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

[bp shinners]

Hi BP, thanks for doing this, really helping me out.

I'm struggling with PT23 S3 Q13 (LR on seals in the Baltic and Scottish Seas.) "E" is correct but I really can't grasp how it is better than "A."

Gracias!

Alright, so I've got a bunch of dead seals.

Baltic - significant percentage died
Scotland - about half the percentage died
Presumed cause? Pollution
Why? The Baltic seals had a lot of pollutants in their blood, and pollutants decrease the ability of marine mammals to fight off viral infection.

So I've got a causal argument that I'm trying to strengthen.
The causal argument:
Pollutants in blood ---> More deaths from virus
If I want to strengthen this, I need to either:
1) Provide the same cause with the same effect
2) Show a situation where there was no cause and no effect
3) Rule out an alternate cause

E most definitely falls under 1. The other marine mammals also died at higher rates in the Baltic than in Scotland. This tells me that the massive die-off of the seals in the Baltic wasn't due to something else that just affected the seals.

A is tricky. But look at the stimulus - the first premise tells me that the death rate DUE TO VIRAL DISEASES was approx. half. So telling me that a lot of seals that died were old or unhealthy doesn't change the fact that I have a bunch that died of the virus. And I'm trying to find a reason why it hit the Baltic seals worse than the Scottish ones. Knowing that the Scottish seals were old and sick gets me nowhere closer to that.

[JDeezy]

Thanks BP, appreciate it.

[meandme]

Hey BP
Could please explain this flaw "Defeating the evidence for a claim take to show that he claim is false." It falls under the absence of evidence fallacy.

Thanks
God bless

[BillsFan9907]

PT 17, section 2, 21


I'm having some trouble rejecting E. If E weren't true, then it's possible that there are some fault lines that do not have earthquakes period. If that's the case, it looks like the author's argument is ruined as there are locations (near fault lines and in general) that are less likely to be hit by an earthquake. Please walk me through this.

[bp shinners]

Could please explain this flaw "Defeating the evidence for a claim take to show that he claim is false." It falls under the absence of evidence fallacy.

Sure!

Say we're at trial. You're the prosecutor, and you charge me with murder. I take the stand and claim that, while the murder was happening, I was busy donating puppies to the local orphanage (an alibi!). I therefore couldn't have committed the murder.

So here, my evidence is that I was donating puppies at the orphanage, and my claim/conclusion is that I couldn't have committed the murder.

Then, you call the lady in charge of the orphanage, who testifies that not only has she never seen me before, but she has video of the orphanage during the time of the murder and I'm nowhere to be seen (and there are no puppies, either).

You've now defeated the evidence for my claim - you've disproved my alibi.

If you commit the absence of evidence fallacy, you'll conclude from this that I am, in fact, guilty of the murder (another way of saying that my claim is false). But that's not the case. I might be guilty of the murder, but just because my alibi didn't pan out doesn't definitely prove it. Maybe I was lying for the heck of it. Maybe I was committing another crime and didn't want to implicate myself. Maybe I was with a prostitute and didn't want to say that on the stand.

Just because you knock out the evidence for a claim doesn't mean the claim is false. Just that it might be false. If you conclude that it is false, you're committing an absence of evidence fallacy.

[bp shinners]

PT 17, section 2, 21


I'm having some trouble rejecting E. If E weren't true, then it's possible that there are some fault lines that do not have earthquakes period. If that's the case, it looks like the author's argument is ruined as there are locations (near fault lines and in general) that are less likely to be hit by an earthquake. Please walk me through this.

You're negating a bit wrong. If I negate E, it says that "Earthquake faults in geologically quiet regions do not produce earthquakes at least once in 100,000 years." That doesn't meant they don't have EQs at all - just that they don't have to have one at least every 100,000 years. Maybe they have one every 200,000 years. Maybe they have one every 100,001 years. It might mean that they don't produce earthquakes, but your not guaranteed that by the statement. And without that, it doesn't destroy the argument, as it's not necessary to assume that every fault shakes during this 100,000 year period. Even if a lot are shaking only every 120,000 years, they still might be more dangerous than the ones that shook 2 years ago (since they're not shaking for at least another 999,998 years, and the ones on a 120k clock might be down to 10 or 20 years).

I do, however, have to assume that every site is near at least one minor fault. If there are nuclear sites that aren't by any faults, those are definitely safer from EQs than the ones by even the most inactive fault lines.

[meandme]

Hey BP
Is it safe to say in RC the passages without an author's conclusion or opinion WILL NOT have a question "which of the following best states the author's main conclusion in the passage" or something like that?

Thanks

[dowu]

Matt,

I have a problem that I'm sure you've come across multiple times as a teacher.

I'm just going to start off by telling you something that keeps happening to me. When I take a LR section using 38 minutes as my time limit, I miss 1 to 3 questions. When I take a LR section using 35 minutes as my time limit, I miss 6 to 10 questions.

When I time myself for 35 minutes, I feel more of a sense of urgency, causing me to overlook small details that I wouldn't have overlooked had I added 3 minutes to my time limit.

What gives? Anyway to help alleviate this problem aside from the run of the mill response to "slow down?"

I know the question is vague, but I'm desperate. HALP!

[relevantfactor]

Hey,
I have been having trouble reviewing this question. PT#63 Section 1 Q#24. I can't seem to find a good reason to rule out the wrong answers. Could you help me out pleaseee?

[BillsFan9907]

PT 18, Section 4, number 10

Isn't B technically correct? Even if the process is slowed for historically significant books, they are still gradually destroying themselves (albeit slower).

The only way i can rationalize eliminating this answer is that even though it is correct, it's not the best answer.

[bp shinners]

Hey BP
Is it safe to say in RC the passages without an author's conclusion or opinion WILL NOT have a question "which of the following best states the author's main conclusion in the passage" or something like that?

Thanks

Every single passage ever written has a main point/conclusion/purpose. If the author isn't present, his MP/conc/purpose is going to be more academic/neutral ("There is disagreement between scientists over the existence of..."), but it still exists.

So that question is one that can (and, for the most part, will) show up in any passage, even when the author is just presenting facts. Let the absence of an authorial viewpoint guide your answer to a more neutral one, or one that reflects the viewpoint as belonging to someone else ("According to scientists, platypodes use their bills to hunt.").

[bp shinners]

I'm just going to start off by telling you something that keeps happening to me. When I take a LR section using 38 minutes as my time limit, I miss 1 to 3 questions. When I take a LR section using 35 minutes as my time limit, I miss 6 to 10 questions.

It's funny how that 3 minutes can change your score. Especially since I guarantee you more or less waste that 3 minutes - it's not that the extra 7.2 seconds/question is mysteriously unlocking some train of thought you wouldn't otherwise have.

First, stop worrying - you're still over a month out, and you're going -1 to -3 at 38 minutes. That's not too far off from where you need to be, so you don't have much work left.

Second, this is more mental than actual timing. Like I said, those extra 3 minutes aren't really enough time to make a difference, question to question.

So what would I recommend, besides slowing down and practicing more?

Take a section or two without a watch at all. Go as fast as you can, but don't worry about how long it's taking you. I've had students do this come in at 32 minutes or so, and that drastically affected their confidence in the section going forward, allowing them to adjust to 35 minutes with no problem. And if you take longer, it's no big deal, as you already know you can finish a section on time.

You also might want to start circling those 'small details' that you overlook when you're rushed. I guarantee you're not overlooking them because you're going faster. Your brain just thinks that you have to go so much faster, so it starts taking unconscious shortcuts. If you start circling them, your brain will cut that crap out because you're consciously telling it to stop those shortcuts.

Finally, if you can figure out where the extra mistakes are specifically coming from (not 'small details', but 'logical force keywords' or 'qualifying statements in conclusions', for instance), that will help you stop making them when you feel rushed (again, because you actually aren't - the extra 7.2 seconds/question really isn't that much).

[bp shinners]

Hey,
I have been having trouble reviewing this question. PT#63 Section 1 Q#24. I can't seem to find a good reason to rule out the wrong answers. Could you help me out pleaseee?

Alright, stimulus is short and sweet.
School year - more citations, more students
Non-school year - less citations, less students
Conclusion - students are getting a lot of tickets

So we've got a correlation fallacy here - just because there are more students doesn't mean that they're the ones getting tickets.

Hopefully, you can see E is right:
Play date - more visiting children, more snacks
Non play date - less visiting children, less snacks
Conclusion - visiting children getting a lot of snacks

Now let's look at the other ones:
A - This one's not parallel in its flaw because it's talking about buying vs. consuming. While more children = more snack sales here, I'm betting it's still the parents that buy the snacks. This is an equivocation between the purchase of the snacks and the consumption

B - This argument has a huge assumption baked in - more sunlight makes a plant greener. I don't know that to be true. That's what's wrong with this argument. "But Matt," you say, "isn't that assuming a correlation?" Why yes, yes it is. However, the conclusion is giving me the correlation; in the stimulus, I'm told the correlation in a series of premises.

C - Another equivocation - studying =/= being studious. I could study for 2 minutes, and I wouldn't be studious.

D - Here, there are more types of fruit, so people must buy more fruit. Again, clearly flawed (maybe they buy the same amount, just a greater variety). Again, an equivocation - having more options =/= exercising more of those options.

[bp shinners]

Isn't B technically correct? Even if the process is slowed for historically significant books, they are still gradually destroying themselves (albeit slower).

Nope.

If I slow the process, yes, then they will gradually destroy themselves.

But I'm told it's the acid that destroys them, and we can deacidify this books some point soon. We are going to do that to at least the historically significant books. If they're deacidified, we have no reason to believe they'll keep deteriorating. So B doesn't have to be true.

[relevantfactor]

Hey,
I have been having trouble reviewing this question. PT#63 Section 1 Q#24. I can't seem to find a good reason to rule out the wrong answers. Could you help me out pleaseee?

Alright, stimulus is short and sweet.
School year - more citations, more students
Non-school year - less citations, less students
Conclusion - students are getting a lot of tickets

So we've got a correlation fallacy here - just because there are more students doesn't mean that they're the ones getting tickets.

Hopefully, you can see E is right:
Play date - more visiting children, more snacks
Non play date - less visiting children, less snacks
Conclusion - visiting children getting a lot of snacks

Now let's look at the other ones:
A - This one's not parallel in its flaw because it's talking about buying vs. consuming. While more children = more snack sales here, I'm betting it's still the parents that buy the snacks. This is an equivocation between the purchase of the snacks and the consumption

B - This argument has a huge assumption baked in - more sunlight makes a plant greener. I don't know that to be true. That's what's wrong with this argument. "But Matt," you say, "isn't that assuming a correlation?" Why yes, yes it is. However, the conclusion is giving me the correlation; in the stimulus, I'm told the correlation in a series of premises.

C - Another equivocation - studying =/= being studious. I could study for 2 minutes, and I wouldn't be studious.

D - Here, there are more types of fruit, so people must buy more fruit. Again, clearly flawed (maybe they buy the same amount, just a greater variety). Again, an equivocation - having more options =/= exercising more of those options.

Matt, you are not just good, you are the best. Thank you. Makes complete sense.

[M.M.]

Hey BP, I know that your office hours aren't in operation right now, but I've seen you posting around so I'm hopin you'll see this:

In the LGB, p. 282 Assumption question problem set / the problem from June 2001 LSAT, Section 2, #5, there is a question about democratic societies being unable to exist unless citizens have strong bonds of mutual trust, etc.

I picked the right answer in doing the LGB drills, but I was close to picking A, which is also a close answer.

The LGB explanation for picking D, the correct answer, is:

The conclusion brings in a new element—reliance on movies and electronic media—and you should
expect to see that element in the correct answer choice. First, let us take a moment to closely examine the
conclusion. The wording in the conclusion is interesting: “has an inherently corrosive effect on
democracy.” We know from the premises that a democratic society relies on both citizens and participation
in groups outside the family. How then can the author suggest that democracy is being corroded? Since
corrosion implies an undermining force, democracy can be undermined by attacking the conditions it relies
upon. If, for example, the participation in organizations outside the family was curtailed, this would
eventually enact a contrapositive that would undermine the existence of democratic society. The
assumption that is needed therefore, is to show that movies and other electronic media somehow lead to a
lessening of participation in civic organizations, political parties, and other groups outside the family. This
is the connection made in answer choice (D), the correct answer.

However, if you diagram it, choice A looks just as promising ...

D.S. (democratic society exists) -> M.T. (mutual trust) -> -> c.O. (Civic organizations / other groups outside the family.)

Contrapositive: ~C.O. -> ~M.T. -> ~D.S.

Answer choice A fulfills the sufficient condition of undermining mutual trust, whereas answer choice D fulfills the sufficient condition of ~C.O. or not participating in civic organizations / groups outside the family.

How would I make sure I get this right?

[dowu]

I'm just going to start off by telling you something that keeps happening to me. When I take a LR section using 38 minutes as my time limit, I miss 1 to 3 questions. When I take a LR section using 35 minutes as my time limit, I miss 6 to 10 questions.

It's funny how that 3 minutes can change your score. Especially since I guarantee you more or less waste that 3 minutes - it's not that the extra 7.2 seconds/question is mysteriously unlocking some train of thought you wouldn't otherwise have.

First, stop worrying - you're still over a month out, and you're going -1 to -3 at 38 minutes. That's not too far off from where you need to be, so you don't have much work left.

Second, this is more mental than actual timing. Like I said, those extra 3 minutes aren't really enough time to make a difference, question to question.

So what would I recommend, besides slowing down and practicing more?

Take a section or two without a watch at all. Go as fast as you can, but don't worry about how long it's taking you. I've had students do this come in at 32 minutes or so, and that drastically affected their confidence in the section going forward, allowing them to adjust to 35 minutes with no problem. And if you take longer, it's no big deal, as you already know you can finish a section on time.

You also might want to start circling those 'small details' that you overlook when you're rushed. I guarantee you're not overlooking them because you're going faster. Your brain just thinks that you have to go so much faster, so it starts taking unconscious shortcuts. If you start circling them, your brain will cut that crap out because you're consciously telling it to stop those shortcuts.

Finally, if you can figure out where the extra mistakes are specifically coming from (not 'small details', but 'logical force keywords' or 'qualifying statements in conclusions', for instance), that will help you stop making them when you feel rushed (again, because you actually aren't - the extra 7.2 seconds/question really isn't that much).

Matt,
I just took a section, using a stop watch timer and not paying attention at all to the clock (okay, I peeked on question 16 and 22) going at my own pace,and only missed 4. To my surprise, I also finished in 33:18.

Can you believe that? I think it's amazing how much stating at the clock has been screwing me this entire time. Should I be focusing on not paying attention to the clock? I means, obviously time is of the essence, but it's obvious that I'm getting duped by my own minds focus on the clock.

[BillsFan9907]

Hey BP, do you have any general advice for PT 20, Game #2 (found in section 3) and for games like this?

I thought I had a solid diagram until I got to question 10, which hinges on knowing that N and S are mutually exclusive for reduction. What I am thinking is this - when I have a binary grouping game with number constraints, I should:

1) Draw the slots for both the in and the out.
2) When I am told that 2 of 3 of L/M/R have to be picked, then put these over two slots, and treat these as a "group" and the other ones as a group. Treat the others as another "group." In this instance, group 2 would be (G,N,P,S,W).
3) Look for mutual exclusivity in group 2, which leaves me with G, P, W, N/S over 3 slots.

Let me know if I am missing anything.

Do you know of some very similar games?

[bp shinners]

Answer choice A fulfills the sufficient condition of undermining mutual trust, whereas answer choice D fulfills the sufficient condition of ~C.O. or not participating in civic organizations / groups outside the family.

How would I make sure I get this right?

The problem with answer choice A is that it goes too far. My conclusion doesn't say that everyone is relying on these things for entertainment, just that there's a widespread reliance on it. It also doesn't say democracy will be destroyed; just that there's a corrosive effect.

For necessary assumption questions, strong answers are usually wrong. Why? Because I usually don't have to assume all that much for the conclusion to be possible - and that's all I want out of a necessary assumption answer choice.

So in A, when it says 'ANYONE who relies on movies...is UNABLE to form a strong...', that's too much. I just have to know that there are some people out there who watch movies and thus have problems forming strong bonds in order to reach my conclusion that this type of entertainment has a corrosive effect.

D is great because it's much weaker - it just makes people less likely to participate. That's all I have to assume - that movies are somewhat detracting from group participation.

So, in the future, don't go for the strong answer choice in a necessary assumption question - it's very likely that it's too strong to be NECESSARY to the argument (though stronger answer choices are more likely to be sufficient to prove the conclusion, as here - A would be the answer to a sufficient assumption question).

[bp shinners]

Can you believe that? I think it's amazing how much stating at the clock has been screwing me this entire time. Should I be focusing on not paying attention to the clock? I means, obviously time is of the essence, but it's obvious that I'm getting duped by my own minds focus on the clock.

For games and RC, I usually recommend checking the clock after each one. If you find yourself occasionally just getting mired down, you might want to check also after the passage/setup.

However, if you keep practicing without checking the clock and always come in around 33 minutes, I would stop worrying about it, and just glance up occasionally.

[cahwc12]

PT50 passage 4.... RIDDLED BASINS

What's up with that shit?

I mean... I didn't think the passage was all that rough, but the questions! What kind of disaster recovery do you have in place for a passage that just owns you like that? And it's the fourth passage, so time is of the essence!

[bp shinners]

[quote="Seoulless"Do you know of some very similar games?[/quote]

I am going to go with our methods here, as I think they're significantly superior to what you're describing above.

So I have an In and Out grouping game (not binary - I hate that terminology here - because my rules only apply to the In group; it's more of an Out list than a group, since the rejected areas aren't all hanging out together somewhere).

So I have my setup with an In group and Out group/list.

I get each rule:
G+S->W
~W->~G or ~S

N->~R+~S
R or S->~N

P<-|->L (I can't have both)
(or you could write it
P->~L
L->~P)

And then I get a weird one. When I get a weird rule like this, I'm thinking scenarios. If I'm picking 2 of LMR, then my possibilities are LM, LR, MR. I'm going to try each of those out, especially since I see that L and R both show up in other rules.

Try out those scenarios; it should make the game trivial at that point.

As to other games like it, I know that rule has shown up a few times (which is the defining feature of this game). In fact, the infamous mauve dinosaur game is just a more complicated version of this game. Whenever I see a rule like that (picking 2 of 3), I'm going to build scenarios based on the possibilities.

[bp shinners]

I mean... I didn't think the passage was all that rough, but the questions! What kind of disaster recovery do you have in place for a passage that just owns you like that? And it's the fourth passage, so time is of the essence!

When you've got a handle on the passage, but you're having issues with the questions, always rely on what you can learn from the question. It'll commonly point you to features of a correct answer.

So, for instance, the questions on RC generally have language like 'most strongly supported by' or 'most likely to agree with'. If you see something like that, you're very likely to be looking for a weak answer choice.

Also, be sure to take a second between reading the passage and answering the questions to jot down these three things:
Main Point
Author's Attitude
Author's Purpose

Having those set will allow you to answer any questions asking from the Author's viewpoint - having them written down will make it harder for the LSAT to talk you into a wrong answer. Make sure the author's attitude is reflected in the answer choices that ask about his view (here, the answers should be neutral/academic instead of opinionated).

[bp shinners]

Open for business.

[dowu]

Open for business.

BP,

I was thinking about taking 2-4 tests per week starting September, leaving time for review. How does this sound? I've been practicing pretty extensively, coming from a mid 140s to a low 160s, which means that I need to iron out the wrinkles and pull it together for that 163+ that I need.

In short, How far out from October's test should I be focusing on full 5-section PTs and how many tests per week do you recommend?

Thanks again!