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

[bp shinners]

Hi Shinners, I apologize if this has already been asked but, what is in your personal opinion the best way to review missed LR questions? \

7sage suggests cutting them out and reviewing them every so often, but I've heard of others typing them out in word documents. Would appreciate the reply!

Write out the answer to the following 4 questions about anything you answer incorrectly (or get a lucky guess on):
1) Why is the right answer right?
2) Why is the wrong answer wrong?
3) What about the wrong answer made me think it was right?
4) What about the right answer made me think it was wrong?

If you can phrase the last 2 as a flaw in your own reasoning, bonus points.

Answering these questions will help you both understand the logic and how LSAC is tricking you (into eliminating correct answers and picking wrong ones).

When you're doing PTs, retake the questions you got wrong (or had down to 2 and guessed) the next day without checking the answers for those individual questions (so score a PT, write down the list of questions you got wrong, and use that to retake the next day). Concentrate more on things you got wrong both days, but review all of them as above.

I'd probably also go back to early PTs in your extra study time (time you don't have earmarked for something else) in the weeks leading up to your exam. Anything you get right this time will be a confidence boost; anything you get wrong you should concentrate on since it's something that hasn't improved since your early PTs.

[bp shinners]

Should I be actively looking to combine the rules and see what grouping of variables can or can't work? Is it recommended to spend a lot of time looking to create hypotheticals, or does it really depend on the game?

You should always be trying to combine rules. I wouldn't spend a ton of time creating hypotheticals, but there are times where I know it's going to be worth it.

For grouping games, that's generally when I have a strong rule (Must be Together being the classic), or when I have a couple distributions, or when I have a single variable show up in multiple rules. In each of these cases, I do scenarios around it.

The game in question (film buffs), you have multiple of these - strong distributions, and a Must be Together rule.
Distributions: 1 Fellini, 2 Hitchcock, 4 Kurosawa
and
2 Fellini, 4 Hitchcock, 1 Kurosawa
Turning these into scenarios, you find that V and Y (the two who Must be Together) can be placed in each scenario.

So, in short, definitely look to combine rules. For grouping games, the most important rules tend to be Must be Together rules, distributions, variables that show up in rule after rule, or those weird rules that every once in a while. If you don't have any of these, you should combine as many of the conditionals as you can and hop into the questions.

[bp shinners]

Any questions?

[nothingtosee]

Any questions?

Since you're asking... Pt11 lg4

When was the last time a game like this appeared?
If I'm not nailing these, should I be concerned? I've done around a dozen PT's and this was the first I've seen like this.

[bp shinners]

Any questions?

Since you're asking... Pt11 lg4

When was the last time a game like this appeared?
If I'm not nailing these, should I be concerned? I've done around a dozen PT's and this was the first I've seen like this.

This is what we call an Operation game - it tells you everything that's going to happen in the game. They're exceptionally uncommon, and one hasn't shown up on the LSAT for over a decade. I wouldn't worry too much about it. However, it shouldn't be too hard - it tells you everything that can happen in the game.

[melmoththewanderer]

BP, I used the new blueprint LG book and I thought it was helpful. The chapter on scenarios was interesting, but my problem with it is that since the chapter was about scenarios, we already knew that was what to look for.

But in the pressure of a test, or even a preptest for that matter, it may not be so apparent. I am wondering if you could give us some general guidelines as to when scenarios are the appropriate way to go. What makes a logic game conducive to this strategy and what makes them not? Are there any tells that intimate that you should try a scenario (and what are they)?

[flash21]

when would you personally give the green light for one to start PT'ing?

[magickware]

Thank you BP!

It turns out that I completely misunderstood rule #1 for that particular game. Basically made me consider a bunch of other game boards that shouldn't have existed in the first place, and that got me all mixed up.

My worst enemy on the LG always was, and seems to always will be, me misreading the rules/forgetting one =(

[bp shinners]

when would you personally give the green light for one to start PT'ing?

In my courses, after Lesson 12.

If you're not in a Blueprint course, I would take one at least every 3 weeks (but preferably every other week) just to see general improvement. Then, after getting an overview of each question type/game type/through RC material, I'd aim for once a week. After I did that a few weeks to iron out the wrinkles in my understanding, I'd move to a couple each week.

[bp shinners]

BP, I used the new blueprint LG book and I thought it was helpful. The chapter on scenarios was interesting, but my problem with it is that since the chapter was about scenarios, we already knew that was what to look for.

But in the pressure of a test, or even a preptest for that matter, it may not be so apparent. I am wondering if you could give us some general guidelines as to when scenarios are the appropriate way to go. What makes a logic game conducive to this strategy and what makes them not? Are there any tells that intimate that you should try a scenario (and what are they)?

Generally, if you have a really strong rule, you look to see if scenarios are helpful. What qualifies?

Ordering:
1) Blocks
2) Options
3) Arches
The first is the strongest; the second should only be used if the two variables in the option show up in other rules; the third rarely works out, but it might if that letter shows up in a bunch of rules.

Grouping:
1) Must be Together
2) At least one AND not both
3) Distributions (an unstable grouping game with a rule along the lines of, "Twice as many people see the Hitchcock film as see the Fellini film.")
4) A combo of any of the above

AND
Grouping games where you're pulling from subgroups ("Three botanists, three chemists, and three zoologists are being chosen for a panel...")

Also, every once in awhile (usually grouping games), there's a weird rule that doesn't fall under one of the normal rule categories. This rule almost always either has little effect on the game, being relevant for only a single question; or it's a really strong rule that suggests scenarios.

[bp shinners]

My worst enemy on the LG always was, and seems to always will be, me misreading the rules/forgetting one =(

That's why I always number my rules - harder to miss one that way. And one of the steps in our method is "Double check the rules. No, seriously, do it!" for a reason.

[magickware]

I number them too.

I think I'm going to start just running through every rule for every question in games that seem to be heavily rule dependent/back-end games. I decided that it's just better to get things right while on a time crunch, rather than getting things wrong while having 2-3 minutes left.

[flash21]

Hi Shinners was wondering if after we did a "blind review" (review over timed questions we have just done without checking the answers to see how well we can do without time limits), if I changed a few of my answers when I had unlimited time and they are correct, is it worth taking note of these questions? Or, what I have been doing, is writing a small explanation in my Cambridge booklet as to why I chose to change my answer.

Should I add these types of questions to my word document of questions I've gotten wrong even after the blind review process?

[bp shinners]

Hi Shinners was wondering if after we did a "blind review" (review over timed questions we have just done without checking the answers to see how well we can do without time limits), if I changed a few of my answers when I had unlimited time and they are correct, is it worth taking note of these questions? Or, what I have been doing, is writing a small explanation in my Cambridge booklet as to why I chose to change my answer.

Should I add these types of questions to my word document of questions I've gotten wrong even after the blind review process?

Those are great learning questions!

Generally, what those teach you is which shortcuts you're using that can lead to incorrect answers. You have the logic down, but with the time crunch, you're relying on shortcuts/rules of thumb to eliminate certain answers and then select others. But when you have enough time, the logic wins out.

So figure out not just why you changed your answer, but also your thought process when you picked the wrong answer. If you applied a shortcut/rule of thumb that didn't pan out, figure out why it broke down here. Figuring out why the usual methods don't work for some questions is how you go from the 160s to the 170s!

[melmoththewanderer]

BP, I've gone through powerscore and MLSAT for RC and I found each helpful in very specific set of cases. PS is very heavy on identifying points of view (author's, critics, scholars, etc.), which MLSAT calls the scale. This approach works excellently when there are scholars and critics in the passage.

However, there are certain passages where there are no critics and no scholars. I am wondering if you could issue some guidelines on what information to track in these circumstances.

[bp shinners]

BP, I've gone through powerscore and MLSAT for RC and I found each helpful in very specific set of cases. PS is very heavy on identifying points of view (author's, critics, scholars, etc.), which MLSAT calls the scale. This approach works excellently when there are scholars and critics in the passage.

However, there are certain passages where there are no critics and no scholars. I am wondering if you could issue some guidelines on what information to track in these circumstances.

Even if there aren't scholars or critics, there is still a viewpoint(s) being expressed. If you don't see anyone making it, it's probably the author just presenting information. If this is the case, you're looking for the topic as the main point - so it might be something like, "Recent studies have shows that dark matter makes up some of the missing mass of the universe."

But there will always be some viewpoint, even if it's not strong. They can just be harder to track.

[Daily_Double]

.

[scandk]

Is there a noticeable difference between the Feb LSATs and the other, besides the fact that they aren't released? How have people historically scored on the Feb LSAT compared to their PT averages? Anecdotes are helpful as well.

[melmoththewanderer]

I have a question from PT35-S2-Q16. This is the science passage about philosophers of science and determinist and historical contingency biologists.

For some reason, I had a staring contest with this question, which I had between "A" and "D." I can explain why I had trouble with this question:

"D" didn't seem attractive enough to pick and "A" seemed too attractive to let go of.

My support for "A" comes from the that-clause that follows it (lns 21-22).

Letter "D" just felt off for me. It felt like a more appropriate answer choice for "law of gravity" (line 25), rather than the reference given ("struggle for existence," line 21). My sense of that context is that they were introducing some goals that the approach in line 25 had in mind. So what I'm not seeing is how it functions as an example, per se.

[bp shinners]

Just so you know, the marketing department at BP is really killing it. Whenever I watch videos on youtube, which is often because I'm frequently bored at work and looking for a laugh, there's a BP commercial at the beginning.

Thanks DD!

And I know what you mean - I haven't had a Google ad that isn't for Blueprint in about 2 years.

[bp shinners]

Is there a noticeable difference between the Feb LSATs and the other, besides the fact that they aren't released? How have people historically scored on the Feb LSAT compared to their PT averages? Anecdotes are helpful as well.

The world may never know.

Seriously, though, I think that any discrepancies people note about the February LSAT come from the mystery surrounding it. I've never taught a class for the February LSAT (I'm usually marketing then), so I can't speak to my own students, but from other instructors, they get about the same feedback as for any other test. There might be a difference, but I would put money on it actually being psychological.

[bp shinners]

I have a question from PT35-S2-Q16. This is the science passage about philosophers of science and determinist and historical contingency biologists.

Just prior, we were introduced to the evolutionary biologists who have “tried to emulate physicists” (line 19) in viewing biology “as a set of universal laws” (lines 19-20). “A universal ‘struggle for existence’ that is the engine of biological history” (lines 20-22) is just an example of this determinist approach taken by these biologists, giving us answer choice (D).

A - While these biologists argue that the “struggle for existence” is the “engine of biological history” (lines 21-22), this struggle isn’t brought up to identify it as such. The author brings it up as what the biologists would identify as a driving force; she’s not necessarily identifying it as a driving force herself.

[jmjm]

how do you pre-phrase? I can see many ways such as by sounding the answer or jotting it down prior to going over ACs or silently whispering in mouth or doing it mentally. It seems prephrasing is more relevant to the prove/disprove family of questions in LR than anything else as other types of questions (strengthen, weaken etc) may bring in new information to the argument.

pt-20 s4 q12 credited choice doesn't seem to justify Carla's action even though it justifies George's. I see two issues. One, the choice says 'trains an animal' -> 'discipline' but for Carla's action to be justified it has to say 'discipline' --> 'trains an animal'. Second, B says 'correct behavior' -> 'discipline' but the stim only talks about 'discipline' being sufficient to bring about 'correct behavior'. This question known for these issues?

[bp shinners]

how do you pre-phrase? I can see many ways such as by sounding the answer or jotting it down prior to going over ACs or silently whispering in mouth or doing it mentally. It seems prephrasing is more relevant to the prove/disprove family of questions in LR than anything else as other types of questions (strengthen, weaken etc) may bring in new information to the argument.

I usually just say it in my head. And as to pre-phrasing answers from strengthen/weaken families, it's still something you can and should do. As you say, it might bring in outside information that you can't guess. However, you can definitely pre-phrase the specific role of that outside information. So my pre-phrase for a strengthen question wouldn't be specific, but I might say, "It'll rule out another possible explanation for the stated causality," which is a helpful foothold.

This question known for these issues?

Yep.

[melmoththewanderer]

BP, I have a question from PT36-S2-Q12. This is the humanities passage about J. W. Binns.

I was stuck between B and C. I feel like B is supported in lines 46-49. The Kaplan explanations make a huge deal about illuminating commentaries not being there, but I am inclined to disagree because if as in lines 9-11 these Latin writings are the highest achievements of the Renaissance, it would make logical sense that they would be illuminating comments on their subject matter. Why is B wrong?

I can see how C is supported, but I cannot see how B is worse than C.