Blueprint LSAT Prep's ongoing ask-an-instructor extravaganza Forum

[cahwc12]

What should I do when I lose students to a tutor who lies about his score? I even put a note in my ad to ask for score proof and openly offer up my own IRR.

[BP Robert]

Hmm well my forte is LSAT advice, not so much business advice, but why don't you shoot me a PM and I'll help you out as best I can.

[BP Robert]

Get yo Logic Game game up!


Our review of Logic Games continues today with an investigation into the thrilling world of Grouping Games. Specifically, Grouping Games of the overbooked variety. 

Remember last weekend? When you and your buddies were trying to get home from the bars at two am? You called an Uber, but in your drunken stupor you neglected to select the Uber XL. So up rolls a Prius — you could swear it’s even smaller than usual — and of course you’re left with four seats for the six of you to squeeze into. The game is overbooked. We could leave some homies curbside, but we’re feeling kind-hearted. If we’re doomed to squeeze, how could you arrange yourselves?

Let’s say the game gives these parameters:
One person immediately calls shotgun, so that’s taken, and the two who’ve been making eyes at each other throughout the evening all-too-eagerly offer to sit lapsies in the far left bench seat. That leaves three people who have to squeeze into just two spots: the middle seat and the one furthest to the right.

Of course, we want to optimize space, so let’s say our Principle of Distribution is to have each seat occupied by at least one person. This precludes the possibility of having one seat vacant, and three people stacked in either the middle or the rightmost seat. Instead we have two options: either we put two in the middle and one on the right, or one in the middle and two on the right.

This opens up two clean scenarios for us. Either we have two slots for the middle seat and one slot for the right seat, or vice-versa. Devising scenarios are key to successful and expedient navigation through the questions, but they can be even more helpful if coupled with certain rules. 

For example, if we’re told that Bob and Tom don’t like each other and won’t sit in the same seat, then we can deduce that, in both scenarios, both the middle seat and the right seat have to include either Raj or Tom, but necessarily not both. Alternatively, we may know that Tom and Gertrude are going steady, and that they sit in the same seat. This would make clear that, in both scenarios, the seat designated to double occupancy goes to Tom and Gertrude. This, of course, would also allow us to deduce that Raj must go in the single spot. 

When in doubt, remember that scenarios are a great way to open up the game. If we determine that three people have to be distributed across two spots, then a little tinkering with the numbers will show us that we have to have two in one of the spots and one in the other. Two possibilities — a great start to your scenario setup and get all six of you home safe.

[BP Robert]

The deadline to postpone administrations has now passed, so we're all committed to the September test.
With that in mind, it's time to fully and completely master our fundamentals, so that we can transition into a timing and strategy focus in the coming weeks.

Stay tuned for more articles on the tougher points of Logical Reasoning -- this week we'll be looking at flaw questions, one of the most common types on the test.

[BP Robert]

It's the Final Countdown folks (cue the music)!!

If you've got any last minute LSAT questions leave them right here and we'll get you squared right away.

Best luck.

[BP Robert]

You did it:) How did the Exam feel?

http://blueprintlsat.com/lsatblog/lsat- ... ant-recap/

[BP Robert]

Thinking about canceling your score?

It might not be a bad idea -- post here any questions you've got on the matter!

[BP Robert]

Gearing up for the Dec test?

Don't let yourself get lackadaisical -- check out our most recent blog post for advice on beginning your studies!

http://blueprintlsat.com/lsatblog/lsat- ... mber-lsat/

[Michael947]

I have a question in regards to Pt 5 Sec 3 Q# 22

I diagrammed it the Blueprint way I got...

(Low wage & High Stress) --> Attract Able Applicants ---> (Low Entrance exam or Nurse Shortage) ---> Health care maintained

I was surprised because I feel that I diagrammed this correctly but I still pick the wrong answer choice I picked D.

Thank you.

[BP Robert]

A tricky question, to be sure.

D is incorrect because it follows this illegit form where you're inferring from this:

"If it rains I'll either stay inside or get an umbrella."

that

"If it rains I'll stay inside."

You can't make this inference because it's not necessarily true that you'll stay inside; you may just get an umbrella. Similarly, you don't know nursing problems will lead to a shortage of nurses (D); it may just lead to them lowering their entrance requirements.

So E is the correct answer because it says if the problems persist, then the health care will not be maintained, which is just what you've diagrammed.

[MightiHeidi]

Hi Rob,

Thanks so much for this opportunity.

I recently ran into a question that I can't make sense of, as the correct answer doesn't seem like the most correct answer choice.
It is from Practice Test 6, Section 2, Question 17; regarding a book reviewer's criticism against various methods of storing energy.
The correct answer is B, but based on how I interpreted the text, I felt like either C or D would be the answer.
Could you explain how the argument should have been interpreted and why answers C and D did not fit as the actual flaw?

Really on the verge of crying over this question.

[BP Robert]

Well anything to prevent the tears, I'll give it a look!

[BP Robert]

So your first (and perhaps only) mistake is to interpret this to be a flaw question. Try rereading the prompt and the stimulus again, this time noting that you're not being asked to find the flaw in the argument, but rather to characterize the criticism being made in the book review.

Best luck

[BP Robert]

September scores are out!

I'm sure you all got good news, but if you have any questions about anything you got wrong -- if you got any wrong -- feel free to ask!

[Yeezus]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I have a general question. I've taken the test twice, in June and September, getting 166 both times after averaging a 174 in proctored 5 section PTs (36-72) with a scantron. Should I change how I am prepping? I know bad days happen, but having a bad day two tests in a row is making me worry a bit.

[BP Robert]

Yep and I think you can only take three within a certain period so this is the one you've got to knock out of the park.

It's hard to say whether or not you should change your prepping without knowing how you currently prep, but I will say it seems like some change might be in order. One of my standard suggestions is to take a couple tests ~untimed and see how you do there. Any questions you're missing untimed suggest that you don't quite understand the underlying concepts, so you can go back and review those to make sure your fundamentals are perfect.

Did you miss the same types of things on each of those 166s?

[WaltGrace83]

Hey BP,

I've got a quick question. When you get an argument with two sides discussing an issue (PT12 S1 Q26 for example), do you analyze the logical force of the side NOT asked about? Is it fruitful or just a waste of time?

[MightiHeidi]

Thanks for all the help. You saved me a lot of money on tissue!

[BP Robert]

For those less fortunate among us <3

http://blueprintlsat.com/lsatblog/law-s ... AT+Blog%29

[BP Robert]

Hey BP,

I've got a quick question. When you get an argument with two sides discussing an issue (PT12 S1 Q26 for example), do you analyze the logical force of the side NOT asked about? Is it fruitful or just a waste of time?

Hi Walt,

Good question -- you don't need to analyze the logical force of the side not asked about to the same extent, but you sh definitely be spending a second on it. For this question, I'd advise (as with all LR) reading the prompt first and then going through the question, pausing after the Academy's argument to consider what's being done before proceeding to the Critic.

The reason is simply because, since you know the Critic is going to be refuting the previous arg, it's helpful to have a firm grasp of said previous arg.

Best luck!

[BP Robert]

Hi all,

We're continuing our dissection of LR fallacies. Check out the link below for tips on the Exclusivity Fallacy!

http://blueprintlsat.com/lsatblog/logic ... -the-lsat/

[BP Robert]

Halloween's just around the corner, which it means it's time for a spo0oky Logic Game:



http://blueprintlsat.com/lsatblog/advic ... ogic-game/

[luluc]

PT55-Section2-Passage3-Q19

I understand why (D) could be a correct answer. However, I am confused on why (C) would be incorrect. If talk-story devices are common for Native American storytellers, does this not offer an alternative explanation for why Kingston used this device in his work? In other words, wouldn't it be possible that Kingston inherited the device from Native American storytellers instead of the Chinese talk-story?

Any help will be appreciated!

[BP Robert]

I see how that could be tempting, but ultimately C can be discounted because we are just talking about there being another culture with "similar" narrative styles -- we'd be doing alot of assuming to infer that that meant she didn't develop these styles from the Chinese tradition.

If C was much stronger and said, perhaps, Kingston's style is more similar to Native Americans', then that would be a more viable answer.

[BP Robert]

Alright folks! Hopefully you've shaken off your Halloween Hangovers and are ready to get back to the Test. Questions on anything? Need a shoulder to cry on?