The Official June 2014 Study Group Forum

[alexrodriguez]

thanx for the help...

I must be really tired.. I was looking at my work for like 20 minutes thinking that LSAC screwed something up before I realized I had two skirts under mannequin 2

[dd235]

thanx for the help...

I must be really tired.. I was looking at my work for like 20 minutes thinking that LSAC screwed something up before I realized I had two skirts under mannequin 2

Haha it happens. There are times when I am convinced that I found a major flaw with an LSAC question, then after about 10 minutes of frustration I realize how idiotic I am.

[alexrodriguez]

Doing a 100 Logical Reasoning PT today.

PT 46 and 47

[Learn_Live_Hope]

I'm gonna open up my own firm one day.

There's a few people in this group who I'd love to work with.

You all know who you are.

huh?

[BaberhamLincoln]

Going to see my sis in Cali for 6 days. Planning on doing a shit-load of studying while she is working and kids are in school. Oh an during the two long-ass flights.
Wooooo just over a month now

[santoki]

somewhat related to the LSAT:

I wanna buy a hamster

[alexrodriguez]

100 LR questions timed is exhausting.

now I have to review

[dardardelight]

Totally botched PT 52 today.. everything was fucked

LR -7
LG -4
LR -5
RC -6

Didn't even calculate my score... I think I'm going to take another PT tonight to see how I do. I'm behind my PT schedule anyways

[Louis1127]

Careful, dardy, that's a shit ton of LSAT in one day. But if you think you can do it without pulling your hair out, go dominiate that next one!

[Learn_Live_Hope]

Going to see my sis in Cali for 6 days. Planning on doing a shit-load of studying while she is working and kids are in school. Oh an during the two long-ass flights.
Wooooo just over a month now

Kind of crazy that there is only a month left...

[alexrodriguez]

Do you guys review right after you take a PT.

I can't seem to do that.

Taking a PT and reviewing is like a two day process. Maybe I'm lazy :/

[dardardelight]

I cannot believe this! Just took PT 53 after scoring like a 163 on PT 52 this morning.. and the results are shocking:

PT 53: Score 172

LR -2
LG -1
LR -0
RC -6


Got my first perfect LR section ever ! I have yet to review, but I probably made a stupid mistake in a game such as reading the question stem wrong. LOUIS 1127 called this for me. Gotta keep it up.. we shall see after PT 54 tomorrow : /

Let's not get too high or too low guys. I could have easily hung my head after the shitty morning performance today and questioned my ability.. but I knew I was better than that and got right back to work. Now my job is to assume that this score will not just be handed to me after every PT from here on out.. Let's earn the reward, fellas!

[dardardelight]

And where the hell is jaylawyer? I suspect he changed his username and is mostly lurking these days

[sashafierce]

Can someone help me with this question please:

PT58 Section 1 question 11 (Flaw)

So this question has me really confused, prior to this question I thought that correlation does not imply causation which I perfectly understand but now I am realizing that a lack of correlation also does not imply a lack of causation

7sage explanation for this question was spot on:

When there is lightning, trees usually catch fire

Sometime trees catch fire without lightning

So lightning does not cause tress to catch fire

That is a flawed argument which I totally understand so I get why A is the correct answer BUT I don't understand why E is wrong. I thought that any argument that tried to establish causation based on correlation is automatically flawed hence even if the argument is reversed i.e. lack of causation based on because of a lack of correlation the argument is STILL flawed because it tried to establish a link between correlation and causation. I am confused

Finally, would answer choice E be correct if it said that the argument presumes, without providing warrant, that a lack of correlation implies a lack of causation? (rather that what is actually says which is correlation implies causation???)

[alexrodriguez]

edit

I have no idea what I'm talking about

[alexrodriguez]

And where the hell is jaylawyer? I suspect he changed his username and is mostly lurking these days

aha! you are jaylawer!

[Christine (MLSAT)]

Can someone help me with this question please:

PT58 Section 1 question 11 (Flaw)

So this question has me really confused, prior to this question I thought that correlation does not imply causation which I perfectly understand but now I am realizing that a lack of correlation also does not imply a lack of causation

7sage explanation for this question was spot on:

When there is lightning, trees usually catch fire

Sometime trees catch fire without lightning

So lightning does not cause tress to catch fire

That is a flawed argument which I totally understand so I get why A is the correct answer BUT I don't understand why E is wrong. I thought that any argument that tried to establish causation based on correlation is automatically flawed hence even if the argument is reversed i.e. lack of causation based on because of a lack of correlation the argument is STILL flawed because it tried to establish a link between correlation and causation. I am confused

Finally, would answer choice E be correct if it said that the argument presumes, without providing warrant, that a lack of correlation implies a lack of causation? (rather that what is actually says which is correlation implies causation???)

But the argument does not use a LACK of correlation to try to prove lack of causation. The stimulus clearly states that there *is* in fact a correlation between chromosome-6 damage and schizophrenia. The argument is just saying that this correlation isn't 100% perfect correlation. So if you were going to go this route, you'd need an answer choice that said that the argument assumes that imperfect correlation implies a lack of causation.

Also, you're right assuming lack of correlation implies lack of causation would be a flaw. And if this argument were doing that (which it isn't), you'd need an answer choice that actually said THAT (specifically about the lack of each), rather than simply "assumes that correlation implies causation".

These are all flaws, but you can't express them all with the statement in (E). Since we don't have a conclusion of causation, there's no way (E) can be correct. A conclusion of a LACK of causation may be just as flawed, but it's a different conclusion.

[sashafierce]

Can someone help me with this question please:

PT58 Section 1 question 11 (Flaw)

So this question has me really confused, prior to this question I thought that correlation does not imply causation which I perfectly understand but now I am realizing that a lack of correlation also does not imply a lack of causation

7sage explanation for this question was spot on:

When there is lightning, trees usually catch fire

Sometime trees catch fire without lightning

So lightning does not cause tress to catch fire

That is a flawed argument which I totally understand so I get why A is the correct answer BUT I don't understand why E is wrong. I thought that any argument that tried to establish causation based on correlation is automatically flawed hence even if the argument is reversed i.e. lack of causation based on because of a lack of correlation the argument is STILL flawed because it tried to establish a link between correlation and causation. I am confused

Finally, would answer choice E be correct if it said that the argument presumes, without providing warrant, that a lack of correlation implies a lack of causation? (rather that what is actually says which is correlation implies causation???)

But the argument does not use a LACK of correlation to try to prove lack of causation. The stimulus clearly states that there *is* in fact a correlation between chromosome-6 damage and schizophrenia. The argument is just saying that this correlation isn't 100% perfect correlation. So if you were going to go this route, you'd need an answer choice that said that the argument assumes that imperfect correlation implies a lack of causation.

Also, you're right assuming lack of correlation implies lack of causation would be a flaw. And if this argument were doing that (which it isn't), you'd need an answer choice that actually said THAT (specifically about the lack of each), rather than simply "assumes that correlation implies causation".

These are all flaws, but you can't express them all with the statement in (E). Since we don't have a conclusion of causation, there's no way (E) can be correct. A conclusion of a LACK of causation may be just as flawed, but it's a different conclusion.

I just read the Manhattan forum responses for this question and it helped alot, also I totally misinterpreted the argument, it is saying that the correlation is imperfect not that there is a lack of correlation. Thanks!

[dardardelight]

lol I'm definitely not jaylawyer . I can promise you that

[alexrodriguez]

Jay Lawyer has made an oath to himself.

The oath goes like this:

I will stay far far away from TLS until I score 170's all day everyday.

Jay Lawyer is a beast. He's literally a mythical creature who feeds on LSAT questions.

He will never teach, however. He will only do.

Long Live Jay

[BaberhamLincoln]

As my countdown app alerted me early this morning:

ONE MONTH!

[santoki]

im hoping this doesnt turn into a "29 days left, 28 days left, 27 days left..." ordeal. it makes it too much of a big deal in my head, making it difficult to treat it as a normal PT.

not a knock on you, leigh, the one month warning is a good wakeup call to those of us slackers!

[alexrodriguez]

The way I see it... none of us are slackers.

A lot of people don't even bother to study.

[santoki]

The way I see it... none of us are slackers.

A lot of people don't even bother to study.

but those people are not even worth comparing ourselves with- we aren't trying to be above average. we are trying to be EXCELLENT.

[rebexness]

The way I see it... none of us are slackers.

A lot of people don't even bother to study.

Just because others may slack more- doesn't mean none of us are slackers. I consider myself very slackery.