The Official December 2015 Study Group Forum

dellara · Post by **dellara** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 8:00 pm

boslaw56 wrote:
I do a semi-BR where I circle the ones I got wrong on the PT and redo those the next day. Ideally I'd do a full BR, but I work full time and just don't have the hours to commit.

That's the problem. You're scoring before you blind review. Circle any question you don't feel 100% sure on (99 percent is not 100 percent) as you drill under timed conditions. The next day, instead of redoing the ones you got wrong, redo the ones you circled without timed conditions, keeping track of your original answer and revised answer. Then compare your scores. I am almost positive this is what is keeping you from reaching your goal. You need to be understanding how you get to the right answer choice, and internalizing it. You also need to be understanding how you got to the wrong answer choice, and avoid that process. You need to understand when your intuition is operating to get the answer, and when the intuition works and when it doesn't. This will be a huge help on accuracy and timing. When you internalize *how* you get to the right answer choice, it will happen much quicker and much more effectively. Positive reinforcement for getting the right answer choice and negative reinforcement for getting the wrong one (what you are currently doing) will not be nearly as effective.

somethingElse · Post by **somethingElse** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 8:14 pm

Post removed...

Phoenix97 · Post by **Phoenix97** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 9:14 pm

Post removed...

Phoenix97 · Post by **Phoenix97** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 9:24 pm

Post removed...

Phoenix97 · Post by **Phoenix97** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 9:27 pm

Post removed...

shineoncrazydiamond · Post by **shineoncrazydiamond** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 9:57 pm

somethingElse · Post by **somethingElse** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 10:04 pm

Post removed...

boslaw56 · Post by **boslaw56** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 10:14 pm

Post Removed.

flash21 · Post by **flash21** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 10:27 pm

meditating is funny. everything in my body tries to make me not do it, but when I actually just force myself to do it I enjoy it. Why would my body try to screw me over by making the idea repulsive

somethingElse · Post by **somethingElse** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 10:38 pm

Post removed...

flash21 · Post by **flash21** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 10:43 pm

somethingelse55 wrote:
flash21 wrote:meditating is funny. everything in my body tries to make me not do it, but when I actually just force myself to do it I enjoy it. Why would my body try to screw me over by making the idea repulsive
I don't want to attribute beliefs to you that you may or may not have nor offend you, plus this is obviously a wide generalization - but one possibility is that because today's society (a sizable portion of it, at least) is about always being occupied by something, always being in motion and accomplishing things. It's fast paced and standing still is frowned upon.

Furthermore, your body and mind are not separate things - your body can't really do anything that your mind isn't involved with as well, and vice-versa. But that's semantics/philosophy/not really all that relevant here.

Meditation by its very nature is standing still. You aren't moving, and seemingly by today's standards accomplishing nothing. But I am willing to bet that if you made meditation a daily habit, you'll see results over time and this feeling you have to not meditate will dissipate.

Another thing I'd like to add about meditation in general is that its a lot like weight lifting at the gym in that you won't notice results right away, and the best way to get results is to 1) Put an honest effort in each time you meditate and 2) Stick to it, consistently. Make it a habit. Easier said than done.

Yep I agree with all you've said. I want to do it consistently so I can reap some (even if very small) benefit from it in the time from now and the LSAT.

I've read about 4-5 books about meditation and mindfulness this year. Its still so hard to be consistent though, even knowing of the benefits. I try to be mindful as much as possible, though.

appind · Post by **appind** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 10:54 pm

flash21 wrote:
Pretty sure you are representing your conditional statement wrong.

I think it should be stop drinking --" ensure not get cancer

But you can get cancer in other ways

i don't think the conditional is wrong if you consider that "only then" supplies the sufficient condition. may be you're confusing it with "only if"?
you do X, only then can you do Y.
in this case, X is the necessary condition of Y.

had it said: you do X, "then and only then" can you do Y.
X is both a necessary and sufficient condition for Y.

appind · Post by **appind** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 11:11 pm

somethingelse55 wrote: I hope you don't mind me replying to some of your questions - it helps me try and delve into the questions more. I do not believe there is a problem with this question though.

[+] Spoiler
First of all, for this specific question, its actually recommended NOT to diagram it in conditional logic, but instead just read it as an english sentence. When you just read it normally, in my opinion its clear to determine that he's saying that if he stops drinking, that will ENSURE that he doesn't get cancer. But of course there are other ways to get cancer, so just because he stops drinking the water doesn't mean he won't get cancer.

If you really want to try and diagram it, then yes it becomes more complicated because it seems like you can diagram it either way. By this I mean, John seems to be saying both of these things:

1) If I stop drinking water -> I won't get cancer.

AND

2) If I won't get cancer -> I stop drinking water.

This is an "if and only if" statement. So there are actually two flaws in this question, depending on which statement you look at. Because, if he doesn't get cancer, its NOT necessary that he stopped drinking the water, because with the rats (which is his support for the argument) only 90% of them died from the water, not 100%. So its possible to keep drinking the water and not get cancer.

The reason you can get statement 2 from this english sentence is that whatever "only" refers to grammatically is the necessary condition. So in this case, "only" refers to "then." "Then" in this case refers to stopping drinking water. So that's how you get statement number 2 listed above.

But then it also says "will I be sure" and "will I be sure" means that stopping drinking water is sufficient to not get cancer. This is again because, grammatically speaking, "will I be sure" refers to stopping drinking water. That is how you get statement number 1 above. This is because "Will I be sure" introduces a sufficient condition and its also referring to stopping drinking water.

So in all, you have "only then" which introduces a necessary and "will I be sure" which introduces a sufficient. But they are BOTH referring to stopping drinking water, so that is how you can get both statements above (1 and 2) from this single sentence.

Here's how will I be sure introduces a sufficient condition. Take this statement: Only if I eat pizza will I be sure to be happy. "only if" always introduces a necessary condition because its what "only" refers to grammatically speaking. It refers to "if I eat pizza." So even though it says "if," only is referring to that entire phrase and so its necessary. So then, if I'm happy it HAS to (its necessary) that I eat pizza. Remember though, that there could be other things in addition to eating pizza that are necessary for me to be happy. But if I don't eat pizza, I won't be happy (contrapositive). So that is how you can conclude that to be sure that I'm happy (or "will I be sure" that I'm happy) it's required that I eat pizza.

Bottom line, I think with this question it is not worth diagramming and is instead better to just read out loud and understand the english of the sentence. In my opinion, LSAC does not want you to diagram this question because it gets complicated and they aren't getting TOO deep into formal logic. Formal logic is way, way more complicated than what the LSAT teaches, and there are lots of statements in english that get really confusing to diagram. Its not always possible to put a sentence into a perfect diagram. So I guess you could look at that as a "mistake" in that they put a very complicated statement to formally diagram in a question when I am guessing they don't actually want you to diagram. But TCR is still clearly a correct answer based on the stimulus.

EDIT: I will admit though that its possible I'm wrong about this and that since it says both "only then" and "will I be sure" in the same sentence, that makes it not really a sentence that is even POSSIBLE to diagram in the first place. But if it is possible to diagram this sentence, there are two different ways to do it (making it an "if and only if"), I am pretty sure about that. Lots of sentences are of course not possible to diagram, as converting english into formal logic is a tricky thing to begin with.

yeah i kinda get what you're trying to say in suggesting that "i will be sure" somehow denotes that "not getting cancer" the necessary condition. it's possible to diagram multiple serial conditionals in a sentence (in most cases). but in this case, there is only one condition. once you parse out "i will be sure" as representing the necessary condition, then you have changed one element of necessary-sufficient condition relation from "ensuring no cancer" to just "no cancer". that changes the meaning.
the way it's written is diagrammed straightforward as "ensure no cancer" --> "stop drinking"

a search on tls forum/superprep explanation etc seems to show that while there is no confusion about "only then" introducing a sufficient condition, there is not a consensus or uncontroversial answer to this lsac item.

appind · Post by **appind** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 11:24 pm

gamerish wrote:
dellara wrote:How do you guys go about inserting experimental into your PTs? What I have been doing for example, is using September 2007 as an experimental test in the sense that I use section 1 as the experimental for one PT, section 2 as the experimental to the next PT, and so on, and then when I'm done with the 4th PT I'll score September 2007. That way it incentivizes me to work as hard as the other sections of the test, since I will be ultimately scoring it.

It is, however, annoying to switch books mid-test. I wish the official tests would just include the experimental
I'm rebuying the 8 PTs I'm taking before test day from Cambridge as 5 sections even though I own them as 4 sections because pulling the fifth section yourself is such a pain in the ass if you don't want to know which one it is.

i mean if you can create a 5 section a bit in advance, then you can most likely avoid knowing which one it is

to do that, i print out sections of PT separately, so i will have 4 groups of printed paper, one for each section. the front page of each group is blank so i can't see which section is where. then i print a section from the pt i am extracting experimentals from.
i randomly rearrange these 5 piles of paper, each of which is a section. staple and set it aside for taking in the next couple days.

flash21 · Post by **flash21** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 11:25 pm

appind wrote:
flash21 wrote:
Pretty sure you are representing your conditional statement wrong.

I think it should be stop drinking --" ensure not get cancer

But you can get cancer in other ways
i don't think the conditional is wrong if you consider that "only then" supplies the sufficient condition. may be you're confusing it with "only if"?
you do X, only then can you do Y.
in this case, X is the necessary condition of Y.

had it said: you do X, "then and only then" can you do Y.
X is both a necessary and sufficient condition for Y.

Can you show me where only when introduces sufficient condition? Like a website or someone else stating that? I feel like thats wrong.. only introduces necessary for the most part, except for the only, which introduces sufficient.

gamerish · Post by **gamerish** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 11:36 pm

Post removed...

somethingElse · Post by **somethingElse** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 11:41 pm

Post removed...

appind · Post by **appind** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 11:46 pm

gamerish wrote:
appind wrote:
gamerish wrote:
dellara wrote:How do you guys go about inserting experimental into your PTs? What I have been doing for example, is using September 2007 as an experimental test in the sense that I use section 1 as the experimental for one PT, section 2 as the experimental to the next PT, and so on, and then when I'm done with the 4th PT I'll score September 2007. That way it incentivizes me to work as hard as the other sections of the test, since I will be ultimately scoring it.

It is, however, annoying to switch books mid-test. I wish the official tests would just include the experimental
I'm rebuying the 8 PTs I'm taking before test day from Cambridge as 5 sections even though I own them as 4 sections because pulling the fifth section yourself is such a pain in the ass if you don't want to know which one it is.
i mean if you can create a 5 section a bit in advance, then you can most likely avoid knowing which one it is

to do that, i print out sections of PT separately, so i will have 4 groups of printed paper, one for each section. the front page of each group is blank so i can't see which section is where. then i print a section from the pt i am extracting experimentals from.
i randomly rearrange these 5 piles of paper, each of which is a section. staple and set it aside for taking in the next couple days.
How do you get rid of the numbering on the top? The Cambridge bundles are locked so I can't crop the tops off.

if your pages are aligned well you can cut them off after printing the sections and before randomly ordering

somethingElse · Post by **somethingElse** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 11:53 pm

Post removed...

flash21 · Post by **flash21** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 11:57 pm

I'm understanding it like this:

me stopping drinking flouride water is the only way that will prevent me from getting bone cancer. BUT that isn't necessary true. Other things could potentially cause bone cancer. Eliminating one possible cause doesn't preclude bone cancer from ever happening. The correct AC identifies this

How you guys want to represent it conditionally is what I think we are getting too caught up in. Do you guys agree with how I'm viewing it?

I think that this is a very common flaw actually. This question isn't really an outlier or super controversial in my opinion

roshan07 · Post by **roshan07** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 11:57 pm

drinking vegetable juice, LSAT powers increasing.

somethingElse · Post by **somethingElse** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 12:12 am

Post removed...

flash21 · Post by **flash21** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 12:19 am

somethingelse55 wrote:
flash21 wrote:I'm understanding it like this:

me stopping drinking flouride water is the only way that will prevent me from getting bone cancer. BUT that isn't necessary true. Other things could potentially cause bone cancer. Eliminating one possible cause doesn't preclude bone cancer from ever happening. The correct AC identifies this

How you guys want to represent it conditionally is what I think we are getting too caught up in. Do you guys agree with how I'm viewing it?

I think that this is a very common flaw actually. This question isn't really an outlier or super controversial in my opinion
I think you're right in that when you just read the sentence in english and don't try and diagram it, then it can grammatically and semantically mean that stopping drinking the water is enough to make sure he won't get cancer. And thus just because he eliminated one possible cause of cancer doesn't mean he won't get cancer - there are lots of ways to get cancer.

We totally understand that.

Its just that the sentence also, based on its terms and the way its setup with conditionals, seems that it is indeed diagrammable. And when you try and diagram it, in my opinion, it seems like you can diagram it in two different ways just like you can diagram an "if and only if" statement. But that is the debate right now, whether or not you can diagram it both ways.

I will also say that I think what makes this problematic and interesting is that the way appind diagrammed it above is the guaranteed way to diagram it, if you will. In other words if there is in fact only one correct way to diagram the statement formally, I would go with that way (with stopping drinking the water being the necessary) over the other way where its the sufficient. Answer choice E is treating it like the sufficient way. The problem is, if you can only diagram it in the necessary way, then that is describing a different flaw and not the flaw in answer choice E.

My overall opinion of the problem is that "only then will I be sure" somehow means the same thing as "if and only if" and so you can diagram it either way. Thus there are two flaws with the argument and its acceptable that LSAC only points out one of them. And further I don't think that LSAC actually wants you to try and diagram this statement. But that doesn't satisfy curiosity and the formal logicality of the thing.

can we get someone else's opinion please .. I feel like this cannot be diagrammed the way you want to do it. maybe I'm wrong but I'm interpreting it differently than you. I believe that the sentence only lends itself to be diagrammed in the way I stated above.

somethingElse · Post by **somethingElse** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 12:47 am

Post removed...

december1205 · Post by **december1205** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 12:54 am

PT 65 after work

LR: -4 (BR: -3)
LR2: -3 (BR -1)
LG: -1
RC: -10 (BR: -5)

167 reg, with BR 173

Really need to get the reg scores up because that score is lower than my dec 14' lsat score.

I thought I worked to keep my RC in the 3-6 range but I don't know wtf happened there. I was on a verge of throwing up from disgust when I was re-reading those passages again. For LG, it was again, a careless mistake. I had more than 10 minutes left after LG so I need to utilize that time better.

I'm planning on studying the questions I got wrong in depth, doing BR for the experimental and working on rhat too.