real The Official December 2016 Waiters Group - Patience is a Virtue Forum

[nimbus cloud]

.

[Deardevil]

I have a very specific question about the implications of causation, especially relevant in necessary assumption questions. I know, for example, that when the original conclusion states that A causes C, then knowing that B causes C gives an alternative explanation to why C occurs and thus weakens the relationship between A and C.

But is B not causing C a necessary assumption? In other words, do we have to assume that B does not cause C to conclude that A causes C. Basically, can multiple things cause something at the same time? Or would that be called something other than 'causing'? (e.g. "contributes to"). Semantics are very important on this test...

If the stimulus states that A is the only causal factor for C, then yes, B not causing C MUST be necessary.
Negate that; if B is ANOTHER factor causing C, then how can A be the ONLY factor?

However, if, let's say, studying causes high grades (A causes C). Genius-level intellect also can cause high grades (B causes C).
B not causing C, in this case, is not necessary. Why would it be? If negated, it only says B is another cause, but in the original,
it leaves open the possibility of multiple causes. A necessary assumption in this situation would be something along the lines of...

Children are capable of obtaining high grades.
If they are not able to get high grades, there is no way to conclude that studying, let alone anything else, can cause someone to get high grades.

[nimbus cloud]

.

[Deardevil]

If the stimulus states that A is the only causal factor for C, then yes, B not causing C MUST be necessary.
Negate that; if B is ANOTHER factor causing C, then how can A be the ONLY factor?

However, if, let's say, studying causes high grades (A causes C). Genius-level intellect also can cause high grades (B causes C).
B not causing C, in this case, is not necessary. Why would it be? If negated, it only says B is another cause, but in the original,
it leaves open the possibility of multiple causes. A necessary assumption in this situation would be something along the lines of...

Children are capable of obtaining high grades.
If they are not able to get high grades, there is no way to conclude that studying, let alone anything else, can cause someone to get high grades.

That's what I thought too. But this is what Powerscore Reasoning Bible states:

"“When an LSAT speaker concludes that one occurrence caused another, that speaker also assumes that the stated cause is the only possible cause of the effect and that consequently the stated cause will always produce the effect.”

I took a look at the book.
I guess it makes sense to see all stimuli as flawed arguments, which is why one cause is the only cause because that's what the author thinks.
Alas, I still think of this as a no-factor when it comes to necessary assumptions; for NA questions, you just need to locate the one AC that MBT.

If "A causes C" is given, "B not causing C" is almost guaranteed to not be an available option since NA choices do not particularly jump out at us.

[Deardevil]

New best in RC: -2. Time to pop some bottles.

[Barack O'Drama]

New best in RC: -2. Time to pop some bottles.

I'd hit the freakin club if I could get a -2 on RC, lmao.

Congrats! Nice job

[SunDevil14]

New best in RC: -2. Time to pop some bottles.

I'd hit the freakin club if I could get a -2 on RC, lmao.

Congrats! Nice job

Congrats. Keep it up

[Deardevil]

New best in RC: -2. Time to pop some bottles.

I'd hit the freakin club if I could get a -2 on RC, lmao.

Congrats! Nice job

Oh, but you can! RC is SO similar to LG.

The key is to read at a "good-enough" pace, just as you would game rules.
Questions are hit-or-miss; either they're legitimately hard or inferrable, just as with games.
Lastly, never dwell on any one problem, but that goes for the whole test, really.
But if you get a grasp of the passage, you should be fine and probably do not need to skip, saving time in the end for bubbling/checking.

PS. Too lazy to get dressed... Gonna finish up Luke Cage.

[Barack O'Drama]

New best in RC: -2. Time to pop some bottles.

I'd hit the freakin club if I could get a -2 on RC, lmao.

Congrats! Nice job

Oh, but you can! RC is SO similar to LG.

The key is to read at a "good-enough" pace, just as you would game rules.
Questions are hit-or-miss; either they're legitimately hard or inferrable, just as with games.
Lastly, never dwell on any one problem, but that goes for the whole test, really.
But if you get a grasp of the passage, you should be fine and probably do not need to skip, saving time in the end for bubbling/checking.

PS. Too lazy to get dressed... Gonna finish up Luke Cage.

Haha! Thanks for the encouragement. I haven't really prepped for RC yet. I'm going to start within the next weeks. I'm hoping haveing some strategy will help at least a bit. But everything you said makes sense.

How long/how many passages did it take you to get to -3/-4 ?

[Deardevil]

Haha! Thanks for the encouragement. I haven't really prepped for RC yet. I'm going to start within the next weeks. I'm hoping haveing some strategy will help at least a bit. But everything you said makes sense.

How long/how many passages did it take you to get to -3/-4 ?

I probably read about 100 passages in total, including stuff from The Economist and The New Yorker.
My initial method is sort of a brute force approach, which did no wonders, but once I got into the right frame of mind...
I wanna say it's taken around 30 passages to break from -10. Still a lot of work to do, as I haven't done any comparable reading yet.

[Barack O'Drama]

Haha! Thanks for the encouragement. I haven't really prepped for RC yet. I'm going to start within the next weeks. I'm hoping haveing some strategy will help at least a bit. But everything you said makes sense.

How long/how many passages did it take you to get to -3/-4 ?

I probably read about 100 passages in total, including stuff from The Economist and The New Yorker.
My initial method is sort of a brute force approach, which did no wonders, but once I got into the right frame of mind...
I wanna say it's taken around 30 passages to break from -10. Still a lot of work to do, as I haven't done any comparable reading yet.

Awesome! I'm going to make sure I do plenty. Probably just going to start by doing every RC section from PTs 1-35 and hoping with those and plenty of re-dos I'll get closer to my ultimate goal of like a consistent -3.

[SunDevil14]

PT 72: 165 Bit bummed following a 172 performance

RC: -6
LR: -5
LR: -6
LG: -3 (Game four, WTF?!)

[Deardevil]

-2 again! Finished three in a row in less than 30 minutes, too. Never thought I'd see the day... :')

[nimbus cloud]

.

[SunDevil14]

PT 72: 165 Bit bummed following a 172 performance

RC: -6
LR: -5
LR: -6
LG: -3 (Game four, WTF?!)

Game four was impossible, nothing you can do about it. Should drill LR's though, the two sections that are fairly predictable.

Agreed, I think it was more of an off day and mental fatigue. Spent 2.5 hours in the morning studying, and then proceeded to do the test that night.

[Rupert Pupkin]

PT 72: 165 Bit bummed following a 172 performance

RC: -6
LR: -5
LR: -6
LG: -3 (Game four, WTF?!)

Game four was impossible, nothing you can do about it. Should drill LR's though, the two sections that are fairly predictable.

Agreed, I think it was more of an off day and mental fatigue. Spent 2.5 hours in the morning studying, and then proceeded to do the test that night.

Yeah PT72 was one of the toughest in the 70s i believe

[mintme]

I'm registering now...can I upload a different photo at a later date?

[Deardevil]

-2 in 26 minutes. Always with the silly errors.

I'm registering now...can I upload a different photo at a later date?

Of course.

[SunDevil14]

Another 170+ performance That makes 2 out of 3 of my last PT's 172, 165, 170

Prep Test C from Super Prep (Not sure exactly what PT number)

170

LG: -3 (4th Game another unusual/tough game. Dynamic Motor Company)
LR I: -2
LR II: -7
RC: -2

I am starting to think that my LR performance is largely dependent on choosing between 2 answers on a handful of questions (The correct and most attractive incorrect answer). On sections where I do the former more often than the latter I tend to get -2 or less. On sections where I do the latter more often than the former I tend to get -5 to -7. Overall -3 to -4 seems to be my average.

[SunDevil14]

PT 72: 165 Bit bummed following a 172 performance

RC: -6
LR: -5
LR: -6
LG: -3 (Game four, WTF?!)

Game four was impossible, nothing you can do about it. Should drill LR's though, the two sections that are fairly predictable.

Agreed, I think it was more of an off day and mental fatigue. Spent 2.5 hours in the morning studying, and then proceeded to do the test that night.

Yeah PT72 was one of the toughest in the 70s i believe

It sure seemed that way, though I took the test outside my usual routine and little mentally fatigued. It still might have been tough cracking 170 regardless.

[34iplaw]

PT 72: 165 Bit bummed following a 172 performance

RC: -6
LR: -5
LR: -6
LG: -3 (Game four, WTF?!)

Game four was impossible, nothing you can do about it. Should drill LR's though, the two sections that are fairly predictable.

Agreed, I think it was more of an off day and mental fatigue. Spent 2.5 hours in the morning studying, and then proceeded to do the test that night.

Yeah PT72 was one of the toughest in the 70s i believe

It sure seemed that way, though I took the test outside my usual routine and little mentally fatigued. It still might have been tough cracking 170 regardless.

Is that the handoff one?

[Deardevil]

Another 170+ performance That makes 2 out of 3 of my last PT's 172, 165, 170

Prep Test C from Super Prep (Not sure exactly what PT number)

170

LG: -3 (4th Game another unusual/tough game. Dynamic Motor Company)
LR I: -2
LR II: -7
RC: -2

I am starting to think that my LR performance is largely dependent on choosing between 2 answers on a handful of questions (The correct and most attractive incorrect answer). On sections where I do the former more often than the latter I tend to get -2 or less. On sections where I do the latter more often than the former I tend to get -5 to -7. Overall -3 to -4 seems to be my average.

Solid score! I hate that game. And at least another one from PT A, B, or C.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Another 170+ performance That makes 2 out of 3 of my last PT's 172, 165, 170

Prep Test C from Super Prep (Not sure exactly what PT number)

170

LG: -3 (4th Game another unusual/tough game. Dynamic Motor Company)
LR I: -2
LR II: -7
RC: -2

I am starting to think that my LR performance is largely dependent on choosing between 2 answers on a handful of questions (The correct and most attractive incorrect answer). On sections where I do the former more often than the latter I tend to get -2 or less. On sections where I do the latter more often than the former I tend to get -5 to -7. Overall -3 to -4 seems to be my average.

Solid score! I hate that game. And at least another one from PT A, B, or C.

Awesome work mate! Keep it up

[GurleyGurleyGone]

I hate logic games. I hate logic games. I hate logic games. I hate logic games. I hate logic games.

[trontastic]

I hate logic games. I hate logic games. I hate logic games. I hate logic games. I hate logic games.

+1 to all of this.