June 2011 Study Group Forum

Darko86 · Post by **Darko86** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 10:29 pm

Hey everyone. I hope the prepping is going well for everyone.

I was doing some prepping on my own before I signed up for a TestMasters class which begins this Thursday (first diag then, but the instruction doesn't start until the next Tuesday). I had stopped prepping once I signed up because the information I was sent suggests that doing prep on my own before I learn their methods will be counterproductive.

I'm hesitant to continue to waste time though, so I was curious what some of y'all thought. Should I do some work on my own before the class starts, or should I wait until after I have a couple classes under my belt?

geverett · Post by **geverett** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:16 pm

Alright team,
Here is my update on PT 50 w/ LG 30.1 thrown in for the experimental

RC -7 21/28
LR -2 23/25
LG -2 20/22
LR -2 23/25

Total -13 Raw 87/100 Scaled 167

Experimental LG 30.1

-4 19/23

Thought I killed it on RC. I thought wrong.

FloridaCoastalorbust · Post by **FloridaCoastalorbust** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 12:21 am

geverett wrote:Alright team,
Here is my update on PT 50 w/ LG 30.1 thrown in for the experimental

RC -7 21/28
LR -2 23/25
LG -2 20/22
LR -2 23/25

Total -13 Raw 87/100 Scaled 167

Experimental LG 30.1

-4 19/23

Thought I killed it on RC. I thought wrong.

IMO the RC passage was harder than most I've seen, and the LG was easier

Neidermeyer519 · Post by **Neidermeyer519** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:43 am

Well, I had a nice weekend off from the LSAT, but its back to the grind...well, as soon as I get up tomorrow. I believe I'm going to take PT 49 around noon, so the same time conditions for June.

maxpower430 · Post by **maxpower430** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:51 am

hey i was wondering if you guys had any tips or could point me in the right direction for a problem i've been having with conditional reasoning. i feel like i have a firm grasp of things, but i still sometimes slip up with indicator "only". i know that only if introduces a necessary condition, and that "only" also introduces a necessary condition, but i guess i want confirmation on "the only" b/c it throws me for a loop sometimes. for example, the only people who ski like the cold, which i believe becomes if ski then like the cold. i guess my question is should i just generally take "the only" to be a sufficient indicator? i know it's smarter to get a general feel for what the phrase means rather than rely on the indicator words to figure it out, but while i hope i'm getting there, right now this is still confusing me. thanks guys.

geverett · Post by **geverett** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:04 am

My understanding of that would be as follows: "Only people who ski like the cold"

Like the cold ----> ski

If you like the cold then it is guaranteed that you ski, but if you ski it does not necessarily mean that you like the cold. You could really enjoy skiing, but not like the cold. However skiing is such an enjoyable activity for you that in spite of your disdain for the cold you still go skiing. This example is made confusing b/c it goes against our real world instincts. You could never imagine someone who skis, but does not enjoy the cold. For logical reasons, however, that is what we can take away from this. Anybody else have anymore insight?

jim-green · Post by **jim-green** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:33 am

PT33 S2 #19 - RC
This question is pretty tricky. A is correct because lines 17-18 say so. However, D also appears correct because of line 21. Any thoughts on why answer D is incorrect?

maxpower430 · Post by **maxpower430** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:41 am

geverett wrote:My understanding of that would be as follows: "Only people who ski like the cold"

Like the cold ----> ski

If you like the cold then it is guaranteed that you ski, but if you ski it does not necessarily mean that you like the cold. You could really enjoy skiing, but not like the cold. However skiing is such an enjoyable activity for you that in spite of your disdain for the cold you still go skiing. This example is made confusing b/c it goes against our real world instincts. You could never imagine someone who skis, but does not enjoy the cold. For logical reasons, however, that is what we can take away from this. Anybody else have anymore insight?

yea that was actually my first instinct as well, but apparently it was wrong. the example i gave was one that i encountered on tls(see the article on conditional reasoning and the problem about getting in shape vs. exercising)/manhattan lr guide but rephrased. from what i can tell, i think there is a difference b/t "only" and "the only" (for example pt 25 s4 q23 about computer programmers is what got me down this road), but i haven't ever really seen it broken down, or don't remember seeing it analyzed. i guess i'll check out the LR bible when i get home too to see, but thanks, i'm glad i'm not crazy about this haha

geverett · Post by **geverett** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 11:36 am

maxpower430 wrote:
geverett wrote:My understanding of that would be as follows: "Only people who ski like the cold"

Like the cold ----> ski

If you like the cold then it is guaranteed that you ski, but if you ski it does not necessarily mean that you like the cold. You could really enjoy skiing, but not like the cold. However skiing is such an enjoyable activity for you that in spite of your disdain for the cold you still go skiing. This example is made confusing b/c it goes against our real world instincts. You could never imagine someone who skis, but does not enjoy the cold. For logical reasons, however, that is what we can take away from this. Anybody else have anymore insight?
yea that was actually my first instinct as well, but apparently it was wrong. the example i gave was one that i encountered on tls(see the article on conditional reasoning and the problem about getting in shape vs. exercising)/manhattan lr guide but rephrased. from what i can tell, i think there is a difference b/t "only" and "the only" (for example pt 25 s4 q23 about computer programmers is what got me down this road), but i haven't ever really seen it broken down, or don't remember seeing it analyzed. i guess i'll check out the LR bible when i get home too to see, but thanks, i'm glad i'm not crazy about this haha

Not sure. Any thoughts on this from anyone else?

Eichörnchen · Post by **Eichörnchen** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 11:51 am

When I see "Only people who ski like the cold", I would diagram it as:

Like the Cold -> Ski

because "Only people who ski like the cold"

"only" is a N.C. indicator, and it is attached to "people who ski", so ski is the NC and cold is the suff. Am I way off here?

maxpower430 · Post by **maxpower430** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 12:45 pm

just to clear up some confusion, here is what i was referencing earlier http://www.top-law-schools.com/uploads/ ... et3Key.pdf the only one i was unsure of was "the only way to get in shape is to exercise" which then becomes "if you are in shape, then you work(ed) out". and i'm just unsure of why "the only" seems to introduce the sufficient condition when "only" typically introduces a necessary condition. i apologize if i'm just reading way too much into this, b/c i would have diagrammed my hypothetical as "like the cold -> ski" as well, but the manhattan lr book/this tls example seem to contradict that.

geverett · Post by **geverett** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:00 pm

The example you used here is more grammatically correct then the skiing example you used.

"the only way to get in shape is to exercise"

In this instance "the only" is modifying "exercise" even though it comes right before "to get in shape" Watch out for these kinds of tricks. Just b/c it is coming before the sufficient does not mean that it modifies the sufficient. Translated this would say "If you want to get in shape then you must exercise"

I want to get in shape -----------> I must exercise

In your previous example:

"the only people who ski like the cold" I just can't even begin to make sense of that statement. I'm sorry. Did you actually mean:

The only people who like the cold are snow skiers.

In this case "the only" is modifying "snow skiers" Same rule applies. Just b/c it comes before the sufficient condition does not mean that it modifies the sufficient condition.

Translated this would say "If you like the cold then you are a snow skier"

Like the cold ----------> snow skier

Hope this makes sense. Fire away if it does not.

crumpetsandtea · Post by **crumpetsandtea** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:10 pm

Curious to see what people think is a better studying method, doing EVERY SINGLE PT AVAILABLE, or just doing the most recent ones, but more than once (to really get a 'feel' for the new formatting/changes in difficulty)

Logic STUD · Post by **Logic STUD** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:19 pm

crumpetsandtea wrote:Curious to see what people think is a better studying method, doing EVERY SINGLE PT AVAILABLE, or just doing the most recent ones, but more than once (to really get a 'feel' for the new formatting/changes in difficulty)

My two cents. Only do the recent ones, too many things have changed. I'm only working with the last ten, i'll probably take them each like 5-6 times each so that it will be a similar amount of studying to taking every single test. I'm on the middle of the of my second round of taking them right now, and I've seen serious improvement in scores.

I'd be interested to hear what others think.

crumpetsandtea · Post by **crumpetsandtea** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:21 pm

Logic STUD wrote:
crumpetsandtea wrote:Curious to see what people think is a better studying method, doing EVERY SINGLE PT AVAILABLE, or just doing the most recent ones, but more than once (to really get a 'feel' for the new formatting/changes in difficulty)

My two cents. Only do the recent ones, too many things have changed. I'm only working with the last ten, i'll probably take them each like 5-6 times each so that it will be a similar amount of studying to taking every single test. I'm on the middle of the of my second round of taking them right now, and I've seen serious improvement in scores.

I'd be interested to hear what others think.

But don't you think repeating them will give you super skewed results because you've seen the questions multiple times already? Like, how do you know those improvements aren't because your brain subconsciously remembers doing that problem before?

Logic STUD · Post by **Logic STUD** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:24 pm

geverett wrote:My understanding of that would be as follows: "Only people who ski like the cold"

Like the cold ----> ski

If you like the cold then it is guaranteed that you ski, but if you ski it does not necessarily mean that you like the cold. You could really enjoy skiing, but not like the cold. However skiing is such an enjoyable activity for you that in spite of your disdain for the cold you still go skiing. This example is made confusing b/c it goes against our real world instincts. You could never imagine someone who skis, but does not enjoy the cold. For logical reasons, however, that is what we can take away from this. Anybody else have anymore insight?

Nope, you have this backwards. You don't know that

Ski------>People who like the cold.

Meaning

if they ski, they like the cold
If they like the cold, they might ski--- we can not be sure

Logic STUD · Post by **Logic STUD** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:28 pm

crumpetsandtea wrote:
Logic STUD wrote:
crumpetsandtea wrote:Curious to see what people think is a better studying method, doing EVERY SINGLE PT AVAILABLE, or just doing the most recent ones, but more than once (to really get a 'feel' for the new formatting/changes in difficulty)

My two cents. Only do the recent ones, too many things have changed. I'm only working with the last ten, i'll probably take them each like 5-6 times each so that it will be a similar amount of studying to taking every single test. I'm on the middle of the of my second round of taking them right now, and I've seen serious improvement in scores.

I'd be interested to hear what others think.
But don't you think repeating them will give you super skewed results because you've seen the questions multiple times already? Like, how do you know those improvements aren't because your brain subconsciously remembers doing that problem before?

It's very unlikely that I would take 10 different tests in a row (1000 questions) and then go back to test one and somehow remember that question 6 was B. I can see why you raise the issue, but it does not appear to be a problem.

crumpetsandtea · Post by **crumpetsandtea** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:29 pm

Logic STUD wrote:
crumpetsandtea wrote:
Logic STUD wrote:My two cents. Only do the recent ones, too many things have changed. I'm only working with the last ten, i'll probably take them each like 5-6 times each so that it will be a similar amount of studying to taking every single test. I'm on the middle of the of my second round of taking them right now, and I've seen serious improvement in scores.

I'd be interested to hear what others think.
But don't you think repeating them will give you super skewed results because you've seen the questions multiple times already? Like, how do you know those improvements aren't because your brain subconsciously remembers doing that problem before?

It's very unlikely that I would take 10 different tests in a row (1000 questions) and then go back to test one and somehow remember that question 6 was B. I can see why you raise the issue, but it does not appear to be a problem.

Hmm maybe it's just me then, but I always seem to remember questions that I've done through TM or the PS Bibles and it usually influences how quickly I answer/how accurate I am.

FloridaCoastalorbust · Post by **FloridaCoastalorbust** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:14 pm

crumpetsandtea wrote:Curious to see what people think is a better studying method, doing EVERY SINGLE PT AVAILABLE, or just doing the most recent ones, but more than once (to really get a 'feel' for the new formatting/changes in difficulty)

I guess it would depend on how much you retain, but I think it would be somewhat pointless, and even damaging to retake PTs in the same LSAT study cycle. Even if I take 10 tests, and retake the first test, I will probably remember which answer I put. And if not the answer, my reasoning will be much quicker because my brain has already seen it, regardless of if I can consciously say, "Oh yea, this one is A." I think this is especially true for LG, because you will have the advantage of identifying the setup immediately, and some inferences too - some things you wouldn't see as fast on test day. For RC and LR, if you truly take the time to identify your reasoning errors in missed questions, when you revisit these questions when retaking the PT for the second/third time you will probably remember the correct answer, bc you spent the time correcting your errors in reasoning. This means your scores are probably weighted to your advantage and may give you a damaging sense of where your abilities are.

FloridaCoastalorbust · Post by **FloridaCoastalorbust** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:14 pm

crumpetsandtea wrote:Curious to see what people think is a better studying method, doing EVERY SINGLE PT AVAILABLE, or just doing the most recent ones, but more than once (to really get a 'feel' for the new formatting/changes in difficulty)

I guess it would depend on how much you retain, but I think it would be somewhat pointless, and even damaging to retake PTs in the same LSAT study cycle. Even if I take 10 tests, and retake the first test, I will probably remember which answer I put. And if not the answer, my reasoning will be much quicker because my brain has already seen it, regardless of if I can consciously say, "Oh yea, this one is A." I think this is especially true for LG, because you will have the advantage of identifying the setup immediately, and some inferences too - some things you wouldn't see as fast on test day. For RC and LR, if you truly take the time to identify your reasoning errors in missed questions, when you revisit these questions when retaking the PT for the second/third time you will probably remember the correct answer, bc you spent the time correcting your errors in reasoning. This means your scores are probably weighted to your advantage and may give you a damaging sense of where your abilities are.

geverett · Post by **geverett** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:42 pm

Logic STUD wrote:
geverett wrote:My understanding of that would be as follows: "Only people who ski like the cold"

Like the cold ----> ski

If you like the cold then it is guaranteed that you ski, but if you ski it does not necessarily mean that you like the cold. You could really enjoy skiing, but not like the cold. However skiing is such an enjoyable activity for you that in spite of your disdain for the cold you still go skiing. This example is made confusing b/c it goes against our real world instincts. You could never imagine someone who skis, but does not enjoy the cold. For logical reasons, however, that is what we can take away from this. Anybody else have anymore insight?

Nope, you have this backwards. You don't know that

Ski------>People who like the cold.

Meaning

if they ski, they like the cold
If they like the cold, they might ski--- we can not be sure

I think you are wrong sir. However, if we have someone who would want to come in and settle this I am open to it. =)

Eichörnchen · Post by **Eichörnchen** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:12 pm

geverett wrote:
Logic STUD wrote:
geverett wrote:My understanding of that would be as follows: "Only people who ski like the cold"

Like the cold ----> ski

If you like the cold then it is guaranteed that you ski, but if you ski it does not necessarily mean that you like the cold. You could really enjoy skiing, but not like the cold. However skiing is such an enjoyable activity for you that in spite of your disdain for the cold you still go skiing. This example is made confusing b/c it goes against our real world instincts. You could never imagine someone who skis, but does not enjoy the cold. For logical reasons, however, that is what we can take away from this. Anybody else have anymore insight?

Nope, you have this backwards. You don't know that

Ski------>People who like the cold.

Meaning

if they ski, they like the cold
If they like the cold, they might ski--- we can not be sure
I think you are wrong sir. However, if we have someone who would want to come in and settle this I am open to it. =)

Geverett, I'd bet lots of dollars that you are right

I think it was best summed up when you said:

In this instance "the only" is modifying "exercise" even though it comes right before "to get in shape" Watch out for these kinds of tricks.

The example they made differed from the original in the book. "Only" is a NC indicator based on what it modifies, not necessarily what it precedes in the sentence structure.

geverett · Post by **geverett** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:36 pm

I have seen Logic Stud's replies on many other boards, and it seems he is often trying to sow confusion and cause problems for people. Is there anyway we can have him banned from this board? Just go look at some of his other posts. Ridiculous. And I don't think we need any confusion being sown on a board of people trying to motivate each other for the studying of such an important test. Thoughts?

FloridaCoastalorbust · Post by **FloridaCoastalorbust** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:41 pm

geverett wrote:I have seen Logic Stud's replies on many other boards, and it seems he is often trying to sow confusion and cause problems for people. Is there anyway we can have him banned from this board? Just go look at some of his other posts. Ridiculous. And I don't think we need any confusion being sown on a board of people trying to motivate each other for the studying of such an important test. Thoughts?

This

Eichörnchen · Post by **Eichörnchen** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:08 pm

Yeah, I don't know that Logic "stud" is serious, but I was instantly wary when I read:

Logic STUD wrote:Joining the group. Excited for this. I'm pretty advanced, so feel free to ask many any questions you may have. And hopefully you can answer some of mine!

-LS

I guess it depends on the definition of 'advanced' but there seems to be some advice coming from him that flies in the face of LSAT common sense.

June 2011 Study Group Forum

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Re: June 2011 Study Group

PT33 S2 #19 - RC

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Register for access!

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Register now!

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Register now, it's still FREE!

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Seriously? What are you waiting for?