JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread Forum

[052220151]

Reading RC is worse than watching the Nick Kroll show.

This.

Is LSATQA having computer aids for anyone else, or just me?

[CardozoLaw09]

Reading RC is worse than watching the Nick Kroll show.

This.

Is LSATQA having computer aids for anyone else, or just me?

No aids works fine

[doorsal]

How does the bubbling sheet work during the test? Do you get the chance to fill out your details before the test begins? I am trying to work out how long it would take me to transfer my answers.

Secondly, does anyone have any ideas on where I can do some readings about jurispudence online? Ive been doing RC and have noticed that this is the topic that gives me the most difficulty because I dont have as much familiarity with it as the other topics. Right now im thinking wikipedia.

You don't need to know about any topics.

That said, when studying, I keep a running list of words that I want to look up. Its been pretty helpful and probably would have the effect you are looking for.

Cool, I will try out the list, sounds like a good way to discover more about relevant topics. I get that you don't need to know the topics, it's just that on the topics that I have a background understanding on I make it through the passsage quicker and the information sticks better too. Eg when an author is talking about the relationship between platelets and heart disease it just clicks for me. Whereas there was this one passage in PT33 about common law and evidence and it took a bit more processing to get the relationships for that section, so I figure a little orientation with key concepts won't hurt, given how common these passages are.

[052220151]

How does the bubbling sheet work during the test? Do you get the chance to fill out your details before the test begins? I am trying to work out how long it would take me to transfer my answers.

Secondly, does anyone have any ideas on where I can do some readings about jurispudence online? Ive been doing RC and have noticed that this is the topic that gives me the most difficulty because I dont have as much familiarity with it as the other topics. Right now im thinking wikipedia.

You don't need to know about any topics.

That said, when studying, I keep a running list of words that I want to look up. Its been pretty helpful and probably would have the effect you are looking for.

Cool, I will try out the list, sounds like a good way to discover more about relevant topics. I get that you don't need to know the topics, it's just that on the topics that I have a background understanding on I make it through the passsage quicker and the information sticks better too. Eg when an author is talking about the relationship between platelets and heart disease it just clicks for me. Whereas there was this one passage in PT33 about common law and evidence and it took a bit more processing to get the relationships for that section, so I figure a little orientation with key concepts won't hurt, given how common these passages are.

It's still a waste of time. Drill RC, it's boring as hell, but it helps. RC is the section I struggle with the most, it is definitely a section that you can improve. Familiarity with the subject isn't what gets you a better score though, it's familiarity with the test.

[TheMostDangerousLG]

Wish I wasn't officially joining you all, but alas, February didn't quite go as planned. So here I am.

Anyone have any tips for refreshing studying enthusiasm after one's first LSAT? Finding it hard to throw myself back in the game. Also struggling with where I'm going to find the time to study, given schoolwork.

[crazyrobin]

Wish I wasn't officially joining you all, but alas, February didn't quite go as planned. So here I am.

Anyone have any tips for refreshing studying enthusiasm after one's first LSAT? Finding it hard to throw myself back in the game. Also struggling with where I'm going to find the time to study, given schoolwork.

Not able to give you any advices but welcome on board.

[Daily_Double]

If anyone has any questions from PT 52, now is the time, actually, since I'm going to be reviewing all afternoon, any and all questions are welcome, but especially 52 or 66. Hit me with your best shot.

And welcome to the club MDLG

[Daily_Double]

One of the most classic flaw stimuli I have ever seen, give it a shot:

A study of 1000 fraternity men found that those who drank throughout the day suffered from alcoholism more frequently than those who did not. So it is very likely that drinking tends to cause alcoholism.

The reasoning in the psychologist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

[objection_your_honor]

Wish I wasn't officially joining you all, but alas, February didn't quite go as planned. So here I am.

Anyone have any tips for refreshing studying enthusiasm after one's first LSAT? Finding it hard to throw myself back in the game. Also struggling with where I'm going to find the time to study, given schoolwork.

You just have to do it. Plenty of retakers ITT, so at least you're in good company.

[crazyrobin]

One of the most classic flaw stimuli I have ever seen, give it a shot:

A study of 1000 fraternity men found that those who drank throughout the day suffered from alcoholism more frequently than those who did not. So it is very likely that drinking tends to cause alcoholism.

The reasoning in the psychologist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

Presuppose without warrant that two concurrent situation is in fact caused by one or another ( nah, this is so not lsac)

Also I would argue this 1000 men sample is not representative.

[Daily_Double]

One of the most classic flaw stimuli I have ever seen, give it a shot:

A study of 1000 fraternity men found that those who drank throughout the day suffered from alcoholism more frequently than those who did not. So it is very likely that drinking tends to cause alcoholism.

The reasoning in the psychologist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

Presuppose without warrant that two concurrent situation is in fact caused by one or another ( nah, this is so not lsac)

Also I would argue this 1000 men sample is not representative.

Very true, I designed it to lead to two alternative answer topics, you got one, unrepresentative sample, but I'm not a big fan of your first answer. Look a little closer, you can get the other one.

[CardozoLaw09]

One of the most classic flaw stimuli I have ever seen, give it a shot:

A study of 1000 fraternity men found that those who drank throughout the day suffered from alcoholism more frequently than those who did not. So it is very likely that drinking tends to cause alcoholism.

The reasoning in the psychologist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

Takes a correlation between frequent day drinking and alcoholism as evidence that the former causes the latter.

[objection_your_honor]

Draws too general a conclusion. Data on drinking during/throughout the day does not warrant a conclusion concerning drinking generally.

[Daily_Double]

One of the most classic flaw stimuli I have ever seen, give it a shot:

A study of 1000 fraternity men found that those who drank throughout the day suffered from alcoholism more frequently than those who did not. So it is very likely that drinking tends to cause alcoholism.

The reasoning in the psychologist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

Takes a correlation between frequent day drinking and alcoholism as evidence that the former causes the latter.

Boom. Now what's another way to phrase it? I'll give you a hint, it fails to consider the possibility that...

[Daily_Double]

Draws too general a conclusion. Data on drinking during/throughout the day does not warrant a conclusion concerning drinking generally.

Also true, but that way my bad, I meant to include day drinking in the core. But valid point.

[rebexness]

Assumes that genetic predisposition to Alcoholism doesnt cause Day-Drinking amongst the fraternal elite.

[crazyrobin]

It fails to consider that drinking during the day and alcoholism can be caused by other factors.

[bdeans91]

One of the most classic flaw stimuli I have ever seen, give it a shot:

A study of 1000 fraternity men found that those who drank throughout the day suffered from alcoholism more frequently than those who did not. So it is very likely that drinking tends to cause alcoholism.

The reasoning in the psychologist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

Takes a correlation between frequent day drinking and alcoholism as evidence that the former causes the latter.

Boom. Now what's another way to phrase it? I'll give you a hint, it fails to consider the possibility that...

That being alcoholic may cause one to drink during the day (as opposed to those who drink throughout the day are going to become alcoholics)

[Daily_Double]

It fails to consider that drinking during the day and alcoholism can be caused by other factors.

Good points all around, bdeans91, very close. This is in line with what I was looking for, and what the answer to the question I based this off is: It fails to consider the possibility that alcoholism is the cause of day drinking.

Whenever you have a correlation supporting causation, the flaw will likely be that the stated effect is in fact the cause, and the stated cause is in fact the effect, or that a third factor causes both. Alternatively, if this were a weaken question, the answer might be an answer which mentions facts that show the cause does not always produce the affect.

[bdeans91]

Does anyone find that when they drill LR questions by type/difficulty, the highest difficulty LR questions are more about understanding archaic language and superfluous wording than actually comprehending the arguments at hand?

I find that with the higher level questions, say for Flaw, I can pre-phrase an answer and immediately recognize the flaw, but the wording of the answer options is just so damn awkward.

[Daily_Double]

Also as a quick tip for those of you who are still drilling and/or pressed for time on LR: work on the assumption family. Why? Because assumption stimuli are the easiest to come up with a potential answer for. They all have a gap, the correct answer will always address that gap. Put in your time on the assumption family and you'll finish them faster, these stimuli types are easily 1/3 of LR sections, don't quote me on that, but I'm pretty sure that's somewhat accurate, if not understating the truth. If you finish assumption questions faster, you'll have more time for inference and matching.

As a side note, I really like diagramming/notating matching questions, they're really not hard once you get the hang of them.

[objection_your_honor]

Does anyone find that when they drill LR questions by type/difficulty, the highest difficulty LR questions are more about understanding archaic language and superfluous wording than actually comprehending the arguments at hand?

I find that with the higher level questions, say for Flaw, I can pre-phrase an answer and immediately recognize the flaw, but the wording of the answer options is just so damn awkward.

You're right. I've never thought about it like that. How complicated can the reasoning really get in a 2-5 sentence paragraph? Four conditional statements is about as dense as it gets.

LR is mostly about decoding the stimulus and translating it into basic logical terms.

[crazyrobin]

Does anyone find that when they drill LR questions by type/difficulty, the highest difficulty LR questions are more about understanding archaic language and superfluous wording than actually comprehending the arguments at hand?

I find that with the higher level questions, say for Flaw, I can pre-phrase an answer and immediately recognize the flaw, but the wording of the answer options is just so damn awkward.

Yes and yes. Not only wording in the ACs, wording in stimulus is freaking bizarre. PTs after 30 are so much better.

[Kool-Aid]

I haven't posted in a bit but have been following the progress of this thread. I figured I give a little update on my own progress or lack there of haha.

After a 173 on pt 53, I've went 164,166,164,169 on pts 55,58,51, and 60 respectively. I'm taking a pt every Wednesday and Saturday, and will continue to do so up until June. I'll probably start adding an experimental section next week.

I'm still trying to find an ideal way to warm up before each test, because my first section (which has been LR on each of the tests I've taken) has been my worst overall section scoring wise. Anybody have any advice on warming up before taking a pt?

[crazyrobin]

Also as a quick tip for those of you who are still drilling and/or pressed for time on LR: work on the assumption family. Why? Because assumption stimuli are the easiest to come up with a potential answer for. They all have a gap, the correct answer will always address that gap. Put in your time on the assumption family and you'll finish them faster, these stimuli types are easily 1/3 of LR sections, don't quote me on that, but I'm pretty sure that's somewhat accurate, if not understating the truth. If you finish assumption questions faster, you'll have more time for inference and matching.

As a side note, I really like diagramming/notating matching questions, they're really not hard once you get the hang of them.

Oddly I am really good at inference Qs, matching is what throw me off now. Also I have trouble decoding some assumption family stimulus, I somewhat have to read twice to grasp the pivotal idea.