real The Official December 2016 Waiters Group - Patience is a Virtue Forum

[dj9i27]

ugh, just went -7 on an LR section

Outlier, it's just an outlier

i guess.. went -1 and -2 on two LR sections yesterday but i feel like my average on LR is like -4 per section, idunno

Dude I have some days where I destroy and go 0-1 on RC and LR alike, then if I am tired or just don't feel like doing LSAT I'll go -7-12ish. It's all about mentality in my opinion don't let it get you down.

[Mikey]

ugh, just went -7 on an LR section

Outlier, it's just an outlier

i guess.. went -1 and -2 on two LR sections yesterday but i feel like my average on LR is like -4 per section, idunno

Dude I have some days where I destroy and go 0-1 on RC and LR alike, then if I am tired or just don't feel like doing LSAT I'll go -7-12ish. It's all about mentality in my opinion don't let it get you down.

yeah i get you. not letting it get me down though, just gonna review it maybe tomorrow or something and see what questions i went wrong on.

[WWhitman]

Does anyone know how to "read" and what to pay attention to the conversion table/report LSAC creates when it converts to my quarter-system GPA to its standard one? I just want to make sure it's accurate.

[SunDevil14]

Made Prep Test 46 my bitch (best score to date).

PT 46

176
RC: -4
LR I: -0
LR II: -1
LG: -0

[Pozzo]

.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Made Prep Test 46 my bitch (best score to date).

PT 46

176
RC: -4
LR I: -0
LR II: -1
LG: -0

Boss! good work

[Deardevil]

Made Prep Test 46 my bitch (best score to date).

PT 46

176
RC: -4
LR I: -0
LR II: -1
LG: -0

Damn. You're ready!

[SunDevil14]

Thanks Guys

[OhMyLaw]

Man this whole working, classes, and LSAT studying is kinda rough. Can't decide if this makes me excited or apprehensive for law school

[Greenteachurro]

Man this whole working, classes, and LSAT studying is kinda rough. Can't decide if this makes me excited or apprehensive for law school

I'm doing the same, my guess is that if I can deal without much sleep/free time now, that during law school I'll be able to deal with stress.

[Mikey]

when you took a multiple choice test the same week as the LSAT and haven't gotten it back yet

[Greenteachurro]

when you took a multiple choice test the same week as the LSAT and haven't gotten it back yet

Honestly I'm impressed that some type A in your class hasn't gone ahead and reported the prof yet.

[Mikey]

when you took a multiple choice test the same week as the LSAT and haven't gotten it back yet

Honestly I'm impressed that some type A in your class hasn't gone ahead and reported the prof yet.

crazy part is, he told us like 3 weeks ago that he was done grading them, he just hasn't given them back yet, smh. might be dropping the class anyways since i think i bombed that test, but it's annoying because i don't know if i actually did or not!

[Greenteachurro]

when you took a multiple choice test the same week as the LSAT and haven't gotten it back yet

Honestly I'm impressed that some type A in your class hasn't gone ahead and reported the prof yet.

crazy part is, he told us like 3 weeks ago that he was done grading them, he just hasn't given them back yet, smh. might be dropping the class anyways since i think i bombed that test, but it's annoying because i don't know if i actually did or not!

Lol that seriously blows, you should just email the prof and demand your scores back!

[harveybirdman502]

Anyone have tips on required assumption questions? I find the negation method a bit difficult to apply. It seems like some correct answers apply directly to one premise, which if it falls apart, so does the argument and conclusion. Others seem to apply to the overall connected argument.

For example, on PT 32 the answer choice is about one element in one of the premises. I got it right but how are you to determine which negations actually apply directly to the assumption? Also, can you use sufficient strategies here by identifying new elements in the conclusion and elements in the premises that do not appear in the conclusion?

These Qs have been a nightmare for me ever since the beginning. I don't know why this is so difficult. Is there only one assumption in each argument for these questions?

Which question? There's a couple of necessary assumption q's on PT32.

21 on Section 1. It's obvious why the answer is right but the question format seems quite different from others where an assumption is connecting premises and conclusion. 1 premise is knocked out and it makes the argument fall apart, but it seems like most other questions address a broader assumption structured to encompass both the premises and conclusion.

[harveybirdman502]

Anyone have tips on required assumption questions? I find the negation method a bit difficult to apply. It seems like some correct answers apply directly to one premise, which if it falls apart, so does the argument and conclusion. Others seem to apply to the overall connected argument.

For example, on PT 32 the answer choice is literally about one term in one of the premises. I got it right but how are you to determine which negations actually apply directly to the assumption? Also, can you use sufficient strategies here by identifying new elements in the conclusion and elements in the premises that do not appear in the conclusion?

These Qs have been a nightmare for me ever since the beginning. I don't know why this is so difficult. Is there only one assumption in each argument for these questions?

The thing is there is an infinite number of necessary assumptions. The trick is to find the one out of five that HAS to be true.

A simple example:

After beating Abraham to a pulp, Negan turns his sights to Glenn, picking off another member of the group.
Maggie then vows to get revenge by killing Negan herself the next time they cross paths.

What is the author assuming? That Negan is an asshole? Probably, but without further episodes/information, he might turn out to be a good dude.
What about if Abraham is 50? Michael Cudlitz is actually 51, but regardless, we need not assume this. What's the point in knowing his age?
How about Maggie being able to survive before the second meeting with Negan? Well, this all sounds irrelevant, but yeah, it's got to be the case.
The conclusion is that Maggie will murder this guy the next time they see each other,
so it must be true that she will live long enough for that to occur. Use the negation test to confirm.
"Maggie will not survive before the second encounter." That wrecks the whole argument!
If she's dead af, how on Earth will she herself be able to kill Negan? That'd be some next-level shit.

Next level indeed. Thank you. I think my problem isn't so much with defender questions like this (this one only addressing Maggie's fitness to clip Negan). It's knowing whether the negation hurts only a premise or the overall conclusion on the more complicated Qs.

[harveybirdman502]

Also, what is the most efficient way to drill LR? It seems useless if you don't understand the question type completely. I'll do 10-20, miss a couple, feel like I learned absolutely nothing. Then what...how is this supposed to help?

I'll weigh in on this one, the NA question I think is different from person to person (just like this one too I guess). Regardless, there are multiple ways to drill LR imo, no one is perfect. First, timed full sections grade them and see if there is a pattern of the answers you're getting wrong. If there is a pattern focus on it and drill by QT, if there isn't I do 5 questions of each QT I missed and read one of the prep books to try and cement my thought process.

This LR Bible is pretty limited in scope. It really only explains how to eliminate some answer choices on NA, which is kind of a bummer. I wasn't able to take any particular strategies away from that.

I'm still not quite understanding the point of drilling by question type. When I finish drilling, I often still do not know what I'm doing wrong. I went through inference questions the other day, saw no pattern, didn't take anything away from it.

[Greenteachurro]

Also, what is the most efficient way to drill LR? It seems useless if you don't understand the question type completely. I'll do 10-20, miss a couple, feel like I learned absolutely nothing. Then what...how is this supposed to help?

I'll weigh in on this one, the NA question I think is different from person to person (just like this one too I guess). Regardless, there are multiple ways to drill LR imo, no one is perfect. First, timed full sections grade them and see if there is a pattern of the answers you're getting wrong. If there is a pattern focus on it and drill by QT, if there isn't I do 5 questions of each QT I missed and read one of the prep books to try and cement my thought process.

This LR Bible is pretty limited in scope. It really only explains how to eliminate some answer choices on NA, which is kind of a bummer. I wasn't able to take any particular strategies away from that.

I'm still not quite understanding the point of drilling by question type. When I finish drilling, I often still do not know what I'm doing wrong. I went through inference questions the other day, saw no pattern, didn't take anything away from it.

I like to write out my reasoning as I'm doing question by type drilling, especially in the first few questions that I'm doing. I check my answer between each write out and then try to understand why what i wrote down was wrong, then move on to the next one and do this for like 5 questions and then do like 10 questions methodically. Then I rinse and repeat a few times. This really helped with NA questions.

[harveybirdman502]

Also, what is the most efficient way to drill LR? It seems useless if you don't understand the question type completely. I'll do 10-20, miss a couple, feel like I learned absolutely nothing. Then what...how is this supposed to help?

I'll weigh in on this one, the NA question I think is different from person to person (just like this one too I guess). Regardless, there are multiple ways to drill LR imo, no one is perfect. First, timed full sections grade them and see if there is a pattern of the answers you're getting wrong. If there is a pattern focus on it and drill by QT, if there isn't I do 5 questions of each QT I missed and read one of the prep books to try and cement my thought process.

This LR Bible is pretty limited in scope. It really only explains how to eliminate some answer choices on NA, which is kind of a bummer. I wasn't able to take any particular strategies away from that.

I'm still not quite understanding the point of drilling by question type. When I finish drilling, I often still do not know what I'm doing wrong. I went through inference questions the other day, saw no pattern, didn't take anything away from it.

I like to write out my reasoning as I'm doing question by type drilling, especially in the first few questions that I'm doing. I check my answer between each write out and then try to understand why what i wrote down was wrong, then move on to the next one and do this for like 5 questions and then do like 10 questions methodically. Then I rinse and repeat a few times. This really helped with NA questions.

Thanks that's actually helpful. I know these will be easier once I have a better grasp on the structure.

[Deardevil]

Next level indeed. Thank you. I think my problem isn't so much with defender questions like this (this one only addressing Maggie's fitness to clip Negan). It's knowing whether the negation hurts only a premise or the overall conclusion on the more complicated Qs.

An assumption is a premise, which supports the conclusion.
If an answer choice, when placed into the stimulus, does not lead to the conclusion, the argument falls apart.

Let's tweak the previous example:

After witnessing Glenn get bludgeoned to death,
Maggie swears to kill Negan on their next encounter.
She will definitely murder him by the end of the season.

What is this author assuming?
That Glenn deserves retribution?
Hm... That is a leap. We don't really know that, given the context; he could very well be a useless character on the show.
Is the author assuming that Negan does not have enough men to protect him? Not really; Maggie could kill him, even if he has five armies.
Then... Does he/she assume that perhaps there is no one else capable of killing Negan besides Maggie? YES.
If Rick were able to exact revenge, then that negated premise conflicts with the conclusion that Maggie will definitely be the one to do it.
Unlike the defender, this bridges a gap. Why's it Maggie when there's a whole cast of hardened zombie killing machines? Ineptitude's a possibility.

[Greenteachurro]

Next level indeed. Thank you. I think my problem isn't so much with defender questions like this (this one only addressing Maggie's fitness to clip Negan). It's knowing whether the negation hurts only a premise or the overall conclusion on the more complicated Qs.

An assumption is a premise, which supports the conclusion.
If an answer choice, when placed into the stimulus, does not lead to the conclusion, the argument falls apart.

Let's tweak the previous example:

After witnessing Glenn get bludgeoned to death,
Maggie swears to kill Negan on their next encounter.
She will definitely murder him by the end of the season.

What is this author assuming?
That Glenn deserves retribution?
Hm... That is a leap. We don't really know that, given the context; he could very well be a useless character on the show.
Is the author assuming that Negan does not have enough men to protect him? Not really; Maggie could kill him, even if he has five armies.
Then... Does he/she assume that perhaps there is no one else capable of killing Negan besides Maggie? YES.
If Rick were able to exact revenge, then that negated premise conflicts with the conclusion that Maggie will definitely be the one to do it.
Unlike the defender, this bridges a gap. Why's it Maggie when there's a whole cast of hardened zombie killing machines? Ineptitude's a possibility.

This is a good example. The key to figuring out NA questions, is bridging the game between different premises. I think powerscore sets it up like this (i think I'm butchering this):
Say we have the premises:

A
B-->C
C -->D

Then we get the conclusion: A-->D

An answer might be something like A-->C or even A-->B.

You want to figure out how the different pieces can allow for the stimulus to lead to the conclusion that it does.

[Walliums]

Next level indeed. Thank you. I think my problem isn't so much with defender questions like this (this one only addressing Maggie's fitness to clip Negan). It's knowing whether the negation hurts only a premise or the overall conclusion on the more complicated Qs.

An assumption is a premise, which supports the conclusion.
If an answer choice, when placed into the stimulus, does not lead to the conclusion, the argument falls apart.

Let's tweak the previous example:

After witnessing Glenn get bludgeoned to death,
Maggie swears to kill Negan on their next encounter.
She will definitely murder him by the end of the season.

What is this author assuming?
That Glenn deserves retribution?
Hm... That is a leap. We don't really know that, given the context; he could very well be a useless character on the show.
Is the author assuming that Negan does not have enough men to protect him? Not really; Maggie could kill him, even if he has five armies.
Then... Does he/she assume that perhaps there is no one else capable of killing Negan besides Maggie? YES.
If Rick were able to exact revenge, then that negated premise conflicts with the conclusion that Maggie will definitely be the one to do it.
Unlike the defender, this bridges a gap. Why's it Maggie when there's a whole cast of hardened zombie killing machines? Ineptitude's a possibility.

I haven't watched TWD in a while, but couldn't you also say that the author is assuming that Maggie will encounter Negan by the end of the season?

[batlaw]

Anyone have tips on required assumption questions? I find the negation method a bit difficult to apply. It seems like some correct answers apply directly to one premise, which if it falls apart, so does the argument and conclusion. Others seem to apply to the overall connected argument.

For example, on PT 32 the answer choice is about one element in one of the premises. I got it right but how are you to determine which negations actually apply directly to the assumption? Also, can you use sufficient strategies here by identifying new elements in the conclusion and elements in the premises that do not appear in the conclusion?

These Qs have been a nightmare for me ever since the beginning. I don't know why this is so difficult. Is there only one assumption in each argument for these questions?

Which question? There's a couple of necessary assumption q's on PT32.

21 on Section 1. It's obvious why the answer is right but the question format seems quite different from others where an assumption is connecting premises and conclusion. 1 premise is knocked out and it makes the argument fall apart, but it seems like most other questions address a broader assumption structured to encompass both the premises and conclusion.

So going into this my pre-phrase/focus was on the bridge gap between the strategies involving deception and most individuals being unable to adopt them without doctor / third party.

For the negation method, I struggle a bit sometimes when I try too hard to directly re-word the answer choice to ensure it was correct. Another way to use the negation idea is to eliminate wrong answers. So I tend to do better when I go through the choices and ask myself "does this have to be true?"

(A) Nope, people don't have to believe whatever doctors tell them (too broad in scope). Also, this doesn't address the difference in handling deception between individuals and doctors.
(B) No. Again this is too broad. It could be true but it doesn't have to be true. Here we are only talking about strategies that involve exaggeration of dangers.
(C) No. Again this expands the idea.
(E) Nope. Justification does not enter the picture. Moreso, this goes beyond the deception to change habits discussed.

(D) Yes, has to be true. If people found it easy to deceive themselves why would they need doctors/3rd party to deceive them? [Also, I like the term generally here compared to the overly strong qualifiers in the other choices.]

I will say on my first quick pass I eliminated B, C, E and then A.

[harveybirdman502]

Next level indeed. Thank you. I think my problem isn't so much with defender questions like this (this one only addressing Maggie's fitness to clip Negan). It's knowing whether the negation hurts only a premise or the overall conclusion on the more complicated Qs.

An assumption is a premise, which supports the conclusion.
If an answer choice, when placed into the stimulus, does not lead to the conclusion, the argument falls apart.

Let's tweak the previous example:

After witnessing Glenn get bludgeoned to death,
Maggie swears to kill Negan on their next encounter.
She will definitely murder him by the end of the season.

What is this author assuming?
That Glenn deserves retribution?
Hm... That is a leap. We don't really know that, given the context; he could very well be a useless character on the show.
Is the author assuming that Negan does not have enough men to protect him? Not really; Maggie could kill him, even if he has five armies.
Then... Does he/she assume that perhaps there is no one else capable of killing Negan besides Maggie? YES.
If Rick were able to exact revenge, then that negated premise conflicts with the conclusion that Maggie will definitely be the one to do it.
Unlike the defender, this bridges a gap. Why's it Maggie when there's a whole cast of hardened zombie killing machines? Ineptitude's a possibility.

I haven't watched TWD in a while, but couldn't you also say that the author is assuming that Maggie will encounter Negan by the end of the season?

Ok I'm starting to figure out that it all comes down to the conclusion. It could be just one premise or a combination of premises that can invalidate it.

Had no idea you were talking about TWD. Knowing that, the killing, bludgeoning and zombies are less troubling. You had me worried!

[ms9]

Interesting tidbit on last test. I've talked to an absurd number of people (including test prep people and obviously Killoran because he and I are BFFs ) and just about every scored under their PTs. That's pretty common anyway but this was almost exclusively in that direction. In fact, I've only talked to one person who scored above their Pts