JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread Forum

[eliztudorr]

Can someone please help me with a few LRs from PT 34 S3

#12, 19

thanks you

Thanks for the question.

PT 34, S3, Q12: Complete the statement, I'd call this an inference question.

Core: Politician says that some people say the city's future depends upon compromise, which is defined as people working together. Then he says if you compromise then you betray the goals. Therefore, those people are suggesting to betray the goals.

The critic points out the flaw contained in the Politician's argument. The question asks you to fill in the gap, the critic is about to say that the politician's argument depends upon the interpretation of the word compromise. The gap here is the difference between compromising the Charter's principles and compromising to work together. I caught it and came up with the answer before I moved to the answers, so I didn't really eliminate anything, what lead you to the wrong answer/what did you feel supported other answers?

The politician's argument, if it were the question stimulus of a S/A question would lead one to the answer which says something along the lines of if you put differences aside and work with each other then you will compromise the Charter's principles.

PT 34, S3, Q19: Most Strongly Supported/Inference

Core: If photons hit pigment R, then the molecules change shape, then light. But, sometimes, they change shape on their own, which leads to vision errors. There's a direct relationship between retina temperature and this random motion which leads to vision errors.

Before I even look at the answers, I'd come up with a likely candidate, in this case it would be if retina temperature were high, then one might have vision errors.

My answer selection process, first I eliminate the ones which are clearly out of scope: A axed, B keep it for now, C axed, D keep it for now, E axed. So, we're down to B and D. Let's look a little closer. B, yep that matches the language of the argument and is in line with the relationship described above. D, we don't know anything about surface areas, furthermore, even if we did, we would have to stretch to say something about the sensitivity of R, axed for scope.

As a side note, #19 doesn't really have a core, I just reduced it to aid the process. Any more questions?

thanks for the detailed explanation. they cleared up a lot for me! btw, when you are done with all this LSAT, you should consider tutoring for it just saying.

[Daily_Double]

thanks for the detailed explanation. they cleared up a lot for me! btw, when you are done with all this LSAT, you should consider tutoring for it just saying.

No problem. Haha, after this I'm going to be busy making sure my UVA application is in on September 1. Then beast mode for law school, they say you shouldn't prepare before classes, but I probably will do it anyway, just to make sure I'm #1. I'll be secretly gunning hard, come at me 1L, I'm gonna penetrate you.

[eliztudorr]

^ lol go at it. I'm sure ur gonna be great. Seriously.

[arcanecircle]

What room/program are you using for the review tomorrow? Tried checking out the first couple pages but I don't see it explicitly mentioned.

[crazyrobin]

No problem. Haha, after this I'm going to be busy making sure my UVA application is in on September 1. Then beast mode for law school, they say you shouldn't prepare before classes, but I probably will do it anyway, just to make sure I'm #1. I'll be secretly gunning hard, come at me 1L, I'm gonna penetrate you.

Beers on you right? I love Charlottesville btw.

[Daily_Double]

No problem. Haha, after this I'm going to be busy making sure my UVA application is in on September 1. Then beast mode for law school, they say you shouldn't prepare before classes, but I probably will do it anyway, just to make sure I'm #1. I'll be secretly gunning hard, come at me 1L, I'm gonna penetrate you.

Beers on you right? I love Charlottesville btw.

Beers on beers, hopefully on cute undergrads.

[Guerrilla Logic]

what time is review today?

[natashka85]

if u guys do the review 8.30-9 pm pacific time I can catch up,will try to get off from work earlier.

[wtrc]

PT 51

Section 1- LR, 0, 31 min
Section 2- RC, -5 (13, 19, 20, 22, 24), 35 min
Section 3- LR2, -1 (12), 33 min
Section 4- LG, 0, 35 min

94/100 raw, 176 scaled

Struggled with the second game, but was able to finish correctly and in time.

Second PR in a row (last week was 173) so I'm really happy ! Finally work starting to pay off. Having said that, I did at least one of the LG's within the last two months also, so keeping that in mind.

Looking forward to review!

[Daily_Double]

In the middle of PT 67, taking a brief break. I'll probably finish in about three hours once I add in time for review and make some food, so I'll be free anytime after 4:30 central time.

[natashka85]

So,is everyone down for review 4.30 Central time?

[Guerrilla Logic]

yes that works for me

[natashka85]

Then we are in the chatroom 4.30 Central time,see u there guys.

[bdeans91]

Wow we have some very talented test-takers in this thread. I thought 169 was an accomplishment lol.

Thank the sweet lord for Canada

[Daily_Double]

PT 67: Raw 95, Scaled 176

RC: -4, #10, #16, #19, #24
LR: -1, #15
LG: -0
LR: -0

Strict timing using online proctor, bubble sheet (first time using it), break between sections two and three, extra time on each section, both LR sections were easy, had more time on LG than any other section, zones wasn't bad, luckily the other games were very easy, so I probably went in with 15 minutes or more. I'm looking at you RC, stop being a dick. Now it's time to see what I did wrong. I'm down to review in about 45 minutes, I'm going to make some food then review my mistakes from PT 67 until then.

The double pages are sweet for LG, I felt like my diagrams had space to roam. Next PT starts 5th section, which will be RC, I may or may not start drilling old RCs, probably not considering the PT schedule is pretty aggressive.

[Daily_Double]

I'm jumping in the room.

[Guerrilla Logic]

is it on Manhattan? how do I get to the study room?

[Daily_Double]

Join whenever guys, we're getting started.

[objection_your_honor]

PT 67

RC: -2
LR: -1
LG: -1
LR: -5 (ouch)

91 / 171

I didn't review this test at all after taking it officially in October 2012. Shockingly, I also went -5 on LR2 (sharing -2 in common).

Lots to review this week.

[The-Specs]

So a question about PT 43 Sec 3 #17.

I know why the answer is C and i got it right but i was thrown for a loop by answer choice E. The Stimulus says that only those mutations that make a "substantial contribution to the survival of the species" are favored by natural selection.

On E I first thought well maybe the negative traits that are carried with the positive traits (the traits that make a substantial contribution to the species' survival) make the overall effects neutral but it says specifically that if the negative annuls (this i am assuming can mean that they cancel them out) the positive then it won't be favored. So i thought, well then it could be that all of the effects were neutral from the beginning, nothing annulled the effects of the others. But this contradicts the very first line. If it didn't make a substantial contribution then how was it favored by natural selection?

I am sorry if this question is pedestrian. I am just trying to know why every answer choice is right or wrong (per your advice DD) and I just couldn't figure this one out.

[eliztudorr]

more questions!

PT35 S4, #1, 20, 21, 22 THANKS

oh, and can someone shed some light on inference questions? i used to do alright with it and after reading MLSAT, for some reason, my brain just shut down completely with this question type..and i get ALL of them wrong ALL the TIME..and its getting on my nerves. im guessing im interpretating something wrong from the MLSAT chapter and just thought maybe i can get some help

[crazyrobin]

This is a complaint. I have negated the shit out of N/A Qs from PT 1-20, all level 4 difficulty. WTF? What's is wrong with the bizarre wordings????

[Daily_Double]

So a question about PT 43 Sec 3 #17.

I know why the answer is C and i got it right but i was thrown for a loop by answer choice E. The Stimulus says that only those mutations that make a "substantial contribution to the survival of the species" are favored by natural selection.

On E I first thought well maybe the negative traits that are carried with the positive traits (the traits that make a substantial contribution to the species' survival) make the overall effects neutral but it says specifically that if the negative annuls (this i am assuming can mean that they cancel them out) the positive then it won't be favored. So i thought, well then it could be that all of the effects were neutral from the beginning, nothing annulled the effects of the others. But this contradicts the very first line. If it didn't make a substantial contribution then how was it favored by natural selection?

I am sorry if this question is pedestrian. I am just trying to know why every answer choice is right or wrong (per your advice DD) and I just couldn't figure this one out.

I would answer this for you if I had done PT 43, but I'm saving it for later and I don't want to get ahead. Check out Manhattan's forum.

[Guerrilla Logic]

PT35 S4, #1, 20, 21, 22 THANKS

oh, and can someone shed some light on inference questions? i used to do alright with it and after reading MLSAT, for some reason, my brain just shut down completely with this question type..and i get ALL of them wrong ALL the TIME..and its getting on my nerves. im guessing im interpretating something wrong from the MLSAT chapter and just thought maybe i can get some help

I will take the first one. Here was my thought process:

A: not sure, defer
B: defer, but seemed like a good answer
C: exclude (learn geometry more easily)
D: exclude (acquire the ability to manipulate symbols)
E: exclude (would be equally effective pedagogically)

I quickly re-read A and B and then went back to the text.
Justification for support of A is at the end, "even though deepest understanding is abstract, not imagistic"

B is correct by P.O.E., but also the passage does not address the answer either way.
Tips: Make sure you read each answer and exclude what you can instead of reading A and then searching for it in the text.
Probably will be 2 or 3 passes to answer some do these. Accept that and work diligently and the time won't be much of an issue.

[Daily_Double]

more questions!

PT35 S4, #1, 20, 21, 22 THANKS

oh, and can someone shed some light on inference questions? i used to do alright with it and after reading MLSAT, for some reason, my brain just shut down completely with this question type..and i get ALL of them wrong ALL the TIME..and its getting on my nerves. im guessing im interpretating something wrong from the MLSAT chapter and just thought maybe i can get some help

PT 35, S4, Q1: SupportedX, this is really just a bunch of statements, but I broke it down into which statements are made, then which premises support that statement

Core: Graphical pictures help kids learn geometry

p1: Graphical pictures provides them with basic understanding of the concepts
p2: basic understanding of the concepts makes it easy for the kids to have the capacity to manipulate things for math

Core: Drawing algebraic concepts would work just as well pedagogically
p3: I have no idea what pedagogically means) Deepest math level is abstract not related to images

A: This one is supported by p3.
B: Leave it for now. Leave it again. Ok, this is the only one that’s left; let’s look a little closer. We know that if you can manipulate things then you can learn geometry at least a little easier. But, We don’t know anything about people who are very good and what they understand. This one is it.
C: Leave it for now. Going back through, this is supported by p1.
D: Leave it for now. Going back through this is supported by p2.
E: This is supported by p1 and p3.


PT 35, S4, Q20: Weaken

Core: The first European settlers in NA most likely came from a more distant part of Europe than the part of Europe closest to NA.

p1: Europeans settle in NA --> Right before the middle of the Blizzard
p2: A skeleton of a NA elephant that became extinct in the middle of the Blizzard was recently found containing a human-made spear which isn’t related to any spear found in the part of Europe closest to NA

Mental Pause: Ok, so we’ve got a dead animal with a spear in it. And based off that spear, and the approximate dates of European settling, the argument thinks that the settlers probably came from really far away. Well, I am going to guess the dates are alright, let’s just mess up that spear. I’m looking for something that says what they thought was a spear was really just an old bone of this dead elephant. (That’s actually what I thought, I don’t know why either).

A: Maybe, it does fit, but it just weakens a premise; keep it around just in case... So back to A. It’s not perfect, but it fits what we thought.

B: Trick answer. Doesn’t do anything here. Maybe they were nomadic; even then that doesn’t weaken the core, they could have been lazy nomads, axe this.

C, D, E: Nope. These don’t really do anything for us.


PT 35, S4, Q21: Inference, really a bunch of statements

Core: For any SS, the intro of LST that eliminates some jobs will usually weaken the values of that SS.

p1: All SS are based on a separation of jobs
p2: The values of a SS are contained in the pride given to people who do various jobs

Mental Pause: Basically, if you add tech that saves labor, then you do bad things to the values. But what if people have more pride/values when they watch people work?

A: scope. Even worse than scope, it’s bad logic.
B: scope.
C: What’s going on here; let’s look a little closer. Look it matches.
D: Nope, trick answer, does a technologically adv. society use LST? We don’t know. Axed.
E: Good God, scope.

Leaving 22 for you guys.