June 2011 Study Group Forum

[pkpop]

Anyone know of a list or LR problem set that deals explicitly with numbers and percentages in questions? I'd like to get over the general discomfort I have when reading a stim that throws out percentages or numbers and you have to find the flaw/strengthen it/weaken it.

Edit: Nevermind. After searching a few different random terms in the forum, I found http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=108425

I'll just take the #s & % questions off of that. If you haven't seen this list though, it might be helpful to some of you for specific types.

[soj]

Today I'm taking a break from PTs and reviewing my old LR mistakes. I'm also hoping to redo yesterday's two RC sections untimed and try to diagnose my problems in that section.

It's good to do LSAT prep while listening to music.

[xjykybl]

Hey, guys, I have a question about the either/or wording in one of the LG question.
It's the third game (13-17) in LG in PT 44. The archaeological sites one.
For the last condition:
"The site visited third dates from a more recent century than does either the site visited first or that visited fourth."
It seems that "either/or" here actually means both, that is, the third site date from a more recent century than both site 1 and 4.
But in most cases, either/or does mean one or the other, instead of both.
I am a bit confused about the reasoning behind this one, and don't want to mess up with the consistency for the future.
What are you guys take on this?

[soj]

In LSAT (not just LG, but all sections), either/or means one or the other or both. Unless it explicitly tells you "not both," you can always assume or includes the possibility of both.

But in that particular case, the rule does seem to imply just both. It's just the way the sentence is worded, I guess.

[xjykybl]

In LSAT (not just LG, but all sections), either/or means one or the other or both. Unless it explicitly tells you "not both," you can always assume or includes the possibility of both.

But in that particular case, the rule does seem to imply just both. It's just the way the sentence is worded, I guess.

Thanks! That makes sense.
So either/or in LSAT means "at least one of the two, possibly both".
In other words, "both" is actually a subset of "either/or" conditions.

[soj]

Yup.

But again, that particular rule is a little different. (I remember that game, it has hard.) It's saying the third site is more recent than the first site, and more recent than the fourth site.

[Eichörnchen]

Just did PT 37-

RC: -2/26
LR1: -3/26
LG: -5/24
LR2: -0/25
raw 91
scaled 170
Very glad to get another PT in the 170s . I was afraid I was going to do really poorly because I went to the neurologist and got an EEG and it took longer than I thought so I rushed home and sat down to PT right away. Turns out after you spend over an hour getting electrodes glued all over your head, then told to lay without moving a muscle for 20 minutes, then get strobe lights flashed in your eyes for a while (trippppyyy), then made to hyperventilate for 5 minutes and finally told to lay in a dark room and try to sleep, you feel kinda out of it for the LSAT you do immediately afterwards I guess it was good practice for whatever they do to us before the test starts. I'm also happy about my 3rd -0 on an LR section, but I think it's weird that I'll always get a -0 and then like -3. You'd think I'd get the hardest one or two from each instead of all right and then 3 wrong. Hmm. Well, I'm off to wash electrode glue out of my hair, it's been driving me nuts!
Edited for phone type fail

[mickeyD]

PT9, LR1 #7.

Yes this one seems obvious, but the conclusion specifically is talking about plastic, not recycling in general. I don't get why a statement about how people are recycling paper, glass, and metal cans weakens a conclusion that says "it is clear that attempts to decrease the amount of plastic people throw away are failing."

[soj]

mickeyD: maybe the amount of plastic people throw away IS decreasing, but the percentage of the waste made up by plastic is increasing because other waste (esp. the ones in the new recycling program) is decreasing even more. the conclusion can no longer be drawn from the premises. pay closer attention to the distinction between numbers and percentages. i got this one wrong a few weeks ago.

congrats, eich! -10 raw, too, that's fantastic! not the easiest curve.

[jim-green]

Just did PT 37-
RC: -2/26
LR1: -3/26
LG: -5/24
LR2: -0/25
raw 91
scaled 170

Congrats!

[OhOkay]

congrats eich, that's fantastic!! hope all is okay with the electrodes and such.

re: recommending the MLSAT LG guide... hmm wish these posts had come a bit earlier, I just ordered it two days ago, haha. Haven't received it yet, but it seemed from reviews I looked for on the forums that it's worth it for their in-out strategy, and I have a lot of trouble with conditional reasoning/in-out games.

[mickeyD]

mickeyD: maybe the amount of plastic people throw away IS decreasing, but the percentage of the waste made up by plastic is increasing because other waste (esp. the ones in the new recycling program) is decreasing even more. the conclusion can no longer be drawn from the premises. pay closer attention to the distinction between numbers and percentages. i got this one wrong a few weeks ago.

congrats, eich! -10 raw, too, that's fantastic! not the easiest curve.

Just reread it and saw "ever increasing percentage of waste".... missed that one. Thanks!

[99.9luft]

Question: how do you guys a) classify and b) go about doing the following question stem:

"The columnist's reasoning above most closely conforms to which one of the following principles?"

From my understanding, we have to strengthen the principle below (after we find it) with the reasoning in the stimulus. The MLSAT goes over Principle Example questions, where an principle is on the top (stimulus) and the example/reasoning is on the bottom (answer choices), yet the guide does not mention a scenario where we are having the reasoning in the stimulus conform to the principle in the answer choices.

Feedback is much appreciated!

[Eichörnchen]

congrats eich, that's fantastic!! hope all is okay with the electrodes and such.

re: recommending the MLSAT LG guide... hmm wish these posts had come a bit earlier, I just ordered it two days ago, haha. Haven't received it yet, but it seemed from reviews I looked for on the forums that it's worth it for their in-out strategy, and I have a lot of trouble with conditional reasoning/in-out games.

Thanks everyone- and not to worry, the electrodes are just a fringe benefit of having chronic migraines

[geverett]

PT 32 LR 2 -1 (24/25)

When I read carefully, and not with the intention of beating the clock and thoroughly mark out the incorrect answers and verify what I have chosen then I get a better score in LR.

[OhOkay]

Question: how do you guys a) classify and b) go about doing the following question stem:

"The columnist's reasoning above most closely conforms to which one of the following principles?"

From my understanding, we have to strengthen the principle below (after we find it) with the reasoning in the stimulus. The MLSAT goes over Principle Example questions, where an principle is on the top (stimulus) and the example/reasoning is on the bottom (answer choices), yet the guide does not mention a scenario where we are having the reasoning in the stimulus conform to the principle in the answer choices.

Feedback is much appreciated!

I think of it this way: the correct AC contains a principle that basically justifies the scenario in the stimulus.

[99.9luft]

Question: how do you guys a) classify and b) go about doing the following question stem:

"The columnist's reasoning above most closely conforms to which one of the following principles?"

From my understanding, we have to strengthen the principle below (after we find it) with the reasoning in the stimulus. The MLSAT goes over Principle Example questions, where an principle is on the top (stimulus) and the example/reasoning is on the bottom (answer choices), yet the guide does not mention a scenario where we are having the reasoning in the stimulus conform to the principle in the answer choices.

Feedback is much appreciated!

I think of it this way: the correct AC contains a principle that basically justifies the scenario in the stimulus.

Wait, according to what you just said, i.e. using the answer choice to justify a scenario in the stimulus - it is a Principle Support (strengthen) question and not a Principle Example question. Basically the difference between the two types comes down to who conforms to whom:

Ex 1: "The reasoning above most closely conforms to which one of the following principles?"
Ex 2: "Which of the principle below most closely conforms to the argument above?"

In both examples 'conforms' means 'supports' or 'justifies.' In ex 1, the conformity is top-down, when in ex 2 it is bottom-up.

Now, usually, the Principle Example questions (bottom-up) has the principle in the stimulus (e.g. "Which one of the following most closely conforms to the principle above?"). The reason for my confusion is because in my example (the bolded) the principle is on the bottom instead of on top.

[FloridaCoastalorbust]

Just did PT 37-

RC: -2/26
LR1: -3/26
LG: -5/24
LR2: -0/25
raw 91
scaled 170
Very glad to get another PT in the 170s . I was afraid I was going to do really poorly because I went to the neurologist and got an EEG and it took longer than I thought so I rushed home and sat down to PT right away. Turns out after you spend over an hour getting electrodes glued all over your head, then told to lay without moving a muscle for 20 minutes, then get strobe lights flashed in your eyes for a while (trippppyyy), then made to hyperventilate for 5 minutes and finally told to lay in a dark room and try to sleep, you feel kinda out of it for the LSAT you do immediately afterwards I guess it was good practice for whatever they do to us before the test starts. I'm also happy about my 3rd -0 on an LR section, but I think it's weird that I'll always get a -0 and then like -3. You'd think I'd get the hardest one or two from each instead of all right and then 3 wrong. Hmm. Well, I'm off to wash electrode glue out of my hair, it's been driving me nuts!
Edited for phone type fail

Congrats Eich! You're doing big thangs. Get that LR down and say hello to HYS

[Eichörnchen]

Just did PT 37-

RC: -2/26
LR1: -3/26
LG: -5/24
LR2: -0/25
raw 91
scaled 170
Very glad to get another PT in the 170s . I was afraid I was going to do really poorly because I went to the neurologist and got an EEG and it took longer than I thought so I rushed home and sat down to PT right away. Turns out after you spend over an hour getting electrodes glued all over your head, then told to lay without moving a muscle for 20 minutes, then get strobe lights flashed in your eyes for a while (trippppyyy), then made to hyperventilate for 5 minutes and finally told to lay in a dark room and try to sleep, you feel kinda out of it for the LSAT you do immediately afterwards I guess it was good practice for whatever they do to us before the test starts. I'm also happy about my 3rd -0 on an LR section, but I think it's weird that I'll always get a -0 and then like -3. You'd think I'd get the hardest one or two from each instead of all right and then 3 wrong. Hmm. Well, I'm off to wash electrode glue out of my hair, it's been driving me nuts!
Edited for phone type fail

Congrats Eich! You're doing big thangs. Get that LR down and say hello to HYS

Ooh in my dreams. I won't quit trying though

[coldshoulder]

Help needed on this...going through my missed LR questions that I've typed up.

PT 20 S1 Q22
To hold criminals responsible for their crimes involves a failure to recognize that criminal actions, like all actions, are ultimately products of the environment that forged the agent's character. It is not criminals but people in the law-abiding majority who by their actions do most to create and maintain this environment. Therefore, it is law-abiding people whose actions, and nothing else, make them alone truly responsible for crime.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that

(A) it exploits an ambiguity in the term “environment” by treating two different meanings of the word as though they were equivalent
(B) it fails to distinguish between actions that are socially acceptable and actions that are socially unacceptable
(C) the way it distinguishes criminals from crimes implicitly denies that someone becomes a criminal solely in virtue of having committed a crime
(D) its conclusion is a generalization of statistical evidence drawn from only a small minority of the population
(E) its conclusion contradicts an implicit principle on which an earlier part of the argument is based

Can't figure out why (E) is the correct answer, I don't see how the conclusion contradicts any part of the argument.

[geverett]

It contradicts it because if the principle is "ultimately products of the environment that forged the agents character" and then it goes on to say that law abiding citizens are therefore responsible it contradicts itself because ultimately those in the law abiding majority are products of their environments as well and as a result should not be held responsible for their actions in "creating and maintaining this environment."

[Eichörnchen]

Help needed on this...going through my missed LR questions that I've typed up.

PT 20 S1 Q22
To hold criminals responsible for their crimes involves a failure to recognize that criminal actions, like all actions, are ultimately products of the environment that forged the agent's character. It is not criminals but people in the law-abiding majority who by their actions do most to create and maintain this environment. Therefore, it is law-abiding people whose actions, and nothing else, make them alone truly responsible for crime.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that

(A) it exploits an ambiguity in the term “environment” by treating two different meanings of the word as though they were equivalent
(B) it fails to distinguish between actions that are socially acceptable and actions that are socially unacceptable
(C) the way it distinguishes criminals from crimes implicitly denies that someone becomes a criminal solely in virtue of having committed a crime
(D) its conclusion is a generalization of statistical evidence drawn from only a small minority of the population
(E) its conclusion contradicts an implicit principle on which an earlier part of the argument is based

Can't figure out why (E) is the correct answer, I don't see how the conclusion contradicts any part of the argument.

Hmm tricky one- the arguer has as a premise that all actions are ultimately products of the environment, and therefore, criminals are not responsible for criminal action. It also says that the actions of the law-abiding majority do the most to create/maintain the environment, so therefore they are solely responsible for crime. However this contradicts the premise that *all* actions are products of the environment so those doing the actions shouldn't be held responsible for them. Basically, it says that the criminals aren't responsible for their actions, but that law-abiding people are responsible for crime because of their actions. But that doesn't fly if *all actions* are products of the environment (because why are the law-abiders held responsible for actions). At least that's how I think - hope that made at least a little sense!

[soj]

If you're not going to blame criminals because their actions products of the environment, why blame law-abiders when their actions too are products of the environment?

edit: lolpwnt by gev and eich

[coldshoulder]

That's it Eich! I was gonna say, the argument does say law-abiding citizens mostly create the environment, I guess the distinction is the 'all' used.
Thanks guys!

[99.9luft]

Question: how do you guys a) classify and b) go about doing the following question stem:

"The columnist's reasoning above most closely conforms to which one of the following principles?"

From my understanding, we have to strengthen the principle below (after we find it) with the reasoning in the stimulus. The MLSAT goes over Principle Example questions, where an principle is on the top (stimulus) and the example/reasoning is on the bottom (answer choices), yet the guide does not mention a scenario where we are having the reasoning in the stimulus conform to the principle in the answer choices.

Feedback is much appreciated!

I think of it this way: the correct AC contains a principle that basically justifies the scenario in the stimulus.

Wait, according to what you just said, i.e. using the answer choice to justify a scenario in the stimulus - it is a Principle Support (strengthen) question and not a Principle Example question. Basically the difference between the two types comes down to who conforms to whom:

Ex 1: "The reasoning above most closely conforms to which one of the following principles?"
Ex 2: "Which of the principle below most closely conforms to the argument above?"

In both examples 'conforms' means 'supports' or 'justifies.' In ex 1, the conformity is top-down, when in ex 2 it is bottom-up.

Now, usually, the Principle Example questions (bottom-up) has the principle in the stimulus (e.g. "Which one of the following most closely conforms to the principle above?"). The reason for my confusion is because in my example (the bolded) the principle is on the bottom instead of on top.

Anyone else?