The Official June 2016 Study Group Forum

[Tiwinkle12]

What are the most difficult LSAT reading comprehension passages?

[proteinshake]

What are the most difficult LSAT reading comprehension passages?

https://www.powerscore.com/lsat/help/rc ... ssages.cfm

[pretzeltime]

Okay back on topic.

Just took PT 72.

RC (-3) LR (-7) LR (-5) LG (-1) for a scaled 168.

If any of you have taken this one recently, you know that the LG has a 4th incredibly random and weird game. I didn't understand the rules until i had answered the final question, i probably still don't fully understand the rules, but somehow I got every single one of them correct.

I am fabulous, bitches.

I just took this yesterday as well. Yep, that game is weird. Much like the December 15 g3 as well (yes I am clearly obsessed with that game?)

I also did not understand it but ended up getting them all right. As with other ones like this, I just started brute force writing out some of the options and sorted of pulled it outta my ass. Only got 1 wrong on the section, careless mistake in the first game. Didn't have time to go back and check other games because game 4 was time consuming, normally I can do a little checkin'.

I thought this RC was fairly tough as well but my heart wasn't in it today so I only gave it 90% max. Went -4.

I hate taxes, it was rude to put them on there. Where is Turbotax when I need it amirite???

[pretzeltime]

All of Arnold Schwarzenegger's movies have either been good or bad. All of those that have been bad have either had poorly fleshed-out comic relief, or were had elements of science fiction. Some of A.S.'s good movies had elements of science fiction, but all of his movies that had poorly fleshed-out comic relief and had elements of science fiction were bad. Therefore, if an Arnold movies contained weakly-executed comic relief, it must have been bad.

The pattern of flawed reasoning in the above passage is most similar to which of the following?

A. Every French restaurant is either tasty or gross. All of the gross French restaurants are so because they use expired, frozen seafood, or because their fine dining standards are low. Some of the better French restaurants still employ waiters who have not been trained in fine-dining, but if these standards are low coupled with spoiled seafood, a French restaurant cannot be considered "tasty." Thus, if your bouillabaisse at a French restaurant smells expired, the rest of the food is probably going to be gross.

B. Water can be purified or unpurified; if it is unpurified, it has either not been run through a filter, or it contains bacteria that are potentially harmful. Some purified water contains potentially harmful bacteria, but it is evident that if water has not been run through a filter and contains harmful bacteria, it has not been purified. Thus, any water that has not been run through a filter cannot be considered purified.

C. Dogs can be many breeds, but most are either pitbulls or golden retrievers. Golden retrievers are golden and they retrieve things. Pitbulls can retrieve stuff too, but only golden retrievers are golden, and only dogs that retrieve things can be golden. Therefore, golden retrievers are the only dog that can both retrieve objects and is golden.

D. I work at a boring law firm, and its either crushing my soul or I'm gonna get an ulcer before I turn 24. If my soul isn't crushed, I can get an ulcer, and even if I don't develop an ulcer, I might have a nervous breakdown, and this would be soul-crushing. All ulcers cause excessive pain and suffering, but your soul slowly dying is a pain of the mind. Therefore, I'm gonna go get some Vietnamese food.

E. Hardwood floors are either incredibly dense from the process of petrification, or they can be softened by termites and other insects. If there has been insect softening in a wooden floor, the house must either exist in a warm climate where termites thrive, or a cold climate that contains bugs that eat deciduous organic plant matter. Some houses with dense hardwood floors are in warm climates, but do not have any termites. Thus, a cold climate with deciduous plant matter consumption by insects cannot produce houses with petrified hardwood floors.

Did you write this out yourself because if so you're bored on a level that I can't really fathom

[pretzeltime]

Okay new game: predict obscure subject matter for a question on the June test. I'm betting there'll be an LR about vaping

an RC passage about the history of snuff films pls

[forum_user]

All of Arnold Schwarzenegger's movies have either been good or bad. All of those that have been bad have either had poorly fleshed-out comic relief, or were had elements of science fiction. Some of A.S.'s good movies had elements of science fiction, but all of his movies that had poorly fleshed-out comic relief and had elements of science fiction were bad. Therefore, if an Arnold movies contained weakly-executed comic relief, it must have been bad.

The pattern of flawed reasoning in the above passage is most similar to which of the following?

A. Every French restaurant is either tasty or gross. All of the gross French restaurants are so because they use expired, frozen seafood, or because their fine dining standards are low. Some of the better French restaurants still employ waiters who have not been trained in fine-dining, but if these standards are low coupled with spoiled seafood, a French restaurant cannot be considered "tasty." Thus, if your bouillabaisse at a French restaurant smells expired, the rest of the food is probably going to be gross.

B. Water can be purified or unpurified; if it is unpurified, it has either not been run through a filter, or it contains bacteria that are potentially harmful. Some purified water contains potentially harmful bacteria, but it is evident that if water has not been run through a filter and contains harmful bacteria, it has not been purified. Thus, any water that has not been run through a filter cannot be considered purified.

C. Dogs can be many breeds, but most are either pitbulls or golden retrievers. Golden retrievers are golden and they retrieve things. Pitbulls can retrieve stuff too, but only golden retrievers are golden, and only dogs that retrieve things can be golden. Therefore, golden retrievers are the only dog that can both retrieve objects and is golden.

D. I work at a boring law firm, and its either crushing my soul or I'm gonna get an ulcer before I turn 24. If my soul isn't crushed, I can get an ulcer, and even if I don't develop an ulcer, I might have a nervous breakdown, and this would be soul-crushing. All ulcers cause excessive pain and suffering, but your soul slowly dying is a pain of the mind. Therefore, I'm gonna go get some Vietnamese food.

E. Hardwood floors are either incredibly dense from the process of petrification, or they can be softened by termites and other insects. If there has been insect softening in a wooden floor, the house must either exist in a warm climate where termites thrive, or a cold climate that contains bugs that eat deciduous organic plant matter. Some houses with dense hardwood floors are in warm climates, but do not have any termites. Thus, a cold climate with deciduous plant matter consumption by insects cannot produce houses with petrified hardwood floors.

This is 180/4.0/A+ content right here.

[Hennessy]

Did you write this out yourself because if so you're bored on a level that I can't really fathom

yes, yes i did

[pretzeltime]

Did you write this out yourself because if so you're bored on a level that I can't really fathom

yes, yes i did

Henny you are MVP of this thread

[Hennessy]

Feel free to answer it. I made sure there's a correct answer.

[Hennessy]

if any of you get it right, i'll send you a fee-waiver to a Cooley app

[Tiwinkle12]

Can someone explain why the answer on PT 50 section 2 question 8 is not D? I feel that D resolves the paradox better than A. I read the thread on Manhattan prep but I feel like I need more explanation because I haven't grasped why the correct answer is A.

Any help would be deeply appreciated!

[StopLawying]

if any of you get it right, i'll send you a fee-waiver to a Cooley app

Too lazy to actually go through it. A,C,D have different conclusions, and don't think B is right, so going with E.

This problem was constructive (who wouldve thought) though because it brings an interesting question. Can a parallel flaw answer be correct if the answer choice isn't parallel (different conclusion for example)?

[forum_user]

Can someone explain why the answer on PT 50 section 2 question 8 is not D? I feel that D resolves the paradox better than A. I read the thread on Manhattan prep but I feel like I need more explanation because I haven't grasped why the correct answer is A.

Any help would be deeply appreciated!

Can you give me some more non-copyright-breaking details on the question? I'm pretty sure PT 50 is one of those rarely published ones most of us have never done before.

[Tiwinkle12]

The stimulus talks about when companies profits would otherwise be reduced by an increase in the minimum wage, they would reduce the numbers of the workers they employ. However, an increase in a minimum wage didn't result in job cutbacks in the fast food industry where most workers are paid minimum wage.

The correct answer is A, which states that after the recent increase in the minimum wage, decreased job turnover in the fast-food industry allowed employers of fast food workers to save enough on recruiting costs to cover the cost of the wage increase.

D on the other hand states: a few employees in the fast food industry were already earning more than the new higher minimum wage before the new minimum wage was established.

I'm having a difficult time understanding how D is blatantly incorrect.

[pretzeltime]

The stimulus talks about when companies profits would otherwise be reduced by an increase in the minimum wage, they would reduce the numbers of the workers they employ. However, an increase in a minimum wage didn't result in job cutbacks in the fast food industry where most workers are paid minimum wage.

The correct answer is A, which states that after the recent increase in the minimum wage, decreased job turnover in the fast-food industry allowed employers of fast food workers to save enough on recruiting costs to cover the cost of the wage increase.

D on the other hand states: a few employees in the fast food industry were already earning more than the new higher minimum wage before the new minimum wage was established.

I'm having a difficult time understanding how D is blatantly incorrect.

Alright, I just took a look.

D is definitely incorrect because it says **a few** employees are already earning above the minimum wage. Whereas in the stimulus, it says most workers (aka a majority) earn close to minimum wage.

Think about how many employees McDonalds has. Let's say it's 1 million. Even if a few thousand of those employees already make above the minimum wage, the majority are close to the minimum wage.

Did I explain that clearly? It basically comes down to "few" and "most"

[Hennessy]

if any of you get it right, i'll send you a fee-waiver to a Cooley app

Too lazy to actually go through it. A,C,D have different conclusions, and don't think B is right, so going with E.

This problem was constructive (who wouldve thought) though because it brings an interesting question. Can a parallel flaw answer be correct if the answer choice isn't parallel (different conclusion for example)?

It's B, actually. Put simply, the argument is:

X is always either + or -.
- is always either 1 or 2.
Sometimes + can be 1, but all of X that is both 1 and 2 is -.
Therefore, all of X that is 2 must be -.

The reasoning is flawed in that there is no support for the premise that X2 must be -. We know that X+ can sometimes be 1, and we know that if X is both 1 and 2, it is -, but it says nothing about when X is only 2.

[Tiwinkle12]

The stimulus talks about when companies profits would otherwise be reduced by an increase in the minimum wage, they would reduce the numbers of the workers they employ. However, an increase in a minimum wage didn't result in job cutbacks in the fast food industry where most workers are paid minimum wage.

The correct answer is A, which states that after the recent increase in the minimum wage, decreased job turnover in the fast-food industry allowed employers of fast food workers to save enough on recruiting costs to cover the cost of the wage increase.

D on the other hand states: a few employees in the fast food industry were already earning more than the new higher minimum wage before the new minimum wage was established.

I'm having a difficult time understanding how D is blatantly incorrect.

Alright, I just took a look.

D is definitely incorrect because it says **a few** employees are already earning above the minimum wage. Whereas in the stimulus, it says most workers (aka a majority) earn close to minimum wage.

Think about how many employees McDonalds has. Let's say it's 1 million. Even if a few thousand of those employees already make above the minimum wage, the majority are close to the minimum wage.

Did I explain that clearly? It basically comes down to "few" and "most"

This helps! Thank you!

[forum_user]

The stimulus talks about when companies profits would otherwise be reduced by an increase in the minimum wage, they would reduce the numbers of the workers they employ. However, an increase in a minimum wage didn't result in job cutbacks in the fast food industry where most workers are paid minimum wage.

The correct answer is A, which states that after the recent increase in the minimum wage, decreased job turnover in the fast-food industry allowed employers of fast food workers to save enough on recruiting costs to cover the cost of the wage increase.

D on the other hand states: a few employees in the fast food industry were already earning more than the new higher minimum wage before the new minimum wage was established.

I'm having a difficult time understanding how D is blatantly incorrect.

So yeah, pretzeltime is right about D. Another way you can think of it is that paradox questions are kind of like could be true questions. D only tells you that there are some employees who earn higher than minimum wage; does the stimulus tell you their compensation is going to go down? No (presumably), it only tells you other compensation is going up. So even if those few employees make $1,000/hour, it still doesn't tell us why an increase in others' wages didn't lead to the predicted layoffs.
A, on the other hand, tells us the money came from no-longer-necessary recruiting costs. With paradox questions it always has to pertain to both parts of the paradox--so A addresses a possibility in which wages are increased but net profits could remain unchanged.

[Hennessy]

Okay new game: predict obscure subject matter for a question on the June test. I'm betting there'll be an LR about vaping

an RC passage about the history of snuff films pls

two back to back LR questions about French Parliament, one of which will make you doubt the other one

[Keilz]

Hello page 106. I am officially entering myself into this thread.

MY STORY:

Read the bibles January-April 2015
April 2015-June 2015 - Powerscore course, instructor taught me this weird inductive algorithmic method to brute force answers which is good most of the time, unless one game takes up some extra time. I've been doing a mix of inductive and deductive now, trying to do more deductive but I have a need to check my answers which I'm trying to squash. Studied really hard at nights.
Right before October 2015 test, STRESSED OUT terribly that I would do super poorly on the day of the test. Finished taking all the PTs. Was going consistently well on LR with lots of time left, RC was eh (4-6 wrong) and LG was either hit or miss, depending on the games...could be -0/1, could be -4/5, was ranging 164-169 pretty consistently with a few outliers.

Got a 166, somehow got EIGHT wrong on LR1, and got all tangled in LG..decided to retake because 167 was my retake threshold.
April - now - been taking 1-2 PTs (that I already took) each week. Ranging in score 167-175 - nothing higher or lower, thought I was doing well and was doing really well on LG, except today....

Took a day off of work, drove 45 minutes to the test center, and took PT77 in the school's library. PT77 was the only test I hadn't done before. Got a 165. -5 on RC (rushed the last passage), -6 LR1 (could feel it being crappy, time was tight), -4 on LG (wtf game 3, took too long and had to half heartedly do last game, which miraculously only one wrong), and -3 LR2 (felt okay, but usually when I feel ok it's -1)

My question...WHAT DO I DO? I've been doing super well and confident, but then the two most recent tests are scaring me so much for this one in June!!

[proteinshake]

Hello page 106. I am officially entering myself into this thread.

My question...WHAT DO I DO? I've been doing super well and confident, but then the two most recent tests are scaring me so much for this one in June!!

how many of the 70+ PTs have you taken? and do you do a very thorough blind review?

[Keilz]

Hello page 106. I am officially entering myself into this thread.

My question...WHAT DO I DO? I've been doing super well and confident, but then the two most recent tests are scaring me so much for this one in June!!

how many of the 70+ PTs have you taken? and do you do a very thorough blind review?

I've taken them all at least once. I'm still making my way thru my second time for them I guess I should've pushed more to take them sooner. The PT I got a 175 on was 70 or 71. But I took 74 and 75 for the first time right before October 2015 and got a 171 and 168, I remember.

For blind review, I do note which numbers I got wrong without looking at the answer choice, (bc I got confused once and changed my answer on a right one which got me anxious) but I do review all of my circled questions thoroughly and have a pretty good yield rate at getting them right the second time.

[proteinshake]

Hello page 106. I am officially entering myself into this thread.

My question...WHAT DO I DO? I've been doing super well and confident, but then the two most recent tests are scaring me so much for this one in June!!

how many of the 70+ PTs have you taken? and do you do a very thorough blind review?

I've taken them all at least once. I'm still making my way thru my second time for them I guess I should've pushed more to take them sooner. The PT I got a 175 on was 70 or 71. But I took 74 and 75 for the first time right before October 2015 and got a 171 and 168, I remember.

For blind review, I do note which numbers I got wrong without looking at the answer choice, (bc I got confused once and changed my answer on a right one which got me anxious) but I do review all of my circled questions thoroughly and have a pretty good yield rate at getting them right the second time.

I think PT 74/75 are much more indicative of how you'll score. if you scored lower on those OR didn't take any other 70+ PTs then I would say hold off on taking the June test, but I think you'll be perfectly fine as long as you don't let the 77 take get to your head. anyone else agree/disagree?

[pretzeltime]

Hello page 106. I am officially entering myself into this thread.

MY STORY:

Read the bibles January-April 2015
April 2015-June 2015 - Powerscore course, instructor taught me this weird inductive algorithmic method to brute force answers which is good most of the time, unless one game takes up some extra time. I've been doing a mix of inductive and deductive now, trying to do more deductive but I have a need to check my answers which I'm trying to squash. Studied really hard at nights.
Right before October 2015 test, STRESSED OUT terribly that I would do super poorly on the day of the test. Finished taking all the PTs. Was going consistently well on LR with lots of time left, RC was eh (4-6 wrong) and LG was either hit or miss, depending on the games...could be -0/1, could be -4/5, was ranging 164-169 pretty consistently with a few outliers.

Got a 166, somehow got EIGHT wrong on LR1, and got all tangled in LG..decided to retake because 167 was my retake threshold.
April - now - been taking 1-2 PTs (that I already took) each week. Ranging in score 167-175 - nothing higher or lower, thought I was doing well and was doing really well on LG, except today....

Took a day off of work, drove 45 minutes to the test center, and took PT77 in the school's library. PT77 was the only test I hadn't done before. Got a 165. -5 on RC (rushed the last passage), -6 LR1 (could feel it being crappy, time was tight), -4 on LG (wtf game 3, took too long and had to half heartedly do last game, which miraculously only one wrong), and -3 LR2 (felt okay, but usually when I feel ok it's -1)

My question...WHAT DO I DO? I've been doing super well and confident, but then the two most recent tests are scaring me so much for this one in June!!

I can't speak to "what this means" except that it doesn't mean anything definitive. You seem to have a good amount of stress/anxiety/emotional investment (as do most of us) but you need to try to get it together and not let one (not horrible) PT score derail you. I think a lot of people have scores that fluctuate up and down leading up to the exam.

Also, it was a hard test. Don't beat yourself up.

[Keilz]

Thanks everyone. TLS really is a friend. I'm so glad we have the Internet to connect us all. And that's good about the 74/75 bc I did well on those. I'm literally just trying to increase my score any way I can.

Sidebar I'm BRing this now and I'm like wtf at how wordy they are. It's so obvious they do it on purpose. "Polls of those who graduated more than 5yrs ago before being polled show a higher percentage of people in favor of reducing social services than do polls in the overall" I remember reading this and rolling my eyes at LSAC

Also can anyone link me to a good explanation of game three of PT77? I just did it correctly I believe without much struggle just want to make sure my method was the most efficient.