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

[hblake]

PT # 13 Section 4 Question 14.

Don't mind if I break down how I see the answer as being difficult to understand as being false (the question asked for which possible statement must be false of the answer choices): Not all beautiful cats are Persians. Not all irritating cats are Persians. Some beautiful cats and some irritating cats and some beautiful, irritating cats are not Persians. Appreciate the assistance.

Edit: is this kind of a tricky one where the emphasis is on the phrase "must be true" in the question, based on the statements in the paragraph? As in, "the statements above necessitate that the statements below be true, except for..?" So even if it could be false it doesn't matter unless the statements in the paragraph don't support it? Hope that's clear.

[meandme]

Hey BP
I need help with PT23 LG3 with the rules. This is how noted them.

1. F <--l--> S
This means F and S can't be in the same team.
2. N <--l--> R
This means N and R can't be in the same team.
3. M <--l--> R
M <--l--> S
This means M can't be in the same team as R and S.
4. J1 --> R2
~R2 --> ~J1

Please let me know if I am correct and what deductions can I make with these rules.

Thanks
God bless

[wanderlust]

Hi Shinners,
Thank you for this thread!
Do you think re-work RC is a meaningful exercise? I've noticed that I could remember where the passage would be going even months after I first tried my hand on a particular passage. Sometimes, I can even vaguely remember the points that I need to pay attention to when I read a passage second time, same points that are crucial to the questions that I got wrong first time. As a result, I can finish the passage and answer the questions correctly within the 8 minutes time frame, in contrast to average 10 minutes for brand-new passages.

[bp shinners]

Hey all, just a quick note - hours are gonna be from 1-5 today instead of 12-4. Sorry for the late notice!

[bp shinners]

So even if it could be false it doesn't matter unless the statements in the paragraph don't support it? Hope that's clear.

I'm a little confused by your explanation, so I'm just going to start from scratch. However, I don't like the statement I've quoted above - all you have to go on are the statements in the paragraph. There's no true or false except for what's established by the statements given.

For this question, we have to figure out what could be false ("must be true EXCEPT"). So this is essentially 4 MBT questions - 4 things must be true, one doesn't. That one is our answer.

My stimulus says:
Persian -> Pompous
Pompous -> Irritating
Most Beautiful -s- Persian

From this, I can conclude several things:
Some of the world's most beautiful cats are pompous
Some of the world's most beautiful cats are irritating

That gets rid of answers A, B (A and B are actually the exact same answer), and D.

C is tempting because it's strong. However, when I examine it, I find that it's just the contrapositive of my diagram (Persian -> Pompous -> Irritating; ~I->~Pomp->~Pers). So that must be true as well.

I'm left with E, and it looks good to me. Just because I know all Persian cats are irritating and some are beautiful, I can't say anything about any other type of cat. So E could be true, it could be false. I don't know, so it's my answer.

[bp shinners]

They all look good to me.

I don't want to do all the work for you! What I can say is that there is definitely overlap between rules, which suggest deductions. There's also a certain player that shows up quite a bit in the rules - usually, that player will be important to the game.

Work with that for a little while and let me know what you come up with - then, I'll let you know if you missed anything big!

[bp shinners]

Hi Shinners,
Thank you for this thread!
Do you think re-work RC is a meaningful exercise? I've noticed that I could remember where the passage would be going even months after I first tried my hand on a particular passage. Sometimes, I can even vaguely remember the points that I need to pay attention to when I read a passage second time, same points that are crucial to the questions that I got wrong first time. As a result, I can finish the passage and answer the questions correctly within the 8 minutes time frame, in contrast to average 10 minutes for brand-new passages.

If you're generally remembering the passages and questions, it won't be as good practice as going in fresh. If you have other passages that you haven't yet done, I would definitely focus on them.

However, if you do remember the direction of the passages, as well as certain points that will be questioned, you can still benefit from re-doing passages. Go back over them and see the patterns that emerge as far as what elements are questioned. RC is the section that benefits the most from noticing these patterns, as it will focus your reading and save you a lot of time.

[timeless]

Hello BP

With regards to the RC strategy, you seem to be advocating marking up the predictable areas in the passage so that it is easier for you to go back for reference when the questions require you to.
I am exactly doing that: underlining where the author expresses his opinion, contrasts two things, explaining new/old theories and hypotheses, defining a term, ascribing a position to different groups, indicating a change from the past, using analogy, among others. And when I work on the questions, almost 100% of the time I do get textual support from these areas.

But I thought it would even be more ideal if I could actually get to the level of predicting the questions that are gna be asked, or if thats way too up there, to at least be able to decrease the number of markings I would make for each passage.

What kind of strategy would you recommend so that I would more effectively reach this level? I mean, I thought that although i can read the passage with focus on the areas that i mentioned afore, it is also inevitably true that for any given passage, there can be multiple reasons, contrasts, ascription, analogy, examples, etc.

Do you still think its possible to have a more accurate predictive power despite this? At least for me, I thought if i on average mark 15 or so areas and 5-6 of them serve as textual evidence for correct answers, that would constitute a successful marking system. But according to what you've been telling students, it sounds as if i can even further decrease my initial marking to somewhere less than 10.
Was this what you meant? If it is, do you have a strategy for someone like me to get to that stage? (someone like me being a person who can mark the appropriate areas but may not be at the ideal predictive level)

thanks so much!

[bp shinners]

But according to what you've been telling students, it sounds as if i can even further decrease my initial marking to somewhere less than 10.
Was this what you meant? If it is, do you have a strategy for someone like me to get to that stage? (someone like me being a person who can mark the appropriate areas but may not be at the ideal predictive level)

thanks so much!

It's hard to give specific advice like the number of markings you should make. And even though I can generally predict a good number of the non-general question (for instance, guessing that there will be a question along the lines of, "Which one of the following would the author of the passage agree with?" is both a safe guess and a completely unhelpful one), it takes awhile to get there. It also can result in you missing stuff that will show up in the questions.

So what I generally recommend is that you spend 5-10 minutes after you review the passage to check your markup against the questions. See what you noted that wasn't asked about. See what was asked about that you didn't note. See what would have helped you get to a correct answer, and see what showed up in the answers that you missed. And recognize that you'll never have a perfect markup - one where you only highlight things that show up in the questions, and you highlight everything that shows up in the question. I still over mark up because that's better than underdoing it - I'd rather spend the extra 15 seconds on every passage than an extra 1-2 minutes on one or two passages to catch something I missed.

[flem]

Holler bro. PT 41, section 2, questions 18-24

I have problems with these dumb, uncommon games. For instance, I crushed the first three games on PT 41, but game 4 boned me pretty good. I realize these games are pretty uncommon and I don't stress over them, but would like to be comfortable if thrown a curveball on test day. Can you show me an approach to this thing?

[wanderlust]

If you're generally remembering the passages and questions, it won't be as good practice as going in fresh. If you have other passages that you haven't yet done, I would definitely focus on them.

However, if you do remember the direction of the passages, as well as certain points that will be questioned, you can still benefit from re-doing passages. Go back over them and see the patterns that emerge as far as what elements are questioned. RC is the section that benefits the most from noticing these patterns, as it will focus your reading and save you a lot of time.

Thank you BP!

The pattern that you mentioned, is it big picture element, such as passage structure? or something more detailed?

Also, do you think the patterns from older tests till applicable to more recent tests?

What do you say make resent RC tests harder than the older tests, except increase in length?

[bp shinners]

Holler bro. PT 41, section 2, questions 18-24

I have problems with these dumb, uncommon games. For instance, I crushed the first three games on PT 41, but game 4 boned me pretty good. I realize these games are pretty uncommon and I don't stress over them, but would like to be comfortable if thrown a curveball on test day. Can you show me an approach to this thing?

These are just straightforwards ordering games with two new pieces of information - who sits across from each other; the first seat is next to the last seat. It also doesn't tell you which is seat 1, 2, etc..., but rather you just care who's counter/clockwise from each other.

The secret to the setup is to draw something that looks like a snowflake - for a circular ordering game with 8 seats, draw a horizontal line, then a vertical line that bisects the first one, and then two other lines that bisect the 90 degree angles created. You'll end up with that snowflake-looking thing (or something that looks like Kurt Vonnegut's depiction of an asshole, if you're the literary type).

From there, you're going to have to fill out what you can. It's easy to just set people in a random seat, as there are no distinctions between the different seats. I'd probably make scenarios here (and in most scenarios in general) based on the first rule. You're also going to be drawing out lots of hypotheticals for these questions, but that's fine.

Honestly, for the circular ordering games, I find that drawing the setup is the worst part. If you can get that down, the rest tends to be a bit easier (as you can just start filling things in).

[CardozoLaw09]

Hey

Do you mind explaining how to arrive at the answer for SuperPrepB, s.4, question 21? Thanks

[bp shinners]

The pattern that you mentioned, is it big picture element, such as passage structure? or something more detailed?

Both. However, the big picture stuff patterns are fairly easy to spot (they're going to ask about main point, the author's attitude, etc...). The details are where you can pick up some time/points if you know what they're going to ask about.

For instance, if there's ever a widely held belief/traditional view pointed out, expect a question on it. If there's something in the passage that seems counterintuitive (like anarchists supporting government), there's going to be a nasty, difficult question about it.

Also, do you think the patterns from older tests till applicable to more recent tests?

Definitely. The patterns of what is asked about haven't changed; just the language in the questions.

What do you say make resent RC tests harder than the older tests, except increase in length?

I'm the wrong person to ask here, as I don't think the new passages are harder. In fact, I find them significantly easier. The older tests require a little less logical certainty in the correct answers, which, to me, makes them harder to spot. There's sometimes an argument to be made against an answer. The newer ones are written like LR questions - when you find the right answer, there's no doubt that it is correct.

There is one exception to this, however, and that's a common new trick they like to pull out on RC questions. They'll ask a question from a certain viewpoint, and they'll give you an answer that contradicts the overall conclusion of the viewpoint, but it falls into a small exception that viewpoint/argument carved out while making their point.

As an example, there's the passage on Rita Dove and Lyric Narrative. In it, the author spends the last 2 paragraphs talking about how Rita Dove bridges the gap between poetry and fiction, and uses elements of both in her writing. Then, it asks what he would say about her writing, and the correct answer is something along the lines of, "Rita Dove's works can still be classified as exclusively poems or exclusively fiction." That's against the whole direction of his argument, but he does say that when he's talking about her works ("undoubtedly still a work of fiction"). That switch makes for some nasty questions.

[flem]

These are just straightforwards ordering games with two new pieces of information - who sits across from each other; the first seat is next to the last seat. It also doesn't tell you which is seat 1, 2, etc..., but rather you just care who's counter/clockwise from each other.

The secret to the setup is to draw something that looks like a snowflake - for a circular ordering game with 8 seats, draw a horizontal line, then a vertical line that bisects the first one, and then two other lines that bisect the 90 degree angles created. You'll end up with that snowflake-looking thing (or something that looks like Kurt Vonnegut's depiction of an asshole, if you're the literary type).

From there, you're going to have to fill out what you can. It's easy to just set people in a random seat, as there are no distinctions between the different seats. I'd probably make scenarios here (and in most scenarios in general) based on the first rule. You're also going to be drawing out lots of hypotheticals for these questions, but that's fine.

Honestly, for the circular ordering games, I find that drawing the setup is the worst part. If you can get that down, the rest tends to be a bit easier (as you can just start filling things in).

lol @ the bolded

Thanks dude. That's actually the exact setup I used going into it and was hoping it was the most effective. I looked at the Manhattan explanation of it and it had 8 horizontal lines around a circle, each numbered 1-8 which made ZERO sense to me since there isn't much of a sense of inherent order.

I'm going to do this game over today and hopefully it'll make more sense. I think it was more like "HOLY SHIT WHAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN" when I first saw it.

Edit: redid this, did it quickly, no problems. Thanks.

[bp shinners]

Let's get this party started.

[jmjm]

Hello bp,
First post on this thread. Lsat usage of "a few" vs "many" seems unusual. PT-4, LR-2 (sec 4), Q9 is "A scientific theory is a good theory if it satisfies..."

This is an MBT-X question and it assumes "many" as the opposite of "a few". If this is not assumed then answer choice D ("a scientific model that contains many elements is not a good theory") cannot be eliminated.

Is this an lsat quirk? Thanks.

[flem]

Holla bro,

PT 40, section 2, game 3

How do I approach this? I crushed this games section super quickly and then sat staring at this game with NO idea how to approach it.

[bp shinners]

Hello bp,
First post on this thread. Lsat usage of "a few" vs "many" seems unusual. PT-4, LR-2 (sec 4), Q9 is "A scientific theory is a good theory if it satisfies..."

This is an MBT-X question and it assumes "many" as the opposite of "a few". If this is not assumed then answer choice D ("a scientific model that contains many elements is not a good theory") cannot be eliminated.

Is this an lsat quirk? Thanks.

I wouldn't necessarily classify 'many' as the opposite of 'a few' in that question; just two things that are mutually exclusive.

In general, the LSAT is going to treat 'many' and 'a few' as the same - both meaning 'some', both only guaranteeing that there is at least one example out there. I can't say I've ever seen a question where treating it any other way would run you into trouble, until now.

Honestly, this is the only question I've seen that uses this type of quantification in a different way. 'Many' has always meant a little bit more than 'a few/some' on the LSAT, but never enough to matter. And the connotation in English is definitely lining up with this question - I think most people would say 'many' means more than 'a few'.

So, truthfully, the best advice I can give you is to still treat 'many' and 'a few' the same (and as 'some'), chalk this question up to an odd quirk of the early LSATs, but keep it in the back of your mind in case it comes up again. I don't expect it to, but I've been wrong before.

[bp shinners]

Holla bro,

PT 40, section 2, game 3

How do I approach this? I crushed this games section super quickly and then sat staring at this game with NO idea how to approach it.

This is a rare and elusive mapping game, and, as such, the setup is a bit weird.

For this, I literally draw out a map of the cities, write the rules down, and then try to combine some (I think the big deduction here is that M can't be connected with H, because then they'd also have to fly to T, and then we'd have 2 flights from M, which breaks the first rule). I don't expect a lot of deductions, however. I do expect them to mess with me by using a rule or two only once, and in the last questions, hoping I forget about it. It's even more important to follow my complete approach here (check each rule for each question so that you don't miss anything).

So why draw the map? Because it sets the spatial element in my head. I'll copy that map, draw connecting lines, and circle the city when I know it can't connect to anything else (like drawing a line at the end of a filled group). Honestly, these games are a bit of work, and they're a bit faster and looser than other games, but once you get down the idea that you should be drawing out a hypothetical for almost every question and just seeing what happens, they become a lot easier. Even pleasant. And that deduction is going to give me at least 1 answer directly, probably 2 or 3.

[flem]

Thanks bro. It seems like really weird games like that have all the difficulty frontloaded in a setup, and once you have an approach everything falls into place. I'm going to try it again today.

[bp shinners]

On the Road Again. The thread; not me.

[meandme]

Hey BP
What's the best way to review RC.

Thanks
God bless

[bp shinners]

Hey BP
What's the best way to review RC.

Thanks
God bless

Step 1 - Split the questions you get wrong into two groups - specific reference and structure/org/overall
Step 2 - Go back and see where the specific reference question answer come up. Note whether you highlighted/noted that at all. If you didn't, highlight similar information next time (info that serves the same role in a passage). If you did, remember to use your notes when answering questions
Step 3 - Go back through the passage quickly to refresh yourself of the viewpoints
Step 4 - Look at the VP/org/structure questions, classify them by VP being asked about, and find where that information came up in the passage
Step 5 - Repeat Step 2 for this question type

RC review is all about 2 things:
1) Checking to see if your markup was helpful
2) Checking to see where you had an error in understanding

1 is easy - just start to notice the role of the info that shows up in questions, and then find it in every passage
2 is hard - you really have to dig in to see what you're missing. Maybe it's author's voice (you notice there's an opinion, but attribute it to someone else). Maybe it's a shift in viewpoint (you notice VPs, but are muddled on the specifics). There are a number of places you can go wrong. In order to find out where you're going wrong, you need to analyze the questions, not necessarily the answers.

[JDeezy]

Hi BP, thanks for doing this, really helping me out.

I'm struggling with PT23 S3 Q13 (LR on seals in the Baltic and Scottish Seas.) "E" is correct but I really can't grasp how it is better than "A."

Gracias!