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

[bp shinners]

Hey BP,

Can you please walk me through LR question PT23, S3 Q23

Alright, so stimulus:
The government wants to spend money to save lives. Right now, they spend more on highway safety than on combating cigarette smoking. However, smoking kills more people. From this, the author concludes that the gov't. would better serve their goal (stopping death) by shifting money from the highway safety to cigarette safety.

Huge flaw there - I'm assuming that fighting cigarette smoking will benefit just as much from increased funds as highway safety. What can you do to fight cigarette smoking other than ads? Maybe some underage smoking enforcement officers? Highway safety I can hire more cops, build more roads, throw money into safer cars, build safety features on roads, etc... All of that is extraneous to the argument, but it describes a reality that makes sense and highlights what's wrong with the argument.

So I look at the answers. I'm looking to find someone who has a goal, and two possible ways to achieve that goal. I'm looking for the person spending more of a resource on one of those ways than the other. I'm looking for the other way to be more helpful to that goal. And I'm looking to conclude that I should shift my resources to that other method.

That perfectly describes B. The professional musician has a goal - get hired to play gigs (that's, by definition, the goal of a professional musician). She spends a resource - practice time - on one way to achieve that goal (guitar). She could spend it on another way (sax). The sax seems to be more useful - she gets hired for it more. And from this, I conclude that she'd better reach her goal by spending more time on sax than on guitar. Lines up perfectly, and has the same flaw (maybe sax practice isn't nearly as helpful as guitar practice).

[bp shinners]

Heya shinners...

In our review session for PT 63, we came across a snafu trying to explain why E was wrong in S3, LR2, Q23.

C seems clearly correct, but E seems like a super attractive trap answer. If you could walk me through why E is incorrect and what exactly separates it from C, I'd appreciate it.

The difference between the two is in the difference between being able to do something and not being denied the ability to do something.

In the stimulus, my conclusion (the thing I'm trying to justify) says that no one should be denied this freedom. I need something that justifies not being denied a freedom, which C gives me.

E gives me the related-but-not-identical idea of being able to do something. Well, if I'm denied the freedom to do something, I can't do it. But if I'm not denied that freedom, there are still other things that could stop me from having/exercising it. So telling me that I 'may choose for myself' isn't the same as saying that someone isn't denying me it.

[NoodleyOne]

Thanks a lot... that makes sense.

[jmart154]

Hey BP,

Thanks for the office hours. I was wondering what you recommend in terms of strategy for timing with RC. I am finding myself struggling to finish on time, and average between 4 and 10 wrong on the entire section. I would say the questions that give me the most trouble are those that ask which answer choice the author is most likely to agree with as well as inference-based questions. Any tips or recommendations?

Thank you in advance.

[bp shinners]

First off, Bueller? Bueller? We're open.

Hey BP,

Thanks for the office hours. I was wondering what you recommend in terms of strategy for timing with RC. I am finding myself struggling to finish on time, and average between 4 and 10 wrong on the entire section. I would say the questions that give me the most trouble are those that ask which answer choice the author is most likely to agree with as well as inference-based questions. Any tips or recommendations?

Thank you in advance.

Yep!

First off, reading the passage slowly the first time, while seeming to make timing worse, actually speeds you up quite a bit. If you really nail down the passage, you'll fly through the questions, saving you time overall. So focus on reading the passage with intense focus once instead of getting the main idea and hunting for the questions (this will help you with the inference-based questions).

For your specific questions:
1) Author likely to agree with
There are, in general, two types of answers to these questions. The first should be easy to spot - an answer that lines up with the author's main point in the passage. If you have a solid idea of what the author is saying, let that guide you to the correct answer. Pick the answer that bolsters up/lines up with the Author's argument. There's one very tricky caveat to this, however, and that brings me to...

Things that seem to cut against what the Author says. There are, on occasion, answers to this that seem to cut against the Author's main point. That'll happen. However, when it does happen, it ALWAYS has to be explicitly stated at some point in the passage. When you read the author say something that cuts against the main thrust of his argument, make a note of it. It is GUARANTEED to show up in the questions. So, for instance, if the author goes on and on about how Rita Dove combines fiction and poetry, and then in the last paragraph he's talking about how all of her works are best classified as either poems or fiction (just with elements of the other), I make a note of it because that cuts against the thrust of his argument (that she combined these two into lyrical narrative, which sounds like a weird poem-book).

2) Inference questions
Inference questions mean something different on the LSAT than what most people think they mean. You're not allowed to take any jumps on these. So while it sounds like you can (you are, after all, drawing an inference), you won't actually be moving away from the text. Whatever the correct answer, it will have direct textual support. Now usually that support is spread over 2-3 lines, but it's in there. So you should view these as specific reference questions - it's asking you to find something directly in the passage. This is where your notes help - they should serve as a 'Table of Contents', guiding you to the appropriate area. Check back, find the answer that shows up there, and you're good to go.

[arcanecircle]

Hey Shinners,

I've been having trouble keeping my approach to RC systematic. I have two general RC related questions

1) How do you annotate RC when you go through it? Do you underline as you read (if at all), or do you write little notes in the margin after you read each paragraph?

What usually happens to me on more difficult passages is that I can't grasp the structure of the argument as easily as the argument itself. So although I might get the core argument at the end of my read I usually have to go back to each individual paragraph to tag its purpose/relevance to the whole, or to paraphrase its contents. As a result, I am taking too long to read the passage before I answer the questions (6-7min for easy-moderate passages and 8-10min for dense/complex passages), and as you can guess, I tend to get the argument structure questions incorrect.

2) Is there any way to tell if a passage is likely more difficult than another?

All in all, RC is my worst section in terms of time. I'm usually barely making it before 35min or timing out before I can finish the last 2-3 questions on the last passage. My accuracy is high but I feel the key to cutting down my time is cleaning up my annotations and not having to look at the passage so frequently, I'm just not sure how to go about it.


Thanks again for doing this!

[jmart154]

First off, Bueller? Bueller? We're open.

Hey BP,

Thanks for the office hours. I was wondering what you recommend in terms of strategy for timing with RC. I am finding myself struggling to finish on time, and average between 4 and 10 wrong on the entire section. I would say the questions that give me the most trouble are those that ask which answer choice the author is most likely to agree with as well as inference-based questions. Any tips or recommendations?

Thank you in advance.

Yep!

First off, reading the passage slowly the first time, while seeming to make timing worse, actually speeds you up quite a bit. If you really nail down the passage, you'll fly through the questions, saving you time overall. So focus on reading the passage with intense focus once instead of getting the main idea and hunting for the questions (this will help you with the inference-based questions).

For your specific questions:
1) Author likely to agree with
There are, in general, two types of answers to these questions. The first should be easy to spot - an answer that lines up with the author's main point in the passage. If you have a solid idea of what the author is saying, let that guide you to the correct answer. Pick the answer that bolsters up/lines up with the Author's argument. There's one very tricky caveat to this, however, and that brings me to...

Things that seem to cut against what the Author says. There are, on occasion, answers to this that seem to cut against the Author's main point. That'll happen. However, when it does happen, it ALWAYS has to be explicitly stated at some point in the passage. When you read the author say something that cuts against the main thrust of his argument, make a note of it. It is GUARANTEED to show up in the questions. So, for instance, if the author goes on and on about how Rita Dove combines fiction and poetry, and then in the last paragraph he's talking about how all of her works are best classified as either poems or fiction (just with elements of the other), I make a note of it because that cuts against the thrust of his argument (that she combined these two into lyrical narrative, which sounds like a weird poem-book).

2) Inference questions
Inference questions mean something different on the LSAT than what most people think they mean. You're not allowed to take any jumps on these. So while it sounds like you can (you are, after all, drawing an inference), you won't actually be moving away from the text. Whatever the correct answer, it will have direct textual support. Now usually that support is spread over 2-3 lines, but it's in there. So you should view these as specific reference questions - it's asking you to find something directly in the passage. This is where your notes help - they should serve as a 'Table of Contents', guiding you to the appropriate area. Check back, find the answer that shows up there, and you're good to go.

Thank you very much! Very helpful.

[Captain Rodeo]

Hey BP,

Could you help me with Superprep A, LR Section 1, #17? I know LSAC has an explanation, and its not a hard LR question, but its just bugging me. I put (A) down.

I guess my problem is that one of the two premises states (parphrase): confidential English papers state that there was only one clergyman working at the French embassy. The other one is that: Bruno was made a clergyman before he began working at the French embassy in England.

So, Re. Q16's correct answer, we can't assume that just because Bruno was elected a clergyman that he still is...

So, is that why (A) is wrong? Because we can't state for sure whether he is a clergyman? Or is it because the the confidential English state papers merely claim that there was one clergyman, and that could not be the case? I just thought that this was challenging a premise, and that was no bueno for the LSAT. But, the premise regarding the official docs. is speculative, in nature, not fact.

I don't think I've come across that..

Anyway, the only way I thought (A) could be wrong for Q17 is that Bruno was actually not a clergyman... But again- that seems like challenging a premise (the second one in this case) My thought was, "Well, the docs. say there's only one there; AC (A) states that they always have at least one (which seems to bump up against the stim.), and Bruno was ordained one. Bingo!"

Thanks for the help.

P.S.- There's an article I found about Weaken Qs and it deals with actually challenging a premise to weaken an argument- BUT- I can't really get into it because all of the examples are from PT I have yet to take!!!

It's a short article http://www.manhattanlsat.com/blog/index ... questions/ -- if it's not asking too much could you tell me how that relates to the question?? (it is not long at all)\

Thank you!!!

[bp shinners]

1) How do you annotate RC when you go through it? Do you underline as you read (if at all), or do you write little notes in the margin after you read each paragraph?

What usually happens to me on more difficult passages is that I can't grasp the structure of the argument as easily as the argument itself. So although I might get the core argument at the end of my read I usually have to go back to each individual paragraph to tag its purpose/relevance to the whole, or to paraphrase its contents. As a result, I am taking too long to read the passage before I answer the questions (6-7min for easy-moderate passages and 8-10min for dense/complex passages), and as you can guess, I tend to get the argument structure questions incorrect.

I usually make notes of the features that I'm always mentioning that show up all the times in questions as I go, in the margins. I only underline statements that demonstrate the author's opinion. At the end of any experiment (or something similar, such as an example), I'll summarize it to make sure I understand it and why it's important. And I'll tag the paragraph at the end with a viewpoint and role.

So, in short, I tag the role of each paragraph after reading it, and the content as I go through.

2) Is there any way to tell if a passage is likely more difficult than another?

All in all, RC is my worst section in terms of time. I'm usually barely making it before 35min or timing out before I can finish the last 2-3 questions on the last passage. My accuracy is high but I feel the key to cutting down my time is cleaning up my annotations and not having to look at the passage so frequently, I'm just not sure how to go about it.

The first two are usually easier than the last two, but that's not a hard trend. Also, the difficulty is directly proportional to how familiar you are with the particular subject. If you went to space camp, the science passages are probably not too bad. If you read Austen at 10, you can probably fly through the dense English passages.

Also, the number of questions can hint at how dense the passage is. If there are 8 questions, that means there was a lot of stuff to ask about.

It sounds like you've got a solid understanding of your problem. For RC, timing is almost all confidence. Don't be sure you know something you don't, but definitely trust yourself for the ones that you do know. Tag the role of each passage as you go. Cut down on the notes for things that don't matter (my list of important things is all over the forum; shouldn't be too hard to find).

[bp shinners]

Hey BP,

Could you help me with Superprep A, LR Section 1, #17? I know LSAC has an explanation, and its not a hard LR question, but its just bugging me. I put (A) down.

I think you're drastically overthinking this question, which is usually the case when there's a straight-forward explanation that for some reason doesn't click.

I'm trying to prove that Bruno was a spy. I'm basing this on the fact that I know there was a spy, England identified their spy as the only clergyman working at the French embassy, and Bruno was at some point a member of the clergy.

While E isn't something I'd predict, it certainly strengthens the argument. It's another piece of evidence suggesting that Bruno was the spy - the spying started when Bruno started, and ended when Bruno left.

A, on the other hand, doesn't really tell me anything that makes it more likely that Bruno was a spy. I know what you're going to say - it strengthens the premise that Bruno was the clergyman spy. But it doesn't really do that - all it tells me is that during that time there was always a member of the clergy on staff. Well, I already knew that either a) there was a member of the clergy working at the French embassy since England IDed their spy as one, or b) the English were lying, in which case all bets are off as far as Bruno being their spy.

You hit the nail on the head as far as the two flaws in the argument go, however. If the author claims something is true, you can't attack that premise. However, if the author says someone else claims something to be true, you can go after the truthfulness of the claimed statement without going after the premise itself (since you can't attack a premise on the LSAT). So if the stimulus says,
"bp shinners claims that white Russians contain copious amounts of gin. However, any American knows that vodka is actually the main ingredient of a white Russian. This is featured prominently in the movie The Big Lebowski, which is world-renowned for its attention to detail and accuracy." You can go after my assertion there without attacking the truthfulness of the author's assertion. The author is claiming that I said something. If you prove what I said to be untrue, it doesn't change the fact that I still said it. What you can't do is go after the actual premise, which would be that I said something. So "bp shinners is an alcoholic who can't even tell which alcohol he's drinking anymore" would call my claim into question, and be OK. "bp shinners never actually said anything about gin being in a white Russian" contradicts the premise of the author, and you can't do that on the LSAT.

[arcanecircle]

Thanks Shinners, great advice as always. Do you personally spend more time on the passage or on answering questions?

The topics really don't seem to kill me as much as unorganised or nonintuitive passage structure. Though I think the worst rc I ever had was on Navaho bead weaving, so if I had to pick one....

[Captain Rodeo]

bp,

Thank you for the response. Yes, that make sense. Thank you very much-- it was irking me.

While E isn't something I'd predict, it certainly strengthens the argument. It's another piece of evidence suggesting that Bruno was the spy - the spying started when Bruno started, and ended when Bruno left.

A, on the other hand, doesn't really tell me anything that makes it more likely that Bruno was a spy. I know what you're going to say - it strengthens the premise that Bruno was the clergyman spy. But it doesn't really do that - all it tells me is that during that time there was always a member of the clergy on staff. Well, I already knew that either a) there was a member of the clergy working at the French embassy since England IDed their spy as one, or b) the English were lying, in which case all bets are off as far as Bruno being their spy.

And, your explanation after was very helpful, and also entertaining! I haven't had a White Russian, but I want to try one now...

[bp shinners]

I haven't had a White Russian, but I want to try one now...

You have no idea the world you're about to open for yourself.

[bp shinners]

Thanks Shinners, great advice as always. Do you personally spend more time on the passage or on answering questions?

I'd say it's probably about even. The more time you spend on the passage, however, the less time you tend to spend on the questions, as your increased understanding leads to fewer moments of doubt/double checking. There's obviously a breaking point, however, as it takes a certain amount of time to get through the questions no matter how quickly you do it, and you want to make sure there's more than that to get through them.

The topics really don't seem to kill me as much as unorganised or nonintuitive passage structure. Though I think the worst rc I ever had was on Navaho bead weaving, so if I had to pick one....

Yep. The thing to remember, though, is that these are actual writings, so if you're finding it unorganized, you probably missed something. Non-intuitive, on the other hand, might actually be a suggestion that you're actually fully understanding it.

[05062014]

BP sent me a test that I printed with a typo on S4 #22. It was corrected in the version I am looking at right now. Were there any other typos we should be aware of if we printed the first version?

[bp shinners]

BP sent me a test that I printed with a typo on S4 #22. It was corrected in the version I am looking at right now. Were there any other typos we should be aware of if we printed the first version?

All the typos I'm aware of were minor formatting errors that should be easy to spot. However, I'm not 100% up to date on the information the office has on typos (since they receive info from every instructor/class instead of just me and my class). I would shoot an e-mail to info@blueprintprep.com and they can get you a list of reported typos much faster than I'd be able to.

[bp shinners]

Sorry for the late start, but get in those last-week questions!

[CardozoLaw09]

Hey BP

PT15, S.3, Q12

A fairly simple question but I have a beef with the correct answer E)

I was hesitant in selecting E) because I didn't think it had to be true that organic farming no longer constituted a habitat for wildlife. The stimulus says that it would require more land and that land would be less available, but I didn't think that had to necessarily imply that it would completely replace the habitat. Just because somethings "less available" doesn't mean it's no longer a feasible option for something else ie) wildlife. Moreover, the land could still serve as a habitat but there would just be less land to deal with.

[jya300]

I didn't know this office hour existed. Great!
I have some (many) questions...

PT 63, Section 1, #19
At first it seemed like there was no good answer and I ended up guessing between (A) and (C).
It'd be great if you can explain the answer, and maybe the stimulus.

PT 63, Section 3, #14
Can you explain why (A) doesn't work in this problem, and how it differs from (B)?
I picked (A) because it seemed to specifically target the council members having "no evidence," but apparently this was a wrong approach.

PT 63, Section 4, #21
I had hard time understanding this passage, and this question really threw me off.. Can you explain why (A) is true, where it's supported and why (C) is not?

Thank you!

[bp shinners]

Hey BP

PT15, S.3, Q12

A fairly simple question but I have a beef with the correct answer E)

I was hesitant in selecting E) because I didn't think it had to be true that organic farming no longer constituted a habitat for wildlife. The stimulus says that it would require more land and that land would be less available, but I didn't think that had to necessarily imply that it would completely replace the habitat. Just because somethings "less available" doesn't mean it's no longer a feasible option for something else ie) wildlife. Moreover, the land could still serve as a habitat but there would just be less land to deal with.

My copy of the test says, "organic farming leaves less land available as..." which is different than saying "less available." If, instead, it said, "organic farming leaves land less available as...", you'd have a better case.

[bp shinners]

PT 63, Section 1, #19
At first it seemed like there was no good answer and I ended up guessing between (A) and (C).
It'd be great if you can explain the answer, and maybe the stimulus.

Alright, so here's how my argument breaks down:
Some people - Homo sapiens ancestors got down and dirty with Neanderthals.
(Whenever I have something that was formerly believed, I'm expecting the author to dispute it).

Author -
Premise: DNA of modern humans (e.g. me and you) is very different than Neanderthal DNA according to testing.
_______________________________________________
Conclusion: Homo sapiens ancestors didn't get down and dirty with Neanderthals.

So my gap is pretty obvious here - I don't know how similar DNA has to be in order to prove that my ancestors did the horizontal tango with Neanderthals. According to this, the DNA was very different. For all I know, sharing any similarities might be enough to let me know that my ancestors did the nasty in the past-y.

So my flaw is that I'm equivocating between not being related (i.e. not having interbreeding) and having dissimilar DNA. I need an answer that says amount of similarity in the DNA plays some role in making this determination.

A doesn't do that. In fact, A doesn't hurt my argument at all. The argument's concluding that Homo sapiens ancestors didn't make it with Neanderthals. A tells me they were around at the same time. Well, that makes it infinitely more likely that they did do it, as you can't have sex with an extinct species (that was the original point of Jurassic Park, but it was deemed unsuitable for young audiences).

And my test is to negate the answer - here, it would say, "No Neanderthals lived at the same time and in the same place..." That strengthens my argument (in fact, it's a sufficient assumption). When I negate an answer and it proves my argument, that's not a necessary assumption.

C, in the most convoluted way possible, tells me what I need to know. It's telling me that Homo sapiens ancestors DNA doesn't look more like Neanderthal DNA than it does modern human DNA. In short, it's as close or closer to us as it is to Neanderthal DNA. I need to assume this because otherwise there's no reason to think that similarities in DNA has anything to do with interbreeding - in short, I need to know we look like Homo sapiens ancestors DNA-wise before I can say that not being similar to Neanderthals rules them out as being in our DNA-line.

And with that, I'm out of euphemisms for sex.

PT 63, Section 3, #14
Can you explain why (A) doesn't work in this problem, and how it differs from (B)?
I picked (A) because it seemed to specifically target the council members having "no evidence," but apparently this was a wrong approach.

You're misreading A slightly (which is normal, as it's written to be confusing).

The argument is essentially this:
We've got two sides to this fight - put the municipal emergency shelter in the abandoned shoe factory or the courthouse (seems like a no-brainer to me). Those who want to put it in the courthouse have given no evidence that it's the better site.
______________
Therefore, the shoe factory is better.

Two problems here:
1) Just because I don't have any evidence for something doesn't mean it's wrong - just because I have no evidence it's better doesn't mean it isn't better
2) I have no evidence for my own view, making me just as bad as the other side.

If I look at A, it says that the lack of evidence against a view is proof that the view is correct. Well, the author thinks that the correct view is to put it in the shoe factory. However, he doesn't say this is because there's no evidence the shoe factory is bad (which would be lack of evidence against his view). He says we should do it because there is no evidence that the other option is better. For this to be the correct answer, it would have to read almost the opposite - "asserting that a lack of evidence for a view is proof that the view is incorrect."

And that's what B says - he accepts a claim (the shoe factory is a better site) because the advocates (the council members) of an opposing claim (put it in the courthouse) have not adequately defended their view (there is no evidence it's better).

PT 63, Section 4, #21
I had hard time understanding this passage, and this question really threw me off.. Can you explain why (A) is true, where it's supported and why (C) is not?

For A - lines 42-44 ("First, at or...crest."). This sentence tells me that the rocks are young by the crest, and old away from the crest. Since it's called the 'mid-ocean ridge', it must be the case that it's in the middle of the ocean. Therefore, the stuff farthest away from the crest (which, by definition, is the places by the continent, since that's as far away as you can get from the middle of the ocean) is the oldest.

For C - I have no idea how likely compass readings are to become distorted on land. Without knowing that, and without a statement saying, "Compass readings are most likely to be distorted at sea.", I can't pick C.

[Captain Rodeo]

Hey Shinners- Could you please help me with PrepTest 46, Section 3, #20?

I see why (C) is correct. However, I don't understand why (A) is not correct. I may be doing the formal logic (FL) wrong here.

I don't know how well this problem lends itself to formal logic, but here is what I have:

GE--->MGC (1st sentence)
SB--->GE ( Last sentence)
_________
GE--->~UE (Conclusion from last sentence)

Key: (GE= Genetic Engineering; MGC= Manipulation of Genetic Code; SB= Selective Breeding; UE= Unethical)

I would usually see the obvious assumption as: MGC--->~UE.

However, this is the incorrect answer- which is what (A) states.

Instead, it is (C)- which, I am honestly not sure how to diagram.

However, from the premises we can infer: SB--->MGC; and it seems that the 3rd sentence of the stimulus also this same conditional (or am I being too lenient with the diagramming there?).

So- with that in mind, it seems like (C) would say: SB--->MGC--->~UE

Yet, this is the same as (A)-- which I know cannot be the case, so I am doing something wrong.

Can you show me what it is and what differentiates this from other problems that would lend themselves to FL so that I do not do this when I am not supposed to??

I heard that we can't make "if...then" conditionals with mere fact arguments that have evidence and then a conclusion- the relationship needs to always be the case, or categorical, I guess. I think I get too concerned with FL and draw P--->C relationships (premise to conclusion) and treat them like conditionals- looking for formal logic gaps instead of gaps in the argument itself (non-formal logic assumptions). Mehhhhh.......

Help por favor???

[bp shinners]

Last day - you should be relaxing, not studying. But we all know you're gonna study. So ask away.

[bp shinners]

Hey Shinners- Could you please help me with PrepTest 46, Section 3, #20?

I'll be honest - I skipped over all your formal logic because it's unnecessary to disprove A.

You spotted the big assumption here - that this practice that's been going on forever isn't itself unethical. And that's what C gives me.

The problem with A is that it goes too far - it says that this manipulation is NEVER unethical. I don't have to assume that it's NEVER unethical to get to the conclusion that this genetic engineering isn't unethical.

In short, C limits me to what I'm talking about here - the manipulation of genetic code through selective breeding. A, on the other hand, is talking about any manipulation of genetic code. It's outside the scope of my argument, so it's not something on which the argument depends.

[bp shinners]

Good luck tomorrow, everyone!