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

[bp shinners]

bp shinners —

from what people are saying about the June LSAT, your prediction came true (about RC)

please let me know about any predictions you may have of October

thanks

I usually base them off of what I hear about the previous exam as well as looking at the test when it's released, so I'll be sure to send some predictions your way when I get a copy of the June test!

[Dr. Dre]

I was reviewing the LR Clinic and I have a question about Q#8 (the one about medication reducing blood pressure). This is on page 9 in the section "One stimulus...many question types."

The answer key says that answer (O) is Necessary, Sufficient, and Strengthen.

I don't understand how this answer is both necessary and sufficient.

[bp shinners]

I was reviewing the LR Clinic and I have a question about Q#8 (the one about medication reducing blood pressure). This is on page 9 in the section "One stimulus...many question types."

The answer key says that answer (O) is Necessary, Sufficient, and Strengthen.

I don't understand how this answer is both necessary and sufficient.

For this one, I have an incomplete comparison. On the metric of lowering blood pressure, medication and diet/exercise are equal. On the metric of side effects, I don't know. I know medications often have unhealthy side effects, but I don't know anything about the diet/exercise. If I want to get to my conclusion that diet/exercise is healthier than medication, I need to complete my comparison.

(O) does that by saying the side effects for diet/exercise are less unhealthy than medication.

Why is it necessary? Because the argument is relying on the unhealthy side effects of medication to show it's less healthy than diet/exercise. I need to know that these unhealthy side effects are worse than what happens with diet/exercise for my argument to work; if the unhealthy side effects for diet/exercise are just as bad or worse, then I no longer have support for my conclusion.

Why is it sufficient? That's definitional. In the context of this argument, my primary effect is lowering blood pressure. By definition, any other effect is a side effect. So between the primary effect and the side effects, I've covered all the effects. And if the primary effect is equal but the side effects for the diet/exercise are more healthful (i.e. less unhealthful), then I can draw my conclusion that diet/exercise is less unhealthy than taking medicine.

[seagan823]

I am having a lot of trouble understanding Question 7 in Section Two of PT 14 (zebras).

Why D and not A? Wouldn't the best defined stripes signaling expectional size and vigor strengthen? Or does the lack of the word signal in the answer make prevent it from being considered?

I am as interested in how to eliminate A as I am in figuring out how to come to D. Thanks!

[bp shinners]

I am having a lot of trouble understanding Question 7 in Section Two of PT 14 (zebras).

Why D and not A? Wouldn't the best defined stripes signaling expectional size and vigor strengthen? Or does the lack of the word signal in the answer make prevent it from being considered?

I am as interested in how to eliminate A as I am in figuring out how to come to D. Thanks!

Here, I'm trying to prove that stripes serve some signalling purpose for other zebras.

(A) has the problem, as you stated, that I don't know these stripes are signalling anything. I would say a zebra can probably tell which zebra is bigger even without the stripes.

Insetad, (A) just tells me that the zebras with the best-defined stripes are also big and vigorous. (A) could weaken the argument as much as strengthen it. It is based on the fact that the subspecies with the best-defined stripes is also the most widespread, and that supposedly proves that the stripes are important. However, (A) tells me that maybe it's their exceptional size and vigor that has made them so widespread, and the stripes have nothing to do with it.

This is a common incorrect answer for a +/- question, in that it sounds like it's connecting important ideas (which it is), but it's not doing so in a way that guarantees it has the desired effect on the argument. I don't know if the exceptional size/vigor caused this species to become widespread, or if the stripes did which in turn increased their size/vigor, or if any of these factors were causes or effects of any other.

[bp shinners]

It's a long and bumpy road to October; anyone have a question to start it off?

[crestor]

Hey BP

Was drilling an early PT, one with water bugs.

I missed 3 combined on the 3 articles and 6 on the water bugs alone. Do you think a passage like water bugs can reappear on the test?

[bp shinners]

Hey BP

Was drilling an early PT, one with water bugs.

I missed 3 combined on the 3 articles and 6 on the water bugs alone. Do you think a passage like water bugs can reappear on the test?

Can you get me a PT cite so I can give it a look?

[crestor]

PT 2

[bp shinners]

PT 2

Yep, definitely something like that is possible on the test today. I think you got distracted by all the scientific terminology - which is why they threw it in there. The basic ideas aren't all that complex, and the passage focuses on splitting up the three types of adaptive responses and then going into their causes. It uses the water bugs as an example of the developmental type. That's pretty much the whole passage! Focus on the cause-and-effect of it, and ignore the high-level scientific terms, and you should be able to get through it.

[bp shinners]

Bueller? Bueller?

[civis]

.

[BlackadderIn]

Hey bps!

can you explain your take on PT32, S4, Q20 (point of disagree)? I find this one very complicated, full of subtle shifts of concept. In any case, I don't see any of answers being really attractive, and I don't understand why B is better than E.

We know Dana agrees with E and (probably, though I'm already not sure here) disagrees with B. As to Pat, either Pat thinks all children should learn in both methods, in which case she disagrees with E and agrees with B -- both B and E are correct. Or, Pat does not think all students should learn in both methods, then neither E nor B is correct.

Thanks so much in advance

[melmoththewanderer]

Hey BP, I have a question about PT36-S3-Q5. This is the question about Loux and her grandson.

I moseyed over to the Manhattan blog, which says that B is irrelevant. I'm not clear on exactly how its irrelevant and I want to hear an explanation on why it is irrelevant.

I also have a question about PT25-S4-Q9. This is a necessary assumption about the Federici Art Museum. My issue here is with the answer choice B itself, and while it is the best of the bunch, I still can't convince myself that it is a necessary assumption. Is this a case where you have to use the principle of charity and just assume that the curator is giving the full picture? What B says to me is if painting is sold by board then it must be recommended by the curator. But my issue is doesn't this then assume that only the paintings recommended by the curator do not detract from the quality? This seems to be left open by the stimulis, however.

[SteelPenguin]

bp shinners —

from what people are saying about the June LSAT, your prediction came true (about RC)

please let me know about any predictions you may have of October

thanks

What was the prediction? I tried to go back and find it in this thread, but I had no luck.

[bp shinners]

I'm taking the Blueprint online course gearing up for an October test date. Ideally, I'd like to knock out the 9 additional practice exams before game day. How should I work that into the schedule?

Is one cycle of the material (homework and practice exams) enough? If not, how does one go about reusing material?

I'd back-load them - I tell my students to wait until after Lesson 12, since that's when you'll have covered the vast majority of the material. There's plenty of work to keep you busy until then.

Is one cycle enough? It can be. Some other people take longer to prep; some people take one go-through. There are extra problem sets in your MyBlueprint page that you can use instead of reusing material already used (problem sets for each lesson that weren't included in the homework so as to be not overwhelming). Focus on getting through the material and then taking the PTs to see where you're at - if you're not where you want to be, shoot me a PM and we'll work out a schedule for more prep time after a first run-through. But hopefully it won't come to that!

[bp shinners]

As to Pat, either Pat thinks all children should learn in both methods, in which case she disagrees with E and agrees with B -- both B and E are correct.

This is where you went wrong. Your characterization here doesn't lead to Pat disagreeing with (E). When it says "sometimes" here, it doesn't have to mean on a child-to-child basis - it could be at different times for the same child. So (E) is something with which Pat would agree, since she thinks that a child should learn both, which will sometimes be the method in which the child learns best, and sometimes be the method in which they don't learn best. So she'd agree it is sometimes desirable to tailor it to a child, even if we then switch it up a bit.

[bp shinners]

bp shinners —

from what people are saying about the June LSAT, your prediction came true (about RC)

please let me know about any predictions you may have of October

thanks

What was the prediction? I tried to go back and find it in this thread, but I had no luck.

I write them for Blueprint's blog - Most Strongly Supported. You can read it here.

[bp shinners]

Hey BP, I have a question about PT36-S3-Q5. This is the question about Loux and her grandson.

I moseyed over to the Manhattan blog, which says that B is irrelevant. I'm not clear on exactly how its irrelevant and I want to hear an explanation on why it is irrelevant.

So we have Loux's estate, which has a certain value. We have the outstanding debts, which have a certain value. The executor needs to sell some stuff off to settle the debts, then the grandson gets the rest. He's planning to sell off Stoke Farm, and we conclude that Loux would have been cool with that.

To weaken this, I'd need to find a reason why Loux might have wanted Zembaty to sell off other parts of the estate to settle the debts. (E) does that by saying that, while Loux never expressed a desire for it, her grandson did, and Loux expressed a desire to make him happy with her estate.

(B), on the other hand, just tells me that Loux told her grandson she'd take care of him. Well, she's done that. The grandson's getting anything left over in the will after the debts are settled. Whether Zembaty sells the farm or not, the estate will end up at the same value, so this does nothing to my conclusion about selling the farm.

In short, the conclusion is about Zembaty's decision to sell the farm instead of another part of the estate that has the same value as the farm. If I want to have an effect on the argument, the answer choice has to mention something about the farm. (B) doesn't, so it's irrelevant to my conclusion.

If this doesn't make sense, can you give me an argument for why you think it is relevant? I might be able to provide a better explanation if I come at it from that direction.

I also have a question about PT25-S4-Q9. This is a necessary assumption about the Federici Art Museum. My issue here is with the answer choice B itself, and while it is the best of the bunch, I still can't convince myself that it is a necessary assumption. Is this a case where you have to use the principle of charity and just assume that the curator is giving the full picture? What B says to me is if painting is sold by board then it must be recommended by the curator. But my issue is doesn't this then assume that only the paintings recommended by the curator do not detract from the quality? This seems to be left open by the stimulis, however.

Ugh, if you read through that principle of charity thread, you know my thoughts on it. Forget that it exists, as it's never come up on the LSAT before and I don't expect it to again.

As to your issue, no, it doesn't assume that only the paintings recommended by the curator do not detract from the quality. It does assume, however, that every painting recommended by the curator does, in fact, not detract from the quality. However, it's fine to have multiple necessary assumptions in a Necessary assumption question, each of which is individually necessary for the argument to work.

Here's my argument:
The Board is selling some paintings.
The curator says that there are inferior paintings that don't add to the quality.
__________________________________________________________________
The Board selling some paintings won't detract from the museum's quality.

To get there, there are two huge jumps:
1) The curator is right in his assessment of these paintings
2) The Board is only selling the paintings viewed by the curator as inferior.

If you take either of these away, the argument collapses. If the curator is wrong, I can't conclude that the Board isn't detracting from the quality. If the Board sells paintings not recommended by the curator, I can't conclude that the Board isn't detracting from the quality. Both are necessary to use these premises to get to this conclusion. So you're right that we're assuming the curator is correct, but that's fine - this isn't a Sufficient assumption question. Multiple statements can be independently necessary to an argument. We have two possible answers here, and only the latter shows up in the answers (which is always the case - you won't have both).

[melmoththewanderer]

Thanks for your help on the last two questions! Drilling some more and I came across this one that I couldn't quickly reconcile. This is PT30-S4-Q11 the question about high school dropouts. I can see how answer choice A works, but not how incorrect choice D works.

The Manhattan blog makes a good point that D affects graduates. What didn't make sense for me was that D provides an incentive to graduate... job placement offices for graduates, something before graduates wouldn't get. This seems to make it possible that it might not have been the morale improving program that contributed to the decline in dropouts, but rather that the students wanted in on the job placement program.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is I couldn't come up with a reason against this line of thought. Where am I going wrong here?

[bp shinners]

Thanks for your help on the last two questions! Drilling some more and I came across this one that I couldn't quickly reconcile. This is PT30-S4-Q11 the question about high school dropouts. I can see how answer choice A works, but not how incorrect choice D works.

The Manhattan blog makes a good point that D affects graduates. What didn't make sense for me was that D provides an incentive to graduate... job placement offices for graduates, something before graduates wouldn't get. This seems to make it possible that it might not have been the morale improving program that contributed to the decline in dropouts, but rather that the students wanted in on the job placement program.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is I couldn't come up with a reason against this line of thought. Where am I going wrong here?

My issue with this is more with the job placement program itself - how do I know it's something these students want? I'm told that those dropping out are getting jobs, so maybe they don't need a job placement office at all. If I can easily find a job on my own, a job placement office isn't particularly helpful. If, on the other hand, the stimulus said something about dropping out before graduating and hoping to get a job in a difficult job market, then I'd be more willing to look at (D).

[melmoththewanderer]

This makes perfect sense—it is always that extra critical step. Thanks again, BP!

[15chocolate]

Hi bp,

I have a question about infer/strengthen/weaken/Ex questions on RC...
So far those questions bother me the most.
Is there any ways we can predict which part would be asked or related to those questions while reading passages?
How should we tackle those Qs?
For infer question, it is particularly hard to find the related parts...I have to read all of them to answer the Q.
Also should we read all answer choices before go back to the passage or just read the question and skim the whole passage?

Thanks.

[jmjm]

hey bp,
Did LR of pt-32 and find the following questions confusing.

S1 Q21:
the passage refers to deception in general and includes doctors/others deceiving people. It seems that A or C could also be right, no? If If people found easy to deceive themselves (negation test on D), then the argument doesn't break (as 'deception' in argument may mean doctors were deceiving people).

S4 q18: Chose B. I saw E as an equally strong choice but decided against it as co2 may be affected also by number of people on the plane even on a similar 'flight'. The CR is E. B can only be doubted if one distinguishes between 'illness spreading' vs 'contracting illness' but some lsat questions use such terms interchangeably.

S4 Q23:
Even though A and C are partially true (supposition unintentionally does what is described in these options) they are not the role of the supposition. So eliminated them and the contender choices are D and E.
The argument does suggest E, which is that there is not sufficient reason for not eating meat (because 1st reason is negated due to supposition, and 2nd reason of aversion of living at the expense of conscious creatures is severely compromised by the supposition). why is E not CR?

[jmjm]

a question about PT 14 section 2 Q7 about zebras signaling.

A strengthens as it says that size-vigor <--> stripes. So, signaling stripes --> enable signaling by mating with size-vigor zebras --> making them widespread.
I categorized A as a premise-boosting correlation (premise is that widespread zebras have best defined stripes)

D doesn't explain how if zebras are able to spot moving shapes with stripes better than ones without stripes, it helps zebras become widespread or stripes better defined.
I'd categorize D as a supporting evidence for conclusion (except for the issue stated in the previous line).

Are there any uniform criteria that can be applied to find which answer outweighs the contender? E.g. supporting evidence outweighs premise-boosting correlation.