Mike's Trainer Thread Forum

[jw316]

.

[Motivator9]

Hey Mike, quick question about the One Argument and Ten Answers Drill. On question F., I'm having a hard time understanding why B would not strengthen. If we knew that the information is misunderstood, wouldn't that support the claim that it causes more harm. Is it wrong because it seems to be a premise booster, essentially telling us the same thing as the last sentence in the stimulus? Anyone else feel free to chime in as well. Thanks as always.

[The LSAT Trainer]

Hey Mike, quick question about the One Argument and Ten Answers Drill. On question F., I'm having a hard time understanding why B would not strengthen. If we knew that the information is misunderstood, wouldn't that support the claim that it causes more harm. Is it wrong because it seems to be a premise booster, essentially telling us the same thing as the last sentence in the stimulus? Anyone else feel free to chime in as well. Thanks as always.

Hey! I think you are definitely on the right track -- if the conclusion of the argument was that people are incorrect in their diagnoses, or if that was an intermediate conclusion (w/a premise supporting it), then (B) works much better as a strengthener -- Additionally, if the path to the conclusion was different, or if the your task was to just strengthen a conclusion rather than an argument, (B) would also be a much more attractive strengthen answer.

We need to strengthen this specific premise-conclusion relationship. As written, it's a given in the argument that people do misdiagnose (that is, it is not our job to question whether they misdiagnose or not). The author's point is that --

Premise - people misdiagnose; Conclusion - does more harm than good.

A strengthen answer needs to prop up the specific connection between misdiagnosing and doing more harm than good -- under those very narrow parameters, we can't say (B) strengthens.

Hope that helps -- as always, please don't hesitate to write back if u you have any follow up -- mk

[WaltGrace83]

Hey Mike! I am getting back on the LSAT bandwagon (long story short I took two months off and now I am starting my LSAT prep from scratch and going back to basics). Thus, I am reading your book again. I didn't quite finish it last time as I was drilling and reading at the same time. However, going through this book again has been REALLY beneficial so far. I was getting a bit too complicated in my thinking towards the end of my prep last time I think. The "Equate Smart with Simple" point really hit home. Anyway, I have a few questions about your Flaw Drill and your Matching Double-Dip Drill, both in Chapter 5: Flaws.

"For certain careers...little impact on future career success...Not so for law...top law programs = consistently earn higher
salaries and all members of the Supreme Court either went to Harvard or Yale."

Once I got to the answer key, I said to myself, "DOH! It definitely IS a correlation/causation flaw too." However, I am really quite surprised that you didn't do anything with the flaw between equating "earning higher salaries" /"members of the Supreme Court" with "career success." Am I wrong to think that this was also a significant issue? I guess the word "impact" denotes that we are talking correlation/causation here but I just felt like it was significant enough to mention in the answer key.

Also, "Plastic was invented...to combat the wasting of wood and paper...This proves that good intentions, coupled with limited foresight, cause cause negative consequences..."

What about this idea of "limited foresight?" That came out of left field! How do we know that the good intentions was "coupled with limited foresight" in the case of these plastic inventors? Again, I felt that this was a pretty big flaw. What do you think?

I know that there are typically multiple flaws in arguments. However, I know that the LSAT is largely a game of prioritizing information and judgments. Are my priorities straight?

Finally, in your Douple-Dip exercise, I am a bit confused when you say "The second argument has an additional flaw of assuming that formal and hip are in some way opposites" when referring to the shirts. Are you merely saying that the argument assumes formal and hip aren't the same?

Thanks!

[The LSAT Trainer]

Hey Mike! I am getting back on the LSAT bandwagon (long story short I took two months off and now I am starting my LSAT prep from scratch and going back to basics). Thus, I am reading your book again. I didn't quite finish it last time as I was drilling and reading at the same time. However, going through this book again has been REALLY beneficial so far. I was getting a bit too complicated in my thinking towards the end of my prep last time I think. The "Equate Smart with Simple" point really hit home. Anyway, I have a few questions about your Flaw Drill and your Matching Double-Dip Drill, both in Chapter 5: Flaws.

"For certain careers...little impact on future career success...Not so for law...top law programs = consistently earn higher
salaries and all members of the Supreme Court either went to Harvard or Yale."

Once I got to the answer key, I said to myself, "DOH! It definitely IS a correlation/causation flaw too." However, I am really quite surprised that you didn't do anything with the flaw between equating "earning higher salaries" /"members of the Supreme Court" with "career success." Am I wrong to think that this was also a significant issue? I guess the word "impact" denotes that we are talking correlation/causation here but I just felt like it was significant enough to mention in the answer key.

Also, "Plastic was invented...to combat the wasting of wood and paper...This proves that good intentions, coupled with limited foresight, cause cause negative consequences..."

What about this idea of "limited foresight?" That came out of left field! How do we know that the good intentions was "coupled with limited foresight" in the case of these plastic inventors? Again, I felt that this was a pretty big flaw. What do you think?

I know that there are typically multiple flaws in arguments. However, I know that the LSAT is largely a game of prioritizing information and judgments. Are my priorities straight?

Finally, in your Douple-Dip exercise, I am a bit confused when you say "The second argument has an additional flaw of assuming that formal and hip are in some way opposites" when referring to the shirts. Are you merely saying that the argument assumes formal and hip aren't the same?

Thanks!

Hello Walt! Glad to have u back -- if u don't mind, I'll pm u about this -- MK

[jrdavila09]

Hey Mike,

I have a question for you! First off thanks for the advice you give and thanks for the book, its a god send!

I'm having difficulty with NA questions. I always seem to choose the answer that is the most tempting. I negate it and its seems to fit just right but then I check the answer and its wrong. I don't know if that makes sense or not but I read the Trainer, MLSAT, and LRB and I just can't seem to figure it out. Any suggestions would be TREMENDOUS!

[The LSAT Trainer]

Hey Mike,

I have a question for you! First off thanks for the advice you give and thanks for the book, its a god send!

I'm having difficulty with NA questions. I always seem to choose the answer that is the most tempting. I negate it and its seems to fit just right but then I check the answer and its wrong. I don't know if that makes sense or not but I read the Trainer, MLSAT, and LRB and I just can't seem to figure it out. Any suggestions would be TREMENDOUS!

Hey! Happy to try to help -- if you have the time, do you mind giving an example of a q that tripped you up, and tell me a little bit about why you were tempted to the wrong choice? That'll help me give more specific advice -- if you don't have one handy, don't worry about it -- I'll come back on later today and see if I can give some general advice that helps with NA q's -- MK

[jrdavila09]

Hey Mike,

I have a question for you! First off thanks for the advice you give and thanks for the book, its a god send!

I'm having difficulty with NA questions. I always seem to choose the answer that is the most tempting. I negate it and its seems to fit just right but then I check the answer and its wrong. I don't know if that makes sense or not but I read the Trainer, MLSAT, and LRB and I just can't seem to figure it out. Any suggestions would be TREMENDOUS!

Hey! Happy to try to help -- if you have the time, do you mind giving an example of a q that tripped you up, and tell me a little bit about why you were tempted to the wrong choice? That'll help me give more specific advice -- if you don't have one handy, don't worry about it -- I'll come back on later today and see if I can give some general advice that helps with NA q's -- MK

Hey Mike,

I just need some general advice. I just read the article on lawschooli about N/A questions and I think my problem is that I'm not negating properly (not negating logically) and then I end up choosing the answer that would be sufficient instead of just necessary.

[The LSAT Trainer]

Hey Mike,

I have a question for you! First off thanks for the advice you give and thanks for the book, its a god send!

I'm having difficulty with NA questions. I always seem to choose the answer that is the most tempting. I negate it and its seems to fit just right but then I check the answer and its wrong. I don't know if that makes sense or not but I read the Trainer, MLSAT, and LRB and I just can't seem to figure it out. Any suggestions would be TREMENDOUS!

Hey! Happy to try to help -- if you have the time, do you mind giving an example of a q that tripped you up, and tell me a little bit about why you were tempted to the wrong choice? That'll help me give more specific advice -- if you don't have one handy, don't worry about it -- I'll come back on later today and see if I can give some general advice that helps with NA q's -- MK

Hey Mike,

I just need some general advice. I just read the article on lawschooli about N/A questions and I think my problem is that I'm not negating properly (not negating logically) and then I end up choosing the answer that would be sufficient instead of just necessary.

Sure -- here are some general thoughts, and I hope that at least some of them are helpful -- I’ll try my best not to just regurgitate what’s in the book --

With LSAT q’s, symptoms often appear far after the causes, and as I often say, if you get stuck between two answers, it’s typically a sign that things went wrong for you earlier along the way (and that’s why you are attracted to that wrong choice in the first place) --

What could be causing you trouble? It might be helpful to think of potential issues as falling into two broad categories -- issues with the stimulus, and issues with accomplishing the task -- here’s a checklist of potential problems split into those categories --

Issues with the Stimulus -

you may not be prioritizing / clarifying argument (conclusion-support relationship) well enough.
you may not be developing as clear and conceptual sense of the flaw/gap as you need to

N.A. q’s sometimes expose these issues in a way that certain other q types -- such as argument structure or i.d. the flaw -- commonly can’t. For a flaw q, the answer choices relate directly to whatever you are thinking about the stimulus -- you see what’s wrong with an argument, and the right answer will state that same issue. For a N.A. q, you have to hold the argument in your head, and then do something else with it -- specifically, find an answer that is necessary to it. For a flaw q, you might sometimes get away with a fuzzier understanding of the argument or reasoning issue because the right answer will clarify your thoughts for you -- but with n.a. q’s, because you have to add another layer of thought on top of your understanding, it will be more commonly true that a fuzzy understanding will be exposed, or become even fuzzier (that is, it’s far easier to lose your weak sense of an argument or its reasoning during the process of evaluating answers).

Issues With Accomplishing Task

trouble understanding what required really means
lack of understanding of how the meaning of required relates to design of LSAT q’s
lack of connection between understanding of “required” and the elimination process
trouble using the negation test

In real life, it’s easy to get a bit lazy about what required or necessary really means. For example, if there is a requirement that you have to be over 21 to buy alcohol, it’s very easy to assume that being over 21 guarantees that we can buy alcohol at any store that sells it, because for most of us that’s the real life consequence -- we meet the age requirement, and it’s enough to guarantee an outcome.

However, of course we know that satisfying a requirement is very different from guaranteeing a result, and the LSAT writers test your understanding of this difference multiple times on every single exam.

It could be that you can’t buy the alcohol because you are already raging drunk and the person won’t sell it to you, or you don’t have any money, or you forgot to wear clothes, etc.

Getting back to the LSAT, a necessary assumption is simply one that needs to be true in order for the premise to justify the conclusion.

That’s simple enough, but where people get in trouble is in over-assigning meaning. A necessary assumption does not have to strengthen the argument significantly, and just because one answer seems to strengthen more than another does not make it any more likely to be the right answer to a necessary assumption q. And of course, a necessary assumption does not have to be sufficient, so thinking about sufficiently shouldn’t ever be a part of your process.

And of course, if helps to think about it from the test writers perspective. They are testing your ability to clearly discern what it means for something to be necessary. They understand the common “over-assigning of meaning” that students are guilty of -- so how do they create tempting wrong answers? By making ones that seem to strengthen an argument or perhaps even be sufficient to make it flawless but are, nevertheless, not necessary.

So, having a clear sense of what it actually means to be required, and not being influenced by answers that seem to help the argument in some way, is a key to success. If you understand an argument well, and focus in on this task well, the vast, vast majority of answers become very obviously wrong, because they either do not relate directly to the specific given argument, or because they don’t have anything about them that makes it so that they are absolutely necessary to that argument.

Finally, in terms of your experiences with the negation test -- the idea behind the negation test is -- if an answer is indeed one that absolutely must be true in order for the argument to work, negating that answer should make it so that argument absolutely cannot work.

If the argument survives the negation, it’s a sign the original answer wasn’t something that was necessary.

Keep in mind that since every LSAT question only has one right answer, there will never, ever be an instance where you understand the argument correctly, use the negation test correctly, and end up with two answers -- for every single necessary assumption q, there is only one answer, the right answer, that will survive the negation test.

So, if you are ending up with two attractive choices after implementing it, it’s definitely a sign that you are having issues understanding arguments, understanding what it means to be necessary, or correctly negating. If this is your specific issue, I encourage you to focus on and practice just negating over and over again, using old already-used N.A. q’s for practice. I imagine one day (or two at most) of concentrated work should get rid of any lingering bad habits.

I know this list is fairly obvious and broad, but, on the flip side, I guarantee you that if you don’t have any problems with any of the topics I mentioned above, you’ll be awesome at necessary assumption q’s. So, even if the criteria mentioned above doesn’t exactly hit it on the nose in terms of your specific issues, hopefully it can serve as a useful guide as you think about what you need to improve on, and the ways in which you can improve.

I encourage you to review the problems you’ve already solved to see if you can recognize patterns for where/why things went wrong for you, and I think that with a clearer sense of this your path to improvement will be much easier --

HTH, and please feel free to follow up if you need anything -- Mike

[Motivator9]

Hey Mike,

I just finished doing all of the reasoning problems in first LR section of PT 23. I was wondering if you could take a minute to help me with question 16 (PT 23, S2, 16). I spent about 30 minutes reviewing this question and was very sure that I had the correct answer choice in B, but it turned out to be C. I would really appreciate any feedback from you because I'm not going to be able to sleep right till I can justify C over B.

Conclusion: more death are being reported as alcohol related because physicians are more likely to identify these deaths as alcohol related.

WHY:alcohol is now viewed as a disease, whereas before it was considered a moral failing.

Now, the major gap that I see is that the author assumes that there is come sort of causal relation between how alcoholism was viewed and how it was reported. Maybe the fact that it was viewed as a moral failing had nothing to do with how it was reported.

However, this is a strengthening question so we want to bolster this connection. I also noticed that this question asks us to strengthen the argument whereas other questions might ask us to support the conclusion. I know in your book you want us to focus on strengthening the argument, not on the conclusion, but I feel as if this question might be an exception to that rule.

I'm only going to address B and C as those are the two choices that I had a hard time with.

B: in some places in times, susceptibility to any kind of disease has been viewed as a moral failing.

Okay, i'll admit this is a very weak answer. Right off the bat, "in some places and times" could mean any time period, and we would consider this too vague in most instances. Secondly, "any kind of disease is also too broad", as we are only concerned with those related to alcoholism. Having said that, one cant deny that this does have some relation to our argument. It reinforces the claim that such deaths were not likely to be linked to alcohol related diseases because they were thought to have been caused by something else, one's moral failing. If we looked past the weaknesses in B (yes a BIG IF), I dont think we can deny that it does strengthen the argument to some extent.

C: More physicians now than in the past are trained to recognize the physical effects of alcoholism. What affect does this have on our argument....... not much if you as me. It tells us that more physicians are able to recognize the effects of alcoholism, which explains why they now are reporting more deaths as alcohol-related. At best, one could argue that C strengthens our conclusion , not our argument. At worst, you could argue that this gives us an alternate cause to why they are reporting more.

This is my problem with C - it does nothing to bolster the relationship between the change in attitude and an increase in alcohol related deaths. And for that reason, I'm having a hard time with this question.

Here's one thought that I have for why B is incorrect besides the fact that it's weak. Maybe it's wrong because it says "susceptibility to a disease has been viewed as a moral failing", whereas in the argument we are told that alcoholism was viewed as a moral failing in the past. Do you see the difference between the two in the same way that I do??

Sorry to bother you with such a specific question, but what are we supposed to take away from it? Should I have eliminated B from the beginning because of how weak it is? Is it common for the LSAT to throw an answer like C at us that dosent strengthen the overall argument?? Or did I completely misread the argument and the answer choices?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Please help. Thanks!

[The LSAT Trainer]

Hey M9 - I'll take a look at the q first thing tomorrow morning --

In the meantime, wanted to let everyone know that I've added some new study schedules to the trainer website. The new schedules go up to and include PT 71, and they also include a breakdown by category of all Logical Reasoning questions and Logic Games from exams 29 - 71. These are beta versions, so if you notice any issues or have any comments, please let me know -- you can access the new schedules here -- http://www.thelsattrainer.com/schedules.html.

[jw316]

Hey M9 - I'll take a look at the q first thing tomorrow morning --

In the meantime, wanted to let everyone know that I've added some new study schedules to the trainer website. The new schedules go up to and include PT 71, and they also include a breakdown by category of all Logical Reasoning questions and Logic Games from exams 29 - 71. These are beta versions, so if you notice any issues or have any comments, please let me know -- you can access the new schedules here -- http://www.thelsattrainer.com/schedules.html.

Re: schedules. I checked those out but also sent you another PM, please take a look when you get a second. I'm trying to get started on a schedule asap that re-visits the trainer & drills with cambridge.

Thanks again Mike!

[The LSAT Trainer]

Hey Mike,

I just finished doing all of the reasoning problems in first LR section of PT 23. I was wondering if you could take a minute to help me with question 16 (PT 23, S2, 16). I spent about 30 minutes reviewing this question and was very sure that I had the correct answer choice in B, but it turned out to be C. I would really appreciate any feedback from you because I'm not going to be able to sleep right till I can justify C over B.

Conclusion: more death are being reported as alcohol related because physicians are more likely to identify these deaths as alcohol related.

WHY:alcohol is now viewed as a disease, whereas before it was considered a moral failing.

Now, the major gap that I see is that the author assumes that there is come sort of causal relation between how alcoholism was viewed and how it was reported. Maybe the fact that it was viewed as a moral failing had nothing to do with how it was reported.

However, this is a strengthening question so we want to bolster this connection. I also noticed that this question asks us to strengthen the argument whereas other questions might ask us to support the conclusion. I know in your book you want us to focus on strengthening the argument, not on the conclusion, but I feel as if this question might be an exception to that rule.

I'm only going to address B and C as those are the two choices that I had a hard time with.

B: in some places in times, susceptibility to any kind of disease has been viewed as a moral failing.

Okay, i'll admit this is a very weak answer. Right off the bat, "in some places and times" could mean any time period, and we would consider this too vague in most instances. Secondly, "any kind of disease is also too broad", as we are only concerned with those related to alcoholism. Having said that, one cant deny that this does have some relation to our argument. It reinforces the claim that such deaths were not likely to be linked to alcohol related diseases because they were thought to have been caused by something else, one's moral failing. If we looked past the weaknesses in B (yes a BIG IF), I dont think we can deny that it does strengthen the argument to some extent.

C: More physicians now than in the past are trained to recognize the physical effects of alcoholism. What affect does this have on our argument....... not much if you as me. It tells us that more physicians are able to recognize the effects of alcoholism, which explains why they now are reporting more deaths as alcohol-related. At best, one could argue that C strengthens our conclusion , not our argument. At worst, you could argue that this gives us an alternate cause to why they are reporting more.

This is my problem with C - it does nothing to bolster the relationship between the change in attitude and an increase in alcohol related deaths. And for that reason, I'm having a hard time with this question.

Here's one thought that I have for why B is incorrect besides the fact that it's weak. Maybe it's wrong because it says "susceptibility to a disease has been viewed as a moral failing", whereas in the argument we are told that alcoholism was viewed as a moral failing in the past. Do you see the difference between the two in the same way that I do??

Sorry to bother you with such a specific question, but what are we supposed to take away from it? Should I have eliminated B from the beginning because of how weak it is? Is it common for the LSAT to throw an answer like C at us that dosent strengthen the overall argument?? Or did I completely misread the argument and the answer choices?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Please help. Thanks!

Hey -- been thinking about the best way to help you on this one -- I think you have to decide for yourself whether you had trouble because of your understanding of the stimulus, because of how you reacted to the answer choices, or because of a little bit of both -- see if any of the following helps you gauge that and move forward --

So, before I get into the actual problem, a little side story --

Recently, I learned a trick that helps me figure out whether a person is truly smiling or faking it -- it has to do with the eyes -- when a person truly smiles, their eyes smile too -- when a person fakes a smile, their eyes do not "smile" -- since I learned how to tell this, now, more than ever before (when I used to just go off of instinct) I often notice, especially in sales pictures and commercials etc., that people are faking smiles.

Are people fake-smiling more in advertisements than they did before, or are people faking smiles to me more than they did before? It's a possibility, but the most reasonable answer for why I'm noticing more fake smiles is that I now have a detection system and I'm thinking about it. It's also important to note that "when I used to just go off of instinct" is a less important part of the story/issue -- it's not like I purposely didn't look for more fake smiles -- if anything, you can think of that info as the backdrop against which we can judge these new changes (learning new system and noticing more fake smiles).

Okay, so onto the problem --

So, there is general concern about an increase in reported deaths from alcohol related conditions.

The author's point is that this increase likely isn't actually do to an increase in the number of alcohol related deaths, but rather to changes in reporting -- more of the very same types of deaths are now being reported as alcohol related than they were before.

Okay, so is it that there is an actual increase in the number of alcohol-related deaths, or is it that more deaths are being called alcohol related than before?

The author thinks it's the latter. Why? Because attitudes about alcoholism changed and people went from seeing it as a moral failing to seeing it as a disease.

Now, how are those ideas related to doctors and methods of reporting? Well, doctors see people who have diseases. Doctors generally do not see people because they have moral failings - you don't go to a doctor because you lie, cheat, etc. So, it makes sense that the more alcoholism is seen as a disease, the more likely that doctors will notice it and think about it (specifically relative to cause of death).

So, that's what the author is thinking -- what would we need to support that? We need something that helps show that it is indeed the fact that doctors are more concerned about/on the lookout for alcohol issues than they were before.

That's what I was thinking about going into the answer choices, and, on those terms, (C) was immediately an answer that attracted me.

Now, I could be reading into what you wrote a bit too much, but, to me, it seems you put too much emphasis on the prior state of things -- seeing alcohol as a moral failing. It's not like doctors purposely didn't report deaths as alcohol related because alcoholism was considered a moral failing, they just didn't think about it (because doctors don't deal w/moral failings), in the same way that I just never thought too much about whether people were faking smiles at me or not until I learned the trick. What's much more critical to the reasoning in this argument is that alcohol started being considered a disease, and that should really be your focus.

Okay, now let's talk about the answer choices --

(B) only deals w/the moral failing component -- again, if you look at the argument from the speaker's perspective -- his point is not that people purposefully didn't report deaths as being alcohol related because they saw alcoholism as a moral failure -- instead, his point is that because they started seeing it more as a disease, it's likely that more deaths were being reported as being related to alcohol. Thinking about it on those terms, I think you can see that almost any answer that doesn't relate to increased recognition being the cause of increased reporting is not going to be relevant.

Looking deeper into (B), you are absolutely right that the susceptibility to disease part causes issues -- the author's point is that, at that time, it wasn't seen as a disease, and so (B) does not actually apply to this situation. To oversimplify -- the author states that before people thought of alcoholism as a sign of weak character, and the point of (B) (to oversimplify) is that sometimes people see having a disease as being of weak character. Those two things are not really related.

(C) -- If (C) is true, it helps close the gap -- again, to summarize and oversimplify

Author "Alcoholism is now seen as disease, so now docs reporting more deaths as being alcohol related"

Critical Me: Wait, how do you know for sure that because they see it as a disease this impacts them looking out for it / reporting more deaths as alcohol related?

(C) tells us -- physicians are now more trained to look out for issues of alcoholism.

Exactly the type of info we're looking for -- yes indeed doctors are looking out for alcoholism more. And yes that does support the idea that perhaps it's the reporting, not actual numbers, that is changing.

Sorry for the long explanation -- if I had more time it would be more succinct -- in any case, I hope it's helpful, and if you still have concerns, please don't hesitate to follow up -- MK

[Motivator9]

Hey Mike,

I can't tell you how much I appreciate you taking the time to address the issue I had with that problem. It's just one problem but it was giving my a hard time with the big picture aspect on my LR studies, as I was beginning to doubt some of my approaches.

Your explanation was tremendously beneficial and the question seems a whole lot clearer now that I look at it from that angle. I think this issue here came with me losing sight of the conclusion as I was juggling between B and C. During the review, I kept reading the answer choices over and over in the same manner without taking a step back, re-examining the stimulus, and getting back to the basics of how to deal with an assumption family question.

[/quote]


Recently, I learned a trick that helps me figure out whether a person is truly smiling or faking it -- it has to do with the eyes -- when a person truly smiles, their eyes smile too -- when a person fakes a smile, their eyes do not "smile" -- since I learned how to tell this, now, more than ever before (when I used to just go off of instinct) I often notice, especially in sales pictures and commercials etc., that people are faking smiles.

Are people fake-smiling more in advertisements than they did before, or are people faking smiles to me more than they did before? It's a possibility, but the most reasonable answer for why I'm noticing more fake smiles is that I now have a detection system and I'm thinking about it. It's also important to note that "when I used to just go off of instinct" is a less important part of the story/issue -- it's not like I purposely didn't look for more fake smiles -- if anything, you can think of that info as the backdrop against which we can judge these new changes (learning new system and noticing more fake smiles).

your analogy was so spot on!


Sorry for the long explanation -- if I had more time it would be more succinct -- in any case, I hope it's helpful, and if you still have concerns, please don't hesitate to follow up -- MK[/quote]

Thanks again for the constant guidance and support Mike!

[WaltGrace83]

For strengthen/weaken questions, eliminating an alternative cause and suggesting an alternative cause are often used as correct answers. For example, let’s take 29.4.20, “Amphibian populations are declining in numbers worldwide”. (D), talking about how the “natural habitat of amphibians has NOT become smaller” is a strengthener. I understand this is a strengthener because it eliminates an alternative cause – it eliminates the idea that it is actually a habitat problem that is leading to the declining amphibian population. I get that. However, it seems like an odd thing to bring up considering that habitats were not talked about whatsoever in the stimulus. Now I know that alternative causes can seem quite out of scope so maybe this isn’t strange. My question is how off topic is too off topic to be considered an “alternative cause?”

For 29.4.20, what if I said “the diet of the amphibians has not changed?” Would that be eliminating an alternative cause? It seems like it. What if I said “the diet of the amphibians HAS changed over the last 50 years?” Would that be giving a possible alternative, and thus would weaken? This seems like a less fine answer because I am not sure how a changing diet would affect amphibian populations. Maybe the diet HAS changed and that has actually benefitted the population; maybe it didn’t benefit the population. Now if I said, “the diet of amphibians HAS changed due to the depletion of necessary nutrients.” This seems like a MUCH better weakener. But (if I am right to think this) why is this so? Do we have to emphasize the innate “goodness” or “badness” in order to make a seemingly off-topic alternative cause relevant? If this is the case, how do we know that a “smaller habitat” is bad? Where do we draw this line?

SIDE NOTE: For this particular question, (A) is NOT the strengthener because, even if we take it as true that "UV-B is the only type that can damage genes," we still have not helped the idea that it actually IS any kind of ozone anything that has caused this. We could have said "The depletion of the ozone layer can damage genes as it is incredibly harmful," and this still would NOT be a strengthener (right?). We already know the ozone depletion is dangerous anyway.

[The LSAT Trainer]

Just wanted to let everyone know that Amazon is currently selling the trainer, which retails for $55, for $25.

[johmica]

Hey, Mike. Just wanted to thank you for your advice, and especially the book. I took the LSAT in June of last year, and scored a 171. I retook yesterday after working through the LSAT Trainer, and I finished every section with time to spare. Even with the really tough, "choose the best answer amongst a bunch of vaguely correct answers" questions, I had plenty of time to pour over them, and find exactly why I needed to weed out the wrongs. Finished the LG with 8 minutes to spare. 8 minutes!!!! Took the time to go over two of the four sections in their entireties a second go around.

In building up for the test, I worked on sections nightly, and took a weekly timed PT every Saturday. My PT scores for the last five weeks were 180, 178, 178, 178, and 179. THANKS TO YOU. I'll be shocked if I score below a 176 on yesterday's exam, and I'm expecting a 178. It felt like a completely standard, no-surprises test. Again, THANKS TO YOU.

I'm going to write you an embarrassingly gushing review on Amazon, but I'm going to wait until I get my score back, so I can use hard numbers in it. Also, I'm donating your book, as well as all of my PTs, to my alma mater next week.

Again, thanks so much. You're the man.

[The LSAT Trainer]

For strengthen/weaken questions, eliminating an alternative cause and suggesting an alternative cause are often used as correct answers. For example, let’s take 29.4.20, “Amphibian populations are declining in numbers worldwide”. (D), talking about how the “natural habitat of amphibians has NOT become smaller” is a strengthener. I understand this is a strengthener because it eliminates an alternative cause – it eliminates the idea that it is actually a habitat problem that is leading to the declining amphibian population. I get that. However, it seems like an odd thing to bring up considering that habitats were not talked about whatsoever in the stimulus. Now I know that alternative causes can seem quite out of scope so maybe this isn’t strange. My question is how off topic is too off topic to be considered an “alternative cause?”

For 29.4.20, what if I said “the diet of the amphibians has not changed?” Would that be eliminating an alternative cause? It seems like it. What if I said “the diet of the amphibians HAS changed over the last 50 years?” Would that be giving a possible alternative, and thus would weaken? This seems like a less fine answer because I am not sure how a changing diet would affect amphibian populations. Maybe the diet HAS changed and that has actually benefitted the population; maybe it didn’t benefit the population. Now if I said, “the diet of amphibians HAS changed due to the depletion of necessary nutrients.” This seems like a MUCH better weakener. But (if I am right to think this) why is this so? Do we have to emphasize the innate “goodness” or “badness” in order to make a seemingly off-topic alternative cause relevant? If this is the case, how do we know that a “smaller habitat” is bad? Where do we draw this line?

SIDE NOTE: For this particular question, (A) is NOT the strengthener because, even if we take it as true that "UV-B is the only type that can damage genes," we still have not helped the idea that it actually IS any kind of ozone anything that has caused this. We could have said "The depletion of the ozone layer can damage genes as it is incredibly harmful," and this still would NOT be a strengthener (right?). We already know the ozone depletion is dangerous anyway.

Hi WG --

Great q, and I think it focuses in on the "right gray area" if that makes sense --

Keep in mind that answers that strengthen do not have to do so in 100% absolutely provable ways -- I know you know that -- hence the gray area -- however, the connection to the argument should be very, very strong, and the gaps very slight --

In terms of the particular q you asked about --

One thing to keep in mind is that b/c this is a causal argument, it's going to be much more prone to having answers that speak of alternative causes (b/c causal arguments are typically flawed for not seeing these alternative possibilities) --

You are right that the argument itself doesn't give us specific info that makes absolute the connection between habitat and survival. However, there is a generalized understanding that space is necessary for life (we often think of bare life necessities in terms of food and shelter), and there is a general understanding that a decrease in livable space can often be a viable explanation for decrease in population. That's why (D) can work as a strengthener.

I think that, as you alluded to, your hypo "diet has not changed" would not necessarily be "close enough" -- I think it creates too much gray area for the test writers -- however, like you said, I think something like "opportunities for feeding have not decreased" would be related enough to be a strengthener, because the conclusion itself is specifically about decrease, rather than change. Again though, that's a bit of a gray area.

And yes, you are right about A --

HTH -- MK

[The LSAT Trainer]

Hey, Mike. Just wanted to thank you for your advice, and especially the book. I took the LSAT in June of last year, and scored a 171. I retook yesterday after working through the LSAT Trainer, and I finished every section with time to spare. Even with the really tough, "choose the best answer amongst a bunch of vaguely correct answers" questions, I had plenty of time to pour over them, and find exactly why I needed to weed out the wrongs. Finished the LG with 8 minutes to spare. 8 minutes!!!! Took the time to go over two of the four sections in their entireties a second go around.

In building up for the test, I worked on sections nightly, and took a weekly timed PT every Saturday. My PT scores for the last five weeks were 180, 178, 178, 178, and 179. THANKS TO YOU. I'll be shocked if I score below a 176 on yesterday's exam, and I'm expecting a 178. It felt like a completely standard, no-surprises test. Again, THANKS TO YOU.

I'm going to write you an embarrassingly gushing review on Amazon, but I'm going to wait until I get my score back, so I can use hard numbers in it. Also, I'm donating your book, as well as all of my PTs, to my alma mater next week.

Again, thanks so much. You're the man.

That is fantastic to hear -- thanks so much for the gracious comments --

I know that for anyone who gets up to your score level, whatever help the trainer provides is a small part of a whole lot of stuff that is going right -- so, I really appreciate you sharing with me some of the credit -- far more than I deserve I'm sure --

And I don't mean to jinx you, but in my experience, when people come out of the exam and describe their test day experiences in the way that you have, it's incredibly rare for them to have over-estimated their performance -- again, don't want to jinx you, but I feel very confident, as you do, that you hit this out of the park --

Take care --

Mike

[TLSuser2014]

Hello! I am registered to take the December 2014 LSAT by I am worried that I do not have enough time to study. I will be purchasing the LSAT Trainer this week to aid in my studies in addition to taking 3 prep tests a week. I have already read the Powerscore bibles and the Manhattan RC last year prior to taking the October LSAT (which I did poorly one due to me getting in a car accident in the middle of my studies, which resulted in physical therapy). I will be reviewing the bibles and manhattan RC early in my prep in order to refresh. I have been considering three different options in order for me to get accepted into my desired school (which is the University of Florida):

1. Take the December LSAT administration and apply for school with that score, which will allow me to have my application in by early January but I may not have received the best score due to my limited time to study.

2. Take the December LSAT, apply to schools but register for the February LSAT, which would cause my application to be held until I receive my February LSAT.

3. Take the February LSAT only and apply right before the deadline, March 15th, with the likelihood of a higher score.

Which option do you think is best? I would like to take the February test if it means that I can get a higher score but I am also worried that I will not have an opportunity to receive scholarships if I apply in March. However, I know the LSAT trainer is a highly recommended study plan, I do not want to rush my prep.

Thank you for your help!

[The LSAT Trainer]

Hello! I am registered to take the December 2014 LSAT by I am worried that I do not have enough time to study. I will be purchasing the LSAT Trainer this week to aid in my studies in addition to taking 3 prep tests a week. I have already read the Powerscore bibles and the Manhattan RC last year prior to taking the October LSAT (which I did poorly one due to me getting in a car accident in the middle of my studies, which resulted in physical therapy). I will be reviewing the bibles and manhattan RC early in my prep in order to refresh. I have been considering three different options in order for me to get accepted into my desired school (which is the University of Florida):

1. Take the December LSAT administration and apply for school with that score, which will allow me to have my application in by early January but I may not have received the best score due to my limited time to study.

2. Take the December LSAT, apply to schools but register for the February LSAT, which would cause my application to be held until I receive my February LSAT.

3. Take the February LSAT only and apply right before the deadline, March 15th, with the likelihood of a higher score.

Which option do you think is best? I would like to take the February test if it means that I can get a higher score but I am also worried that I will not have an opportunity to receive scholarships if I apply in March. However, I know the LSAT trainer is a highly recommended study plan, I do not want to rush my prep.

Thank you for your help!

Hi there --

Quick disclaimer before I give my thoughts -- I am not, by any means, an admissions expert, and there seem to be a ton of students and professionals here on tls who know a lot more about the admissions process than I do, so I suggest you seek them out for specific advice about dec vs feb --

I think the two big pieces of advice that I can give you are --

1) make sure you are ready to perform at your best on test day --

duh. i know you know that. more on how to gauge this in just a bit, but it is true that the vast majority of LSAT-takers do not prepare enough for the exam.

2) any time you have a chance to get a score that you'd be happy with, you should take the test

this is really advice for those on the opposite-end of under-preparers -- some people miss out on opportunities to get a top score because they are too nervous to face the test or because they want everything to be juuuust perfect when they do take it -- it's essential to keep in mind that schools really just care about your top score, and, especially considering that there is some standard deviation from exam administration to exam administration, it makes sense to give yourself as many chances at bat as possible.

Here are some simple tests to gauge your readiness --

1) for LR -- w/o looking back over notes or anything like that, create a list of all the LR q types. For each q type, either write out or say to yourself the method you should use to solve that particular type of question.

By the time you are totally ready for the exam, this LR test should be very easy for you -- and it's a good way to gauge whether you've truly internalized all that you've been learning. If you have trouble coming up with the list, or if you don't feel that you have set methods for solving these q's, then you know that your skills and habits have been become strengthened enough for you to perform at your best.

2) for LG -- go through about 10 exams worth of games, just reading scenarios and rules -- for each one, you should be able to see, fairly easily, how you would set up the diagram, and you should be able to see how you would notate each rule. If you are a top games player (that is, if you expect to get perfect or near perfect on the section) you should also be able to see, without too much time or effort, what the most important rules or combination of rules are, and whether it makes sense to frame or not. If you have trouble doing any of this, it may be a sign that you haven't brought together all that've learned for LG. If you haven't brought it all together, then, during the exam, you have to waste a lot of energy worrying about what skill to apply when -- that adds an unnecessary extra layer of challenge that you want to avoid.

3) for RC -- similar to LR, you should have a fairly strong sense of the different types of q's that you will be asked, and how you want to approach these q's. You should also feel like you have a "set" reading process / strategy that has been carefully honed and habitualized.

So again, those are some easy tests for gauging whether you've internalized and brought together everything you've been working on--if you plan on taking in Dec, I recommend you keep the above gauges in mind as you prioritize and organize your work, and as you get closer to the exam date, you can use the above as a gauge of how far you've come, and whether you feel ready enough or not.

Hope that helps and wish you the best -- get in touch if you need anything else --

MK

[TLSuser2014]

Hello! I am registered to take the December 2014 LSAT by I am worried that I do not have enough time to study. I will be purchasing the LSAT Trainer this week to aid in my studies in addition to taking 3 prep tests a week. I have already read the Powerscore bibles and the Manhattan RC last year prior to taking the October LSAT (which I did poorly one due to me getting in a car accident in the middle of my studies, which resulted in physical therapy). I will be reviewing the bibles and manhattan RC early in my prep in order to refresh. I have been considering three different options in order for me to get accepted into my desired school (which is the University of Florida):

1. Take the December LSAT administration and apply for school with that score, which will allow me to have my application in by early January but I may not have received the best score due to my limited time to study.

2. Take the December LSAT, apply to schools but register for the February LSAT, which would cause my application to be held until I receive my February LSAT.

3. Take the February LSAT only and apply right before the deadline, March 15th, with the likelihood of a higher score.

Which option do you think is best? I would like to take the February test if it means that I can get a higher score but I am also worried that I will not have an opportunity to receive scholarships if I apply in March. However, I know the LSAT trainer is a highly recommended study plan, I do not want to rush my prep.

Thank you for your help!

Hi there --

Quick disclaimer before I give my thoughts -- I am not, by any means, an admissions expert, and there seem to be a ton of students and professionals here on tls who know a lot more about the admissions process than I do, so I suggest you seek them out for specific advice about dec vs feb --

I think the two big pieces of advice that I can give you are --

1) make sure you are ready to perform at your best on test day --

duh. i know you know that. more on how to gauge this in just a bit, but it is true that the vast majority of LSAT-takers do not prepare enough for the exam.

2) any time you have a chance to get a score that you'd be happy with, you should take the test

this is really advice for those on the opposite-end of under-preparers -- some people miss out on opportunities to get a top score because they are too nervous to face the test or because they want everything to be juuuust perfect when they do take it -- it's essential to keep in mind that schools really just care about your top score, and, especially considering that there is some standard deviation from exam administration to exam administration, it makes sense to give yourself as many chances at bat as possible.

Here are some simple tests to gauge your readiness --

1) for LR -- w/o looking back over notes or anything like that, create a list of all the LR q types. For each q type, either write out or say to yourself the method you should use to solve that particular type of question.

By the time you are totally ready for the exam, this LR test should be very easy for you -- and it's a good way to gauge whether you've truly internalized all that you've been learning. If you have trouble coming up with the list, or if you don't feel that you have set methods for solving these q's, then you know that your skills and habits have been become strengthened enough for you to perform at your best.

2) for LG -- go through about 10 exams worth of games, just reading scenarios and rules -- for each one, you should be able to see, fairly easily, how you would set up the diagram, and you should be able to see how you would notate each rule. If you are a top games player (that is, if you expect to get perfect or near perfect on the section) you should also be able to see, without too much time or effort, what the most important rules or combination of rules are, and whether it makes sense to frame or not. If you have trouble doing any of this, it may be a sign that you haven't brought together all that've learned for LG. If you haven't brought it all together, then, during the exam, you have to waste a lot of energy worrying about what skill to apply when -- that adds an unnecessary extra layer of challenge that you want to avoid.

3) for RC -- similar to LR, you should have a fairly strong sense of the different types of q's that you will be asked, and how you want to approach these q's. You should also feel like you have a "set" reading process / strategy that has been carefully honed and habitualized.

So again, those are some easy tests for gauging whether you've internalized and brought together everything you've been working on--if you plan on taking in Dec, I recommend you keep the above gauges in mind as you prioritize and organize your work, and as you get closer to the exam date, you can use the above as a gauge of how far you've come, and whether you feel ready enough or not.

Hope that helps and wish you the best -- get in touch if you need anything else --

MK

Thank you so much Mike! I really do appreciate your help! I do have another question regarding the LSAT Trainer. Do you know how much improvement the average test taker gains using the 2 month study plan? I am interested in that schedule since I will be taking the December LSAT. Right now I am receiving a 153, but I do hope to receive at least a 165 for the December test. Do you think that is feasible?

[The LSAT Trainer]

Hello! I am registered to take the December 2014 LSAT by I am worried that I do not have enough time to study. I will be purchasing the LSAT Trainer this week to aid in my studies in addition to taking 3 prep tests a week. I have already read the Powerscore bibles and the Manhattan RC last year prior to taking the October LSAT (which I did poorly one due to me getting in a car accident in the middle of my studies, which resulted in physical therapy). I will be reviewing the bibles and manhattan RC early in my prep in order to refresh. I have been considering three different options in order for me to get accepted into my desired school (which is the University of Florida):

1. Take the December LSAT administration and apply for school with that score, which will allow me to have my application in by early January but I may not have received the best score due to my limited time to study.

2. Take the December LSAT, apply to schools but register for the February LSAT, which would cause my application to be held until I receive my February LSAT.

3. Take the February LSAT only and apply right before the deadline, March 15th, with the likelihood of a higher score.

Which option do you think is best? I would like to take the February test if it means that I can get a higher score but I am also worried that I will not have an opportunity to receive scholarships if I apply in March. However, I know the LSAT trainer is a highly recommended study plan, I do not want to rush my prep.

Thank you for your help!

Hi there --

Quick disclaimer before I give my thoughts -- I am not, by any means, an admissions expert, and there seem to be a ton of students and professionals here on tls who know a lot more about the admissions process than I do, so I suggest you seek them out for specific advice about dec vs feb --

I think the two big pieces of advice that I can give you are --

1) make sure you are ready to perform at your best on test day --

duh. i know you know that. more on how to gauge this in just a bit, but it is true that the vast majority of LSAT-takers do not prepare enough for the exam.

2) any time you have a chance to get a score that you'd be happy with, you should take the test

this is really advice for those on the opposite-end of under-preparers -- some people miss out on opportunities to get a top score because they are too nervous to face the test or because they want everything to be juuuust perfect when they do take it -- it's essential to keep in mind that schools really just care about your top score, and, especially considering that there is some standard deviation from exam administration to exam administration, it makes sense to give yourself as many chances at bat as possible.

Here are some simple tests to gauge your readiness --

1) for LR -- w/o looking back over notes or anything like that, create a list of all the LR q types. For each q type, either write out or say to yourself the method you should use to solve that particular type of question.

By the time you are totally ready for the exam, this LR test should be very easy for you -- and it's a good way to gauge whether you've truly internalized all that you've been learning. If you have trouble coming up with the list, or if you don't feel that you have set methods for solving these q's, then you know that your skills and habits have been become strengthened enough for you to perform at your best.

2) for LG -- go through about 10 exams worth of games, just reading scenarios and rules -- for each one, you should be able to see, fairly easily, how you would set up the diagram, and you should be able to see how you would notate each rule. If you are a top games player (that is, if you expect to get perfect or near perfect on the section) you should also be able to see, without too much time or effort, what the most important rules or combination of rules are, and whether it makes sense to frame or not. If you have trouble doing any of this, it may be a sign that you haven't brought together all that've learned for LG. If you haven't brought it all together, then, during the exam, you have to waste a lot of energy worrying about what skill to apply when -- that adds an unnecessary extra layer of challenge that you want to avoid.

3) for RC -- similar to LR, you should have a fairly strong sense of the different types of q's that you will be asked, and how you want to approach these q's. You should also feel like you have a "set" reading process / strategy that has been carefully honed and habitualized.

So again, those are some easy tests for gauging whether you've internalized and brought together everything you've been working on--if you plan on taking in Dec, I recommend you keep the above gauges in mind as you prioritize and organize your work, and as you get closer to the exam date, you can use the above as a gauge of how far you've come, and whether you feel ready enough or not.

Hope that helps and wish you the best -- get in touch if you need anything else --

MK

Thank you so much Mike! I really do appreciate your help! I do have another question regarding the LSAT Trainer. Do you know how much improvement the average test taker gains using the 2 month study plan? I am interested in that schedule since I will be taking the December LSAT. Right now I am receiving a 153, but I do hope to receive at least a 165 for the December test. Do you think that is feasible?

Oh it's definitely possible --

But as to average increase etc. I really have no idea. I think of the trainer like a piece of exercise equipment -- I like to think it's the equivalent of the very best exercise equipment, but nevertheless -- your score is not going to improve just because you have the trainer or even just because you read through it. The amount that it helps you is ultimately based on how well it fits your needs, and how you choose to use it.

Sorry that it's such an unsexy answer, but I'd be lying if I said anything else. I genuinely believe that improvement is most dependent on the actual student, and I just try to be as helpful as I can -- MK

[topdreg]

Hi Mike, I'm on chapter 6 of your book now. First off, I just wanted to say that this book screams quality. I'm enjoying my read so far, and I feel like I finally made the right choice with regards to LSAT studying.

I have a couple nitpicky questions, if you'd be willing:


On the first Flaw Drill question, you gave the following scenario:

"Since Billie got a cookie, I should get a cookie."

Your flaw solution for this is, "Takes for granted that she should get everything Billie gets." Wouldn't that come off as too general a statement? It could be the case that she only thinks that with regards to cookies, that is, "Takes for granted that she should get every cookie that Billie gets." Maybe I'm being overly nitpicky?


For the question PT36, S1, Q4, the first LR problem on the Sample Questions section for chapter 2, the answer is C. I understand why the others are wrong, but I don't think C is necessarily true. What if all patients taking antidepressant drugs were to take only those drugs that do not cause weight gain? Should I assume that because an antidepressant drug exists, someone is taking it? I notice that this question is a Most Strongly Supported question, instead of a Must Be True question. So, for questions like these, am I to make small inferences like this?

Finally, in the book, you claim that there is no LR passage where a piece = puzzle. Is that indeed the case?

[Hands]

Hey Mike,

I just ordered your book and am expecting to begin your lessons a few days from now. I'm having a bit of anxiety over the prospect of transitioning to a new method of attacking the test, namely the games. Last month, I had a very unfortunate encounter with the LSAT: I had been practice testing at 168-171 (having scored a cold a 163 on what I thought to be a throw-away first attempt), but got flustered on test day and performed very poorly (lower than my cold submission) due to my botching the games.

Do you believe your methodology to be particularly compatible with the Powerscore methods? Also, does your book at all reference reducing test day anxiety?