ThanksLSAT Hacks (Graeme) wrote:You know, I have on idea. Elimination is definitely crucial. I read over all five answers fast before thinking about any in depth. I eliminate 2-3 very quickly on the first pass, which frees up mental space to focus on the other two.ltowns1 wrote:Just curious, I was talking to someone who scored really well on test 73, and he basically said that the LR section was predicated on excellent elimination skils. (which I believe is absolutely true) you also tend to hear that some of the most recent preptests are harder in LR. I Think this is because students don't spend an adequate amount of time focusing on elimination skills. I just wanted to ask were there any earlier LR sections (as in earlier preptests) that focused primarily on elimination skills?
Side note: I'm on PT 24 currently.
But I couldn't say that any particular test period uses this more than others. It seems pretty consistently useful.
If LR got harder, it's because people are prepping more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Me + Free Explnations
Hi, I'm Graeme. I scored a 177 and have been teaching since 2008. I release free explanations for LSAT PTs.
Free PT Explanations: http://lsathacks.com/explanations/
Free LSAT email course: http://lsathacks.com/email-course/
LSAT Hacks free PT explanations + Q and A with Graeme Forum
- ltowns1
- Posts: 717
- Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 1:13 am
Re: LSAT Hacks free PT explanations + Q and A with Graeme
-
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 2:05 am
Re: LSAT Hacks free PT explanations + Q and A with Graeme
Graeme,
I'm having trouble understanding the flaw in Q25 from PT 14, section 2. The author uses the national average for gender distribution among medical schools to draw a conclusion about the likelihood of an unknown person from one of those schools being male. I was able to luckily reach the right answer, but I want to understand the question fully. Can you help me?
I'm having trouble understanding the flaw in Q25 from PT 14, section 2. The author uses the national average for gender distribution among medical schools to draw a conclusion about the likelihood of an unknown person from one of those schools being male. I was able to luckily reach the right answer, but I want to understand the question fully. Can you help me?
- LSAT Hacks (Graeme)
- Posts: 371
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 9:18 pm
Re: LSAT Hacks free PT explanations + Q and A with Graeme
The author ignores obviously relevant information. If I tell you a letter is written by *Shirley*, then it's almost 100% certain the letter is written by a woman, as almost all Shirley's are woman. Baseline stats are not the only consideration if you have additional info.mjsjr wrote:Graeme,
I'm having trouble understanding the flaw in Q25 from PT 14, section 2. The author uses the national average for gender distribution among medical schools to draw a conclusion about the likelihood of an unknown person from one of those schools being male. I was able to luckily reach the right answer, but I want to understand the question fully. Can you help me?
p.s. According to Wikipedia, this gender probability of the name Shirley dates to Charlotte Bronte's 1849 novel *Shirley*. Who knew?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_(name)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Me + Free Explnations
Hi, I'm Graeme. I scored a 177 and have been teaching since 2008. I release free explanations for LSAT PTs.
Free PT Explanations: http://lsathacks.com/explanations/
Free LSAT email course: http://lsathacks.com/email-course/
- LSAT Hacks (Graeme)
- Posts: 371
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 9:18 pm
Re: LSAT Hacks free PT explanations + Q and A with Graeme
I made a video about the contrapositive, what do you guys think?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaHd0wP ... e=youtu.be
Feedback will be really helpful. I'm making some free videos about LSAT logic and other topics, and I want to make them as good as I can.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Me + Free Explnations
Hi, I'm Graeme. I scored a 177 and have been teaching since 2008. I release free explanations for LSAT PTs.
Free PT Explanations: http://lsathacks.com/explanations/
Free LSAT email course: http://lsathacks.com/email-course/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaHd0wP ... e=youtu.be
Feedback will be really helpful. I'm making some free videos about LSAT logic and other topics, and I want to make them as good as I can.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Me + Free Explnations
Hi, I'm Graeme. I scored a 177 and have been teaching since 2008. I release free explanations for LSAT PTs.
Free PT Explanations: http://lsathacks.com/explanations/
Free LSAT email course: http://lsathacks.com/email-course/
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 5:36 pm
Re: LSAT Hacks free PT explanations + Q and A with Graeme
This is regarding question question 7, section 4, PT 1:
I dont understand why D is a necessary assumption in the argument. Before reading the answers, the necessary assumption that I came up with was that:
"The game cannot be played without rubber being used."
Most explanations I have read deals with the problem of playing the game with something other than a rubber ball, ie. wooden ball. But playing the game with with a wooden ball doesnt make the conclusion not true because it is still possible that the USE of rubber preceded the game being played with a wooden ball. Surely a necessary assumption has to be an equivalent statement to the negation of the statement "The game can be played without rubber", which D is not? I crossed out D for this reason.
I can understand that D will ENABLE the conclusion to be true, but I didnt think that was what the question was asking (assumption depends on?)
Civilization ----------------------- Use of Rubber --------------------------------- Rubber ball invented? ---------- Game inception ------------ Cortez arriving
Civilization ----------------------- Use of Rubber --------------------------------- Rubber ball invented? ----------------------------------------- Cortez arriving
Civilization ----------------------- Game inception/Wooden ball? --------------- Rubber ball invented? ------------------------------------------ Cortez arriving
I dont understand why D is a necessary assumption in the argument. Before reading the answers, the necessary assumption that I came up with was that:
"The game cannot be played without rubber being used."
Most explanations I have read deals with the problem of playing the game with something other than a rubber ball, ie. wooden ball. But playing the game with with a wooden ball doesnt make the conclusion not true because it is still possible that the USE of rubber preceded the game being played with a wooden ball. Surely a necessary assumption has to be an equivalent statement to the negation of the statement "The game can be played without rubber", which D is not? I crossed out D for this reason.
I can understand that D will ENABLE the conclusion to be true, but I didnt think that was what the question was asking (assumption depends on?)
Civilization ----------------------- Use of Rubber --------------------------------- Rubber ball invented? ---------- Game inception ------------ Cortez arriving
Civilization ----------------------- Use of Rubber --------------------------------- Rubber ball invented? ----------------------------------------- Cortez arriving
Civilization ----------------------- Game inception/Wooden ball? --------------- Rubber ball invented? ------------------------------------------ Cortez arriving
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- splittermcsplit88
- Posts: 291
- Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 10:40 pm
Re: LSAT Hacks free PT explanations + Q and A with Graeme
Hi Graeme,
I'm constantly testing around 158. In LR, I always miss 1 or 2 from Q#8-14; 2 or 3 from Q#15-21. I know the question types but it is usually those really obscure "what strengthens most" answer choices or difficult assumption questions that flicks off a few points here and there. I go over my answers and understand what went wrong but I can't possibly keep in mind every trick in the book. In RC, I don't have a concrete, engraved understanding of the passages so I usually get -2 on each passage.
For timed practices, I can only go up to about question #20 for LR and RC. I subvocalize when I read, which is why I think I am reading slow. I mean, I'm always reflaming my determination and taking note of my past mistakes, but there are always these new traps, and my reading speed isn't about to get faster anytime soon. I am so frustrated and am doubtful of whether I can ever hit 165+.
From what I know, people who hit 170+ are breezing through passages with time to spare. They are able to parse through dense 1800s literature passages and break down the most complicated logical reasoning traps. This seems very far away. What can I do?
I'm constantly testing around 158. In LR, I always miss 1 or 2 from Q#8-14; 2 or 3 from Q#15-21. I know the question types but it is usually those really obscure "what strengthens most" answer choices or difficult assumption questions that flicks off a few points here and there. I go over my answers and understand what went wrong but I can't possibly keep in mind every trick in the book. In RC, I don't have a concrete, engraved understanding of the passages so I usually get -2 on each passage.
For timed practices, I can only go up to about question #20 for LR and RC. I subvocalize when I read, which is why I think I am reading slow. I mean, I'm always reflaming my determination and taking note of my past mistakes, but there are always these new traps, and my reading speed isn't about to get faster anytime soon. I am so frustrated and am doubtful of whether I can ever hit 165+.
From what I know, people who hit 170+ are breezing through passages with time to spare. They are able to parse through dense 1800s literature passages and break down the most complicated logical reasoning traps. This seems very far away. What can I do?
- LSAT Hacks (Graeme)
- Posts: 371
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 9:18 pm
Re: LSAT Hacks free PT explanations + Q and A with Graeme
The idea of a necessary assumption is to make false the link between conclusion and reasoning. You're not necessarily trying to prove the conclusion false. So the negation of D is "The game was originally played with another material". That shows the evidence is not determinative, thereby wrecking the argument.alvi123 wrote:This is regarding question question 7, section 4, PT 1:
I dont understand why D is a necessary assumption in the argument. Before reading the answers, the necessary assumption that I came up with was that:
"The game cannot be played without rubber being used."
Most explanations I have read deals with the problem of playing the game with something other than a rubber ball, ie. wooden ball. But playing the game with with a wooden ball doesnt make the conclusion not true because it is still possible that the USE of rubber preceded the game being played with a wooden ball. Surely a necessary assumption has to be an equivalent statement to the negation of the statement "The game can be played without rubber", which D is not? I crossed out D for this reason.
I can understand that D will ENABLE the conclusion to be true, but I didnt think that was what the question was asking (assumption depends on?)
Civilization ----------------------- Use of Rubber --------------------------------- Rubber ball invented? ---------- Game inception ------------ Cortez arriving
Civilization ----------------------- Use of Rubber --------------------------------- Rubber ball invented? ----------------------------------------- Cortez arriving
Civilization ----------------------- Game inception/Wooden ball? --------------- Rubber ball invented? ------------------------------------------ Cortez arriving
It's still possible that the game was invented after 1000 AD of course, but our evidence is no longer very good reason for that idea.
I'd say your version is almost as powerful as this. The negation "the game could have bean been played without rubber" isn't quite as strong, but it does reduce the impact of the evidence. The main difference is that D definitely shows that the game was originally played without rubber.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Me + Free Explnations
Hi, I'm Graeme. I scored a 177 and have been teaching since 2008. I release free explanations for LSAT PTs.
Free PT Explanations: http://lsathacks.com/explanations/
Free LSAT email course: http://lsathacks.com/email-course/
- LSAT Hacks (Graeme)
- Posts: 371
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 9:18 pm
Re: LSAT Hacks free PT explanations + Q and A with Graeme
What did you start at? The degree you've already improved is some indication of how much progress you can make, since initial progress is always easier.splittermcsplit88 wrote:Hi Graeme,
I'm constantly testing around 158. In LR, I always miss 1 or 2 from Q#8-14; 2 or 3 from Q#15-21. I know the question types but it is usually those really obscure "what strengthens most" answer choices or difficult assumption questions that flicks off a few points here and there. I go over my answers and understand what went wrong but I can't possibly keep in mind every trick in the book. In RC, I don't have a concrete, engraved understanding of the passages so I usually get -2 on each passage.
For timed practices, I can only go up to about question #20 for LR and RC. I subvocalize when I read, which is why I think I am reading slow. I mean, I'm always reflaming my determination and taking note of my past mistakes, but there are always these new traps, and my reading speed isn't about to get faster anytime soon. I am so frustrated and am doubtful of whether I can ever hit 165+.
From what I know, people who hit 170+ are breezing through passages with time to spare. They are able to parse through dense 1800s literature passages and break down the most complicated logical reasoning traps. This seems very far away. What can I do?
Honestly, there's not much you can do on reading speed. I think for about 30-50% of people some improvement is possible, if you've been reading inefficiently. You can see more in this post I wrote: http://lsathacks.com/email-course/readi ... rehension/
But the real reason people can breeze through dense 1800s literature is that they've been reading dense 1800s literature for fun. I read dense stuff for fun all my life, and as a result I have a large vocabulary and a wide knowledge of subject matter. So I can go through almost anything without slowing down to figure out words or context.
The fact that you're aware there's a problem is step one. You could read some back issues of the economist to get used to varied subject matter. Reading an old novel or three isn't a bad idea. But those are long term strategies, and they usually don't pay off on the timeline of an LSAT study schedule.
I would recommend repeating the questions you get wrong, with some sort of delay. Repeat exposure if key to develop intuition for the flaws. That's how you actuallly can "keep every mind trick in your head". Same way you can drive without thinking about every little thing you learned in drivers ed. Repetition is the key to intuition.
Note that you're not just trying to find the answer when you repeat. Instead, aim to be able to understand the question at a deeper level, such that you could explain it to someone else.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Me + Free Explnations
Hi, I'm Graeme. I scored a 177 and have been teaching since 2008. I release free explanations for LSAT PTs.
Free PT Explanations: http://lsathacks.com/explanations/
Free LSAT email course: http://lsathacks.com/email-course/
- Deleterious
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 6:07 am
Re: LSAT Hacks free PT explanations + Q and A with Graeme
Hi Graeme,
Do you still recommend the skimming method as advocated here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/LSAT/comments/u ... rehension/
?
The reason I ask is because I've seen you give other RC advice that doesn't talk about skimming at all and I was wondering if this is still the method you advocate.
Thanks
Do you still recommend the skimming method as advocated here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/LSAT/comments/u ... rehension/
?
The reason I ask is because I've seen you give other RC advice that doesn't talk about skimming at all and I was wondering if this is still the method you advocate.
Thanks
- LSAT Hacks (Graeme)
- Posts: 371
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 9:18 pm
Re: LSAT Hacks free PT explanations + Q and A with Graeme
I still definitely recommend skimming, *after* you've read the passage. Greatly improves recall. The reason I stopped mentioning it is because people misinterpreted my advice quite a bit. I couldn't find a way to write it clearly, so I just avoided it. People often thought I was saying "only skim" or "read really fast, uncomfortably fast", which isn't what I mean.Deleterious wrote:Hi Graeme,
Do you still recommend the skimming method as advocated here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/LSAT/comments/u ... rehension/
?
The reason I ask is because I've seen you give other RC advice that doesn't talk about skimming at all and I was wondering if this is still the method you advocate.
Thanks
Until I figure out the best way to write about it, I'm leaving off talking about reading speed.
--------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Me + Free Explnations
Hi, I'm Graeme. I scored a 177 and have been teaching since 2008. I release free explanations for LSAT PTs.
Free PT Explanations: http://lsathacks.com/explanations/
Free LSAT email course: http://lsathacks.com/email-course/
- appind
- Posts: 2266
- Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:07 am
Re: LSAT Hacks free PT explanations + Q and A with Graeme
56.lr1.6:
i think this is a wrong question by LSAC. thoughts?
the credited choice doesn't seem necessary assumption. the credited choice isn't necessary or sufficient. it doesn't account for potassium-sodium proportion as the fresh fruits may have much higher sodium than canned such as 15 g potassium 10000g sodium in fresh vs 10g potassium 1 g sodium in canned.
i think this is a wrong question by LSAC. thoughts?
the credited choice doesn't seem necessary assumption. the credited choice isn't necessary or sufficient. it doesn't account for potassium-sodium proportion as the fresh fruits may have much higher sodium than canned such as 15 g potassium 10000g sodium in fresh vs 10g potassium 1 g sodium in canned.
-
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:33 pm
Re: LSAT Hacks free PT explanations + Q and A with Graeme
your free PT explanations were super helpful especially for the most recent bunch of tests. just took the June exam. thanks for that.
-
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 11:11 pm
Re: LSAT Hacks free PT explanations + Q and A with Graeme
Hey Graeme,
Thanks a lot for your doing this!
I know it probably varies from person to person, but how much an improvement would you expect on average in RC, supposing I study diligently for 1 month?
I'm doing fairly well on all my other sections, but reading comprehension has been difficult for me to improve. Also, do you have any general study tips to share?
Thanks again!
Thanks a lot for your doing this!
I know it probably varies from person to person, but how much an improvement would you expect on average in RC, supposing I study diligently for 1 month?
I'm doing fairly well on all my other sections, but reading comprehension has been difficult for me to improve. Also, do you have any general study tips to share?
Thanks again!
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 11:11 pm
Re: LSAT Hacks free PT explanations + Q and A with Graeme
Hey Graeme,
I have another question...I hope you can help me out when you get the chance!
It’s on PT 26, Section 2, Q #9. (logical reasoning)
It is an inference question, and starts off with “Early pencil leads were made of….”
I was torn between (B) and (D). I definitely see how (D) is wrong, but (B) also seems to have the same problem to me.
The difficulty for me in (B) is that it says that they did not know of any ACCESSIBLE source… but isn’t that a bit extreme? For example, couldn’t it also be possible that there is another accessible source of solid graphite, but making powdered graphite turned out to be a more efficient or cheaper alternative?
This answer choice therefore seems to also be making an unsupported explanation of an occurrence, which I thought was a sure sign that an inference answer choice is wrong up until this point.
On the other hand (D) seems to be wrong because it says that that some inventions are of GREAT benefit, which seems to be too extreme of a statement to make given the information in the stimulus.
so to me, they both seem to be extreme, and I don’t see how I can pick between the two in the future. Could you give me a detailed explanation of why (B) is MORE correct and why (D) is MORE flawed?
Thanks in advance!
I have another question...I hope you can help me out when you get the chance!
It’s on PT 26, Section 2, Q #9. (logical reasoning)
It is an inference question, and starts off with “Early pencil leads were made of….”
I was torn between (B) and (D). I definitely see how (D) is wrong, but (B) also seems to have the same problem to me.
The difficulty for me in (B) is that it says that they did not know of any ACCESSIBLE source… but isn’t that a bit extreme? For example, couldn’t it also be possible that there is another accessible source of solid graphite, but making powdered graphite turned out to be a more efficient or cheaper alternative?
This answer choice therefore seems to also be making an unsupported explanation of an occurrence, which I thought was a sure sign that an inference answer choice is wrong up until this point.
On the other hand (D) seems to be wrong because it says that that some inventions are of GREAT benefit, which seems to be too extreme of a statement to make given the information in the stimulus.
so to me, they both seem to be extreme, and I don’t see how I can pick between the two in the future. Could you give me a detailed explanation of why (B) is MORE correct and why (D) is MORE flawed?
Thanks in advance!
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:09 am
Re: LSAT Hacks free PT explanations + Q and A with Graeme
[quote="LSAT Hacks (Graeme)"]
We know that ~unobtrusive --> ~inviting or ~functional. The final sentence only tells us it's the latter option that happens. The final sentence is not necessary to B. I didn't even notice the final sentence, I guess because I saw it wasn't relevant. Egos take over is actually the key information, telling us the necessary condition is violated.
Graeme, you answered the question about Preptest 3 section 2 question 4 with the architects building functional and inviting, and therefor unobtrusive, buildings. I've seen lots of attempts at answering this that try to rely on the last sentence for justification, which very obviously switches the necessary for the sufficient. A very expensive, well known LSAT study program is guilty of this. But aren't you suggesting that Answer B necessarily requires you to understand the stimulus to mean that the "strong personalities" phrase is the equivalent of the "egoism" phrase? I understand how one might infer that, but I don't see how the plain English requires you to infer that, and the question is asking about what must follow logically. Furthermore, if the second sentence were written that way Answer B wouldn't be a logical conclusion, it would just be a rewording of the second sentence. It would be a test of what you think "violate" means. Thanks!!
We know that ~unobtrusive --> ~inviting or ~functional. The final sentence only tells us it's the latter option that happens. The final sentence is not necessary to B. I didn't even notice the final sentence, I guess because I saw it wasn't relevant. Egos take over is actually the key information, telling us the necessary condition is violated.
Graeme, you answered the question about Preptest 3 section 2 question 4 with the architects building functional and inviting, and therefor unobtrusive, buildings. I've seen lots of attempts at answering this that try to rely on the last sentence for justification, which very obviously switches the necessary for the sufficient. A very expensive, well known LSAT study program is guilty of this. But aren't you suggesting that Answer B necessarily requires you to understand the stimulus to mean that the "strong personalities" phrase is the equivalent of the "egoism" phrase? I understand how one might infer that, but I don't see how the plain English requires you to infer that, and the question is asking about what must follow logically. Furthermore, if the second sentence were written that way Answer B wouldn't be a logical conclusion, it would just be a rewording of the second sentence. It would be a test of what you think "violate" means. Thanks!!
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login