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

[bp shinners]

It's the doldrums for LSAT studying, but I'm still here for those brave few toughing it out.

[ws81086n]

Do you know why LSAC does not release the Feb curve? Not releasing the test itself is perfectly understandable, but there seems to be no good reason for not releasing the curve. Very frustrating.

[bp shinners]

Do you know why LSAC does not release the Feb curve? Not releasing the test itself is perfectly understandable, but there seems to be no good reason for not releasing the curve. Very frustrating.

To add to the mystique.

I honestly have no idea.

[Daily_Double]

BP you're awesome for doing this.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Hey BP,

Question - what does it take for a conditional to kick in an LG game?

Is it any time a sufficient condition is fulfilled? Whether that's part of an "If..." question or the consequence of an If question?

Sometimes I'm a little confused as to when to look to my conditionals and I waste time wondering if this scenario is enough to make this conditional activate or if it's somehow been mooted already.

Thanks!

Also:

BP you're awesome for doing this.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Second question:

Regarding Assumption LR questions -

If two assumptions are actually true, how does one determine which one is more true?

For example: PT39, LR2, Q19. A and D are both technically necessary assumptions one must make to make the premise of the statement true but the answer is D. I get why but both could be the case. What stimulus is the LSAT asking you to make here?

[bp shinners]

Is it any time a sufficient condition is fulfilled? Whether that's part of an "If..." question or the consequence of an If question?

Any time the sufficient conditions is fulfilled, the conditional kicks in. Whether that's straight up given to you in a conditional question or it's a deduction you make from that new piece of info, the rule applies and you can derive something new.

[bp shinners]

For example: PT39, LR2, Q19. A and D are both technically necessary assumptions one must make to make the premise of the statement true but the answer is D. I get why but both could be the case. What stimulus is the LSAT asking you to make here?

A is not a necessary assumption for this stimulus - it's too strong to be necessary.

Let's look at the argument:

Without a will, your relatives have a better claim to your estate than your friends.
Some people might have distant relatives whom they have never met.
__________________________________________________________
You should have a will.

Hopefully, it's easy to see how D is necessary. If we negate it, it would say, "People don't care to whom their estate goes." If that's the case, it would be hard to prove the conclusion that you should bother writing a will - just let whoever gets the cash get it.

A, on the other hand, says, "NO ONE wants..." For Necessary Assumption questions, very strong language like that is often an indicator that you should be wary. It also just talks about people you've never met; not relatives you've never met.

So we negate this answer choice, and it says, "Some people want their estate to go to strangers." Well, if that's the case, you still might want to draw up a will. Maybe you want it to go to specific strangers (the distant relatives on your mother's side instead of your father's side). It doesn't kill the argument when we negate it, so it's not our answer.

So (A) certainly sounds good (I would call it a sucker choice), but it's a little bit off because of a bit of an equivocation.

[crazyrobin]

Hi bp, I have been struggling with abstract language in flawed questions. Can you please shed some light on it?

" Assume at the outset what the argument claims to establish through reasoning "
What does this mean?

[lsatkid007]

Hey BP
I need help with pt33 sec4 #7. Would you please explain this one to me.

Thanks

[bp shinners]

Hi bp, I have been struggling with abstract language in flawed questions. Can you please shed some light on it?

" Assume at the outset what the argument claims to establish through reasoning "
What does this mean?

For abstract language, you need to break it down one term at a time and substitute language from the stimulus for the abstract words. It's a whole lot easier to analyze the answer choice when the terms are those used by the stimulus instead of the crazy, lofty, philosophy-major words they write in.

For that AC, it's talking about circular reasoning.

[bp shinners]

Hey BP
I need help with pt33 sec4 #7. Would you please explain this one to me.

Thanks

Ah, the birds in the forest game. It's an In and Out grouping game. Our rules:
<-|-> means can't be both

1) H<-|->G or H->~G; G->~H
2) J or M -> H
3) W->G
4) ~J->S or ~S->J, which is the same as saying J or S

I can combine those rules into a conditional chain, but since the format of a message board isn't the best for that, I'll leave it as an exercise to you.

7) Asks us what MBT is we have M and H.
The only rule with M is 2, which tells me I also have H. No help there. Rule 1 tells me about H, and since I have H, I can't have G. So G is out, and rule 3 tells me that G being out means W is out (take the contrapositive to see why). So I have:
IN: M H
OUT: W G
I still have to place J and S, but I don't know anything about them with H and M being in. I do know that I need at least one of them to be in, however, because of my 4th rule.

A and B are out because, while rule 4 tells me I need At Least One of J and S, I could still have both.

C is out not even based on the new conditions - rule 4 itself tells me I need At Least One of J and S.

D is gone because I don't need to have at least 2 other birds In. I could have two other birds in, but I only need one (either J or S) to satisfy my rules; the other could be out.

E is the winner. My rules tell me that M and H being in pushes W and G out. There are only two other birds left - J and S - so at most there are two other kinds of birds in the forest.

[Daily_Double]

BP, I have a question about PT 51, S3, Q12. Below this is how I see it now, but my question is can we make the jump between prevailing political positions and political orthodoxy? I understand that it's a MSS question, and that A is the most strongly supported, mostly because the others are simply not strongly supported. But am I wrong in saying that there appears to be a gap between the two terms? Or am I just interpreting it incorrectly?

To begin with, every answer except A is wrong due to scope, even D, mainly because we can't infer anything about what the the prevailing political position is, but we can infer what the stimulus most strongly supports, which is why these articles have been appearing in the papers.

In this case, I literally had no idea what the second part of the stimulus meant, honestly, I still don't really know what it's getting at, I have an idea now, but regardless of the second part, the answer to this question lies in Winslow's statement, and the commentator's following sentence addressing this statement.

So Winslow says that these articles aren't being published because media hates the environment but because the media likes to challenge political positions. The commentator, almost defensively, seems to agree with Winslow, then goes off on an unrelated tangent. Now if we accept that political orthodoxy is the same as the prevailing political positions, then the commentator's response basically proceeds by saying, Yeah Winslow, you're right, but (goes off on a tangent).

The real question is whether we can make the leap between prevailing political positions and political orthodoxy, based upon my understanding of the English language, political orthodoxy means the established political thought, but is that the same as what the prevailing political position is? What if the prevailing position is in fact unorthodox? It would seem that LSAC would say that it is the same, or at least that it is the most strongly supported answer, which I do agree with, however, I'm still not entirely satisfied, what are your thoughts? Thanks for the help.

By the way, the LG book is hilarious. I didn't expect to laugh while reinforcing LG concepts.

[bp shinners]

So Winslow says that these articles aren't being published because media hates the environment but because the media likes to challenge political positions. The commentator, almost defensively, seems to agree with Winslow, then goes off on an unrelated tangent. Now if we accept that political orthodoxy is the same as the prevailing political positions, then the commentator's response basically proceeds by saying, Yeah Winslow, you're right, but (goes off on a tangent).

I think you're a little off here, but close enough for the purposes of the argument.

To me, Winslow is saying that newspaper articles are running these antienvironmental pieces because they're controversial/challenge prevailing political opinions.
The commentator is saying that while this is true, serious environmentalism (a bit of an equivocation) isn't really politically orthodox - Winslow is right, but the newspapers are wrong. I wouldn't say it's an unrelated tangent - he's putting Winslow's argument in context - because this is a ~MBT question (soft Must Be True, our name for Most Strongly Supported-type questions) and anything might be relevant to the correct answer.

The real question is whether we can make the leap between prevailing political positions and political orthodoxy, based upon my understanding of the English language, political orthodoxy means the established political thought, but is that the same as what the prevailing political position is? What if the prevailing position is in fact unorthodox?

But if it is the prevailing political position, it's no longer unorthodox. 'Orthodox' just means the widely-accepted, so there's no leap (or, at most, a very small leap) between "prevailing political opinion" and "orthodox political opinion"

By the way, the LG book is hilarious. I didn't expect to laugh while reinforcing LG concepts.

Awesome, glad you're enjoying it! Hopefully there's some learnin' in between the laughin'!

[Daily_Double]

The real question is whether we can make the leap between prevailing political positions and political orthodoxy, based upon my understanding of the English language, political orthodoxy means the established political thought, but is that the same as what the prevailing political position is? What if the prevailing position is in fact unorthodox?

But if it is the prevailing political position, it's no longer unorthodox. 'Orthodox' just means the widely-accepted, so there's no leap (or, at most, a very small leap) between "prevailing political opinion" and "orthodox political opinion"

Ahh, I thought orthodox meant traditional, and I also read prevailing political position to mean the contemporary political position. So I thought there was a gap between what used to be (political orthodox) and what is (prevailing political position), which is why I was still unsatisfied with the right answer. But it looks like I might need to fine tune my vocabulary in addition to PTs.

[bp shinners]

The real question is whether we can make the leap between prevailing political positions and political orthodoxy, based upon my understanding of the English language, political orthodoxy means the established political thought, but is that the same as what the prevailing political position is? What if the prevailing position is in fact unorthodox?

But if it is the prevailing political position, it's no longer unorthodox. 'Orthodox' just means the widely-accepted, so there's no leap (or, at most, a very small leap) between "prevailing political opinion" and "orthodox political opinion"

Ahh, I thought orthodox meant traditional, and I also read prevailing political position to mean the contemporary political position. So I thought there was a gap between what used to be (political orthodox) and what is (prevailing political position), which is why I was still unsatisfied with the right answer. But it looks like I might need to fine tune my vocabulary in addition to PTs.

I think your definition is closer to how it's used by most people, actually.

Also, open for business this week! I'm sure some people out there are starting to look at studying for the June test.

[Captain Rodeo]

Hey BP! Hope you have been well.


So I have a question. It is from PT5-S1-Q3. This is going to be a little long, but I just want to make sure my logic is correct here. When I did the problem originally, I put (C). I see why (B) is correct. So, here we go... Also, dude, I apologize for the length of this.

I got stuck in “logic land” with this question, and came up with other formulations of it, and what would possibly be the correct answer, for other types of Q’s.

So, here the group is appealing to business and they state that since the mayor could have done something else that would attract more business (i.e., the business park), that he must have other reasons for the highway.

Is there another assumption here? It seems that they are assuming that “If a method doesn’t allow for the best possible outcome, then there are other considerations.” It seemed to me, that in this problem, that it actually (as the LSAT doesn’t do often) used a real world assumption: that the mayor would only choose a plan that optimally fulfilled his goal of helping the economy of Plainsville. I say this because the correct AC, (B), still relies on this assumption. So that even if the mayor did agree that that the business park would bring in more business than the highway, if the mayor is not concerned about bringing in the most business, his agreement would not validate the Citizen’s contention. I hope that is clear. What do you think?

Also- I just thought- Is the argument also assuming that attracting business is the only way to help the economy?

I then started looking at the argument more. I know Necessary Assumptions are known to have [at least what Power Score said, though I’m reading MLSAT now) “minimalist answers.” I know in general that we are to be wary of extreme answers for Nec. Assump. Q’s, but that despite this some correct AC’s are that the author is in fact assuming that some thing/way is the only thing/way. So, I thought- what would be the stimulus that would, in this scenario given, actually have that assumption? Here it is:

Citizen’s Group: “You must not care about our economy. If you were really interested….” Now, this is different than what was originally input. In this case, they aren’t saying he has “other interests” (the economy + other thing/ only other things) but that he doesn’t care about the economy at all. If this was the argument we were given, would the correct answer have been: “Assumes that if a motivation is given it can be the only motivation.”?

I got caught up in the logic of the argument stating, “other considerations” versus what would of happened if it would have said “not care about economy” and how that affected the answer choices. Please feel free to elaborate on any of this!

Lastly, I started thinking about why (C) was attractive. First, I guess it played off repeating the word “other.” But really, I thought that it was because when reading this we think, “What if the mayor wants to do other things besides attract new business/help the economy?” or “What if there are means other than attracting new business that would help the economy?” But, since they are only concerned with the economy/attracting business, (C) is irrelevant; the Citizens have actually taken into consideration that the highway would have other benefits.

I then thought- “Well why is (C) so attractive?” (to me at least). And that got me thinking: for what question would it be the correct answer? I came up with this (don’t worry its short):

Mayor of Plainsville: [Keep as is, except take out “and thereby attract new business to Plainsville.”]

Citizen’s Group: [Keep argument just as it is]

In this scenario, since the Mayor would have mentioned nothing about attracting new business, I think that (C) would be an assumption in this case. I also think an assumption would be that the Citizens Group would be assuming that attracting business is (here we go) “the only” means by which to help Plainsville’s economy. Or to frame it in conditional terms, “If not business, then not help economy.” They would be assuming necessity.

Is this correct? What do you think? I’m aiming for mastery here (I was studying last year for the LSAT, and postponed until December. I wasn’t going to take it at all- and decided to do a practice run and keep my score only if I felt like a friggin hero after. I cancelled it, which I still don’t know was the best choice- going for this June if I can be PTing in the high 170s by then).

Anyway, I didn’t purposefully go into the Q this deep- my mind wandered there. Do you have any thoughts to what I wrote? Any other thoughts about Necessary Assumption questions that you think I should know (I’ve read the PowerScore and MLSAT chapters on these).


Thanks SO MUCH. By the way, I don’t know if you remember- but, per your suggestion, I actually did go out and get a White Russian. I’d buy you one (or two) for just reading this question, so thanks a ton.

Austin

[t-14orbust]

Hey bpshinners! Just had a general question about teaching for blueprint. After taking the Feb LSAT and scoring a 174 I've been very interested in teaching for an LSAT prep company. Naturally, after hearing about the quality of blueprint, I was interested. I was just wondering if you could give me any advice on how I can stand out to the recruiters and really get the best shot at being hired. Sorry if this is unrelated to the thread, and thanks!

[bp shinners]

I got stuck in “logic land” with this question, and came up with other formulations of it, and what would possibly be the correct answer, for other types of Q’s.

I can see that. You are RIDICULOUSLY overthinking this question. Don't do this to yourself .

So, here the group is appealing to business and they state that since the mayor could have done something else that would attract more business (i.e., the business park), that he must have other reasons for the highway.

Is there another assumption here? It seems that they are assuming that “If a method doesn’t allow for the best possible outcome, then there are other considerations.” It seemed to me, that in this problem, that it actually (as the LSAT doesn’t do often) used a real world assumption: that the mayor would only choose a plan that optimally fulfilled his goal of helping the economy of Plainsville. I say this because the correct AC, (B), still relies on this assumption. So that even if the mayor did agree that that the business park would bring in more business than the highway, if the mayor is not concerned about bringing in the most business, his agreement would not validate the Citizen’s contention. I hope that is clear. What do you think?

I think you're right, but I wouldn't call it an assumption. The mayor states that his goal is to help the economy. Attracting more business helps the economy. The assumption here is:
1) The Mayor accepts the premise that it will attract twice the business (since the conclusion is about the mayor's viewpoint, we need to take what he believes into consideration)
2) The 2xbusiness attraction of the business park isn't outweighed by other economic benefits brought by the highway.
3) (related to 2) The increase in business is the controlling factor in determining economic benefit (not the sole factor, but the controlling one).

#1 is what plays into the right answer. #2 is what plays into the sucker choice. I need to assume that the total non-new-business-related economic benefits of the highway don't outweigh the economic benefits of the business park, but I don't need to assume that there are NO other benefits (of any kind, whatsoever). Even if it said 'economic benefits', this would still be wrong, because there could be other economic benefits that don't amount to the bump needed to overcome the doubling of the increase in business.

I then started looking at the argument more. I know Necessary Assumptions are known to have [at least what Power Score said, though I’m reading MLSAT now) “minimalist answers.” I know in general that we are to be wary of extreme answers for Nec. Assump. Q’s, but that despite this some correct AC’s are that the author is in fact assuming that some thing/way is the only thing/way. So, I thought- what would be the stimulus that would, in this scenario given, actually have that assumption? Here it is:

Citizen’s Group: “You must not care about our economy. If you were really interested….” Now, this is different than what was originally input. In this case, they aren’t saying he has “other interests” (the economy + other thing/ only other things) but that he doesn’t care about the economy at all. If this was the argument we were given, would the correct answer have been: “Assumes that if a motivation is given it can be the only motivation.”?

I got caught up in the logic of the argument stating, “other considerations” versus what would of happened if it would have said “not care about economy” and how that affected the answer choices. Please feel free to elaborate on any of this!

Don't play this game. You'll waste too much time and there's no guarantee that what you come up with will actually work.

Lastly, I started thinking about why (C) was attractive. First, I guess it played off repeating the word “other.” But really, I thought that it was because when reading this we think, “What if the mayor wants to do other things besides attract new business/help the economy?”

Nope, he stated "In order to help the economy of Plainsville", so that's his goal.

or “What if there are means other than attracting new business that would help the economy?” But, since they are only concerned with the economy/attracting business, (C) is irrelevant; the Citizens have actually taken into consideration that the highway would have other benefits.

This is relevant, and there could be other ways. It's why C is a sucker choice. We just can't pick C because it says NO BENEFITS (not economic benefits), which is too strong and too broad.

I then thought- “Well why is (C) so attractive?” (to me at least). And that got me thinking: for what question would it be the correct answer? I came up with this (don’t worry its short):

Mayor of Plainsville: [Keep as is, except take out “and thereby attract new business to Plainsville.”]

Citizen’s Group: [Keep argument just as it is]

In this scenario, since the Mayor would have mentioned nothing about attracting new business, I think that (C) would be an assumption in this case. I also think an assumption would be that the Citizens Group would be assuming that attracting business is (here we go) “the only” means by which to help Plainsville’s economy. Or to frame it in conditional terms, “If not business, then not help economy.” They would be assuming necessity.

Is this correct?

Nope, you'd definitely need to cut out the first clause of the Mayor's speech, and even then I wouldn't commit to (C) being right. But, again, don't play this game!

Thanks SO MUCH. By the way, I don’t know if you remember- but, per your suggestion, I actually did go out and get a White Russian. I’d buy you one (or two) for just reading this question, so thanks a ton.

Austin

I'll send you a bill

[Captain Rodeo]

Thank you so much for the fast response! I'm not by a computer, so I skimmed it on my phone. Will read it thoroughly very soon. And I won't play that game!

Thanks!

[lsatkid007]

Hey BP
I need help with PT21 Game4 rule 1 & rule 3. Would you please explain these to me.

thanks

[bp shinners]

Hey BP
I need help with PT21 Game4 rule 1 & rule 3. Would you please explain these to me.

thanks

Complicated rules to complicate an otherwise moderately difficult ordering game.

So I have an overbooked ordering game - 7 products, 4 weeks (slots). It tells me the distribution (2 each week, one person goes twice).

The first rule can get really complicated if you just try to use keywords instead of understanding what's going on. Essentially, it's telling me that if I have J, then I have a block of JH. So I would represent this as:
J->HJ - If I have J, then I have a block with H immediately before J. Big deduction here - since only one thing goes twice, I can't have J twice (since then I'd also have H twice, breaking my distribution). Another important thing to note is that H can go without J immediately after it.

Same thing with this one: G needs something else with it, so I'd represent this as:
G->G or G
O J
They're vertical because they're going in the same slot/week. But if I put a G somewhere, then I also have to put a J or an O there, too. Alternatively, you could do:
~J or ~O->~G, but that doesn't get the fact that you are talking about the same slot, so I'd still go with the first way.

[bp shinners]

This week's office hours are brought to you by the letters B and P, and the numbers 1, 8, and 0.

Shoot!

[bp shinners]

Open for business.

[Captain Rodeo]

Hey BP! Hope the weekend has been good.

So, I have a few Qs, but I'll just throw one out there now

PT 10-S1-Q13

I got this one correct, but (D) is really bugging me. If the last sentence of the stim wasn't there, I'd think it irrelevant. If there was strong opposition to the parliament's plan, then maybe there were partisan interests maybe he wasn't courageous or citizens won't applaud because narrow interests could have been the reason.

I thought it didn't work maybe because (D) challenges the last sentence, which is not the conclusion. (But then again it could be an alt explanation for courage) Or that just because the members didnt agree with parliament doesn't mean they agreed with the pres- yet since the plan is only two options: reject or not reject, it seems they would then agree with what the pres did.

Thanks!