LSAT Q&A: Ask the Experts Forum

[Dave Hall]

Hi Experts,

PT65 S4 Q5:
I felt very "WTF" when seeing this question. B is kind of obvious; but although it supports the conclusion, it makes 95% of the entire argument (codefendants/shared counsel/blabla) not necessary. Is this considered "strongly supporting" the argument? should I be prepared for a similar TMI stimulus on Monday??

Also, what do the experts think about the RC section in PT65?

But (B) doesn't obviate the rest of the argument - it states the strong version of the judge's assumption.

She's saying she can't allow defendants to be questioned without codefendant counsel present. Why not? Because two of them have the same lawyer.

But why does that matter? Why not just leave the attorney out of the room? Because she's assumed that she can't/shouldn't kick the defendant's own lawyer out for some reason.

If (B) is true, it strongly asserts that assumption, and makes it certain that the judge cannot grant the request. This is straight classic Sufficient Assumption, and you're certainly going to see another question like it on Monday. Good news - you can totally handle it.

That blackmail passage was a bitch. But, as you noted, nothing on 64 was that bad for you - so take your lesson about managing the clock, and head into Monday ready to take on whatever they throw at you. Relax, breathe deeply, and do what you know how to do.

I'd wish you luck, but luck is for sissies. You don't need it.

d

[Br3v]

Hi Experts,

PT65 S4 Q5:
I felt very "WTF" when seeing this question. B is kind of obvious; but although it supports the conclusion, it makes 95% of the entire argument (codefendants/shared counsel/blabla) not necessary. Is this considered "strongly supporting" the argument? should I be prepared for a similar TMI stimulus on Monday??

Also, what do the experts think about the RC section in PT65?

But (B) doesn't obviate the rest of the argument - it states the strong version of the judge's assumption.

She's saying she can't allow defendants to be questioned without codefendant counsel present. Why not? Because two of them have the same lawyer.

But why does that matter? Why not just leave the attorney out of the room? Because she's assumed that she can't/shouldn't kick the defendant's own lawyer out for some reason.

If (B) is true, it strongly asserts that assumption, and makes it certain that the judge cannot grant the request. This is straight classic Sufficient Assumption, and you're certainly going to see another question like it on Monday. Good news - you can totally handle it.

That blackmail passage was a bitch. But, as you noted, nothing on 64 was that bad for you - so take your lesson about managing the clock, and head into Monday ready to take on whatever they throw at you. Relax, breathe deeply, and do what you know how to do.

I'd wish you luck, but luck is for sissies. You don't need it.

d

Going off my memory on this, but the only thing I didn't like about this answer was that it said the defendant had the right to have lawyer present. What if the defendant didn't want to exercise that right?

[Mal Reynolds]

Hi Experts,

PT65 S4 Q5:
I felt very "WTF" when seeing this question. B is kind of obvious; but although it supports the conclusion, it makes 95% of the entire argument (codefendants/shared counsel/blabla) not necessary. Is this considered "strongly supporting" the argument? should I be prepared for a similar TMI stimulus on Monday??

Also, what do the experts think about the RC section in PT65?

But (B) doesn't obviate the rest of the argument - it states the strong version of the judge's assumption.

She's saying she can't allow defendants to be questioned without codefendant counsel present. Why not? Because two of them have the same lawyer.

But why does that matter? Why not just leave the attorney out of the room? Because she's assumed that she can't/shouldn't kick the defendant's own lawyer out for some reason.

If (B) is true, it strongly asserts that assumption, and makes it certain that the judge cannot grant the request. This is straight classic Sufficient Assumption, and you're certainly going to see another question like it on Monday. Good news - you can totally handle it.

That blackmail passage was a bitch. But, as you noted, nothing on 64 was that bad for you - so take your lesson about managing the clock, and head into Monday ready to take on whatever they throw at you. Relax, breathe deeply, and do what you know how to do.

I'd wish you luck, but luck is for sissies. You don't need it.

d

Going off my memory on this, but the only thing I didn't like about this answer was that it said the defendant had the right to have lawyer present. What if the defendant didn't want to exercise that right?

I don't think that matters. The argument is about a judge's ruling. Can a judge order you to testify against yourself? No. You can choose to testify against yourself but the judge still can't order something like that.

[dkb17xzx]

HELP: PT 64, Section 2, Q. 23 - the bookshelf game:

I got it correct on the exam but now that I just did it again, I seem to be missing something.

Possible scenarios:

T: O / L
M: I / H / K
B: F / M / G


T: O / G
M: I / L / K
B: F / M / H

T: O / L
M: I / K
B: F / M / H / G


My problem here is scenario # 1 - it doesn't need H & M to be placed together! HELP!

[1278]

I'd wish you luck, but luck is for sissies. You don't need it.

d

THANKS DAVE for the kind remark!!!!!! Je t'adore!!

[Dave Hall]

HELP: PT 64, Section 2, Q. 23 - the bookshelf game:

I got it correct on the exam but now that I just did it again, I seem to be missing something.

Possible scenarios:

T: O / L
M: I / H / K
B: F / M / G


T: O / G
M: I / L / K
B: F / M / H

T: O / L
M: I / K
B: F / M / H / G


My problem here is scenario # 1 - it doesn't need H & M to be placed together! HELP!

That's because scenario 1 (like scenario 3) breaks rule 4 (O must be higher than L).

Breathe deeply, remember that the answers are always on the page, and follow the rules. You'll be just fine.

[Dave Hall]

I'd wish you luck, but luck is for sissies. You don't need it.

d

THANKS DAVE for the kind remark!!!!!! Je t'adore!!

Well, now I'm blushing.

Do good work tomorrow!

[bp shinners]

T: O / L
M: I / H / K
B: F / M / G

T: O / L
M: I / K
B: F / M / H / G

Both of these scenarios can't work - you have O and L on the same shelf, and my fourth rule is that O is on a higher shelf than L.

For me, there are only 2 scenarios, based on the placement of the FM block (blocks/Must Be Togethers are usually good for scenarios). I know they can't go on the top shelf because K has to be higher than it.

So:
T: K O
M: I F M
B: L G H
This scenario is complete

and

T: __ __ (not L)
M: I __
B: F M __ (not O, not K)
This scenario, not so much.

See if you can get to these scenarios and work the questions based on them!

[Easy-E]

LSAT EXPERTS I CALL UPON YOUR WISDOM TO ANSWER A QUESTION OLDER THAN TIME...




Best snack for the break?

[Jeffort]

LSAT EXPERTS I CALL UPON YOUR WISDOM TO ANSWER A QUESTION OLDER THAN TIME...




Best snack for the break?

Powerbar or some other brand energy bar (not a protein bar they are different) and Gatoraide or some other brand sports drink.

EDIT: If you're a regular/heavy caffeine consumer, there is a candy called coffeego. It is a small bite-sized thing that tastes like coffee and has about as much caffeine as a typical cup of coffee. You'd be fine at check-in having one of those little things in your ziplock bag along with a powerbar since it qualifies as a medical or hygiene product (it's a legal drug), and if an evil proctor has a problem with it at check-in, just throw it away.

[Easy-E]

LSAT EXPERTS I CALL UPON YOUR WISDOM TO ANSWER A QUESTION OLDER THAN TIME...




Best snack for the break?

Powerbar or some other brand energy bar (not a protein bar they are different) and Gatoraide or some other brand sports drink.

Sounds good to me.

[Manhattan LSAT Noah]

LSAT EXPERTS I CALL UPON YOUR WISDOM TO ANSWER A QUESTION OLDER THAN TIME...




Best snack for the break?

Powerbar or some other brand energy bar (not a protein bar they are different) and Gatoraide or some other brand sports drink.

Sounds good to me.

In my grandmother's Brooklyn accent: So, tell me, how was your snack?

[Manhattan LSAT Noah]

Bump

I prefer the more egalitarian nature of this thread (vs. every rep trying to get his or her company's name out there), but the public will decide!

[Easy-E]

LSAT EXPERTS I CALL UPON YOUR WISDOM TO ANSWER A QUESTION OLDER THAN TIME...




Best snack for the break?

Powerbar or some other brand energy bar (not a protein bar they are different) and Gatoraide or some other brand sports drink.

Sounds good to me.

In my grandmother's Brooklyn accent: So, tell me, how was your snack?

Pretty good, got some kind of crunchy Powerbar thing. My enjoyment of it was probably dampened by the crippling anxiety.

[boblawlob]

Any tips on tackling Must be False (Cannot be True)...especially the really difficult ones?

[bp shinners]

Any tips on tackling Must be False (Cannot be True)...especially the really difficult ones?

MBF questions break down into two types:

1) An answer breaks a rule
2) An answer breaks a situation

1) If you see a really strong statement in the stimulus that lays out a rule (i.e. All reproduction requires eggs.), then expect that statement (and, usually, just that statement) to give you the answer. In this example, I'd look for something that gives me an example of reproduction that doesn't involve eggs. Also, something that's strong is more likely to be false than something that's weak (All Swedes are attractive isn't likely to be true - a single Swede can ruin that; Some Swedes are attractive is more likely to be true, as I only have to point out one). In these questions, the rule is usually obfuscated with a bunch of other stuff going on to lead you away from the correct answer. Focus on the rule that can be broken, and find the answer that breaks it.

2) If you've got a situation being explained to you, such as the car sales in Catlandia (or whatever made up name they used in that question), then you're probably looking at a situation. Here, they'll generally give you a ton of information, but there will be one critical piece of information they don't give you. However, they'll give you enough information to fill that in for yourself. You'll generally see a lot of comparative language here (company A sold more cars than, company B didn't increase sales, etc...) because comparative language let's you draw conclusions that compare the different parts of the data sets/situation. In this case, you'll want to fill in that missing piece of information, and then find the answer that contradicts it.

[Honey_Badger]

So I may be really tired and missing something, but I am confused by PT43, Sec. 4, Question 3 (fucking parade...)

If F-P-V (because vets follow puppets) then why can't my table say:
1 2 3 4 5 6
F P V J G M

All the rules seem to be in place, so I don't see where I went wrong.
Someone please PM me to dispel my ignorance...

[Dave Hall]

So I may be really tired and missing something, but I am confused by PT43, Sec. 4, Question 3 (fucking parade...)

If F-P-V (because vets follow puppets) then why can't my table say:
1 2 3 4 5 6
F P V J G M

All the rules seem to be in place, so I don't see where I went wrong.
Someone please PM me to dispel my ignorance...

There's nothing at all wrong with that! Puppeteers just aren't given as an answer choice.

[Honey_Badger]

So I may be really tired and missing something, but I am confused by PT43, Sec. 4, Question 3 (fucking parade...)

If F-P-V (because vets follow puppets) then why can't my table say:
1 2 3 4 5 6
F P V J G M

All the rules seem to be in place, so I don't see where I went wrong.
Someone please PM me to dispel my ignorance...

There's nothing at all wrong with that! Puppeteers just aren't given as an answer choice.

Yeah, after I watched your video it hit me like a baseball bat to the knees...just because it "could" be true didn't mean it had to be true...
Thanks Dave.

[cneu333]

Does "If only" introduce a sufficient condition or a necessary condition?
If only I had enough time I would go to the movies.
Would this be diagrammed as [Enough time ---> Go to the movies]?

Also, is "The only" always a sufficient condition indicator?

Thanks experts! This thread is really helpful.

[Dave Hall]

Does "If only" introduce a sufficient condition or a necessary condition?
If only I had enough time I would go to the movies.
Would this be diagrammed as [Enough time ---> Go to the movies]?

"If only" seems like a colloquialism, and it appears to have the same meaning as the simple "If". I am not able to think of any instance of that phrase in which removing the word "only" results in any change in meaning. I'm also not able to remember any appearance of this phrase on the LSAT - did you see it in a question, or are you just asking sort of generally?

In any case, it indicates a sufficiency - exactly as you've described it above.

Also, is "The only" always a sufficient condition indicator?

Yep. And this can be really tricky if you aren't careful: "Only" gives us a necessary condition, but "The Only" gives us a sufficient condition. Cripes.

I personally draw an arrow through the words "only if" and through the word "only" when it's by itself, and I translate the words "the only" to mean "all."

Hope that helps!

d

[ninetails]

...

[Dave Hall]

Can anyone break down PT 29 Section 2 (RC) #11?

(A) seems like a clear way for a community to preserve a language that's primarily oral (lines 27, et al make clear that this is the case for many languages)
(B) is prescribed explicitly in line 18
(C) runs counter to the general spirit of the renewal - particularly, see lines 5 and 59-60. It's not necessarily wrong to do, but it is least in keeping with the aims expressed in the passage.
(D) is directly in keeping with the aims of the passage - paragraphs 3 and 4 make clear that there are obstacles that must be addressed. Here, we agree to address them.
(E) derives direct, explicit support from the passage in paragraph 4.

Best,

d

[cneu333]

Does "If only" introduce a sufficient condition or a necessary condition?
If only I had enough time I would go to the movies.
Would this be diagrammed as [Enough time ---> Go to the movies]?

"If only" seems like a colloquialism, and it appears to have the same meaning as the simple "If". I am not able to think of any instance of that phrase in which removing the word "only" results in any change in meaning. I'm also not able to remember any appearance of this phrase on the LSAT - did you see it in a question, or are you just asking sort of generally?

In any case, it indicates a sufficiency - exactly as you've described it above.

Also, is "The only" always a sufficient condition indicator?

Yep. And this can be really tricky if you aren't careful: "Only" gives us a necessary condition, but "The Only" gives us a sufficient condition. Cripes.

I personally draw an arrow through the words "only if" and through the word "only" when it's by itself, and I translate the words "the only" to mean "all."

Hope that helps!

d

Thanks a bunch for the clear explanation! I didn't see "if only" being used in any question yet, but I saw a post of someone else asking about it while I was searching for whether "the only" was a sufficient indicator, and I wasn't too sure myself.

[cahwc12]

I took a RC section yesterday and discovered that two of my mistakes were from questions that were answered in the first sentence of the corresponding passage. How often is it the case where the answer to a question can be found in the first sentence of the passage? What advice do you have on trying to help digest that initial, often seemingly background, information?