The Official September 2014 Study Group Forum

mornincounselor · Post by **mornincounselor** » Wed May 28, 2014 4:08 pm

Post removed.

WaltGrace83 · Post by **WaltGrace83** » Wed May 28, 2014 4:14 pm

mornincounselor wrote:What is going on with these level 3 flaw questions? I just missed 3/5 from 199 to 203.

Lol I remember those. #199 is a flaw that, once you get it, you will NEVER get that wrong again. It made me slap myself in the face.
#200 is something that you really should see IF you have had some exposure to flaw questions (and, after 200 questions, I hope so!)
#201 has a REALLY easy problem but the answer choice's wording is a little more obscure than you were probably thinking
#202, while I got it right initially, is a hotly debated one on the Manhattan forums
#203, like 201, is probably a tougher answer choice than flaw because "equivocal" is often a wrong answer and it is somewhat hard to really nail down.

What tripped you up?

Learn_Live_Hope · Post by **Learn_Live_Hope** » Wed May 28, 2014 4:20 pm

WaltGrace83 wrote:
mornincounselor wrote:What is going on with these level 3 flaw questions? I just missed 3/5 from 199 to 203.
Lol I remember those. #199 is a flaw that, once you get it, you will NEVER get that wrong again. It made me slap myself in the face.
#200 is something that you really should see IF you have had some exposure to flaw questions (and, after 200 questions, I hope so!)
#201 has a REALLY easy problem but the answer choice's wording is a little more obscure than you were probably thinking
#202, while I got it right initially, is a hotly debated one on the Manhattan forums
#203, like 201, is probably a tougher answer choice than flaw because "equivocal" is often a wrong answer and it is somewhat hard to really nail down.

What tripped you up?

You know these by heart?

WaltGrace83 · Post by **WaltGrace83** » Wed May 28, 2014 4:22 pm

Learn_Live_Hope wrote:
WaltGrace83 wrote:
mornincounselor wrote:What is going on with these level 3 flaw questions? I just missed 3/5 from 199 to 203.
Lol I remember those. #199 is a flaw that, once you get it, you will NEVER get that wrong again. It made me slap myself in the face.
#200 is something that you really should see IF you have had some exposure to flaw questions (and, after 200 questions, I hope so!)
#201 has a REALLY easy problem but the answer choice's wording is a little more obscure than you were probably thinking
#202, while I got it right initially, is a hotly debated one on the Manhattan forums
#203, like 201, is probably a tougher answer choice than flaw because "equivocal" is often a wrong answer and it is somewhat hard to really nail down.

What tripped you up?
You know these by heart?

hahahaha no. I looked them up really quick to see what mornincounselor was talking about. Wouldn't that be crazy if I did though?

EDIT: I will say that I knew exactly what these problems were all about just by reading the first few words.

mornincounselor · Post by **mornincounselor** » Wed May 28, 2014 4:22 pm

Post removed.

WaltGrace83 · Post by **WaltGrace83** » Wed May 28, 2014 4:32 pm

mornincounselor wrote:199, 200, 203, 207 are what I missed.

199: I missed the "could" and chose (B) because even if Arjun's argument were a given it could still be the case that this threat is less dangerous than joyriding.

200: I chose (C).

203: I didn't know "equivocal", left (A) and (D).

207: Id. Chose (A) because it assumes that maturity = "physiological development is complete" without proving it.

#200 is a tough one because if you've never seen that flaw before, it is super easy to just gloss over the "could." However, go back to what is going on in this argument.

Crimes could damage → Crimes do damage

It really is that simple and, as I said, once you understand that I bet you'll never miss it again!

(A) sucks because the whole argument is about that very distinction. Arjun essentially tries to take that distinction that Yolanda makes (between physically endangering and non-physically endangering) and says, "Nope! Your distinction makes sense but your distinction in this case actually is not valid! They both are physically endangering." This, to me, is the really tricky answer. This would be the right answer if Arjun would have came back and equivocated non-physical harm to physical harm. That was probably a bunch of word vomit - dunno if that made sense.

(B) definitely provides evidence.

(C) ACTUALITY / POSSIBLE. Yep.

(D) Wrong flaw. We are not concluding B → A, from A → B

(E) Simply doesn't happen. This flaw would be something like, "I like everything that has peanuts in it. This Snicker's bar tastes great but I don't like it because I hate chocolate." Snicker's bars have peanuts right?

WaltGrace83 · Post by **WaltGrace83** » Wed May 28, 2014 4:37 pm

mornincounselor wrote:199, 200, 203, 207 are what I missed.

199: I missed the "could" and chose (B) because even if Arjun's argument were a given it could still be the case that this threat is less dangerous than joyriding.

200: I chose (C).

203: I didn't know "equivocal", left (A) and (D).

207: Id. Chose (A) because it assumes that maturity = "physiological development is complete" without proving it.

#200 is one that, in my opinion, is really essential for continuing to understand flaws. Let's break this down.

Cheap power + cost of safety inspections + cost of safety repairs
(→)
Continued operation was uneconomic
→
It wasn't safety, it was economic issues that led to the plant to close

Now we absolutely KNOW this argument is flawed. So think to yourself, "how can the premises be true but the conclusion not follow?" We have reasons for the plant closing and then an absolute statement about the implications of those reasons. The reasons are safety inspections, repairs, alternative sources, etc. Now here is the problem that I see. The argument concludes that it was NOT safety. Let's think about that! Didn't the author just say that it was DUE TO safety inspections and safety repairs? Feels pretty unsafe to me! It seems like, at least in part, the plant closed because of safety related stuff. That is why (E) is the best.

itsallinthesauce · Post by **itsallinthesauce** » Wed May 28, 2014 5:21 pm

Walt Grace, I've seen you around the Manhattan forums for a few months, you seem to really know your stuff.

I have a quick question, although I apologize if you don't know the answer off the top of your head -- I'm currently working on the Principle Support Cambridge packet (did a large chunk of Flaw and Sufficient Assumption the previous 2-3 weeks and am trying to progress from there). I started off on Level 2-Level 3 of these Principle Support problems, and I am finding the problems in these sets significantly harder than the ones in the SA set despite similar approaches. What gives? It seems the stimuli are longer and more verbose, but more importantly, I am having a hard time picking from those last 1-2 tempting answer choices where every nitty gritty detail counts.

I have reviewed Principle Support questions heavily in the past in other workbooks, but these Cambridge ones are driving me insane. Per the Trainer, I've approached them similarly to SA questions -- try to bridge the gap between support and conclusion, etc. etc., and have even read into my Manhattan LR book, but nothing seems to "clicking" with many of these problems. Thanks!

WaltGrace83 · Post by **WaltGrace83** » Wed May 28, 2014 6:03 pm

itsallinthesauce wrote:Walt Grace, I've seen you around the Manhattan forums for a few months, you seem to really know your stuff.

I have a quick question, although I apologize if you don't know the answer off the top of your head -- I'm currently working on the Principle Support Cambridge packet (did a large chunk of Flaw and Sufficient Assumption the previous 2-3 weeks and am trying to progress from there). I started off on Level 2-Level 3 of these Principle Support problems, and I am finding the problems in these sets significantly harder than the ones in the SA set despite similar approaches. What gives? It seems the stimuli are longer and more verbose, but more importantly, I am having a hard time picking from those last 1-2 tempting answer choices where every nitty gritty detail counts.

I have reviewed Principle Support questions heavily in the past in other workbooks, but these Cambridge ones are driving me insane. Per the Trainer, I've approached them similarly to SA questions -- try to bridge the gap between support and conclusion, etc. etc., and have even read into my Manhattan LR book, but nothing seems to "clicking" with many of these problems. Thanks!

I am not a tutor or anything. In fact, i haven't even taken the LSAT yet. I am just reviewing the crap out of questions with hopes that I am developing healthy habits (I think I am). Either way, I have totally been in your shoes about 3-4 months ago. Principle questions were the second question types I drilled, after SA. I definitely had my problems with them but I may actually feel most comfortable with those questions now. What questions specifically are giving you trouble? One thing i WILL say is that the earliest principle questions in 3-4 definitely suck and I don't think are that relevant. They are incredibly convoluted and principles after about PT20 or so got noticeably easier for me.

famousblueraincoat · Post by **famousblueraincoat** » Wed May 28, 2014 9:38 pm

Sat in on a Blueprint course today and really enjoyed it. The instructor is amazing! I was able to follow along even though it was one of the later lessons. Definitely going to be taking their Summer course in Miami. Feel free to PM me for a more detailed review if you're in the area

.

So stoked for September!!

itsallinthesauce · Post by **itsallinthesauce** » Wed May 28, 2014 11:33 pm

WaltGrace83 wrote:
itsallinthesauce wrote:Walt Grace, I've seen you around the Manhattan forums for a few months, you seem to really know your stuff.

I have a quick question, although I apologize if you don't know the answer off the top of your head -- I'm currently working on the Principle Support Cambridge packet (did a large chunk of Flaw and Sufficient Assumption the previous 2-3 weeks and am trying to progress from there). I started off on Level 2-Level 3 of these Principle Support problems, and I am finding the problems in these sets significantly harder than the ones in the SA set despite similar approaches. What gives? It seems the stimuli are longer and more verbose, but more importantly, I am having a hard time picking from those last 1-2 tempting answer choices where every nitty gritty detail counts.

I have reviewed Principle Support questions heavily in the past in other workbooks, but these Cambridge ones are driving me insane. Per the Trainer, I've approached them similarly to SA questions -- try to bridge the gap between support and conclusion, etc. etc., and have even read into my Manhattan LR book, but nothing seems to "clicking" with many of these problems. Thanks!
I am not a tutor or anything. In fact, i haven't even taken the LSAT yet. I am just reviewing the crap out of questions with hopes that I am developing healthy habits (I think I am). Either way, I have totally been in your shoes about 3-4 months ago. Principle questions were the second question types I drilled, after SA. I definitely had my problems with them but I may actually feel most comfortable with those questions now. What questions specifically are giving you trouble? One thing i WILL say is that the earliest principle questions in 3-4 definitely suck and I don't think are that relevant. They are incredibly convoluted and principles after about PT20 or so got noticeably easier for me.

Nah, I figured you were studying for the lsat. I don't have the packet in front of me atm, but when I start another slew of them tomorrow, I'll let you know if any stick out in particular... Hopefully I'll get a better handle on the problems by then

kevgogators · Post by **kevgogators** » Thu May 29, 2014 1:10 am

Hey guys,

I'm new to TLS and recently started my prepping for September but I'm feeling somewhat lost and I'm hoping for some guidance.

I currently only own the LSAT Superprep because it was free with the LSAC waiver. I'm well aware that this will not suffice, and am planning on buying the Bibles and multiple PT's. However, I've recently heard good things about the LSAT Trainer....what is the general consensus?

More importantly, I'm am seeing terms on this forum and elsewhere that I am unfamiliar with and would love some clarification--- particularly the "levels". What are these levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 that are referred to on this thread and how are they determined? Also while looking through the infamous Pithypike post, I encountered some confusion with the terms "Basic/Advanced Linear" and "Balanced, Overloaded, Underfunded, etc." Where the heck are these terms coming from?

Even though we're 4 months out, I'm already feeling extremely behind track. I'd greatly appreciate a response with some insight.

Thank you!

vracovino · Post by **vracovino** » Thu May 29, 2014 1:55 am

kevgogators wrote:Hey guys,

I'm new to TLS and recently started my prepping for September but I'm feeling somewhat lost and I'm hoping for some guidance.

I currently only own the LSAT Superprep because it was free with the LSAC waiver. I'm well aware that this will not suffice, and am planning on buying the Bibles and multiple PT's. However, I've recently heard good things about the LSAT Trainer....what is the general consensus?

More importantly, I'm am seeing terms on this forum and elsewhere that I am unfamiliar with and would love some clarification--- particularly the "levels". What are these levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 that are referred to on this thread and how are they determined? Also while looking through the infamous Pithypike post, I encountered some confusion with the terms "Basic/Advanced Linear" and "Balanced, Overloaded, Underfunded, etc." Where the heck are these terms coming from?

Even though we're 4 months out, I'm already feeling extremely behind track. I'd greatly appreciate a response with some insight.

Thank you!

The general consensus regarding the LSAT Trainer is that it is very good. I haven't read it so I can't speak for its quality, but the consensus of the board is overwhelmingly positive.

The "levels" being discussed are in reference to the Cambridge LSAT drilling packets, which you can find here. As you go through the Powerscore or Manhattan books you'll see they divide the logic reasoning questions by question type. Cambridge LSAT has all of the questions from tests 1-38 (or more, if you so desire) separated into individual packets for each question type and then divided within each packet by a difficulty of 1-4. In order to master each question type, it is suggested that you do extensive "drilling" and work through the packets while analyzing each question and wrong answer in detail.

Basic Linear Balanced/Underfunded/Overloaded are question types for the Logic Game section of the test. They are given those names in the Powerscore Logic Games bible. Cambridge also has the games divided by their respective question type here. Pithypike suggests that you print out three copies of each game and do each game three times until you understand every inference and have a mastery of the concepts for each question type.

I just started studying about two weeks ago and there is certainly a lot to learn! But take it one step at a time and try not to be too intimidated by the progress of everyone around you. Its easy to get caught up in this site and start panicking and feeling inferior. There is plenty of time left before the September test, so try and take it one step at a time.

kevgogators · Post by **kevgogators** » Thu May 29, 2014 8:02 am

vracovino wrote:The general consensus regarding the LSAT Trainer is that it is very good. I haven't read it so I can't speak for its quality, but the consensus of the board is overwhelmingly positive.

The "levels" being discussed are in reference to the Cambridge LSAT drilling packets, which you can find here. As you go through the Powerscore or Manhattan books you'll see they divide the logic reasoning questions by question type. Cambridge LSAT has all of the questions from tests 1-38 (or more, if you so desire) separated into individual packets for each question type and then divided within each packet by a difficulty of 1-4. In order to master each question type, it is suggested that you do extensive "drilling" and work through the packets while analyzing each question and wrong answer in detail.

Basic Linear Balanced/Underfunded/Overloaded are question types for the Logic Game section of the test. They are given those names in the Powerscore Logic Games bible. Cambridge also has the games divided by their respective question type here. Pithypike suggests that you print out three copies of each game and do each game three times until you understand every inference and have a mastery of the concepts for each question type.

I just started studying about two weeks ago and there is certainly a lot to learn! But take it one step at a time and try not to be too intimidated by the progress of everyone around you. Its easy to get caught up in this site and start panicking and feeling inferior. There is plenty of time left before the September test, so try and take it one step at a time.

I can't thank you enough, vracovino. For both the information and the peace of mind haha. If you don't mind me asking, what books are you using? Both Manhattan and PowerScore?

sashafierce · Post by **sashafierce** » Thu May 29, 2014 10:39 am

Checking in

cavalier2015 · Post by **cavalier2015** » Thu May 29, 2014 11:33 am

redid the relative ordering packet for the third time and missed 2 questions in total. will review tonight and do again in a few days to ensure 100%.
redid main conclusion packet for the second time and missed 2 question in total. will review tonight and do again in a few days to ensure 100%.

remaining for today: finish up simple ordering packet and review the mistakes (probably a lot because it's really kicking me in the ass). review sufficient assumption packet in detail (will have to refer to trainer for identifying gaps/flaws in argument and manhattan forums).

tomorrow: redo sufficient assumption. redo simple ordering packet. look over in BP LG how to do tiered ordering (corresponds to complex ordering in Cambridge). do complex ordering packet.

so far, I feel I have a solid grasp on relative ordering and main conclusion questions.

goals to accomplish by monday: get a solid grasp on sufficient assumptions and simple ordering. therefore, i should have a easier time with necessary assumption questions so I will use similar skills (i.e: identifying flaws/gaps from sufficient assumptions). Trying to get all my drilling done by July 10th. So I can spend a solid two months doing PTs (39-70) every other day with a review of the one i did in between.

hope everyone is on track! this forum has been really helpful and with work I don't see how getting the score you want is out of reach. i have friends who have taken the LSAT with not much studying and if we are spending the next 4 months on this, we can sure KICK THE LSAT's ASS. good luck y'all!

vracovino · Post by **vracovino** » Thu May 29, 2014 11:48 am

kevgogators wrote:
vracovino wrote:The general consensus regarding the LSAT Trainer is that it is very good. I haven't read it so I can't speak for its quality, but the consensus of the board is overwhelmingly positive.

The "levels" being discussed are in reference to the Cambridge LSAT drilling packets, which you can find here. As you go through the Powerscore or Manhattan books you'll see they divide the logic reasoning questions by question type. Cambridge LSAT has all of the questions from tests 1-38 (or more, if you so desire) separated into individual packets for each question type and then divided within each packet by a difficulty of 1-4. In order to master each question type, it is suggested that you do extensive "drilling" and work through the packets while analyzing each question and wrong answer in detail.

Basic Linear Balanced/Underfunded/Overloaded are question types for the Logic Game section of the test. They are given those names in the Powerscore Logic Games bible. Cambridge also has the games divided by their respective question type here. Pithypike suggests that you print out three copies of each game and do each game three times until you understand every inference and have a mastery of the concepts for each question type.

I just started studying about two weeks ago and there is certainly a lot to learn! But take it one step at a time and try not to be too intimidated by the progress of everyone around you. Its easy to get caught up in this site and start panicking and feeling inferior. There is plenty of time left before the September test, so try and take it one step at a time.

I can't thank you enough, vracovino. For both the information and the peace of mind haha. If you don't mind me asking, what books are you using? Both Manhattan and PowerScore?

I have the Cambridge Packets, Manhattan Logic Reasoning and Powerscore's Logic Games Bible. My girlfriend gave me her old stuff too, so I have the Manhattan RC book and the LSAT Superprep, but I haven't used either yet. What I have used for RC is Voyager's Guide, which helped me a bit on the reading passages.

Learn_Live_Hope · Post by **Learn_Live_Hope** » Thu May 29, 2014 11:58 am

kevgogators wrote:Hey guys,

I'm new to TLS and recently started my prepping for September but I'm feeling somewhat lost and I'm hoping for some guidance.

I currently only own the LSAT Superprep because it was free with the LSAC waiver. I'm well aware that this will not suffice, and am planning on buying the Bibles and multiple PT's. However, I've recently heard good things about the LSAT Trainer....what is the general consensus?

More importantly, I'm am seeing terms on this forum and elsewhere that I am unfamiliar with and would love some clarification--- particularly the "levels". What are these levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 that are referred to on this thread and how are they determined? Also while looking through the infamous Pithypike post, I encountered some confusion with the terms "Basic/Advanced Linear" and "Balanced, Overloaded, Underfunded, etc." Where the heck are these terms coming from?

Even though we're 4 months out, I'm already feeling extremely behind track. I'd greatly appreciate a response with some insight.

Thank you!

If you feel you still need help, feel free to PM me

Toby Ziegler · Post by **Toby Ziegler** » Thu May 29, 2014 2:09 pm

sashafierce wrote:Checking in

Sashafierce, welcome. I hope your personality matches your name and avatar. If so, I like your style.

vracovino · Post by **vracovino** » Thu May 29, 2014 2:24 pm

For those of you who may have started PTing (or just have this knowledge) what is the proportion of level 1-4 questions on an average LR section, say for example, out of twenty five questions?

korrakage · Post by **korrakage** » Thu May 29, 2014 2:26 pm

Checking in. Hope we all do well haha

WaltGrace83 · Post by **WaltGrace83** » Thu May 29, 2014 3:04 pm

vracovino wrote:For those of you who may have started PTing (or just have this knowledge) what is the proportion of level 1-4 questions on an average LR section, say for example, out of twenty five questions?

I think the general consensus is that there are 8-10 level 1s, 8-10 level 2s, and 5-7 level 3/4.

From what I have found, there are always 2 or so REALLY tough ones, 3 or 4 pretty tough ones, a handful of ones that I can do in 20 seconds, and most that will take me ~1:00 to complete.

bondja · Post by **bondja** » Thu May 29, 2014 3:09 pm

WaltGrace83 wrote:
I think the general consensus is that there are 8-10 level 1s, 8-10 level 2s, and 5-7 level 3/4.

From what I have found, there are always 2 or so REALLY tough ones, 3 or 4 pretty tough ones, a handful of ones that I can do in 20 seconds, and most that will take me ~1:00 to complete.

Agreed. While I'm reviewing my PT's I always try and see if there was a rhythm in LR regarding difficulty. I've had a test or two (from when I took a year or two ago) that it seemed it went 5 easy, 2 difficult, 2 slightly impossible, and then it rest back to easy.

mornincounselor · Post by **mornincounselor** » Thu May 29, 2014 4:06 pm

Post removed.