JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread Forum

[objection_your_honor]

The first time it took me 12:20 and I missed one. My second take was 6:51, -0. I think the key to this game is realizing that each mannequin is already very restricted; M1 must have either a red hat or a red jacket, and M2 must have a navy hat or a navy jacket. Once you know the hat or jacket color is something other than this "base" color (red/navy for M1/M2, respectively), you can automatically fill in the "base" color for the other article of clothing because of the two color limit.

So, for example, when Q9 tells you M1 has the navy jacket, you automatically know M1 also has a red hat and red skirt (as M2 already has the navy skirt).

And when Q11 tells you M2 has the red jacket, you know a) M2 also has the navy hat, and b) M1 has the red hat (must have either a red hat or a red jacket, and the red jacket is taken).

I found 7Sage's video for this one to be very helpful.

[shieldofachilles]

alright so im relatively happy the pt i took tonight keep in my mind my cold diag about two months ago was 156...second diag a month ago was 160...took 39 got a 166 -5 RC -4LG (was like wtfffffff seriously they werent even that hard...well apparently they were...the game with the employees attending a conference was sort of wtf moment) -5 on each LR. need a lot of help with timing on lr...this is going to be by far the toughest section for me. but nice improvement. gonna review the test tomorrow...getting into my 6 day cycle now...pt every other day, review/drilling in between. 7th day off has to be thursday bc of suits. and yes a show at 10pm gives me the choice to screw the entire day lol.

[griffin.811]

The first time it took me 12:20 and I missed one. My second take was 6:51, -0. I think the key to this game is realizing that each mannequin is already very restricted; M1 must have either a red hat or a red jacket, and M2 must have a navy hat or a navy jacket. Once you know the hat or jacket color is something other than this "base" color (red/navy for M1/M2, respectively), you can automatically fill in the "base" color for the other article of clothing because of the two color limit.

So, for example, when Q9 tells you M1 has the navy jacket, you automatically know M1 also has a red hat and red skirt (as M2 already has the navy skirt).

And when Q11 tells you M2 has the red jacket, you know a) M2 also has the navy hat, and b) M1 has the red hat (must have either a red hat or a red jacket, and the red jacket is taken).

I found 7Sage's video for this one to be very helpful.

Thanks. Unfortunately I got the 8:50 after watching the video. Wondering if I'm just writing slowly, because I got the inferences.

[Daily_Double]

For those of you keeping a log for LGs, can you look back, and post times for PT29 G2. 8:50 is the fastest I've been able to complete it error free.

Just did it error free in 7:52, I think I've seen it before because it seems oddly familiar, but I don't remember anything about it, and to my knowledge I haven't seen a video or explanation of it before. If there was an inference besides the fact that mannequin 2 must have another navy article of clothing, then I didn't catch it. Still drilling away...

[Daily_Double]

Griffin what were the other inferences, assuming it won't take you too long? And I guess mannequin one must have another red article.

[mindarmed]

good luck with everyone's studying. depending on how recruiting goes for me, i may be postponing law school. got a hit at a bank through sheer luck and if it pulls through i'm gonna pursue it. still taking PT 41 tomorrow though. when do we want to review this week?

[Daily_Double]

That's awesome armed.

I'm free Friday afternoon, I'll need Wednesday and Thursday to review on my own. Plus I got a couple assignments which will keep me busy.

[ricekrispies]

That feel when you read a question as "true" rather than "false"...

[griffin.811]

@DD

the inference was just that man1 needed to either have a red hat or red jacket, but not both since the tie was already red, and the man could only wear 2 colors. Man2 needed to either have a navy jacket, or navy hat for the same reason.

you guys knocked this one out the park.

[griffin.811]

@Armed - Nice! I banking?

@RK - "except" and "cannot" get me all the time in LG. Died when I saw that.

[Daily_Double]

I'm not completely through for the day, but I'm definitely close. @eliztudorr, now you get an idea of my plan: Bring a bunch of books to a place, and try to get through as much as possible before fatigue sets in. Below is what I did in order. It's mostly from Cambridge.

Games: Simple Ordering, 5 games, p9-p13, (22:04), -0

LR: Difficult Questions, 35 questions, untimed but close to an hour, -2, check them out, I recommend them:
PT32, LR1, #17, the embezzler, accountant v. actuary
PT 31, LR1, #19, the flowers Drew received, florist mistake

RC: PT 31, photo finish using proctor app, -1, #27, stupid mistake, misread objectivist as subjectivist, (the opposite view in the passage)

Games: Simple Ordering, 4 games, p14-p17, (22:42), -0

[CardozoLaw09]

good luck with everyone's studying. depending on how recruiting goes for me, i may be postponing law school. got a hit at a bank through sheer luck and if it pulls through i'm gonna pursue it. still taking PT 41 tomorrow though. when do we want to review this week?

Nicee sounds like a sick opportunity, good luck with it.


PT41 tomorrow.. drilling some more LR and LG (maayybee even an RC section) tonight before tomorrow. Goal is a minimum of 165 given that PT40 was a 164; we'll see how it goes.

[crazyrobin]

good luck with everyone's studying. depending on how recruiting goes for me, i may be postponing law school. got a hit at a bank through sheer luck and if it pulls through i'm gonna pursue it. still taking PT 41 tomorrow though. when do we want to review this week?

Good luck armed!!!

[shieldofachilles]

I'm not completely through for the day, but I'm definitely close. @eliztudorr, now you get an idea of my plan: Bring a bunch of books to a place, and try to get through as much as possible before fatigue sets in. Below is what I did in order. It's mostly from Cambridge.

Games: Simple Ordering, 5 games, p9-p13, (22:04), -0

LR: Difficult Questions, 35 questions, untimed but close to an hour, -2, check them out, I recommend them:
PT32, LR1, #17, the embezzler, accountant v. actuary
PT 31, LR1, #19, the flowers Drew received, florist mistake

RC: PT 31, photo finish using proctor app, -1, #27, stupid mistake, misread objectivist as subjectivist, (the opposite view in the passage)

Games: Simple Ordering, 4 games, p14-p17, (22:42), -0

ahhh the accountant v. actuary question...i remember that one off the top of my head lol. pretty sure it was a weaken except right? the answer was an independent company did a survey telling the company it was vulnerable to embezzlement...even if someone revealed to the company it could be embezzled it still doesnt follow that the one of the actuary/accountant actually did it [edit: one more probably than the other]. It's almost like saying someone told Michael Corleone someone in his family was leaking information to rival gangs. He doesnt know it's Fredo..it could be his sister, brother or mother. Mike was informed of a leak but has no idea where that leak is coming from.

edit: drew's flowers...fkin question sucks...who the hell cares if people send flowers for reasons other than to please Drew....such bullshit...btw its pretty sad i remember this shit

[Daily_Double]

I'm not completely through for the day, but I'm definitely close. @eliztudorr, now you get an idea of my plan: Bring a bunch of books to a place, and try to get through as much as possible before fatigue sets in. Below is what I did in order. It's mostly from Cambridge.

Games: Simple Ordering, 5 games, p9-p13, (22:04), -0

LR: Difficult Questions, 35 questions, untimed but close to an hour, -2, check them out, I recommend them:
PT32, LR1, #17, the embezzler, accountant v. actuary
PT 31, LR1, #19, the flowers Drew received, florist mistake

RC: PT 31, photo finish using proctor app, -1, #27, stupid mistake, misread objectivist as subjectivist, (the opposite view in the passage)

Games: Simple Ordering, 4 games, p14-p17, (22:42), -0

ahhh the accountant v. actuary question...i remember that one off the top of my head lol. pretty sure it was a weaken except right? the answer was an independent company did a survey telling the company it was vulnerable to embezzlement...even if someone revealed to the company it could be embezzled it still doesnt follow that the one of the actuary/accountant actually did it [edit: one more probably than the other]. It's almost like saying someone told Michael Corleone someone in his family was leaking information to rival gangs. He doesnt know it's Fredo..it could be his sister, brother or mother. Mike was informed of a leak but has no idea where that leak is coming from.

edit: drew's flowers...fkin question sucks...who the hell cares if people send flowers for reasons other than to please Drew....such bullshit...btw its pretty sad i remember this shit

Haha, you nailed it. I include the explanations just because I knew someone would make the same mistakes I did.

[shieldofachilles]

I'm not completely through for the day, but I'm definitely close. @eliztudorr, now you get an idea of my plan: Bring a bunch of books to a place, and try to get through as much as possible before fatigue sets in. Below is what I did in order. It's mostly from Cambridge.

Games: Simple Ordering, 5 games, p9-p13, (22:04), -0

LR: Difficult Questions, 35 questions, untimed but close to an hour, -2, check them out, I recommend them:
PT32, LR1, #17, the embezzler, accountant v. actuary
PT 31, LR1, #19, the flowers Drew received, florist mistake

RC: PT 31, photo finish using proctor app, -1, #27, stupid mistake, misread objectivist as subjectivist, (the opposite view in the passage)

Games: Simple Ordering, 4 games, p14-p17, (22:42), -0

ahhh the accountant v. actuary question...i remember that one off the top of my head lol. pretty sure it was a weaken except right? the answer was an independent company did a survey telling the company it was vulnerable to embezzlement...even if someone revealed to the company it could be embezzled it still doesnt follow that the one of the actuary/accountant actually did it [edit: one more probably than the other]. It's almost like saying someone told Michael Corleone someone in his family was leaking information to rival gangs. He doesnt know it's Fredo..it could be his sister, brother or mother. Mike was informed of a leak but has no idea where that leak is coming from.

edit: drew's flowers...fkin question sucks...who the hell cares if people send flowers for reasons other than to please Drew....such bullshit...btw its pretty sad i remember this shit

Haha, you nailed it. I include the explanations just because I knew someone would make the same mistakes I did.

the drew question was an NA right? im thinkin now if you negate that shit real quick and no one ever sends drew flowers for a reason other than to please him than it kills it...but it might be a weaken so i might be totally wrong..but anyway

[eliztudorr]

I'm not completely through for the day, but I'm definitely close. @eliztudorr, now you get an idea of my plan: Bring a bunch of books to a place, and try to get through as much as possible before fatigue sets in.

i wish i can do the same and just hide away in a library to study.

[Daily_Double]

Shield, it was weaken, but you did describe the correct answer.

[eliztudorr]

can someone shed some light on assumption questions (both N and S). i understand the basics. but i never get the answers right..and its frustrating..

i read through the PS bible, the MLSAT LR...but still...im just not picking out the right answers and i have no idea why....

[Daily_Double]

can someone shed some light on assumption questions (both N and S). i understand the basics. but i never get the answers right..and its frustrating..

i read through the PS bible, the MLSAT LR...but still...im just not picking out the right answers and i have no idea why....

Below are the basics, as I define them. But you probably got all that, in which case, drill baby, drill. Regardless of how solid you are, I tried to go over the ins and outs of both below.

Couple things before I get into the actual tips. First, these are the two cornerstones of the assumption family and once these become easier, so too will other questions, because you will be able to see the gaps easier. Second, since these are part of the assumption family, along with most other arguments, they will possess a core, that core will be supported by premises, and there's probably some needless information as well in the question stimulus. But I can't emphasize this enough, focus on the core. So now let's get into a basic outline of each:

S/A - literally, the addition of this answer choice is sufficient to justify the conclusion. What's important in these is usually the argument progresses mechanically, and you are tested on your ability to recognize conditional logic. There is a gap, you must first identify it, then recognize the only one of the five answers which not only specifically addresses the gap, but also connects them so that the core follows from the supporting premises. For tough S/A questions, I'll even diagram the logic below the question. Another note is that the answers to these questions, since they are just looking for a sufficient condition, are usually broad in scope. Now then, because they are usually broad, this depends upon the language in the argument, answers beginning with some usually aren't sufficient enough.

N/A - these are slightly more tricky. First off, the answer choice must be true for the relationship in the argument to be valid. The tricky part is that scope is learned the hard way in these questions, answers which seem out of scope, for me these are usually percentages, should stick around, maybe there's more to that answer choice than meets the eye. What you need to do is start with the core, find the gap, grasp the relationship, select the answer which is necessary for the for the argument to be valid. Usually answers containing some are good places to start, whereas answers containing all, every, and again this depends on the language in the argument, are probably incorrect. Eliminate down to two or three, remember the negation test, the only answer that is correct, if negated, collapses the argument. The other four are not necessary for the core to be valid.

Some of the typical hangups that come with these are when S/A answers contain term shifts, when they match the gap perfectly except one of the ends of the gap is slightly off. Also when S/A answers are reversed or negated, these are especially tricky if you haven't already figured out exactly what the relationship is. The last issue with these two is when the answers contain necessary/sufficient conditions, you have to remember that you are looking for something which is sufficient/necessary. The main issue in these questions is attention to the core, that core must be valid, and while S/A answers will usually bridge some gap, N/A answers might pick up on a minute detail, which is fine, if and only if, that detail is necessary for the core to be drawn validly.

That's about it. The rest is drilling.

[crazyrobin]

Guys, one question from PT38 S4 Q20
N/A question.
I did pick up B and this turns out to be the correct answer. Somehow I think B is too strong and I feel like B is a sufficient assumption. The only reason I think B works as a necessary assumption is because in the prompt it says loneliness maybe exacerbated.

Any thought?

[griffin.811]

Guys, one question from PT38 S4 Q20
N/A question.
I did pick up B and this turns out to be the correct answer. Somehow I think B is too strong and I feel like B is a sufficient assumption. The only reason I think B works as a necessary assumption is because in the prompt it says loneliness maybe exacerbated.

Any thought?

So necessary answers can serve as both nec and suff. They don't necesarily need to be one or the other.

I would disagree with your reasoning as to why B is correct a little.

Why B is correct:

Argument: Developing hobby not successful strategy BECAUSE it may exacerbate lonliness.

If we negate B we get: AT LEAST one successful strategy DOES intensify (exacerbate) lonliness.

When negated, B destroys the argument and therefore is the correct answer.

A: Friends? out of scope...Elim
C: Doesn't connect losing interest in hobby to unsuccessful strategy. Also scope IMO...Elim
D: Other strategy? We are only concerned with this one. More successful? Not interested in comparisons. We just need to know whether or not our strategy is successful or not. Be it the most successful or the least...Elim
E: Not concerned with the main reason the take up hobbies. Scope...Elim

If this wasn't clear, just re-post or PM me, and I'll think of another explanation.

HTH

[eliztudorr]

can someone shed some light on assumption questions (both N and S). i understand the basics. but i never get the answers right..and its frustrating..

i read through the PS bible, the MLSAT LR...but still...im just not picking out the right answers and i have no idea why....

Below are the basics, as I define them. But you probably got all that, in which case, drill baby, drill. Regardless of how solid you are, I tried to go over the ins and outs of both below.

Couple things before I get into the actual tips. First, these are the two cornerstones of the assumption family and once these become easier, so too will other questions, because you will be able to see the gaps easier. Second, since these are part of the assumption family, along with most other arguments, they will possess a core, that core will be supported by premises, and there's probably some needless information as well in the question stimulus. But I can't emphasize this enough, focus on the core. So now let's get into a basic outline of each:

S/A - literally, the addition of this answer choice is sufficient to justify the conclusion. What's important in these is usually the argument progresses mechanically, and you are tested on your ability to recognize conditional logic. There is a gap, you must first identify it, then recognize the only one of the five answers which not only specifically addresses the gap, but also connects them so that the core follows from the supporting premises. For tough S/A questions, I'll even diagram the logic below the question. Another note is that the answers to these questions, since they are just looking for a sufficient condition, are usually broad in scope. Now then, because they are usually broad, this depends upon the language in the argument, answers beginning with some usually aren't sufficient enough.

N/A - these are slightly more tricky. First off, the answer choice must be true for the relationship in the argument to be valid. The tricky part is that scope is learned the hard way in these questions, answers which seem out of scope, for me these are usually percentages, should stick around, maybe there's more to that answer choice than meets the eye. What you need to do is start with the core, find the gap, grasp the relationship, select the answer which is necessary for the for the argument to be valid. Usually answers containing some are good places to start, whereas answers containing all, every, and again this depends on the language in the argument, are probably incorrect. Eliminate down to two or three, remember the negation test, the only answer that is correct, if negated, collapses the argument. The other four are not necessary for the core to be valid.

Some of the typical hangups that come with these are when S/A answers contain term shifts, when they match the gap perfectly except one of the ends of the gap is slightly off. Also when S/A answers are reversed or negated, these are especially tricky if you haven't already figured out exactly what the relationship is. The last issue with these two is when the answers contain necessary/sufficient conditions, you have to remember that you are looking for something which is sufficient/necessary. The main issue in these questions is attention to the core, that core must be valid, and while S/A answers will usually bridge some gap, N/A answers might pick up on a minute detail, which is fine, if and only if, that detail is necessary for the core to be drawn validly.

That's about it. The rest is drilling.

hey thanks for typing this out. it gave me another perspective to think about. so like you suggested. today, im just going to

drill baby, drill.

[RhymesLikeDimes]

Finally caught up to the pack as far as PTs go. Took PT 41 this morning:

LR1: -0
LG: -0
RC: -6
XRC: -6 (from PT 32, doing RCs back-to-back to try and build stamina)
LR2: -3

Raw: 92 -> Scaled: 172

Reasonably happy, but RC is sucking for me lately. Missed two easy questions at the beginning of the last LR, which I'll chalk up to RC-hangover. I think it's time I start doing actual RC prep (I bought the Manhattan guide today). I started out really strong with it and hadn't planned on doing too much direct studying, but it is just killing me. On the plus side, LG has really started to click now that I've gone through the LGB and drilled the heck out of Linear and Grouping games from PTs 1-40.

[shieldofachilles]

good shit on that pt Rhymes...im trying to catch up to everyone with the pts too. Doing 40 tmro and 41 on saturday...when are we supposed to review the next pt anyway?