real The Official December 2016 Waiters Group - Patience is a Virtue Forum

[Instrumental]

When are you guys taking your last PT next week? I'm debating Wednesday/Thursday... think a solid 2 day break could actually do more help than harm tho at this point

I'm taking three more PTs at least, one tomorrow, one Monday and the last (51) being on Wednesday. That will be my last fresh pt, so if I do decide to do more, it will just be repeats, but regardless, they will be before Wednesday.

[Mikey]

Ok, so I have a question.

I'm pretty good at SA questions, I'm decent at NA questions but I just want to clear something up about my way of thinking about these two Q types:

With SA questions, I generally think of the right answer as having to be strong. For NA questions, i think of the right answer as having to be weak (not in the sense of not doing anything for the argument, but in the sense of the wording of the A/C). Am I right in thinking like this? It's worked for me thus far but I just want to be clear on whether this way of thinking is fine or not.

[34iplaw]

Ok, so I have a question.

I'm pretty good at SA questions, I'm decent at NA questions but I just want to clear something up about my way of thinking about these two Q types:

With SA questions, I generally think of the right answer as having to be strong. For NA questions, i think of the right answer as having to be weak (not in the sense of not doing anything for the argument, but in the sense of the wording of the A/C). Am I right in thinking like this? It's worked for me thus far but I just want to be clear on whether this way of thinking is fine or not.

Sufficient has to be really strong, as it has to make the argument airtight. Sufficient questions seem to usually boil down to some basic conditional logic, even if they hide it in a huge paragraph.

Necessary answers I tend to just read as negatives / as if they are false. I guess I'm a bit confused about the 'weak' aspect you mention. 'Broad' answers can be good here, as they cover more ground.

[Mikey]

Ok, so I have a question.

[+] Spoiler

I'm pretty good at SA questions, I'm decent at NA questions but I just want to clear something up about my way of thinking about these two Q types:

With SA questions, I generally think of the right answer as having to be strong. For NA questions, i think of the right answer as having to be weak (not in the sense of not doing anything for the argument, but in the sense of the wording of the A/C). Am I right in thinking like this? It's worked for me thus far but I just want to be clear on whether this way of thinking is fine or not.

Sufficient has to be really strong, as it has to make the argument airtight. Sufficient questions seem to usually boil down to some basic conditional logic, even if they hide it in a huge paragraph.

Necessary answers I tend to just read as negatives / as if they are false. I guess I'm a bit confused about the 'weak' aspect you mention.

Yeah I guess i didn't explain "weak" very well. Here's an example of what I mean from PT34 S3 Q9:

[+] Spoiler

A is the right answer, and it's the NA and is relatively weak sounding, imo, because of the "most empirical verification" which is in line with the language in the stimulus. As opposed to answer choice C which says EVERY, and is a SA (imo, and according to 7sage as well).

[connordalto]

When are you guys taking your last PT next week? I'm debating Wednesday/Thursday... think a solid 2 day break could actually do more help than harm tho at this point

I'm taking three more PTs at least, one tomorrow, one Monday and the last (51) being on Wednesday. That will be my last fresh pt, so if I do decide to do more, it will just be repeats, but regardless, they will be before Wednesday.

Yup, think I'm gonna stick with that as well. Maybe a little lg practice on thurs but probably just exercise a bunch and try not to stress.

[Greenteachurro]

Ok, so I have a question.

I'm pretty good at SA questions, I'm decent at NA questions but I just want to clear something up about my way of thinking about these two Q types:

With SA questions, I generally think of the right answer as having to be strong. For NA questions, i think of the right answer as having to be weak (not in the sense of not doing anything for the argument, but in the sense of the wording of the A/C). Am I right in thinking like this? It's worked for me thus far but I just want to be clear on whether this way of thinking is fine or not.

Sufficient has to be really strong, as it has to make the argument airtight. Sufficient questions seem to usually boil down to some basic conditional logic, even if they hide it in a huge paragraph.

Necessary answers I tend to just read as negatives / as if they are false. I guess I'm a bit confused about the 'weak' aspect you mention. 'Broad' answers can be good here, as they cover more ground.

Yeah Sufficient is like it makes it happen. Like "If Mary has an apple she will make apple pie". Her having an apple is sufficient enough information for you to know that apple pie is going to be made in the very near future. So having an apple is sufficient for the apple pie to be made, but it is not necessary for it to be made.

Necessary is a condition that must be true in order for something to happen. Like "Mary will make the apple pie only if she has cinnamon". So cinnamon is needed to make the pie and she can't make it without cinnamon so it is a necessary condition, but it is not enough to make the apple pie. Mary can't just make the apple pie with only cinnamon.

Definitely don't think of it as weak/strong. Think of it like "Sufficient conditions makes something happen, but is not always needed to make something happen" And "A Necessary condition is something that is needed to make something happen, but on its own is not always enough to make something happen"

[StopLawying]

I have read the Eileen Grey passage like 5 times and still have no idea what the hell its saying.

[Pozzo]

Final PT coming up this weekend. Lord, beer me strength.

[Greenteachurro]

Final PT coming up this weekend. Lord, beer me strength.

I hope the beer god will bestow upon you the strength and confidence of 1000 beers.

[dj9i27]

.

[dontsaywhatyoumean]

I did my -6 and -8 sections from yesterday, without reviewing, and went -1 and -3.

LR has always been my best section, and I neglected it compared to the other sections due to that. I guess 4 days off was maybe too much time off when I normally don't do a bunch of LR when I do do it.

Brain seemed to work more "LR like", just noticing things better. It's a weird feeling, but you can just tell you're more familiar with the LR format.

I'm glad I got back to it this "far" ahead of the test. I remember the first time I took the LSAT I maybe did 7 sections of LR (because I was doing well other than the first couple of times I took it), went -7ish the night before the exam on one section (after having not touched LR for a month), then went something like -2 and -1 on the next two sections that night.

I guess I just need to regularly do it.


BY THE WAY, I think I'm going to bring Twizzlers for this LSAT. Good mood candy


Edit, btw, Cormier out of 206. Another one bites the dust.

[34iplaw]

Did anyone find LR 2 from PT 70 particularly time consuming, or was I just being a space cadet?

[dontsaywhatyoumean]

Did anyone find LR 2 from PT 70 particularly time consuming, or was I just being a space cadet?

It was my worst LR section ever (the one I'm talking about above) other than maybe my first few when I first started studying for the LSAT. But I attribute that more to time off (have only done like 4 LR sections this month, and took 4 days off since my last one before doing PT70). I just redid it sans review and went -3 the day after.

That's the higher end of what I'd consider a harder section of LR for me (maybe -4 at most).

[dj9i27]

.

[34iplaw]

Any fool proof tips for agree/disagree? I really don't know why, but these questions give me pause and always have... even if I don't get them wrong terribly frequently, they eat way too much time.

[34iplaw]

Did anyone find LR 2 from PT 70 particularly time consuming, or was I just being a space cadet?

It was my worst LR section ever (the one I'm talking about above) other than maybe my first few when I first started studying for the LSAT. But I attribute that more to time off (have only done like 4 LR sections this month, and took 4 days off since my last one before doing PT70). I just redid it sans review and went -3 the day after.

That's the higher end of what I'd consider a harder section of LR for me (maybe -4 at most).

Yeah... it just felt very long or just a lot longer to slug through.

[SunDevil14]

Ok, so I have a question.

I'm pretty good at SA questions, I'm decent at NA questions but I just want to clear something up about my way of thinking about these two Q types:

With SA questions, I generally think of the right answer as having to be strong. For NA questions, i think of the right answer as having to be weak (not in the sense of not doing anything for the argument, but in the sense of the wording of the A/C). Am I right in thinking like this? It's worked for me thus far but I just want to be clear on whether this way of thinking is fine or not.

Sufficient has to be really strong, as it has to make the argument airtight. Sufficient questions seem to usually boil down to some basic conditional logic, even if they hide it in a huge paragraph.

Necessary answers I tend to just read as negatives / as if they are false. I guess I'm a bit confused about the 'weak' aspect you mention. 'Broad' answers can be good here, as they cover more ground.

I believe we may have a similar thought process. NA will tend to be minimalist, whereas SA will tend to be the opposite. A SA answer choice can be thought of as "stronger" because the choices guarantees the conclusion always follows from premises. A NA answer choice can be thought of as "weaker" because the answer choice is just required for the conclusion to follow from the premises, is not enough to guarantee that the conclusion follows.

[SunDevil14]

feels good to wind down on studying, I got lazy on some LR today getting ones wrong that were very easy (questions 1-5). I feel ready but am prepared for anything, which is why I ordered a fresh LR/LG Bible and the preptests in case June is my future (I will return them if not).

I haven't done much of anything the past 2 days. I burnt out, a few days ago. Nerves where shot, mind was foggy, and was anxious. Going to knock out PT 77, 78, 79 between now and test day, other than that will probably keep things pretty light.

I think at this point we have studied so much, that It'd be better to come into the test fresh and confident rather than overworked and anxious.

[dj9i27]

.

[dontsaywhatyoumean]

FOr Required Assumption questions, does the required assumption have to be something that plays a role in the argument, or something that logically is required in the sense of having to be the case?

For example, if I say all apples are green, then that means that no apples are not green, but that is possibly not part of the argument as far as being support, and therefore I'm wondering if that counts as a correct answer choice for a Required Assumption question, or not.

[SunDevil14]

feels good to wind down on studying, I got lazy on some LR today getting ones wrong that were very easy (questions 1-5). I feel ready but am prepared for anything, which is why I ordered a fresh LR/LG Bible and the preptests in case June is my future (I will return them if not).

I haven't done much of anything the past 2 days. I burnt out, a few days ago. Nerves where shot, mind was foggy, and was anxious. Going to knock out PT 77, 78, 79 between now and test day, other than that will probably keep things pretty light.

I think at this point we have studied so much, that It'd be better to come into the test fresh and confident rather than overworked and anxious.

That is what I'm doing, I left my PS4 at my parents (where I'm at for the holiday) so I wouldn't be distracted studying and gamestop has a sale the other day so I bought Mafia III, BF1, and The Last of Us. Pretty much just going to relax, PT tomorrow and drill then my final PT will be tues/wed.

Different from September, maybe it'll bite me, maybe it won't.

We shall see. I actually think that a degree of complacency may be beneficial. I believe there is a zen that comes from knowing you worked hard and left no stone unturned. When your mind is clear, and you do not too much emphasis on the outcome then you generally perform better.

-My 2 cents

[34iplaw]

FOr Required Assumption questions, does the required assumption have to be something that plays a role in the argument, or something that logically is required in the sense of having to be the case?

For example, if I say all apples are green, then that means that no apples are not green, but that is possibly not part of the argument as far as being support, and therefore I'm wondering if that counts as a correct answer choice for a Required Assumption question, or not.

I'm not certain what you mean in the first sentence. I would be hesitant about eliminating a NA answer since it isn't something seemingly mentioned directly, but I think that it would likely relate very closely to something in the stimulus. You just need to be careful with this approach that something gets eliminated since it doesn't seem to match up well. The way you put it in the second part of your statement is something I am much more comfortable in agreeing with. A necessary assumption is something that *must be true* for the argument to work, hence the strategy of negating answer choices. If the assumption is false (the negation is true), the argument falls apart. PT 70 last question is a great example of this IMO... the one about star speeds. It's insanely blunt and seemingly too obvious... but it really illustrates just the bluntness of a NA.

If the test had something like All apples are green, I don't know that they could put an answer choice that is no apples are not green. That said, it would, IMO, fit the criteria of a necessary assumption... it must be true for the argument to be true.

[dontsaywhatyoumean]

FOr Required Assumption questions, does the required assumption have to be something that plays a role in the argument, or something that logically is required in the sense of having to be the case?

For example, if I say all apples are green, then that means that no apples are not green, but that is possibly not part of the argument as far as being support, and therefore I'm wondering if that counts as a correct answer choice for a Required Assumption question, or not.

I'm not certain what you mean in the first sentence. I would be hesitant about eliminating a NA answer since it isn't something seemingly mentioned directly, but I think that it would likely relate very closely to something in the stimulus. You just need to be careful with this approach that something gets eliminated since it doesn't seem to match up well. The way you put it in the second part of your statement is something I am much more comfortable in agreeing with. A necessary assumption is something that *must be true* for the argument to work, hence the strategy of negating answer choices. If the assumption is false (the negation is true), the argument falls apart. PT 70 last question is a great example of this IMO... the one about star speeds. It's insanely blunt and seemingly too obvious... but it really illustrates just the bluntness of a NA.

If the test had something like All apples are green, I don't know that they could put an answer choice that is no apples are not green. That said, it would, IMO, fit the criteria of a necessary assumption... it must be true for the argument to be true.

You answered my question regardless. Thank you once again, it was a lot of help. It would seem like it would be okay, but I can't say I've ever encountered such an example.

[theboringest]

"which of the following is most strongly supported" are really fucking frustrating sometimes.

[34iplaw]

"which of the following is most strongly supported" are really fucking frustrating sometimes.

If you're strong with MBT, just treat them as MBT. They are basically must be true.*

*must be true barring significant outliers