2010 February Study Group

User avatar
llawguru
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:56 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby llawguru » Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:45 am

bite me

User avatar
birD
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:49 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby birD » Wed Dec 30, 2009 4:43 pm

Does anyone have any tips on how to master must be true some/most questions?

User avatar
dogged
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:22 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby dogged » Wed Dec 30, 2009 5:04 pm

birD wrote:Does anyone have any tips on how to master must be true some/most questions?


"Which one of the following must be true"....answer choices are weak and often begin with "some". Simple statements that are usually overlooked.

"If all of the above is true, which on of the following is most supported by the argument".....you want to look for weak answer choices again, beginning with "some" and avoid strong statements like "Always", "Never", "All", "Every". Also, the answers are usually a summary of what was said in the argument, the answer choice will be explicit and repeat something that sums it up.

User avatar
Capitalist
Posts: 286
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 5:38 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby Capitalist » Wed Dec 30, 2009 5:20 pm

Hi all, I'm currently considering signing up for the February test. I've finally finished the Bibles, and I am about to begin PTing. I posted the below questions in a separate thread, but I did not receive much help, so I decided to post them here.

First, what is the best way to add a fifth section to your PT and does it matter which one you add? Second, what order should I do the PTs? Do I begin with PT 7 and work through PT 38 in order (I have the 10 Actual, 10 More, and Next 10 PT books from LSAC).

Also, this doesn't necessarily regard PTing, but how can you recognize the experimental section on the real test?

Thanks for the help.

User avatar
birD
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:49 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby birD » Wed Dec 30, 2009 5:27 pm

"Which one of the following must be true"....answer choices are weak and often begin with "some". Simple statements that are usually overlooked.


thanks :)

I also need some help on must be true some/most in terms of formal logic some train most train stuff, how did you come to completly understand it and be able to use it on the test??

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby keg411 » Wed Dec 30, 2009 5:50 pm

Capitalist wrote:Hi all, I'm currently considering signing up for the February test. I've finally finished the Bibles, and I am about to begin PTing. I posted the below questions in a separate thread, but I did not receive much help, so I decided to post them here.

First, what is the best way to add a fifth section to your PT and does it matter which one you add? Second, what order should I do the PTs? Do I begin with PT 7 and work through PT 38 in order (I have the 10 Actual, 10 More, and Next 10 PT books from LSAC).

Also, this doesn't necessarily regard PTing, but how can you recognize the experimental section on the real test?

Thanks for the help.


Buy the tests in the 40's and 50's too. Since the Feb. LSAT is in only a little over a month, you are better off just taking the recent PT's rather than the older ones.

I don't know about adding, but shouldn't the tests have an experimental? All of mine do, but I get them through a PT company.

rtvendetti
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 8:28 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby rtvendetti » Wed Dec 30, 2009 5:58 pm

im def taking febs i bombed the december lsat..are people on here still applying for this cycle tho? i put my apps in before the december lsat and just put a hold for them till after feb..im not really applying to competative schools.. a few tt, ttt and tttt schools.should i worry about applying this cycle to these schools or would i be ok to still apply?

User avatar
Relientkate
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:42 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby Relientkate » Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:52 pm

I think I'm in! Ugh... I took the Dec 2009 LSAT, and I am completely underwhelmed with my performance.

User avatar
TheTopBloke
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:29 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby TheTopBloke » Sat Jan 02, 2010 11:46 pm


Buy the tests in the 40's and 50's too. Since the Feb. LSAT is in only a little over a month, you are better off just taking the recent PT's rather than the older ones.

I don't know about adding, but shouldn't the tests have an experimental? All of mine do, but I get them through a PT company.


Why is that? Is there any particular reason the newer LSAT PT's will assist you any better than the older ones? I don't have much time left, and I'm the boonies, so I cannot get ahold of a new LSAT book within a reasonable amount of time. If I'm taking PT's 29-38, am I at a disadvantage, and if so, why?

User avatar
TheTopBloke
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:29 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby TheTopBloke » Sat Jan 02, 2010 11:50 pm

birD wrote:
"Which one of the following must be true"....answer choices are weak and often begin with "some". Simple statements that are usually overlooked.


thanks :)

I also need some help on must be true some/most in terms of formal logic some train most train stuff, how did you come to completly understand it and be able to use it on the test??


It is all or none, or somewhere in between. Some, most, any, little, and similar are in between. Venn diagramming helps to explain this. It states in the Powerscore books the recommend against venn diagrams. I took my 1st lsat without having any knowledge of venn diagrams. I think knowing it this time has already improved my understand in the PT's. Those sometimes subtle differences in wording can have a very damaging effect on your score.

User avatar
TheTopBloke
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:29 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby TheTopBloke » Sat Jan 02, 2010 11:53 pm

Capitalist wrote:Hi all, I'm currently considering signing up for the February test. I've finally finished the Bibles, and I am about to begin PTing. I posted the below questions in a separate thread, but I did not receive much help, so I decided to post them here.

First, what is the best way to add a fifth section to your PT and does it matter which one you add? Second, what order should I do the PTs? Do I begin with PT 7 and work through PT 38 in order (I have the 10 Actual, 10 More, and Next 10 PT books from LSAC).

Also, this doesn't necessarily regard PTing, but how can you recognize the experimental section on the real test?

Thanks for the help.


I did pretty much the same thing, but first time around I just did the four sections. This time I have LSAT book with PT's 29-38. What I do is, I take say PT 29, then I take the 1st section of PT 37 as expiremental. Assuming you do each PT on a saturday or sunday, then you'll have 8 PT's each with one experimental section.

granger
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:35 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby granger » Sat Jan 02, 2010 11:54 pm

Got started studying for the Feb. re-take. Two chapters into the LG Bible and I'm feeling good. I've taken up reading the Economist a lot in my spare time, just because a lot of people have recommended it. I don't expect to improve on RC, but I want to keep my mind fresh and familiarize myself with more difficult passages. I think I'll take my first PT of this go-round tomorrow. I don't plan on studying much for LR, so I'm relying on PTs to feel fresh. I feel really good about where I am, and am gonna use this month to touch up on some things, work on my pacing and just get more comfortable generally.

User avatar
TheTopBloke
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:29 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby TheTopBloke » Sun Jan 03, 2010 12:19 am

Nonsensical LSAT Q PT #30 Sec 4 #20.

"...the social impact of the newly marketed antihistamine is far from clear."

Correct answer: A) The social impact of the new antihistamine is much better understood than that of most new drugs being tested.

I understand there is a way to petition LSAC on specific Q's, and get them removed from the score. This seems to me like on of those questions. Would anyone happen to know if these LSAT books with all these PT's have corrections? Or, is there a link to an LSAC page with certain Q's from past tests that may have been removed from scoring?

User avatar
TheTopBloke
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:29 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby TheTopBloke » Sun Jan 03, 2010 12:22 am

granger wrote:Got started studying for the Feb. re-take. Two chapters into the LG Bible and I'm feeling good. I've taken up reading the Economist a lot in my spare time, just because a lot of people have recommended it. I don't expect to improve on RC, but I want to keep my mind fresh and familiarize myself with more difficult passages. I think I'll take my first PT of this go-round tomorrow. I don't plan on studying much for LR, so I'm relying on PTs to feel fresh. I feel really good about where I am, and am gonna use this month to touch up on some things, work on my pacing and just get more comfortable generally.


The Economist is very good for that. Avoid reading newspapers or using chat apps like twitter. They just make you stupid. As for me, I simply cannot read fast enough, so I found a strategy for me that works. I simply focus on the first three sections of the LR, and if you are confident that you can get all the answers correct, assuming enough time to reread, and review by rereading parts, you should be able to get at least 21 Q's correct on the LR section of the test.

UTexas
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 10:20 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby UTexas » Sun Jan 03, 2010 2:28 am

TheTopBloke wrote:

Buy the tests in the 40's and 50's too. Since the Feb. LSAT is in only a little over a month, you are better off just taking the recent PT's rather than the older ones.

I don't know about adding, but shouldn't the tests have an experimental? All of mine do, but I get them through a PT company.


Why is that? Is there any particular reason the newer LSAT PT's will assist you any better than the older ones? I don't have much time left, and I'm the boonies, so I cannot get ahold of a new LSAT book within a reasonable amount of time. If I'm taking PT's 29-38, am I at a disadvantage, and if so, why?


Yes, you will be at a disadvantage.

The LSAT of the last three to five years feels very different from older LSATs. LG is usually easier, but LR and RC are harder. Some types of rules and questions are increasingly prominent on LG, though, and if you haven't seen them before, you probably won't find LG any easier at all.

You will want at least some experience with recent tests before subjecting yourself to the pressure of the real thing. Order as many recent Preptests from Amazon as you can afford ($8.00 each), starting with PrepTest 58 (Sept. 2009) and moving backwards. PrepTest 59 should be available by now, but Amazon says it's still not in stock.

aether
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:25 am

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby aether » Sun Jan 03, 2010 3:11 am

TheTopBloke wrote:Nonsensical LSAT Q PT #30 Sec 4 #20.

"...the social impact of the newly marketed antihistamine is far from clear."

Correct answer: A) The social impact of the new antihistamine is much better understood than that of most new drugs being tested.

I understand there is a way to petition LSAC on specific Q's, and get them removed from the score. This seems to me like on of those questions. Would anyone happen to know if these LSAT books with all these PT's have corrections? Or, is there a link to an LSAC page with certain Q's from past tests that may have been removed from scoring?

No correction is needed for this one, TopBloke. The question (and the answer choice) are correct as written. Let's walk through it! :D

Here is the consumer advocate's argument:

(1) We must understand the social impact of drugs before approving them for sale.
(2) We don't understand the social impact of the new antihistamine.
THEREFOR (3) We must slow the pace of approving all drugs.

Please note the huge gap in the argument! He is saying that, since we don't understand the social impact of one drug, we must slow the approval process for all drugs. Before we even look at the answer choices, we can guess that the credited response will probably fill that gap. We need something that compares the social impact of the antihistamine to the other drugs. Right?

So now we look at the answer choices...

(A) fills the gap. If the social impact of the antihistamine is poorly understood, but still "much better understood" than most new drugs, we can infer we have an even worse understanding of the other drugs. That supports the conclusion! If we don't understand all those other drugs, either, then we should probably slow the pace of approving them for sale.

(B) is not a completely ridiculous answer, but "some" is less than "most", so (A) is a better choice. "Some" might be just three or four. "Most" is a majority.

(C) is completely out of scope. Who said anything about economic success?

(D) is completely out of scope. Who said anything about chemical composition?

(E) is backwards. If we reversed it ("Most drugs currently in testing should be on the market only if the antihistamine is too") then it would be a correct answer. However it doesn't say that. As written, it suggests that the other drugs are BETTER than the antihistamine... and if the other drugs are BETTER, then why should we hold up their approval just because the antihistamine is poorly understood? It doesn't support the argument's conclusion at all.

Answer choice (A) is the best answer of the five, so it's the credited response.

Clear as mud? :mrgreen:

User avatar
TheTopBloke
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:29 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby TheTopBloke » Sun Jan 03, 2010 6:31 am

Aether, thank you so much for that excellent response. I chose B btw, but I see why A is valid, or more valid.

After reviewing this Q and your post, I identify myself actually choosing some answers (such as B here) that I want as opposed to the answers the LSAT wants, if that makes any sense. I suppose B is paraphrasing the conclusion of the argument as opposed to A where it is filling that gap.

Do you approach all 'strengthen' Q's in the same way, filling a gap?

aether
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:25 am

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby aether » Sun Jan 03, 2010 1:40 pm

TheTopBloke wrote:Aether, thank you so much for that excellent response.

You're welcome! :D

Do you approach all 'strengthen' Q's in the same way, filling a gap?

This technique is not just for 'strengthen' questions.

For all questions, I read the prompt first so I know what I'm looking for. Then (for most questions) I read the argument aggressively, looking for flaws, just like I'm in a debate. This technique has two advantages. First, any flaw you spot will help you locate the correct answer choice. LSAT arguments never contain random flaws. Any logical error you find within the argument will be relevant to the correct answer choice.

Second, the aggressive reading style helps to keep your mind alert through a very lengthy test. Sometimes you won't spot an obvious flaw, but that's okay. You're still reading actively and keeping your mind alert, which is worth the price of admission.

You'll most often find flaws in these types of questions:
  • Identify the flaw (or "this argument is most susceptible to criticism because"), obviously.
  • Assumption, because a missing assumption is just another type of logical flaw.
  • Strengthen, because if it needs strengthening there might be an obvious gap you can fill.
  • Weaken, because you might be able to exploit an existing flaw or gap to weaken it even more.

In fact, the only question type where I don't look for flaws is inference ("from this argument, you can most reasonably infer/conclude which of the following"). Inference questions don't have flaws... not until you add them yourself by selecting a wrong answer choice. :mrgreen:

User avatar
pu_golf88
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:34 am

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby pu_golf88 » Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:33 pm

Hopefully one of you guys can help me with this LG rule I was struggling to diagram/understand in PT 34, Section 4, Game 4.

Each of exacly 6 doctors (J,K,L,N,O,P) is at exactly one of two clinics: S or R.

Now these are the rules that confuse me:

If L is at S, then both N and P are at R.
If N is at R, then so is O.
If P is at R, then both K and O are at S.

Doesn't this mean that if L is at S then O has to be at both R and S. This initial statement says you can only be at one clinic. I'm probably just missing something easy, but I can't figure it out for the life of me.

I read Ken's post on posting questions and I'm hoping this isn't breaking any rules.

Thanks.

aether
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:25 am

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby aether » Mon Jan 04, 2010 12:02 am

pu_golf88 wrote:PT 34, Section 4, Game 4.

Doesn't this mean that if L is at S then O has to be at both R and S.

That is exactly what it means. You're understanding the logic perfectly, Golf. You're just failing to take the last little inference step. :D

Whenever Dr. Longtree works at Souderton, we have a paradox: Dr. Onawa is suddenly required to be in two places at once. But Dr. Onawa cannot be in two places at once! It's impossible. Therefor... (drum roll, please)

...we infer that Dr. Longtree can never work at Souderton.

When you spotted this paradox, you were supposed to permanently assign Dr. Longtree to the Randsborough clinic and continue working the problem! :D

Make sense now?

User avatar
pu_golf88
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:34 am

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby pu_golf88 » Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:49 am

aether wrote:
pu_golf88 wrote:PT 34, Section 4, Game 4.

Doesn't this mean that if L is at S then O has to be at both R and S.

That is exactly what it means. You're understanding the logic perfectly, Golf. You're just failing to take the last little inference step. :D

Whenever Dr. Longtree works at Souderton, we have a paradox: Dr. Onawa is suddenly required to be in two places at once. But Dr. Onawa cannot be in two places at once! It's impossible. Therefor... (drum roll, please)

...we infer that Dr. Longtree can never work at Souderton.

When you spotted this paradox, you were supposed to permanently assign Dr. Longtree to the Randsborough clinic and continue working the problem! :D

Make sense now?


Ohhhhhhhh! Well that made things easier, thanks!

determinedone
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:56 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby determinedone » Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:15 pm

I'm having trouble with Weaken questions. Anyone have any suggestions?

aether
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:25 am

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby aether » Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:02 am

determinedone wrote:I'm having trouble with Weaken questions. Anyone have any suggestions?

It's hard to help you when your question is so vague. Can you explain what specifically is confusing you? Or even cite the number of a PT question you found difficult, so we can help you work through it?

User avatar
goosey
Posts: 1543
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:48 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby goosey » Wed Jan 06, 2010 12:48 am

I bought Kaplans LG workbook and have worked up to chapter 7--4 more left, which will hopefully be done by the weekend and thn I plan to start my ten games a day routine.

Also have been working through an older version of Kaplans Mastery--working through LR and RC first. Will do LG later..but I am considering going through the LRB again just to refresh my memory.

The only pt I have which I've never done before is 59--decembers administration. When do you guys recommend I take that? I was considering around the 20th so that I have enough practice under my belt to know I'm no longer rusty, but not so close that if I bomb it I am psyched out on test day. Thoughts?

User avatar
birD
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:49 pm

Re: 2010 February Study Group

Postby birD » Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:44 pm

I have a stupid question - I put white out on my watch to mark when 8 minutes elapses, that's not against any rules right?




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BobBoblaw, cherrygalore, CHyde, Greenteachurro, Instrumental, Pozzo, VMars and 6 guests