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

[bp shinners]

Thanks so much for clearing that up.

I have another question for when you have time (short!): is "except when" the same, logically as "except"? (Negate the Suff keep the Necc)

Yep.

I drink Scotch except when I drink beer.
~B->S

Which is why I'm chronically dehydrated and drunk on this Friday afternoon!

[bp shinners]

Then it goes on to to say that modern architects have "violated this precept" by producing buildings that are no longer functional (so ~B). I'm having a difficult time interpreting the phrase, "violated this precept." How should one translate this phrase back into the original conditional statement?

More generally, since a precept is just a principle, and let's say I have a principle that is a conditional statement (If A then B), when someone says that the principle has been violated, does that automatically mean the negation of the necessary condition, or is it more like: even if A, still not necessarily B.

This is a difficult question, and, honestly, I think the LSAT has solidified the way it views this idea since the earlier tests. However, even with my "modern" understanding of how the LSAT deals with this, it doesn't create an issue for this question.

When you have a precept/principle/conditional statement doubling as a principle, violating it means affirming the sufficient condition but denying the necessary. You don't negate either condition, really - instead, you negate the arrow linking them.

For example, I give you a principle that states: All blondes are dumb, or B->D.
Then, I give you counterexamples. Dolph Lundgren (the Russian from Rocky) has like a PhD in particle physics, or something ridiculous like that. Julia Stiles went to Columbia. There are plenty of blondes out there who aren't dumb.
Therefore, being blonde isn't sufficient to tell me that you're dumb. I haven't negated either condition; rather, I threw out the arrow - these two concepts (blonde, dumb) are no longer inherently linked.

I don't know if that's what the LSAC was going for in this question, because it seems to have nothing to do with anything else. However, it doesn't really matter to the question at hand. I need something that must be true. I know that if a building is I and F, then it's ~O. I know that a building being ~O is linked with taking second place to the environment, so ~O=2toE. And I know that modern architects put their strong personalities first. That means ~2toE, which means O, which is B. If modern architects let their strong personalities take over their work, then they're not going to take second place to the environment, so they're going to be obtrusive.

Honestly, though, this one is easier, I think, from a PoE standpoint:
(A) - Just reverses my conditional statement, so it's out
(C) - "Cannot" is too much here - it seems like they don't, but that doesn't mean they're incapable of it. Additionally, you could make an obtrusive-yet-functional building (McDonald's PlayPlace, anyone?).
(D) - Again, reversing the conditional
(E) - Same as (C).

[TheMostDangerousLG]

Why does it seem like RC doesn't always follow the logic or have the precision of LR questions? The sort of details and evaluation of scope that help me navigate LR often don't get me where I need to be on an RC question.. I usually go -0 to -2 on LR, but RC can be anywhere from -1 to -6, and it's super frustrating. Even going back and doing super thorough analysis of a passage and all of the answer choices (both for questions I get right and wrong), it often seems like correct RC answer choices are based on some nebulous logic or synthesis of info that isn't consistent. So frustrated.

[bp shinners]

Why does it seem like RC doesn't always follow the logic or have the precision of LR questions? The sort of details and evaluation of scope that help me navigate LR often don't get me where I need to be on an RC question.. I usually go -0 to -2 on LR, but RC can be anywhere from -1 to -6, and it's super frustrating. Even going back and doing super thorough analysis of a passage and all of the answer choices (both for questions I get right and wrong), it often seems like correct RC answer choices are based on some nebulous logic or synthesis of info that isn't consistent. So frustrated.

If you're talking older RC, I'm with you. If you're talking newer RC, I'm not.

The older RC does tend to be a little more 'inferential' for lack of a better word - there are a few more jumps.

However, the more recent RC is extremely logically precise with its wording. Single logical force keywords will invalidate an answer, and other words that carry specific meaning will also play a role in correct answer selection.

What you might be running into is the questions in RC where the correct answer doesn't rely on the logic, but rather the structure. These questions (role, organization, etc...) can seem like they're turning on 'softer' logic than the rest of the exam. While I wouldn't characterize them in that way, I definitely would say that it's testing a different skill than most of the other RC questions. For those, it's really about not letting yourself justify anything with, "Well, if what they mean is..., then this is correct." There shouldn't be any "if"s in there - just straight-forward matching up the elements of the answer choice with those of the stimulus. They'll sometimes strain language (by using the uncommon usage of a certain word, for instance), but it's not "looser" than LR, to me at least.

[TTX]

Then it goes on to to say that modern architects have "violated this precept" by producing buildings that are no longer functional (so ~B). I'm having a difficult time interpreting the phrase, "violated this precept." How should one translate this phrase back into the original conditional statement?

More generally, since a precept is just a principle, and let's say I have a principle that is a conditional statement (If A then B), when someone says that the principle has been violated, does that automatically mean the negation of the necessary condition, or is it more like: even if A, still not necessarily B.

This is a difficult question, and, honestly, I think the LSAT has solidified the way it views this idea since the earlier tests. However, even with my "modern" understanding of how the LSAT deals with this, it doesn't create an issue for this question.

When you have a precept/principle/conditional statement doubling as a principle, violating it means affirming the sufficient condition but denying the necessary. You don't negate either condition, really - instead, you negate the arrow linking them.

For example, I give you a principle that states: All blondes are dumb, or B->D.
Then, I give you counterexamples. Dolph Lundgren (the Russian from Rocky) has like a PhD in particle physics, or something ridiculous like that. Julia Stiles went to Columbia. There are plenty of blondes out there who aren't dumb.
Therefore, being blonde isn't sufficient to tell me that you're dumb. I haven't negated either condition; rather, I threw out the arrow - these two concepts (blonde, dumb) are no longer inherently linked.

I don't know if that's what the LSAC was going for in this question, because it seems to have nothing to do with anything else. However, it doesn't really matter to the question at hand. I need something that must be true. I know that if a building is I and F, then it's ~O. I know that a building being ~O is linked with taking second place to the environment, so ~O=2toE. And I know that modern architects put their strong personalities first. That means ~2toE, which means O, which is B. If modern architects let their strong personalities take over their work, then they're not going to take second place to the environment, so they're going to be obtrusive.

Honestly, though, this one is easier, I think, from a PoE standpoint:
(A) - Just reverses my conditional statement, so it's out
(C) - "Cannot" is too much here - it seems like they don't, but that doesn't mean they're incapable of it. Additionally, you could make an obtrusive-yet-functional building (McDonald's PlayPlace, anyone?).
(D) - Again, reversing the conditional
(E) - Same as (C).

I am surprised by your detailed explanation. I did not relate ~O to 2toE, which turned out to be pretty important.
Thanks!

[CardozoLaw09]

Hey BP,

Could you take a look at PT25, S.4, Q.6 for me please? I thought B was a pretty good answer. We're told in the stimulus that the male sage grouse inflate their sacs during the courtship ritual and it is through this ritual that females select healthy mates. B says that diseased sage grouse were treated with antibiotics and during the ritual were not selected by the females. We know they were diseased and therefore not 100% healthy and we know that they inflate their sacs during the ritual, so isn't a reasonable assumption to make that the females didn't choose them because of something they noticed on the air sacs? Also, I didn't like D because it didn't reinforce the relationship between the ritual and selection of healthy mates whereas B did. Thanks

[bp shinners]

Hey BP,

Could you take a look at PT25, S.4, Q.6 for me please? I thought B was a pretty good answer. We're told in the stimulus that the male sage grouse inflate their sacs during the courtship ritual and it is through this ritual that females select healthy mates. B says that diseased sage grouse were treated with antibiotics and during the ritual were not selected by the females. We know they were diseased and therefore not 100% healthy and we know that they inflate their sacs during the ritual, so isn't a reasonable assumption to make that the females didn't choose them because of something they noticed on the air sacs? Also, I didn't like D because it didn't reinforce the relationship between the ritual and selection of healthy mates whereas B did. Thanks

Strengthen question:
1) Male sage grouses (greese?) have air sacs on their necks.
2) When seducing a sexy lady-grouse, the males inflate their neck sacs (careful, guys - that'll get you arrested if you're not a grouse).
___________________________________________________________________________________
This whole ritual is so that the females can select healthy mates (they don't want male grouses with neck syphilis).

So my obvious flaw/gap here is between see the air sac and picking a healthy mate. I need to link these two ideas.

D, to me, clearly links them. A parasitic infection is, by definition, a health issue. If the symptoms of this prevalent illness are visible on the neck sacs, then showing them off to the females will let them see if they have these parasites. Can you speak a little more on why you don't think this links the ritual to picking a healthy mate? I'm not sure I understand where you're seeing a disconnect.

In B, we've changed things up. We've given these sage grouses antibiotics. Did this cure them? I don't know. It's possible it did. It's possible it didn't. Since I don't know if these sage grouses were still diseased, or showing symptoms, when they performed the ritual, I don't know how healthiness is linked to the ritual. (If anything, I would say this strengthens the argument - it doesn't, but it's trying to by saying that we gave these grouses medicine to make them non-diseased and they still couldn't get laid.)

Also, photo courtesy of Dr. Dre:

[CardozoLaw09]

I was wondering what a grouse looked like. That is one strange looking bird. Also, thanks for the response - makes sense now!

[Captain Rodeo]

Just saw your earlier response. Thank you! Haha, I think that conditional you put forth would horrible- better than being chronically drunk- I say that, because if you're not drinking scotch, you could just drink Coors or BL, which is like yellow water. If you're having something like Stoned or Chimay, that's another story.

[bp shinners]

Just saw your earlier response. Thank you! Haha, I think that conditional you put forth would horrible- better than being chronically drunk- I say that, because if you're not drinking scotch, you could just drink Coors or BL, which is like yellow water. If you're having something like Stoned or Chimay, that's another story.

Swill! (the Coors and BL; and don't get me started on Busch Lite - it tastes like undergrad)

For anyone wondering what they can send me for my awesome advice, I prefer a smoky/peaty Scotch like Laphroaig, and darker beers (think milk stouts).

[bp shinners]

Another day, a few more questions?

[TheMostDangerousLG]

Tips for shaking off disappointment with a bad score and moving on to retake studying? So disheartening putting in a lot of work and scoring below potential for no discernible reason. Still in a funk.

[lsatkid007]

hey bp
how about pt7 sec1 #12 it's about the mathematician.

thanks

[bp shinners]

Tips for shaking off disappointment with a bad score and moving on to retake studying? So disheartening putting in a lot of work and scoring below potential for no discernible reason. Still in a funk.

Take a few days off. Take another test. Usually, you'll see an increase in score when you give your brain time to rest.

There's another possibility, however - if this is a second/third PT early in the study process, you might be going down because you are taking longer on the questions, which results in a time crunch that you didn't face when you first started your prep. If that's the case, it's really just a matter of concentrating on the questions you did get right (which hopefully align with the question types you've covered) and not worrying about the overall score.

[bp shinners]

hey bp
how about pt7 sec1 #12 it's about the mathematician.

thanks

Alright, a MBT question. I also have some quantifiers (a whole bunch of 'some's) and a 'no' statement, which is also conditional. You could diagram this one, but I probably wouldn't. I do know, however, that the first statement (All math geeks today won't refuse to accept an enormous computation as a proof) is going to play a role in my answer choice. It is the strongest statement, by far, in the entire stimulus, and with only a bunch of 'some' statements throughout the rest, I need this strong statement to allow an inference to be drawn.

So today, all mathematicians won't flatly refuse this proof.
Some mathematicians back in the day would, though.
Some math geeks today think a simple theorem should have a simple proof.
Some simple theorems require an enormous proof.

I'm going to predict an answer based on these statements. Looking at them, I'm going to say a combination of my first and third statements are the most likely for an answer choice.

Why?

Easy. The first statement will be involved because it's the only thing with strong enough logical force to allow an inference to be drawn. And my third statement is the only statement that talks about the same group - math geeks of today.

Putting them together, I know that some math geeks who think a simple theorem should have a simple proof won't flatly refuse an enormous computation as a proof. That's (A).

(B) - I don't talk about non-mathematicians, so this one is out.
(C) - I know about mathematicians who won't simply refuse to accept this proof; I know nothing of people who eventually do refuse to accept these results.
(D) - I only know about people who do believe this, so I can't say anything about the people who don't.
(E) - Again, don't know nothing 'bout no non-mathematicians.

[Captain Rodeo]

Just saw your earlier response. Thank you! Haha, I think that conditional you put forth would horrible- better than being chronically drunk- I say that, because if you're not drinking scotch, you could just drink Coors or BL, which is like yellow water. If you're having something like Stoned or Chimay, that's another story.

Swill! (the Coors and BL; and don't get me started on Busch Lite - it tastes like undergrad)

For anyone wondering what they can send me for my awesome advice, I prefer a smoky/peaty Scotch like Laphroaig, and darker beers (think milk stouts).

Hahahaha undergrad.... Sooo true. And I'll definitely keep your preferences in mind

[lsatkid007]

Hey BP
Quick one. When you say "weak answer" choices do you mean weak in modality as listed in lesson 2 on page 10?

Thanks BP

[bp shinners]

Hey BP
Quick one. When you say "weak answer" choices do you mean weak in modality as listed in lesson 2 on page 10?

Thanks BP

Yep!

Also, heads up to everyone - office hours are going to be switching from Tuesday nights to Wednesday nights, same time (same place). This week, however, I can't make either night (or Friday), so tune in next Wednesday for my triumphant return.

[jrsbaseball5]

BP-

What do you find the most effective way is to drill LG questions? I am going through some games right now and I'm trying to make sure that I'm following an effective system.

Thanks!

[TheMostDangerousLG]

Tips for shaking off disappointment with a bad score and moving on to retake studying? So disheartening putting in a lot of work and scoring below potential for no discernible reason. Still in a funk.

Take a few days off. Take another test. Usually, you'll see an increase in score when you give your brain time to rest.

There's another possibility, however - if this is a second/third PT early in the study process, you might be going down because you are taking longer on the questions, which results in a time crunch that you didn't face when you first started your prep. If that's the case, it's really just a matter of concentrating on the questions you did get right (which hopefully align with the question types you've covered) and not worrying about the overall score.

Thank you, but I was wondering if you had tips for starting to study for a retake after my first official LSAT take (took it in February, studying for June). I'm not even at the point where I can bring myself to do PTs again.

[jmjm]

Hello
Having trouble with the following credited responses in PT-36 RC passage. It looks as if the cited questions can also be argued to arrive at a different answer. Any explanation clarifying the following much appreciated...

pt-36, rc:
Q2: Other answer choices (AC) in addition to the credited (c) can be argued to contain attributes that author has dismissed. AC (d) and (d) have both discrimination along educational/economic lines and lack of diversity (age for (b) and career for (d)).

Q4: The credited AC is (e) even though the necessary criterion it states ("only if its members feel a sense of interdependence despite different economic and educational backgrounds") is always true for computer conferences and can't be used to refute the argument. Due to the use of word "despite" the above necessary criterion does not assert anything when "different economic and educational backgrounds" doesn't exist such as in computer conference.


PT-46 Sec-2 (LR-1) Q8:
answer choice (a) also weakens the argument strongly because it says that that schools need computers because "scientific knowledge is changing so rapidly". Therefore it directly weakens that premises of the argument which claim laboratory experiment to be most effective.

I am unsure if the above line of argument has been left in the answer choices by lsat writers deliberately or by accident.

[lawschoolplease1]

DEC 95, section 3, LR, number 11

Hey Bp! I was wondering if you can help me nitpick.

So I think the answer choice B is the best answer.
However, I think it's a bit shaky.
the stimulus basically tries to set up a chain of conditionals, and the answer choice connects the dots.
However, I don't think it's quite that clear cut.
The stimulus says the increased population "would probably result in" overcrowded schools. this isn't a suff/nec. and it would need to be suff/nec for the answer choice to follow.

Can you please shed some light?

[lsatkid007]

Hey BP
Pt9 Sec2 Q13. Let me know if this makes sense.
"If the press were not profit-making, who would support it? The only alternative is subsidy and with it outside control.

The underline part I threw out and diagram this as:
~PP --> sub --> oc
sub --> p
sub --> ~oj

I didn't write the entire stim.

Thanks

[lsatkid007]

Hey BP
Pt 14 Sec 3 #23 & 27.

#23. Where is Kolchin's principal conclusion regarding the relationship of demographics located in the passage? I really couldn't comprehend the questions. I know its strengthen question.

#27. The answer is D but I don't see it. On paragraph 2 line 30 it say's MOST serfs rarely saw ......., WHILE MOST southern planter lived on their land and interacted with ....... Is it because MOST southern planters lived on their land & interacted does that mean that SOME (FEW) didn't live that but instead lived like the Russians with intermediaries?

Thanks BP

[bp shinners]

BP-

What do you find the most effective way is to drill LG questions? I am going through some games right now and I'm trying to make sure that I'm following an effective system.

Thanks!

I find the most effective way is to just go through Games and drill them by type until you have the rules down for that game type and the common deductions, and then a variety of Games so you get a lot of practice.

For the questions, don't just figure out why the right answer is right. Also see if you can find the most efficient way of getting that answer. See if you missed deductions that would have given it away, etc... This will help you with accuracy and with timing.