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

[lawschoolplease1]

RC DECEMBER 1991 SOLAR SYSTEM QUESTION

hi,
I was wondering if you could help me with question number 5. in the passage, i see that lines 35 to 45 are relevant, and more specifically, i see that lines 39 and 45 are key to answering the question. i'm unclear as to why choice D is the answer. in the passage it says "only one in every hundred primary occultations..." but choice D says "...more than one out of every hundred"
Thanks so much!

[lawschoolplease1]

RC December 2006
LHB Earth and Moon Passage

Ah, I don't mean to ask two RC passages in one day, but here is another one that i've been really confused about. number 13. I was stuck between D and A. In the passage it says... a rare Mars rock was discovered in Earth, which suggests that LHB was not limited to the earth and moon. It then says that scientists need to locate many more of such examples from other planets (the passage does not specify ALL planets) in order to conclude LHB extends beyond earth and moon. What I don't understand is why A is a better answer choice than D. Both seem to work for me. I chose D because it directly refutes the evidence that the argument depends on. What I dont like about A is that the passage never specified ALL planets. It just says other planets.... way too confused... please help?
Thank you again!!

[bp shinners]

Thundercats, thunder cats, THUNDERCATS, HO!

i.e. Let's get this show on the road.

[bp shinners]

RC DECEMBER 1991 SOLAR SYSTEM QUESTION

hi,
I was wondering if you could help me with question number 5. in the passage, i see that lines 35 to 45 are relevant, and more specifically, i see that lines 39 and 45 are key to answering the question. i'm unclear as to why choice D is the answer. in the passage it says "only one in every hundred primary occultations..." but choice D says "...more than one out of every hundred"
Thanks so much!

You're missing the key information when you just quote that second line. The key information is that the reports are now simply too numerous to be accurate. THEN, we say that they can't happen, in reality, more than one out of every hundred times. Since my reports are SO numerous as to be inaccurate, and an accurate count would be (at most) 1/100 times, it has to be true that we're reporting a secondary occultation more than once every hundred times - otherwise, we wouldn't be able to say they're so numerous as to be inaccurate.

In short, if we were reporting 1/100, it would be at the limits of believability. Since we're told that we're past the limits of believability (they're so numerous that some MUST BE inaccurate), we must be reporting more than that.

[bp shinners]

RC December 2006
LHB Earth and Moon Passage

Ah, I don't mean to ask two RC passages in one day, but here is another one that i've been really confused about. number 13. I was stuck between D and A. In the passage it says... a rare Mars rock was discovered in Earth, which suggests that LHB was not limited to the earth and moon. It then says that scientists need to locate many more of such examples from other planets (the passage does not specify ALL planets) in order to conclude LHB extends beyond earth and moon. What I don't understand is why A is a better answer choice than D. Both seem to work for me. I chose D because it directly refutes the evidence that the argument depends on. What I dont like about A is that the passage never specified ALL planets. It just says other planets.... way too confused... please help?
Thank you again!!

You seem to be skipping a very important part of the question - I'm looking for something that suggest ONLY the Earth and the Moon were affected by the LHB. Proof that the Earth and Moon were, in fact, affected by it does nothing to prove that no one else was affected by it. I need something that shows me that the LHB was limited in scope.

A does that - it tells me that Mars wasn't hit by the LHB. A tells me that Mars doesn't show evidence of an increase in these bombardments during the same period that the Moon/Earth was experiencing them. It doesn't get me to 100%, but it essentially tells me that Mars probably wasn't affected by the LHB. By telling me a place other than the Earth and Moon wasn't affected by the LHB, it makes it more likely that the Earth and Moon were the only places that were, in fact, struck by the LHB (since, in order to prove they were the only ones, I have to rule out every other planetary body, and I just ruled one out).

Picking D, you fell for an Absence of Evidence fallacy. D eliminates my Mars rock as proof that the LHB did, in fact, affect more than one planet. However, just because I eliminate evidence for a proposition doesn't make that proposition untrue, or even less likely to be true. It just tells me that I don't have a certain piece of evidence anymore. I don't have evidence to help me prove that the LHB DID affect multiple planets anymore, but that's different from having proof that the LHB didn't affect other planets.

[meandme]

Hey BP
On LG when should I go with scenarios and when should I just dive in the questions? I have found myself making too many scenarios and they leads to crazy deductions. When they really there aren't any because I have violate some rule.

Thanks
God bless

[bp shinners]

Hey BP
On LG when should I go with scenarios and when should I just dive in the questions? I have found myself making too many scenarios and they leads to crazy deductions. When they really there aren't any because I have violate some rule.

With very, very few exceptions, if you're doing more than 4 scenarios, you're doing it wrong. Even 4 scenarios is usually pushing it - 2-3 is usually the sweet spot.

You should go with scenarios when you have a rule that's so strong it limits the possibilities to 1-3 different 'skeletons' of a game. If you're making scenarios using more than one rule (unless those rules have been combined into a deduction), then you're going about it the wrong way. I'm looking for a single rule that limits the possibilities.

There are a few ways it can do this:
1) There is a player (or groups of players) that is severely constrained. For instance, a block with 3 people that can only go in 2 places creates 2 scenarios. An arch for a player creates 2 (maybe 3 scenarios).
2) There is a slot/group that is severely constrained. If there are only two players that can go in slot 4, that's two scenarios. If there are only 2-3 people who can go in a group, that creates a few scenarios.
3) There is a distribution that is severely constrained. This comes up a lot in unstable grouping games, or in In and Out Grouping games where I'm pulling from subgroups. In this case, figure out the distributions, and do scenarios.

Even when one of these 3 rules applies, you won't always be making (helpful) scenarios. When you pick your rule to build scenarios around, see if it will interact with other rules. If that rule does interact with other rules, you're more likely to get good scenarios.

[lawschoolplease1]

wow thank you so much for your explanation!!!!!

[bp shinners]

And we're off.

[meandme]

Hey BP
In a LG can I use an answer from an eliminate question for a scenario. You know usually the first questions is "which one of the following could be true in which someone views the site from day 1 through day 7?" Could I use the AC if I am sure it correct to answer other questions? I just did a game 5/6 but it took me 17 mins I tried to make some deductions and scenario. God bless you guys for putting #4 in the BP Game Plan. You don't know how many little mistakes I have made with that one.

Thanks
God bless

[bp shinners]

Hey BP
In a LG can I use an answer from an eliminate question for a scenario. You know usually the first questions is "which one of the following could be true in which someone views the site from day 1 through day 7?" Could I use the AC if I am sure it correct to answer other questions? I just did a game 5/6 but it took me 17 mins I tried to make some deductions and scenario. God bless you guys for putting #4 in the BP Game Plan. You don't know how many little mistakes I have made with that one.

Thanks
God bless

When you have a correct answer to an elimination-type question ("Which of the following could be a complete and accurate list of the site visits from days 1-7?"), you can definitely use that to answer other questions. Since you know that's a possibility, it can guide you in other questions. However, I'd make sure to only use it for absolute questions, or conditional questions that align with the answer choice (i.e. the conditional question says, "If we visit J on day 2" and the answer choice you picked for the elimination-style question has J on day 2).

There are two big ways to use it:

1) Find an answer choice in a Could Be True question. If a question asks, "Which one of the following could be true?" and an answer matches up with that question you picked for the elimination-style question, then it could be true. Bingo, you've got an answer.

2) Eliminate answer choices in a Must Be True questions. If a question asks, "Which one of the following must be true?" and answer DOESN'T match up with the answer to your elimination-style question, then it doesn't have to be true, and you can eliminate it.

[lawschoolplease1]

If I may ask another RC question...
December 2006
#20.

i can't seem to wrap my head around where exactly in the text this question refers to.
I wish I could explain what exactly i'm confused about, but i think i'm just lost by the entire question.

much thanks again!

[bp shinners]

If I may ask another RC question...
December 2006
#20.

i can't seem to wrap my head around where exactly in the text this question refers to.
I wish I could explain what exactly i'm confused about, but i think i'm just lost by the entire question.

much thanks again!

Honestly, I don't even think you need the passage at all to answer this question.

It's a weird question: it sets up a study, and asks you what question that study would answer. The study is just counting the hours of imported TV that is aired. So what do the results tell us? How often there is imported TV being shown.

What question does that answer? It answers: How much imported TV is on the boob tube?

It's not going to tell me anything about individual viewing habits (as I just counted the hours being aired, not watched), so B is out.

It's also not going to tell me anything about overall viewing habits (maybe it airs, but no one watches), so D is out.

E is so far outside the scope of what I could say by just counting the hours that it must be out.

I guess you could make an argument for C, as if they don't air much domestic TV relatively, maybe it suggests a weak industry. However, that's a big maybe, and whenever I need to make additional assumptions for an answer to be correct in a question like this, I know it's wrong.

That leaves me with A. Which is what I guessed - how much imported TV is aired (i.e. how much access is there to this stuff)?

Again, honestly, I don't think the passage really plays into this at all.

[lawschoolplease1]

is this kind of question normal for the LSAT?

[bp shinners]

is this kind of question normal for the LSAT?

Common? No. But definitely not rare enough that you should write it off as an anomaly.

It's akin to a conditional question in LG - they give you a new piece of information and ask you how it interacts with the passage. Because of the lateral thinking it involves, it's a more-difficult-than-average question. But, like all hard questions on the LSAT, you can still attack it with basic methods. Just break it down, see what it's asking you, and proceed from there.

[MissJenna]

Hi BP,

I just had a couple questions.

1) I've started to write out explanations (at the advice of some of the threads I read here) to answers I get wrong as to why the correct answer is right & the other answers are wrong. I don't know.....I'm not really feeling like this is helping me at all. For one, I'm not noticing any patterns..... if in fact I should. And #2, I notice my explanations are very general like......"(B) is wrong because dinosaurs were never mentioned," etc. I just don't know how to get more detailed in my analysis.

I'm really trying to improve the LR section so anything you can recommend I should do.....I will do.

Btw...I did take a TM course which I know is similar to BP.

2) Any 'good' way to memorize all the flaws? I read that this is a good way to get a grasp on LR, etc. I mean everyday I just glance over all the flaws & some examples, etc. But anything you would recommend maybe a little more hardcore where these flaws are ingrained in my head??

Thanks!!:-)

[meandme]

Hey BP

I have a few questions

1. How should I approach principle questions? I don't remember a section in my BP books for principle questions.

2. How should I keep track of who is saying what in LR. For example in a questions the there might be 2 pov in the stim (weaken or strengthen question). I get lost and mostly have to reread everything and I have to think about whats going on. That takes a lot of time and sometimes I am not sure I going in the right direction.

3. I am currently going over pt 1-20 right now and some of questions don't seem to match up with my BP questions. Has the wording of the questions changed over the recent exams and should I not worry about it. Or should start to really understand what the questions is saying because there's a good chance it might come up again.

Thanks
God bless

[bp shinners]

Up and running.

[bp shinners]

1) For one, I'm not noticing any patterns..... if in fact I should. And #2, I notice my explanations are very general like......"(B) is wrong because dinosaurs were never mentioned," etc. I just don't know how to get more detailed in my analysis.

2) Any 'good' way to memorize all the flaws? I read that this is a good way to get a grasp on LR, etc. I mean everyday I just glance over all the flaws & some examples, etc. But anything you would recommend maybe a little more hardcore where these flaws are ingrained in my head??

Both of your answers play into each other, so I'm going to answer them at the same time.

What you should be doing when you are writing out the explanations for wrong answers is relating them to a fallacy; either one mentioned in the answer choice that doesn't apply to the stimulus (i.e. the answer is a flaw, just not one in the argument), or one that they tricked you into making (i.e. you committed the given fallacy when picking that answer choice).

Your example is one of the most common reasons an answer is wrong, and it relates to the flaw of equivocation. Usually, they don't give you an answer that's out of left field - the topic of the answer choice is reasonably related to the passage. However, reasonably related isn't the same thing as actually talked about in the argument, and that what you need for the LSAT. So instead of writing, "B is wrong because dinosaurs were never mentioned." instead write, "B was wrong because the passage talks about mammals and I can't equivocate between mammals and dinosaurs.", or whatever applies.

If you really do this, two things will happen. First, you'll become a rock star with flaws because you'll be able to spot them anywhere. Not only will this help you spot the flaws in the arguments, but it will also let you quickly read an answer choice and think, "Oh, this is trying to get me to commit a logical force fallacy. Wrong." and move on.

Now, on to advanced flaw training. You really do need to spend enough time with them to be familiar with them in passing. However, here are some advanced tricks for spotting the prevalent flaws using elements of the stimulus (i.e. when you don't know what the flaw is, but you need to):

EXCLUSIVITY
Usually has a very strong conclusion that recommends one course of action, says that a factor is the only factor (primary factor), OR the determination that something must happen/you MUST do something.

SAMPLING
There is a study done in the stimulus.

COMPOSITION
The conclusion is about a member of a group or about a group

SUFFICIENT/NECESSARY
There is conditional reasoning in the argument, or it uses words like necessary/enough (this overlaps with exclusivity, as some of the fallacies are wont to do)

CAUSATION
The conclusion is causal (mind-bogglingly good advice, I know).
-
EQUIVOCATION
A new term is introduced in the conclusion that we haven’t seen before

COMPARISON
There’s a comparison (I'm a genius).

AD HOMINEM
You laugh because someone gets called a name/is a hypocrite.

ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE
The conclusion is that someone else's viewpoint is false, or that the author's viewpoint is conclusively true.
-
CIRCULAR REASONING
Only, ONLY when you can underline the conclusion and a premise that say the EXACT same thing.

% VS. AMT.
There’s a conclusion about a number, or about a rate/percent; very often it will be associated with a study

TEMPORAL
You see any language in the stimulus that denotes past/present/future, or a period of time.

PERCEPTION VS. REALITY
There’s any language about beliefs/views/thoughts/opinions.

LOGICAL FORCE
The conclusion has a word that denotes logical force (most/some/all/none; should/could/will; might/will).

Now, obviously, these are just guides to help you when all else fails. However, if you can understand why these 'clues' should tip you off to which fallacy is being committed, you'll have a great understanding of fallacies in general.

Hope this helps!

[bp shinners]

1. How should I approach principle questions? I don't remember a section in my BP books for principle questions.

While there are more than three different types of principle questions, there are three that keep popping up. They are Soft Must Be True, Parallel, and Strengthen Principle questions. Check out the respective lessons for tips on them (and there's also a review in our LR clinic).

For each type, you approach it slightly differently.

1) Soft Must Be True - Here, you're going to get 1-2 (usually 2) rules in the stimulus - this is your principle. It will usually allow you to make a value judgment about something (good/bad act, nice/oppressive day, moral/amoral behavior, etc...). You can almost certainly diagram the rule. Get the value judgments (good/bad, etc...) on the NECESSARY side of the diagram. Then, evaluate each answer choice using those rules. These are, generally, the only Soft Must Be True questions you'll be diagramming (though there are exceptions).

2) Parallel - Read the stimulus. Come up with a motto that underlies the argument but is content-neutral (this is usually an idiom, like "Let the buyer beware" or "The pros outweigh the cons"). Find an answer to which that principle/motto applies.

3) Strengthen - You're trying to justify a person's actions/the author's conclusion. This is going to sound stupid, but find the answer choice that says, "Because of the (premises), we can definitely say (the conclusion)." The correct answer will tie what we know to the conclusion, almost like a Sufficient Assumption question, and justify our conclusion based on those premises.

2. How should I keep track of who is saying what in LR. For example in a questions the there might be 2 pov in the stim (weaken or strengthen question). I get lost and mostly have to reread everything and I have to think about whats going on. That takes a lot of time and sometimes I am not sure I going in the right direction.

If you're having trouble tracking the 2 viewpoints, you're looking too deeply at them. In almost every case, the stimulus is going to read like this:
Some scientists say that blah blah blickety blah blah because more blahs. However, I disagree. Recent studies show that blah etc... blah.

For the most part, you're going to get the entire first argument, followed by either a 'But' or 'However', and then the entire author's argument. There's very little interweaving. Whenever you see the Author attribute a belief to a third part, first you should note it, and second you should expect him to disagree with it (very, very few stimuli have the Author agreeing with 'some (fill in the blank profession)'. So don't make it more complicated than it needs to be - I'm going to have an argument, then the Author's feelings about that argument, then the author's proof (or, less commonly, the author's proof against that argument followed by his conclusion). I can't think of a stimulus right now that interweaves the two viewpoints - I don't even know if you could do that in the space they usually allot for a LR question.

3. I am currently going over pt 1-20 right now and some of questions don't seem to match up with my BP questions. Has the wording of the questions changed over the recent exams and should I not worry about it. Or should start to really understand what the questions is saying because there's a good chance it might come up again.

While some of the older questions use wonky language, they should all relate to a specific question type, at least reasonably enough that you can use strategies to help you get the answer.

That being said, the early PTs are slightly different in their use of language compared to the newer tests, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. Newer tests are shifting the language a bit again, but if you take a second to attempt to relate it to one of our question types, you can definitely find a foothold.

[bp shinners]

Post-time at Belmont.

[meandme]

Hey BP
Pt 10 Sec 1 #4. I picked B because in the AC "generalization from one university to all university" and in the stem Yolanda says "Alcohol problems exits at all universities"

Thanks
God bless

[bp shinners]

Hey BP
Pt 10 Sec 1 #4. I picked B because in the AC "generalization from one university to all university" and in the stem Yolanda says "Alcohol problems exits at all universities"

Thanks
God bless

That's a premise, though, not her conclusion. Her conclusion is that fraternities aren't responsible for the alcohol problem at this university (it's a cultural problem). Since her conclusion is about this university, we can't say that she's making a generalization.

In short, the generalization has to be in the conclusion, not in a premise. Since she states that alcohol problems exist at all universities as a premise, we have to accept it for her argument.

D, on the other hand, sums up her entire argument - it can't be frats, because alcohol problems exist at schools without frats. There has to be another cause of alcohol problems at this university. Still flawed, but not because she's generalizing - she's assuming that all schools with alcohol problems have the same cause of those alcohol problems.

[dowu]

BP,

I'm having a tough time with MBT questions when they deal with words such as some, most, not all, etc...

While doing a bundle of MBT questions, I missed PT11-S2-Q12.

My initial answer choice was B, but that was incorrect. Can you help explain in detail how to deal with these type of questions?

Thank you in advance!

[bp shinners]

While doing a bundle of MBT questions, I missed PT11-S2-Q12.

This isn't the best example of these types of questions, as this one relies on more than your ability to combine quantified statements.

However, in general, my rules for combining quantifiers:
the SUFFICIENT condition of your STRONGEST statement must be SHARED. (Lot of S's for mnemonic effect). You usually end up with a SOME statement (one exception, noted below). Again, the S repeats: easy to remember - Sufficient of Strongest gives you a Some. If both statements are of equal strength, you need both to have the same sufficient condition.

You can't combine a Most and a Some or two Somes. Ever.

The one exception is if the sufficient condition of an All statement overlaps with the Necessary condition of a Most.
Most Michael Bay movies have Ben Affleck.
All Ben Affleck films are terrible.
I have a most and an all; the sufficient of the stronger is shared; however, I end up with a most statement:
Most Michael Bay movies are terrible.
I can get this stronger because of the way it's set up; let's make up some numbers.
Michael Bay has made exactly 100 movies. Based on my first statement, at least 51 feature Ben Affleck. Of those 51+ Michael Bay movies featuring Ben Affleck, 100% (i.e. all 51+) are terrible. That means that of Michael Bay's 100 movies, at least 51+ are terrible; or Most Michael Bay movies are terrible.

Learning these can suck, and it is going to require a bit of memorization. If you remember that the sufficient of the strongest has to be shared to give you a some (with an asterisk for the situation that gives you a most), you're more than halfway there.

Now, on to that question.

Here, I'm told that all T->Older than M
S-m->Older than M
S-s->Younger than M (because of the not all - don't forget this one, as it's important)
M -> Older than D
I don't share terms here in a way that would allow me to combine them, but my Older than M is comparative to M, which does let me combine them, to a certain extent. This is actually closer to ordering rules in a Logic Game than it is a LR question. If I'm arranging them from oldest to youngest, I'd have:
T and some S are older than M is older than D and some S
A) MBF - All T older than all M which is older than all D; some D can't be as old as any T
B) Could be true - I know that some sycamores and all dogwoods are younger than some maples; however, I don't get a comparison ever between those young S and the D, so I can't say B for sure.
C) Again, CBT for the same reason as B. This and B are essentially the same answer, which should have been a tipoff that neither are correct.
D) CBT again. And for the same reasons as B and C. I never compare these groups (oldest S and T), so I can't say this for sure.
E) Now, I've got something. Look back at my chain. I have T older than M and some S younger than M. That means that some S have to be younger than T. I have compared these groups because I've compared them both to M, and they fell on different sides. All the other comparisons that could be true (B C and D) talked about things on the same side of M on my chain.