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

[bp shinners]

Let's get these hours started.

[seagan823]

Realize I am a little late and answer may not come for a bit. I am interested in help with understanding LR Flaw type answer choice language.

I just did the Flaw in Reasoning questions in PT 10, section 1. The only one I missed or got held up on was 17. Quickly narrowed down to B and E, chose E when B was the correct answer.

The reason I chose E was because I was having trouble deciphering what the correct answer meant, and despite completing these questions untimed I knew that it was taking too long and I should make a decision.

I find that I frequently have trouble deciphering what some of the answer choices actually mean in Flaw/Method questions. When I reread the correct answer choice when reviewing mistake, I usually understand, but I need to figure out how to understand more quickly in the moment of the question.

What is the best way to improve on quickly grasping the meaning of concepts in Flaw/Method answers? I assume that I should just keep practicing and reviewing, as I am aiming to complete every PT by October and right now I am still mostly doing untimed question type drilling on early PTs. However any tips would be welcome.

Thanks!

[the_pakalypse]

Retaker here - any advice on game day performance? I feel like test anxiety messed with me, although I did not feel it until a specific logic game threw me off with time winding down.

[philly93]

So I have purchased a copt of Blueprint's LG games and was wondering if anyone can give me tips or advice on how to start studying from the book? Would it be advisable to read through and take notes and do problems or read through once, read again with notes? Any other methods that have worked for people?

thanks

[bp shinners]

What is the best way to improve on quickly grasping the meaning of concepts in Flaw/Method answers?

The secret for questions with ACs like this one is to go through it slowly and substitute language from the stimulus into the abstract language of the answer choice.

So here, I would re-read (B) as:
Concludes that the definition of "contract" is fully applicable to the situation of an artist accepting support from public funds when it is know that the acceptance of public funds only conforms to part of that definition.

Then, I check my definition - two parties engage with each other for the reciprocal transfer of benefits. My two parties here (in the conclusion) are the public and the artist. Did they both engage with each other for benefits? I know the artist received benefits from the public, but I never see the artist agreeing to the reciprocal part. So I've got a definition that doesn't fully apply, and it's my answer.

But yes, practice, and when doing so, make sure to substitute the language of the stimulus into the answer choices to make them easier to follow!

[bp shinners]

Retaker here - any advice on game day performance? I feel like test anxiety messed with me, although I did not feel it until a specific logic game threw me off with time winding down.

Test anxiety almost always breaks down to running into an LG or RC passage that throws you for a loop. When that happens (and it happens to the best of us), you need to have the presence of mind to take a deep breath and relate it back to the basics.

So for LG, have a set process you go through every time, and start with step 1. If there's something weird going on, ignore it for now, relate the game to a basic game type (ordering/grouping/combo), and then come back to the weird rule/detail after you've built your setup with the rest of the rules.

For RC, just start reading slowly. Get through a sentence. Then get through a paragraph. If you're completely lost, use framework keywords (theory, hypothesis, for example, however, etc...) to see where the viewpoints are shifting and presenting their evidence. If you get through the passage and can at least talk about the viewpoints and where they show up, you're probably in much better shape than you think.

[bp shinners]

So I have purchased a copt of Blueprint's LG games and was wondering if anyone can give me tips or advice on how to start studying from the book? Would it be advisable to read through and take notes and do problems or read through once, read again with notes? Any other methods that have worked for people?

thanks

Hey Philly93,

People come in here mostly to ask specific questions, so I don't know how many people you'll have responding with advice. I'd recommend posting to the main page to solicit experiences from people who have gone through the book.

From our perspective at Blueprint, however, you should read through the book once, taking notes and doing the games. Then, as you practice more games throughout your prep, use the guide at the back to see how difficult it is and what strategies you should have used. If you are missing the same types of things over and over, go back and review those lessons.

[lawschoolplease1]

hi again Bp!
(thanks for this thread)

I have one question on the !kung passage of PT 67.
#12.
from what i understand, much like life that has no formal construct, nisa's story is in a form of dialogue suggesting its fluidity.
what the heck is "novelistic storytelling"? and what is expository comparison?

thanks again bp!

[Dr. Dre]

My LSAT hero is Trent Teti.

srry, bp shinners.

[bp shinners]

My LSAT hero is Trent Teti.

srry, bp shinners.

Do I at least get sidekick status?

[Dr. Dre]

My LSAT hero is Trent Teti.

srry, bp shinners.

Do I at least get sidekick status?

indeed

[bp shinners]

Open for business. And I'm tracking down a copy of PT67, so I'll get an answer to the RC question when I find it!

[bp shinners]

hi again Bp!
(thanks for this thread)

I have one question on the !kung passage of PT 67.
#12.
from what i understand, much like life that has no formal construct, nisa's story is in a form of dialogue suggesting its fluidity.
what the heck is "novelistic storytelling"? and what is expository comparison?

thanks again bp!

This is tricky because of the features of the passage you mention. However, the end of that 4th paragraph is all about how the dialogue led to a "distinct narrative in a particular voice." She interviewed Nisa, and her story was told to Shostak in a dialogue. However, "in the process of this dialogue...a shaped story emerges." So while the story was told to Shostak as a conversation with a featureless background, it becomes a traditional narrative, thus falling under "novelistic storytelling." I have a set story with a distinct narrative told, in a particular voice.

An expository comparison would be something that just explained the differences between two things. In this case, the things would have to be Nisa's life and a Western life/Shostak's life. But we're told that there's a distinct narrative in a particular voice, so it's not simply an explanation of differences between these two lifestyles.

[crestor]

Do you have any advice for the RC section? I did PrepTest 58 today and it has the been the first time in a long while that my score dipped below a 170, since I missed a whopping 7 questions on the RC section. I've read that RC section has gotten more difficult over the past couple of years, and it has kind of destroyed my confidence.

People always say this, and I just don't see it. RC has changed, for sure, but I don't think it's become more difficult. To me, it's actually easier now for three reasons:
1) Comparative reading. You will have one of these passages. Most of my students find these passages easier than the other ones.
2) Fewer passages that are helped by specialized knowledge. Sure, it was great to get a passage on a topic with which you were familiar. But it sucked when everyone else was familiar with the topic and you weren't. Recently, I've been seeing more passages that are so esoteric/obscure that no one reading it really has a leg up. That evens the field.
3) Tighter answer choices. The questions have become LR-esque in how tight they are with the wording. This means that you should be better able to eliminate the incorrect answer and pick the correct answers based on strategies from LR, and be more certain of your answers than most people think you can be on RC.

Biggest change in strategy I can suggest is to approach each question as an LR question. Type it just as you would in that section. Most will be "Most Strongly Supported"-type questions (including the Main Point question, which should be viewed as a hybrid Main Point/Soft Must Be True ("Most Strongly Supported") question). There will be a smattering of Strengthen/Weaken/Parallel questions. Then a few Role and Organization questions. But use your LR strategies here.

When reviewing passages, don't just find why your answer was wrong and the other answer was right. Figure out what you could have done to quickly answer that question. This usually involves making a new tag on the passage that you didn't the first time through. You don't want every detail that shows up in a question tagged in the passage, but you do want to at least have the paragraph in which it appears tagged so that you could have quickly found that answer choice.

Finally, look at every passage as a progression. X used to be true/what we believed. Y happened. Now we believe Z.

Science:
We used to believe theory X.
Then some scientist did experiment Y.
Now we believe Z.

History:
X was the historical trend.
Then event Y happened.
After that, we saw Z.

Art/Literature:
X was the style at the time.
Then artist/movement Y happened.
Now we have style Z.

It's not universal, but it does apply to a ton of passage. If you understand the differences between X and Z, and you know what Y consists of (not necessarily all the specifics, but at least how it moved us from X to Z), then you should be solid on the RC.

this is gold

[wtrc]

BP,

How would you approach a question like PT 65, S1, #11? It's pretty obvious that the stimulus is filled with flaws (perhaps the owner stole the diamonds, perhaps the person who stole them didn't need gloves, etc.), yet answer choices A AND D both have individual flaws- A forgets that the food could have made the kids sick, and D neglects to mention that maybe there is a different reason she has cavities on the other side of her mouth. How would you eliminate D and pick A here?

[bp shinners]

BP,

How would you approach a question like PT 65, S1, #11? It's pretty obvious that the stimulus is filled with flaws (perhaps the owner stole the diamonds, perhaps the person who stole them didn't need gloves, etc.), yet answer choices A AND D both have individual flaws- A forgets that the food could have made the kids sick, and D neglects to mention that maybe there is a different reason she has cavities on the other side of her mouth. How would you eliminate D and pick A here?

For this one, I'd say that the flaw is that the argument ignores the evidence that's actually present. We have the same thing in (A) - everyone ate the food, everyone got sick, but we say something else made them sick. It's straight up ignoring the relevant evidence, just like we're ignoring the fingerprints in the stimulus.

(D), on the other hand, doesn't ignore any evidence at all. The conclusion is trying to explain the evidence in a very specific way.

[seagan823]

BP,

Just applied the advice you gave me last week about substituting language from the stimulus of a flaw question into the abstract language of the answer choice. Helped me to compete 10 flaw questions in a row quickly, accurately and confidently. Learned enough from answering flaw questions not to allow this small success to lead me to erroneously believe my work with Flaw LR is complete, but I just wanted to let you know your advice helped and it is very much appreciated.

-S

[jmjm]

hey bp, looking for explanation of pt-2 sec-2 (lr) #24

The credited AC in this last question in LR section seems to go against a premise ("most of them hold political views that're less insightful than those of any reasonably well educated person who's not an artist"). "most" may include "all" and therefore E could be false. It seems unreal lsac could be testing anything meaningful framing question this way.

[bp shinners]

BP,

Just applied the advice you gave me last week about substituting language from the stimulus of a flaw question into the abstract language of the answer choice. Helped me to compete 10 flaw questions in a row quickly, accurately and confidently. Learned enough from answering flaw questions not to allow this small success to lead me to erroneously believe my work with Flaw LR is complete, but I just wanted to let you know your advice helped and it is very much appreciated.

-S

Awesome! And even though you're right to know that you're not done with flaws, it's still important to celebrate the small victories. Otherwise, the whole process gets depressing and overwhelming.

[bp shinners]

hey bp, looking for explanation of pt-2 sec-2 (lr) #24

The credited AC in this last question in LR section seems to go against a premise ("most of them hold political views that're less insightful than those of any reasonably well educated person who's not an artist"). "most" may include "all" and therefore E could be false. It seems unreal lsac could be testing anything meaningful framing question this way.

I agree with you. I don't think (E) would be the correct answer on the LSAT if this question came up today.

There are two explanations, neither of which are convincing:
1) If most of them hold views that..., then some don't. That's not convincing because that's not how the LSAT uses "most".
2) The "rarely" in the last sentence means that it does, in fact, exist. However, that just means that sometimes you can find artistic talent and political insight together, not that those with artistic talent are as insightful as non-artists. This is treating insightfulness as a binary characteristic, despite the argument not treating it as such earlier. Ergo, not convincing.

I wouldn't worry too much about this - chalk it up to an early LSAT being less regulated, know that treating "most" as "possibly all" works for every question on the modern LSAT, and don't lose any sleep over this one.

[bp shinners]

Only 10 days to study - any questions?

[crestor]

Hey BP

Would you recommend taking it slower than usual with the test coming up or continue drilling testing at the same level or go even harder?

Thanks

[bp shinners]

Hey BP

Would you recommend taking it slower than usual with the test coming up or continue drilling testing at the same level or go even harder?

Thanks

I'd push hard through Wednesday and take a PT that day. If it goes well, then take it light through Saturday and take Sunday off.

If it doesn't go well, review your mistakes on Thursday and take another test on Friday. Then, take Saturday light and Sunday off.

[crestor]

Hey BP

Would you recommend taking it slower than usual with the test coming up or continue drilling testing at the same level or go even harder?

Thanks

I'd push hard through Wednesday and take a PT that day. If it goes well, then take it light through Saturday and take Sunday off.

If it doesn't go well, review your mistakes on Thursday and take another test on Friday. Then, take Saturday light and Sunday off.

Gracias

[the_pakalypse]

I saw your post in another topic about how newer LGs basically just add a wrinkle of something different to make the game a bit more difficult and that, if you take the wrinkle away, the game becomes a lot easier.. I was wondering if you could elaborate on that based on PT 68 game 4 (magazine editor). I've seen the basic advanced linear games a million time, but this game just took me a helluva long time. I had 12 minutes when I began the game.... yet by the end I finished by guessing on 4 questions. I was trying to get an inference from the conditional questions -- yet I really couldn't make any until way too late in the section.

My question is basically how do you approach such a game. Half way through the game I realized that this was very similar to another game I messed up (PT 65 game 4) in that I was really not sure how to incorporate that "wrinkle" back into the game. For that game it was about having multiple timelines (both time and tv show # were important)

And when is a good benchmark to stop looking for inferences from conditional and just brute force choice by choice? I really didn't want to do that this time since it usually takes so much time... but I feel like this approach would have served me better this time