "Just as importantly..."

[cherrypie]

On page 242, in step 6 of the explanation for question 2.17, you wrote "(D) sounded tempted at first..."

It should read "D sounded tempting at first..."