JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread Forum

[crazyrobin]

I'll be honest with you DD, even with your cheat sheet this game makes no sense to me. It took me 14 minutes (mostly because I could not figure out how that last rule should be drawn) and i missed 3 of 6.

How is the the answer to 7 D? I just can't understand it.

ABCE can be eliminated.
A. m is in then l/o must be in.
B. if l,o is in then f must be out
C. f,p thing
E. m,y thing.

[Daily_Double]

#7, Superprep B, G2: which list could be true

~A: (F, M), because if M --> ~Y --> L/O (meaning one of L and O) ---> F and S

~B: (F, L, O), because of the contra positive above, find my diagram on the last page, if LO (L and O) ---> Y

~C: (F, L, P, S) basic rules at work, if F ---> ~P

~E: (F, M, O, S, Y) more basic rules, if M ---> ~Y

D: (F, L, S, Y) yes if L/O, (one of L and O), --->F and S, and just because ~Y is sufficient to trigger the necessary condition L/O, (one of L and O), doesn't mean anything, Y can still be in and not affect this answer.

I just typed this on my phone, my laptops charger broke, I blame Steve jobs, so I'm sure I might have made a mistake above, but I'm going to assume I didn't.

[Daily_Double]

[
Check out the game above, I nailed it, but I'd like to see how others did it. It's PT B of the Superprep book.

Just did it, 6:43 -0
I'll figure out a way to upload my diagram.

There's a link at the bottom a couple pages back, I used it, it works fine, no complaints.

[The-Specs]

Okay, that makes more sense. Crazyrobin, I still don't know what you mean when you say M and P are mutually exclusive as a reason for why A can't be true but I can see why it can't be the COMPLETE list. I think I must have missed that. Otherwise, I can't see how I struggled with this one. Thanks Crazy, thanks DD.

I thought I did enough work with conditional statements today to take care of this but I guess not. FWIW, I haven't started the PS bible on LG. I am still working my way through LR still.

[Daily_Double]

Okay, that makes more sense. Crazyrobin, I still don't know what you mean when you say M and P are mutually exclusive as a reason for why A can't be true but I can see why it can't be the COMPLETE list. I think I must have missed that. Otherwise, I can't see how I struggled with this one. Thanks Crazy, thanks DD.

I thought I did enough work with conditional statements today to take care of this but I guess not. FWIW, I haven't started the PS bible on LG. I am still working my way through LR still.

It'll come with more practice. Keep at it, before you know it, you'll be mentally diagramming everything you hear or read, believe me it's a curse.

[crazyrobin]

Okay, that makes more sense. Crazyrobin, I still don't know what you mean when you say M and P are mutually exclusive as a reason for why A can't be true but I can see why it can't be the COMPLETE list. I think I must have missed that. Otherwise, I can't see how I struggled with this one. Thanks Crazy, thanks DD.

I thought I did enough work with conditional statements today to take care of this but I guess not. FWIW, I haven't started the PS bible on LG. I am still working my way through LR still.

Sorry just edited it. I was on my phone....
For A I mean if m is in the one of L and O must be in. So you can eliminate A because A is not a complete list.

[crazyrobin]

It'll come with more practice. Keep at it, before you know it, you'll me mentally diagramming everything you hear or read, believe me it's a curse.

That's a gift and a curse.... But I love it.

[The-Specs]

Okay, that makes more sense. Crazyrobin, I still don't know what you mean when you say M and P are mutually exclusive as a reason for why A can't be true but I can see why it can't be the COMPLETE list. I think I must have missed that. Otherwise, I can't see how I struggled with this one. Thanks Crazy, thanks DD.

I thought I did enough work with conditional statements today to take care of this but I guess not. FWIW, I haven't started the PS bible on LG. I am still working my way through LR still.

It'll come with more practice. Keep at it, before you know it, you'll me mentally diagramming everything you hear or read, believe me it's a curse.

Oh, to be so cursed.

[crazyrobin]

This is my diagram. I just saw DD's. I have to admit it I like DD's better. That L/O thing is smart. I have to write down ' and ' or ' or ' every time.

I'll try to diagram as L/O

[CardozoLaw09]

For those of you who have trouble with games, I would suggest you redo games from PT 1-38.
I did all the games three times. Now I can diagram and draw inferences really quick. This also helps me to improve my speed. Yesterday I printed out all the hardest game from PT 1-38 ( PT 23 G2, PT24 G3, PT25 G2, PT27 G2, PT31 G2, PT33 G3, PT34 G4, PT 36 G3). I did it in a roll, each under 6 min and all -0.

I can't strike enough about familiarity. You'll all kill it in June.

Thanks for this list of hard games Crazyrobin and you're 100% right about building familiarity.

[griffin.811]

Rough month ahead for me, I'll be drilling RC heavily smh. Seems to be the last leg of my journey to 170.

Hopefully I'll be on the other side of that hill by end of March.

[Daily_Double]

[dowu]

[Daily_Double]

Prepare thy butthole, LSAT.

[CanILive]

Just reviewed the Bird Game from Test 33. (Errors on the rest of the section were nothing but stupid mistakes).

Still confused, especially with the rule involving J and S.

Can someone help me out?

I've browsed the internet, but found no explanation that made things "click" for me.

[crazyrobin]

I just read Noodley's guide and all the posts. Noticed one thing, Noodley recommended wrote down reasons for eliminating ACs on hard LR questions and justified answer choices on RC. I think DD also suggested to go deep into question types, e.g when you are asked to spot N/A, go a step farther answer SA/flaw/Strengthen/Weaken Qs.

I'll implement this two methods.

[Daily_Double]

Just reviewed the Bird Game from Test 33. (Errors on the rest of the section were nothing but stupid mistakes).

Still confused, especially with the rule involving J and S.

Can someone help me out?

I've browsed the internet, but found no explanation that made things "click" for me.

My diagram is a few pages back, check it out. Basically,

if ~J ---> S,

(Contrapositive) ~S ---> J

So we can only infer the presence of one element (Necessary Condition) if we know the absence of the other (Sufficient Condition).

This rule doesn't play into the main diagram, but is triggered in the contrapositive.

[crazyrobin]

Just reviewed the Bird Game from Test 33. (Errors on the rest of the section were nothing but stupid mistakes).

Still confused, especially with the rule involving J and S.

Can someone help me out?

I've browsed the internet, but found no explanation that made things "click" for me.

Check out LSATblog's video. I think it's helpful.

http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/ls ... n.html?m=1

[The-Specs]

So I was studying last night and I had an insight that I am sure others have had but I thought I would share it just in case. I have found several examples of what I call Sufficient Negation (SN) and Necessary Negation (NN). SN is when the sufficient cause is negated (~a --> b) and when you have a SN you get the contrapositive you a get another SN (~b --> a). When considered together you know that the two objects cannot be non-existent at the same time because the lack of existence of one triggers the existence of the other but they could co-exist together. For NN you get just the opposite: a --> ~b, b --> ~a which means that that the two cannot co-exist as the existence of one triggers the lack of existence of the other but they could both co-non-exist (if that makes any sense) meaning that they could both be out of existence together.

In LSAT terms for in-out games that means:

SN --> a out & b in, b out & a in, or both in.
NN --> a in & b out , b in & a out, or both out.

So, like I said this may be covered somewhere in LG prep material (that is on tap for next week) but I just realized it last night and it is really helpful for me to think about it this way. I consistently miss SN questions because i think that they both can't be in but this is false as we learn from the rule. In turn i thought it woudl be helpful to consider the opposite, namely NN when both can but out.

So, hope that helps someone but if not, it at least helped me articulate it.

[Daily_Double]

So I was studying last night and I had an insight that I am sure others have had but I thought I would share it just in case. I have found several examples of what I call Sufficient Negation (SN) and Necessary Negation (NN). SN is when the sufficient cause is negated (~a --> b) and when you have a SN you get the contrapositive you a get another SN (~b --> a). When considered together you know that the two objects cannot be non-existent at the same time because the lack of existence of one triggers the existence of the other but they could co-exist together. For NN you get just the opposite: a --> ~b, b --> ~a which means that that the two cannot co-exist as the existence of one triggers the lack of existence of the other but they could both co-non-exist (if that makes any sense) meaning that they could both be out of existence together.

In LSAT terms for in-out games that means:

SN --> a out & b in, b out & a in, or both in.
NN --> a in & b out , b in & a out, or both out.

So, like I said this may be covered somewhere in LG prep material (that is on tap for next week) but I just realized it last night and it is really helpful for me to think about it this way. I consistently miss SN questions because i think that they both can't be in but this is false as we learn from the rule. In turn i thought it woudl be helpful to consider the opposite, namely NN when both can but out.

So, hope that helps someone but if not, it at least helped me articulate it.

Good work Specs, You're getting to conditional perfection, keep at it. In other news, I'm in the Manhattan room for todays session, I have every previous PT with me, so if anyone has a question about anything, within reason, before the session, then jump in the room and hit me.

[Daily_Double]

The Manhattan mod is in the room. Come join, let's get better.

[crazyrobin]

The Manhattan mod is in the room. Come join, let's get better.

Would you pm me the link please?

[Daily_Double]

The Manhattan mod is in the room. Come join, let's get better.

Would you pm me the link please?

Done.

[eliztudorr]

The Manhattan mod is in the room. Come join, let's get better.

is it still going on??

[RhymesLikeDimes]

Too poor to keep up with the group on LSATs right now, so I am just doing the ones that my school library has.

PT 44:

RC: -3 (6,15,25)
LR1: -3 (14, 17, *22 (this question made me so angry, apparently it's not possible for there to be an equal number of elm and birch trees in a forest)
LG: -0 (finished with 15 minutes left, incredibly easy section)
LR2: -4 (8, 16, 18, 19 (16-22 was the most brutal LR stretch I have ever seen)).

Raw: -10
Scaled: 170


Not thrilled, -7 LR is my worst since my diagnostic, but these were two tough sections. RC wasn't bad at all, and I am happy with -3 at this point.