LSAC responses to two of my question challenges Forum

[LSAT Hacks (Graeme)]

On two occasions I've challenged LSAT questions. The first one wasn't a very strong challenge. The second one I posted about here on TLS before submitting a challenge. I'm still not fully convinced by LSAC's reply, but I see where they're coming from.

I've posted my challenges and LSAC's replies. Am showing them here because I think it's an interesting view into how seriously the LSAC takes LR questions. Note that you don't need to think at this level of depth to get LR questions right. This is just for your own curiousity.

My challenges and LSAC's responses: http://lsathacks.com/lsac-responses/

[ioannisk]

I'm not as good as you at the LSAT, but I found LSACs response to question 2 reasonable. You're focusing too much on the later lines and not enough on the first line "The trade union members at AutoFaber Inc. are planning to go on strike. "

I think that line makes the conclusion correct, as the word "likely" leaves room for the possiblity of the other factors that may advert the strikes.

EDIT: I find that "planning to go on" and "likely" are equivilant in this passage

[lawschool2014hopeful]

Your grey font is literally unreadable/atrocious/hurts my eyes, please do change it, I think people are interested in the response.

[LSAT Hacks (Graeme)]

Your grey font is literally unreadable/atrocious/hurts my eyes, please do change it, I think people are interested in the response.

Thanks! I hardly used quotes until now, so I never gave it much consideration. I made it black. Should be more readable. You may have to open the link in an incognito tab if you already open it previously, or in a new browser: often your browser caches old styles.

[bk1]

I don't have the preptests in front of me so I haven't looked at the answers, but LSAC's "you need to have a basic understanding of the Cold War" argument strikes me as a bit strange for a test that purportedly doesn't require outside knowledge.

[CardozoLaw09]

I don't have the preptests in front of me so I haven't looked at the answers, but LSAC's "you need to have a basic understanding of the Cold War" argument strikes me as a bit strange for a test that purportedly doesn't require outside knowledge.

+1

According to them, it's "common knowledge" -- I'd beg to differ

[LSAT Hacks (Graeme)]

I don't have the preptests in front of me so I haven't looked at the answers, but LSAC's "you need to have a basic understanding of the Cold War" argument strikes me as a bit strange for a test that purportedly doesn't require outside knowledge.

+1

According to them, it's "common knowledge" -- I'd beg to differ

I actually agree with them, and disagree with my past self (that idiot!). And I think the argument they're making is illustrative of how you're supposed to use outside knowledge on the LSAT.

-----

It's a common refrain: don't use common knowledge on the LSAT! I'm not sure where it comes from, but everyone seems to agree with it.

Now, who is this advice targeted at? The main target of prep companies: students scoring in the 150s. If you're in the 150s, you have a bunch of assumptions about how the world works, that you think are true. Or rather, you think they have to be true.

So if you try to apply outside knowledge, you're going to have a bunch of extra beliefs.

-----

At a higher level, people get better at recognizing when one of their beliefs may not be a universal belief. Such a belief is still useful for forming a hypothesis, but it should not be accepted as being universally true.

Then there are other beliefs that more or less everyone would agree to be true. In British law, they call this "The man on the clapham omnibus"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_man_on ... am_omnibus

American law applies a similar principle, without the same name. There are some things that almost any reasonable person would agree on.

On the LSAT, you can assume these beliefs to be true. These are warranted assumptions. Be careful: you really need to make sure it's something everyone would agree with.

An added snag is that you're supposed to use the beliefs of a reasonable scientist. The LSAC is not explicit about this, but several questions demonstrate you're supposed to be familiar with scientific knowledge. Remember the question about seal and horse spleens? Every reasonable scientist would agree that major organs such as spleens are similar in function across mammals: that knowledge was essential to getting the right answer.

The cold war was a dispute between two opposing blocs. I was being pedantic when I argued that alliances shifted. They did, but never to such as extent that the Warsaw pact and NATO ceased to be rivals.

------
Outside knowledge to form hypothesis

I said you can also use outside knowledge that not everyone would agree with. How? Not as warranted assumptions. But you can use it to prephrase.

For example, there was an (easy) question that talked about allowing police to break regulations and drink in nightclubs. I used outside knowledge to form a hypothesis: maybe police will look weird if they don't drink in nightclubs.

Scanned the answers, saw it was there, moved on quickly. I use this kind of "knowledge --> hypothesis --> look for it" cycle all the time to answer questions quickly. If my hypothesis isn't correct, I just go back to the drawing board.

Especially on the modern test, the LSAC expects you to approach questions with a broad view, using all of your knowledge. You can answer questions purely from what the question says, but there are so many shortcuts if you use outside knowledge creatively.

-------

TL;DR

1. Outside knowledge is actually important
2. If everyone would agree, it's a warranted assumption
3. If it's debatable, you can use it to form hypotheses and prephrase
4. I was being a pedantic ass when I said the cold war wasn't a conflict between two rival blocs.
5. If you're aiming for 170+, you shouldn't necessarily listen to advice meant for those scoring 140-160.

[mymrh1]

Hi Graeme, do you mind elaborating your police-drinking-nightclub example? I am not sure what you mean because I don't know which question that is. Thanks.

[Clearly]

Hi Graeme, do you mind elaborating your police-drinking-nightclub example? I am not sure what you mean because I don't know which question that is. Thanks.

I'm going completely on memory, but that topic seems like the first question of pt 69.

[LSAT Hacks (Graeme)]

Hi Graeme, do you mind elaborating your police-drinking-nightclub example? I am not sure what you mean because I don't know which question that is. Thanks.

I'm going completely on memory, but that topic seems like the first question of pt 69.

Yup, that's exactly right. It's not a hard question, but it's an excellent example of how outside reasoning is not only allowed, but advantageous, as long as you're not dogmatic about it.

[foggynotion]

An added snag is that you're supposed to use the beliefs of a reasonable scientist. The LSAC is not explicit about this, but several questions demonstrate you're supposed to be familiar with scientific knowledge. Remember the question about seal and horse spleens? Every reasonable scientist would agree that major organs such as spleens are similar in function across mammals: that knowledge was essential to getting the right answer.

Graeme, why do you say this knowledge is essential? Are saying that this is specialized scientific knowledge, and that there would be no way to answer the question without knowing this? I'm just trying to understand your take on this question. Thanks.

[LSAT Hacks (Graeme)]

An added snag is that you're supposed to use the beliefs of a reasonable scientist. The LSAC is not explicit about this, but several questions demonstrate you're supposed to be familiar with scientific knowledge. Remember the question about seal and horse spleens? Every reasonable scientist would agree that major organs such as spleens are similar in function across mammals: that knowledge was essential to getting the right answer.

Graeme, why do you say this knowledge is essential? Are saying that this is specialized scientific knowledge, and that there would be no way to answer the question without knowing this? I'm just trying to understand your take on this question. Thanks.

I think you could also wing it with "well, spleens are probably alike, it's the same word". But I don't think there's a way to answer the question without assuming that mammal spleens are similar. Otherwise, why would we care about horse spleens?

[BillPackets]

PT 19 S4 Q10

Is this an example of an outside "warranted assumption" answer choice?

[LSAT Hacks (Graeme)]

PT 19 S4 Q10

Is this an example of an outside "warranted assumption" answer choice?

Yes. In this case, your outside knowledge can help you form a hypothesis that leads directly to the right answer.

I wouldn't quite call it a "warranted assumption". A warranted assumption is when an answer actually depends on something unstated being true. In this answer, there's nothing unstated. Instead, your use of outside knowledge just speeds up by letting you predict what the right answer may use.

Everyone knows the media can distort or truncate speeches. It's a reasonable hypothesis for what the right answer will be.

[jmjm]

Isn't choice A not a necessary assumption in Superprep-B LR1 Q21?

Doctrine-1 is: HE (historical event) -> EF (economic factors)
HE -> EF && PF (psycho factors)
Conclusion: Doctrine is wrong

The conclusion can be drawn only if the doctrine about Historical events precludes Psychological factors -- it doesn't have to preclude all ~EF.

[BillPackets]

PT 19 S4 Q10

Is this an example of an outside "warranted assumption" answer choice?

Yes. In this case, your outside knowledge can help you form a hypothesis that leads directly to the right answer.

I wouldn't quite call it a "warranted assumption". A warranted assumption is when an answer actually depends on something unstated being true. In this answer, there's nothing unstated. Instead, your use of outside knowledge just speeds up by letting you predict what the right answer may use.

Everyone knows the media can distort or truncate speeches. It's a reasonable hypothesis for what the right answer will be.

Cool. Thanks Graeme.