The Official September 2014 Study Group Forum

cavalier2015 · Post by **cavalier2015** » Fri May 23, 2014 4:39 pm

i'm just wondering why it would be helpful to identify the flaw if the chances that the flaw even comes up in the answer choices is a toss up.

wouldn't it be better to simply identify the conclusion and premise and eliminate wrong answers based on the manner they work with the argument core and then choose the right answer by seeing if it bridges the gap?

cavalier2015 · Post by **cavalier2015** » Fri May 23, 2014 4:50 pm

found this advice by BPshiners and i've been using it and its really working wonders:

General advice:
SUFFICIENT ASSUMPTION questions:
1) You're looking for something that 100% guarantees the conclusion, so stronger answer choices are more likely to be correct.
2) The most common 'gap' that needs to be filled in a SA question is an equivocation between the premises and the conclusion. So spot the conclusion, and then compare the terms in it to the premises. If one of the terms doesn't show up in a premise, it MUST show up in the answer.
3) If 2 doesn't apply, then there's an equivocation/gap between two of the premises. Find out what terms aren't connected to another premise/the conclusion, and then find the answer choice that connects them.

EDIT: more advice from BPshiners

"The first is when there's a concept mentioned in the conclusion that hasn't yet shown up in a premise. If that's the case, eliminate any answer choice that doesn't mention that concept. It can't be a sufficient assumption for the argument. Now, you should have 2-3 answer left. Of those, 1 probably lacks a concept from a premise - get rid of it. The two that are left are usually converse of each other. If the conclusion has the new concept relying on the determination of another concept, pick the answer that does the same (premise concept->conclusion concept). Same with vice versa. These are the most common - new term in conclusion that has to be connected.

The second is where every concept in the conclusion shows up in a premise, and these are harder. You're going to end up with a gap in your premises - the concepts will all be there, but two of them that need to be connected by a statement won't be. The correct answer is the one that includes both concepts in this statement."

mornincounselor · Post by **mornincounselor** » Fri May 23, 2014 4:52 pm

Post removed.

BillPackets · Post by **BillPackets** » Fri May 23, 2014 5:19 pm

cavalier2015 wrote:awesome thanks for the tips.

how do you guys approach sufficient assumptions? i feel like i am doing it wrong. i do the following:

1)read stem to see if its sufficient assumption quesiton
2)find conclusion and premise
3)look for term shifts between the premise and conclusion
and if term shifts are present, look for the answer choice that directly addresses these two terms and links them in some way
4)if term shifts are not apparent right away, look to eliminate wrong answers
i look for: conclusion redundancy, premise qualifiers, and out of scope answer choices
5)eliminate wrong answers and choose the answer left

I feel like this way is counter productive and takes too much time. have y'all found patterns in sufficient assumption questions that can speed up the process?

That's basically right. Credited is:

1) read stem
2) identify conclusion
3) premise
4) identify flaw
5) eliminate wrong
6) select right

Adrian Monk · Post by **Adrian Monk** » Fri May 23, 2014 7:36 pm

Hey guys! anybody taking manhattan's lsat online class this summer? I am signed up for their class starting by july 28th and is taught by laura baragoana. Does anybody want to have like a manhattan online group over here or where we can help each other out, motivate each other and see how we progress along as a group.

itsallinthesauce · Post by **itsallinthesauce** » Sat May 24, 2014 12:26 am

Are September sign-ups out yet?

BillPackets · Post by **BillPackets** » Sat May 24, 2014 3:28 pm

I bought a scientific American to read on a recent flight, and I think I read three articles that dealt with topics I've seen in LR and RC passages. I even read an article about North American loggerhead turtles. There is definitely an LR passage about loggerhead turtles. Anyway, I know I've read things where ppl recommend reading scientific American and the economist...turns out they're right.

BillPackets · Post by **BillPackets** » Sat May 24, 2014 3:51 pm

If you buy the CPs make sure you hit "file-save as" instead of thinking you can't save the PDFs directly to your desktop or else you'll spend a lot of time making copies and rather than have easy to handle PDFs you'll have a bunch of fucking hard copies of all this shit.

Edit: I'm currently making a bunch of fucking copies.

vracovino · Post by **vracovino** » Sat May 24, 2014 3:57 pm

Is anyone at least loosely following Pithypike's method? For the first month he suggests we work through Necessary and Sufficient Assumption, Flaw, Strengthen and Weaken. I'm currently drilling Necessary Assumption with the Cambridge packets. What I'm wondering is should I mix all my drilling together? Or focus on one question type for a few days or a week and then move onto the next one? Basically, which of these is the correct option...

Option 1:

Week 1: Drill Necessary/Sufficient Assumption
Week 2: Drill Weaken
Week 3: Drill Strengthen
Week 4: Drill Flaw

or...

Option 2:
Week 1: Drill mix of all q types (one each day)
Week 2: Repeat
Week 3: repeat
Week 4: repeat

Anyone suggest a particular method?

mornincounselor · Post by **mornincounselor** » Sat May 24, 2014 5:53 pm

Post removed.

vracovino · Post by **vracovino** » Sat May 24, 2014 8:52 pm

mornincounselor wrote:
vracovino wrote:Is anyone at least loosely following Pithypike's method? For the first month he suggests we work through Necessary and Sufficient Assumption, Flaw, Strengthen and Weaken. I'm currently drilling Necessary Assumption with the Cambridge packets. What I'm wondering is should I mix all my drilling together? Or focus on one question type for a few days or a week and then move onto the next one? Basically, which of these is the correct option...

Option 1:

Week 1: Drill Necessary/Sufficient Assumption
Week 2: Drill Weaken
Week 3: Drill Strengthen
Week 4: Drill Flaw

or...

Option 2:
Week 1: Drill mix of all q types (one each day)
Week 2: Repeat
Week 3: repeat
Week 4: repeat

Anyone suggest a particular method?
I didn't consciously choose to follow his timeline but I did start with Required and Sufficient Assumptions and now I'm on Flaws. I also am doing games along the way. Started with Advanced Linear Balanced then probably Basic Unbalanced. I think it's easier to recognize patterns when you do many of the same type of question consecutively. Although then your ability to recognize different types of questions quickly isn't tested to the same degree, but, during full tests it still will be.

Why'd you start with advanced linear instead of basic?

mornincounselor · Post by **mornincounselor** » Sat May 24, 2014 9:14 pm

Post removed.

churrochi · Post by **churrochi** » Sat May 24, 2014 11:02 pm

A bit late, but I'm checking in. Had a short stint teaching English in Japan but now I'm back in the States and ready to buckle down.

Currently WL'ed at UCLA and priority WL'ed at Emory, so I may jump ship and go to whichever one accepts me...but my LSAT is so abysmal that I'm just preparing for the test anyway in the event that I don't get into either. Very encouraging to see lots of retakers on here. Will definitely post whenever I have questions this time around.

itsallinthesauce · Post by **itsallinthesauce** » Sun May 25, 2014 2:10 am

churrochi wrote:A bit late, but I'm checking in. Had a short stint teaching English in Japan but now I'm back in the States and ready to buckle down.

Currently WL'ed at UCLA and priority WL'ed at Emory, so I may jump ship and go to whichever one accepts me...but my LSAT is so abysmal that I'm just preparing for the test anyway in the event that I don't get into either. Very encouraging to see lots of retakers on here. Will definitely post whenever I have questions this time around.

What'd you score?

J L Pearson · Post by **J L Pearson** » Sun May 25, 2014 3:02 pm

Checking in, hello everyone!

Rising senior here, sitting for the LSAT for the first time. A week ago I took my first PT (LSAC June 2007 PT) and got a 153. I see I have some serious studying to do and am still figuring out what would be the best method to study. I am interested in Straw_Mandible every Saturday PT plan, but don't know if I have enough knowledge yet. I'm casually reading PowerScore Bible LR right now but I know I must buckle down and read it with more of a plan. I have also read a few of the amazing guides on here and am debating whether or not to get 7Sages LSAT Premium Course or even sign up for a class in town.

This is what I have so far:
PowerScore Bibles LR and LG
LSAC PTs 52-61 and 62-71

Thanks!

BillPackets · Post by **BillPackets** » Sun May 25, 2014 4:13 pm

J L Pearson wrote:Checking in, hello everyone!

Rising senior here, sitting for the LSAT for the first time. A week ago I took my first PT (LSAC June 2007 PT) and got a 153. I see I have some serious studying to do and am still figuring out what would be the best method to study. I am interested in Straw_Mandible every Saturday PT plan, but don't know if I have enough knowledge yet. I'm casually reading PowerScore Bible LR right now but I know I must buckle down and read it with more of a plan. I have also read a few of the amazing guides on here and am debating whether or not to get 7Sages LSAT Premium Course or even sign up for a class in town.

This is what I have so far:
PowerScore Bibles LR and LG
LSAC PTs 52-61 and 62-71

Thanks!

What's your GPA

Ibn Battuta · Post by **Ibn Battuta** » Sun May 25, 2014 4:34 pm

Hi all,

I'm taking this test in September. Studied for a couple months last July and August but put it all on hold to wait until I could dedicate this entire summer. Should be fun and good luck everyone.

deebanger · Post by **deebanger** » Mon May 26, 2014 2:08 pm

anybody taking manhattan's online course this summer?

vracovino · Post by **vracovino** » Mon May 26, 2014 2:49 pm

deebanger wrote:anybody taking manhattan's online course this summer?

Adrian Monk wrote:Hey guys! anybody taking manhattan's lsat online class this summer? I am signed up for their class starting by july 28th and is taught by laura baragoana. Does anybody want to have like a manhattan online group over here or where we can help each other out, motivate each other and see how we progress along as a group.

Go ahead and mingle, you two

DestroyingTheLSAT · Post by **DestroyingTheLSAT** » Mon May 26, 2014 5:48 pm

Quick question on how to diagram this....

"Exactly two singers perform after S but before V"

I read it as "S _ _" and "_ _ V".
But Manhattan says its "S _ _ V".

Can someone help me make sense of this? My guess is that since LSAC introduced S and V together it implies its S _ _ V. But I am just confused by the statement - particularly why it has to be two gaps in between S and V. hahaha I hope I make sense and thanks!

Toby Ziegler · Post by **Toby Ziegler** » Mon May 26, 2014 5:59 pm

DestroyingTheLSAT wrote:Quick question on how to diagram this....

"Exactly two singers perform after S but before V"

I read it as "S _ _" and "_ _ V".
But Manhattan says its "S _ _ V".

Can someone help me make sense of this? My guess is that since LSAC introduced S and V together it implies its S _ _ V. But I am just confused by the statement - particularly why it has to be two gaps in between S and V. hahaha I hope I make sense and thanks!

The key is the fact that it says "exacty two" so you know there are only 2 variables that seperate "S" and "V" The verbiage being so precise is what gives it away.

Sometimes you have a rule that says, "At least two singers preform after S but before V." Which could mean there are only two spaces between the two, but we're not sure how many. But the "exactly two" is the key in this game.

Edit: so yes, MLSAT is correct.

DestroyingTheLSAT · Post by **DestroyingTheLSAT** » Mon May 26, 2014 6:37 pm

Toby Ziegler wrote:
DestroyingTheLSAT wrote:Quick question on how to diagram this....

"Exactly two singers perform after S but before V"

I read it as "S _ _" and "_ _ V".
But Manhattan says its "S _ _ V".

Can someone help me make sense of this? My guess is that since LSAC introduced S and V together it implies its S _ _ V. But I am just confused by the statement - particularly why it has to be two gaps in between S and V. hahaha I hope I make sense and thanks!
The key is the fact that it says "exacty two" so you know there are only 2 variables that seperate "S" and "V" The verbiage being so precise is what gives it away.

Sometimes you have a rule that says, "At least two singers preform after S but before V." Which could mean there are only two spaces between the two, but we're not sure how many. But the "exactly two" is the key in this game.

Edit: so yes, MLSAT is correct.

Thanks buddy

Toby Ziegler · Post by **Toby Ziegler** » Mon May 26, 2014 7:06 pm

DestroyingTheLSAT wrote:
Toby Ziegler wrote:
DestroyingTheLSAT wrote:Quick question on how to diagram this....

"Exactly two singers perform after S but before V"

I read it as "S _ _" and "_ _ V".
But Manhattan says its "S _ _ V".

Can someone help me make sense of this? My guess is that since LSAC introduced S and V together it implies its S _ _ V. But I am just confused by the statement - particularly why it has to be two gaps in between S and V. hahaha I hope I make sense and thanks!
The key is the fact that it says "exacty two" so you know there are only 2 variables that seperate "S" and "V" The verbiage being so precise is what gives it away.

Sometimes you have a rule that says, "At least two singers preform after S but before V." Which could mean there are only two spaces between the two, but we're not sure how many. But the "exactly two" is the key in this game.

Edit: so yes, MLSAT is correct.
Thanks buddy

No problem, sport..

BillPackets · Post by **BillPackets** » Mon May 26, 2014 7:09 pm

Toby Ziegler wrote:
DestroyingTheLSAT wrote:
Thanks buddy
No problem, sport..

You're both champs.

Toby Ziegler · Post by **Toby Ziegler** » Mon May 26, 2014 7:18 pm

BillPackets wrote:
Toby Ziegler wrote:
DestroyingTheLSAT wrote:
Thanks buddy
No problem, sport..
You're both champs.

Ahh, shucks. Thanks, chief.