JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread Forum

[CardozoLaw09]

SuperPrep B game 2: let me know if anyone has a good approach for this one

[shieldofachilles]

HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Got my first real 170 today!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ahhhhhhh!!!!

PT 53:
LR 1 -5
LR 2 -4
LG -1
RC -1 !!!!!!!!!

All 35 minutes break after 2. I dun wanna come off bragging but fuck today is a great day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[rebexness]

internethighfive.jpg

Killer on the RC, man!

[Daily_Double]

SHIELD.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Got my first real 170 today!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ahhhhhhh!!!!

PT 53:
LR 1 -5
LR 2 -4
LG -1
RC -1 !!!!!!!!!

All 35 minutes break after 2. I dun wanna come off bragging but fuck today is a great day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good shit bro.

[shieldofachilles]

Thanks everybody...DD knows the self-loathing apocalyptic nature of my being better than anyone on this forum so he knows exactly how much this shit meant to me. Now that ive seen its possible, its much less frightening. I can do it, now i just have to keep on doing it. Again thanks everybody for the encouragement.

[The-Specs]

Thanks guys, Boom.

So I'll explain this briefly, at the top are the variables, below which is my initial digram, below which is the contrapositive. The boxes are my hypos, I always start out a game with a couple hypos. Whenever I see an in out game, I always do a max hypo real quick, that's over to the right. Below the hypos are the questions, if the questions are not mentioned, then I used my diagram.

I just learned a whole lot by doing this game and then going back through it with your diagram. Thanks for posting this DD.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Question -

During logic games, when exactly does a conditional rule become moot? Or conversely, what exactly makes a conditional rule kick? Is it anytime it's sufficient condition is activated, no matter when or how that happens?

I have trouble with this sometimes during "If..." questions. I spend too much time trying to figure out where a conditional rule needs to be activated (implemented) or ignored (because it's necessary condition has already been fulfilled or whatever).

Thanks in advance!

[shieldofachilles]

If u fail the sufficient or accommodate the necessary then the rule becomes irrelevant.

[shieldofachilles]

If u fail the sufficient or accommodate the necessary then the rule becomes irrelevant.

[Daily_Double]

Question -

During logic games, when exactly does a conditional rule become moot? Or conversely, what exactly makes a conditional rule kick? Is it anytime it's sufficient condition is activated, no matter when or how that happens?

I have trouble with this sometimes during "If..." questions. I spend too much time trying to figure out where a conditional rule needs to be activated (implemented) or ignored (because it's necessary condition has already been fulfilled or whatever).

Thanks in advance!

Ok so I'm going to go into the general rules of conditional logic, then some exceptions using my diagram above for the bird watching game. I'm using this game because of the logic presented above, hopefully you can follow it easily.

General:
So the necessary condition is triggered whenever the sufficient condition is presented. Thus, if the sufficient condition is presented, then the necessary condition occurs. However, the absence of the sufficient condition, does not necessarily mean the necessary condition will not occur, this would be a mistaken negation. In addition, the presence of the necessary condition does not warrant the presence of the sufficient condition, this would be a mistaken reversal.

For example, using my diagram above, which translates to whenever J or M is in, H is in, when H is G is out, when G is out, W is out. Using the contrapositive, whenever W is in, G is in, whenever G is in, H is out, when H is out, both J and M are out, and whenever J is out, S is in. So now, moving below to my hypos, in the first hypo, I put G in. When G is in, pursuant to the contrapositive, H, J, M, are out, and S is in, however, you don't know where W is going to go.

Another example, my second hypo, if H is in, then you know that G and W are out, but you can't infer the presence, or lack thereof, of J, M, or S.

The exceptions:
In out games, games with two base assignments, are the exception, technically they aren't in terms of conditional logic, but you have to think a bit more. For example, in question six of this game, the scenario asks you to identify which answer choice can't be a complete list of the variables which are in. Now the exception here is that you must assume that because a variable is not mentioned in the answer choice it must be out, which may or may not trigger the sufficient condition of the original relationship or the contrapositive. Basically, in this game type, the absence of an element in one base assignment, in this game I mean that if it's not in the forrest, then it's out of the forrest, means that it is in the other, which may or may not trigger the sufficient condition.

[CardozoLaw09]

HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Got my first real 170 today!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ahhhhhhh!!!!

PT 53:
LR 1 -5
LR 2 -4
LG -1
RC -1 !!!!!!!!!

All 35 minutes break after 2. I dun wanna come off bragging but fuck today is a great day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

haha gooood shit dudeee

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Ok so I'm going to go into the general rules of conditional logic, then some exceptions using my diagram above for the bird watching game. I'm using this game because of the logic presented above, hopefully you can follow it easily.

General:
So the necessary condition is triggered whenever the sufficient condition is presented. Thus, if the sufficient condition is presented, then the necessary condition occurs. However, the absence of the sufficient condition, does not necessarily mean the necessary condition will not occur, this would be a mistaken negation. In addition, the presence of the necessary condition does not warrant the presence of the sufficient condition, this would be a mistaken reversal.

For example, using my diagram above, which translates to whenever J or M is in, H is in, when H is G is out, when G is out, W is out. Using the contrapositive, whenever W is in, G is in, whenever G is in, H is out, when H is out, both J and M are out, and whenever J is out, S is in. So now, moving below to my hypos, in the first hypo, I put G in. When G is in, pursuant to the contrapositive, H, J, M, are out, and S is in, however, you don't know where W is going to go.

Another example, my second hypo, if H is in, then you know that G and W are out, but you can't infer the presence, or lack thereof, of J, M, or S.

The exceptions:
In out games, games with two base assignments, are the exception, technically they aren't in terms of conditional logic, but you have to think a bit more. For example, in question six of this game, the scenario asks you to identify which answer choice can't be a complete list of the variables which are in. Now the exception here is that you must assume that because a variable is not mentioned in the answer choice it must be out, which may or may not trigger the sufficient condition of the original relationship or the contrapositive. Basically, in this game type, the absence of an element in one base assignment, in this game I mean that if it's not in the forrest, then it's out of the forrest, means that it is in the other, which may or may not trigger the sufficient condition.

That all makes perfect sense and it's what I've been doing. I just overthink it sometimes.
actually just re-drilled the bird game today and came up with the same thing. Different diagram but similar.

Thanks bro.

Follow up question related to LR:

How does one choose between two correct necessary assumptions?

For example, PT39, LR2, Q19, Choices A and D.

[shieldofachilles]

HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Got my first real 170 today!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ahhhhhhh!!!!

PT 53:
LR 1 -5
LR 2 -4
LG -1
RC -1 !!!!!!!!!

All 35 minutes break after 2. I dun wanna come off bragging but fuck today is a great day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

haha gooood shit dudeee

thanks man appreciate it...gotta keep it up

[A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A]

Question -

During logic games, when exactly does a conditional rule become moot? Or conversely, what exactly makes a conditional rule kick? Is it anytime it's sufficient condition is activated, no matter when or how that happens?

I have trouble with this sometimes during "If..." questions. I spend too much time trying to figure out where a conditional rule needs to be activated (implemented) or ignored (because it's necessary condition has already been fulfilled or whatever).

Thanks in advance!

If you are just testing rules against 1:1 answer choices and you have a rule that P1->Q2, then the only thing that should concern you would be a trigger of P1 (so Q must be in 2) or a trigger of Q not in 2 (the contrapositive, e.g., Q3 -> P can't be in 1).

[Daily_Double]

Follow up question related to LR:

How does one choose between two correct necessary assumptions?

For example, PT39, LR2, Q19, Choices A and D.

No problem. To be blunt, the main issue with your question is that A is not necessary. I'll explain why:

p1: Distant relatives who don't matter to you don't have a greater legal right to your shit than your friends ----> will

(not will ----> Distant relatives who don't matter to you have a greater legal right to your shit than your friends)

CORE: An individual should have a will stating how that person's shit will be distributed.

A: I see where you were going with this one, but it's not necessary because it's too strong. Because, suppose someone wants his shit to go to some rando, then the argument doesn't fall apart because that person's friends could still have a greater legal right than the distant relatives who you give zero fucks about. You would still want a will in this case, because you want to protect your friends and not elevate your distant relatives. This answer choice doesn't mess with that, thereby not messing with the core.

However, it looks like this answer is sufficient to trigger the core. So let's diagram it and check:

if not one individual wishes his shit to go to randos, which translates to

If individual ---> don't want your shit to go to randos

Now we add p1:

Distant relatives who don't matter to you don't have a greater legal right to your shit than your friends ----> will

If individual ---> don't want your shit to go to randos ----> will

So, it's sufficient, but not necessary.

D

No diagram necessary for this one. If you don't care about this, then why would you care who gets the Gran Torino? (unless you're Clint Eastwood)

[John_rizzy_rawls]

CORE: An individual should have a will stating how that person's shit will be distributed.

Boom, that makes it all make sense.

Thanks a bunch dude. You are going to destroy this test.

I need to start picking up some LR and RC material, I haven't even touched the stuff yet.

[CanILive]

HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Got my first real 170 today!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ahhhhhhh!!!!

PT 53:
LR 1 -5
LR 2 -4
LG -1
RC -1 !!!!!!!!!

All 35 minutes break after 2. I dun wanna come off bragging but fuck today is a great day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*BroFist*

[dowu]

Checking in, finally.

Did some light LG/LR review today. I am retaking my last LSAT (160) in hopes for a score around 165.

Are there any re-takers in here who felt really really "foggy" as they started to read through the material again? I used to blast through games like they were nothing (missed 2 on the real deal). I did a couple today and it seemed really hard to do. Maybe I'm just rusty? Lets hope so.

[A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A]

Checking in, finally.

Did some light LG/LR review today. I am retaking my last LSAT (160) in hopes for a score around 165.

Are there any re-takers in here who felt really really "foggy" as they started to read through the material again? I used to blast through games like they were nothing (missed 2 on the real deal). I did a couple today and it seemed really hard to do. Maybe I'm just rusty? Lets hope so.

hope so

[CanILive]

Checking in, finally.

Did some light LG/LR review today. I am retaking my last LSAT (160) in hopes for a score around 165.

Are there any re-takers in here who felt really really "foggy" as they started to read through the material again? I used to blast through games like they were nothing (missed 2 on the real deal). I did a couple today and it seemed really hard to do. Maybe I'm just rusty? Lets hope so.

If you stick around, with how supportive this thread is (especially when it comes to sharing knowledge and studying) you may score well above 165.

[dowu]

Checking in, finally.

Did some light LG/LR review today. I am retaking my last LSAT (160) in hopes for a score around 165.

Are there any re-takers in here who felt really really "foggy" as they started to read through the material again? I used to blast through games like they were nothing (missed 2 on the real deal). I did a couple today and it seemed really hard to do. Maybe I'm just rusty? Lets hope so.

If you stick around, with how supportive this thread is (especially when it comes to sharing knowledge and studying) you may score well above 165.

I'll be here. I was looking for the June re-take thread but I couldn't find one. I started to feel a lot more clarity as I kept going through the material. It just scared the shit out of me how rusty I am. I felt like I didn't know what was going on for a little. I haven't touched LSAT stuff for almost five months now (before today).

[rebexness]

There was a June retake thread but it never really took off. I think there are a few of us retakers in here.

I was deer-in-headlights when I got to my books again, but I avoided LG until I was more in the zone.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Are there any re-takers in here who felt really really "foggy" as they started to read through the material again? I used to blast through games like they were nothing (missed 2 on the real deal). I did a couple today and it seemed really hard to do. Maybe I'm just rusty? Lets hope so.

Yep. I wrote a 170 last June but did so without any knowledge of this site or any of the good materials. I did a few PTs and read the Kaplan book (which blows). So tbh, this feels like my first time taking the test because of how different the formal stimulus and diagramming of arguments is from my former winging-it approach. It worked pretty well but I wasted a lot of time and made too many mistakes doing so.

So this time around all the new information and kind of re-learning how to do these things the right way has been weird but very rewarding. I've done 2 PTs since studying and I've written a 172 and 175 so it's helping.

You'll be good man, just find a studying pace and form that fits best for you. Tinker around with PithyPike's guide and Noodley's retake guide.

Best of luck. And as it's been said before, this thread is the truth.

[Daily_Double]

this thread is the truth.