The Official June 2015 Study Group Forum

Big Red · Post by **Big Red** » Tue May 05, 2015 11:30 am

Anyone know of a 4 week study plan?

biggestlawman · Post by **biggestlawman** » Tue May 05, 2015 11:33 am

Big Red wrote:Anyone know of a 4 week study plan?

santoki · Post by **santoki** » Tue May 05, 2015 11:42 am

Post removed.

Rigo · Post by **Rigo** » Tue May 05, 2015 11:43 am

santoki wrote:nothings changed, i see

Big Red · Post by **Big Red** » Tue May 05, 2015 12:01 pm

biggestlawman wrote:
Big Red wrote:Anyone know of a 4 week study plan?

Guys I'm being serious

santoki · Post by **santoki** » Tue May 05, 2015 12:01 pm

Post removed.

Rigo · Post by **Rigo** » Tue May 05, 2015 12:07 pm

santoki wrote:
Rigo wrote:
santoki wrote:nothings changed, i see

BLM being BLM

This thread's storpappa.

appind · Post by **appind** » Tue May 05, 2015 12:25 pm

i think i see your reasoning; had q3.B said "most of the unskilled workers acme hires are in non entry level positions," then the 3.B will have similar structure as 8.A, and then this modified 3.B wouldn't have weakened at all. for completeness, the actual q3 looks like this.
q3:
assumption: Garon is B (B=unskilled, A=workers)
choice B: some A are not B
valid weakner inference: Garon is likely not B

noticed that 8.A may be wrong even without this. the argument doesn't say that boulder is moved >100 miles only by glacier, it only says that it's >100 miles from its birthplace. so it's actually not a premise at all in the stim that glacier has to move the boulder more than 100 miles.
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... r#p2509207

Christine (MLSAT) wrote:Okay, I think I see where you are getting turned around.

First, you're 100% right that Q8.(A) would not weaken the modified conclusion either. There's no valid inference I can shake out from (A) that would weaken either a probabilistic or a definitive conclusion that the boulder (probably) is glacier-moved.

You're also 100% correct that on Q3 it would be invalid to conclude that Garon is LIKELY skilled. Fortunately, though, we don't need to go that far to find an inference that would weaken the argument.

It is totally valid to conclude from Q3.(B) that some entry-level positions are staffed by skilled workers. That very small valid inference is enough to damage the assumption that Garon absolutely must have been unskilled.

If I assumed that all cats were orange, even one instance of a non-orange cat would be enough to weaken my argument.

Premise: Fluffy is a cat.
Conclusion: Therefore, Fluffy is orange.
Assumption: All cats are orange.
Valid weakener: There are some cats in the world that aren't orange.

(As a side note, I don't trust the word 'regularly' to mean 'most'. It surely means at least 'some', but I wouldn't place bets past that.)

RZ5646 · Post by **RZ5646** » Tue May 05, 2015 12:40 pm

Big Red wrote:
biggestlawman wrote:
Big Red wrote:Anyone know of a 4 week study plan?

Guys I'm being serious

But we are serious. Physical fitness is an important part of LSAT prep.

And study plans are dumb. Getting a top score is such an individual thing that following someone else's study plan isn't all that useful. Figure out what you personally need to do and do it.

Rigo · Post by **Rigo** » Tue May 05, 2015 12:41 pm

Have you not been prepping big red?

Big Red · Post by **Big Red** » Tue May 05, 2015 12:43 pm

Rigo wrote:Have you not been prepping big red?

Nope, but I just signed up. I'm just going to see what a nice 4 week sprint can get me. Should be interesting, but I can honestly say that I feel absolutely no pressure but still pretty driven

RZ5646 · Post by **RZ5646** » Tue May 05, 2015 12:48 pm

Can we officially change our test date to October yet?

Rigo · Post by **Rigo** » Tue May 05, 2015 1:00 pm

Big Red wrote:
Rigo wrote:Have you not been prepping big red?
Nope, but I just signed up. I'm just going to see what a nice 4 week sprint can get me. Should be interesting, but I can honestly say that I feel absolutely no pressure but still pretty driven

Just figure it out. Nobody else has a 4 week study plan for you.

Rigo · Post by **Rigo** » Tue May 05, 2015 1:01 pm

RZ5646 wrote:Can we officially change our test date to October yet?

LSAC says late May.

Big Red · Post by **Big Red** » Tue May 05, 2015 1:04 pm

Rigo wrote:
Big Red wrote:
Rigo wrote:Have you not been prepping big red?
Nope, but I just signed up. I'm just going to see what a nice 4 week sprint can get me. Should be interesting, but I can honestly say that I feel absolutely no pressure but still pretty driven
Just figure it out. Nobody else has a 4 week study plan for you.

I was obviously joking about the study plan, not my first rodeo. I'm going to be pting like zac the next two weeks though

RZ5646 · Post by **RZ5646** » Tue May 05, 2015 1:07 pm

Whatever happened to Zac? This thread has lost a lot of people.

Christine (MLSAT) · Post by **Christine (MLSAT)** » Tue May 05, 2015 1:10 pm

appind wrote:i think i see your reasoning; had q3.B said "most of the unskilled workers acme hires are in non entry level positions," then the 3.B will have similar structure as 8.A, and then this modified 3.B wouldn't have weakened at all. for completeness, the actual q3 looks like this.
q3:
assumption: Garon is B (B=unskilled, A=workers)
choice B: some A are not B
valid weakner inference: Garon is likely not B

Yes!! That's it exactly! A most statement that gives me info on the pool of unskilled workers would be irrelevant. A most statement that gives me info on the pool of entry-level workers would be relevant (and that's what choice (B) does).

In exactly the same way, on q8(A), a most statement that gives me info on the pool of glacier-moved boulders is irrelevant (and that's what choice (A) does). A most statement that gave me info on the pool of >100-miles boulders would be more useful.

For both of these, it works this way because we know that Garon was an entry-level worker, and we know the boulder is >100-miles - relevant data is about the pool that we know they ARE in.

This is the thing that I'd really take away from this question - how the LSAT plays on our expectations with 'most' statements. If q8.(A) had said "Most boulders that have been moved >100-miles from their birthplace have not been moved by glaciers." I would absolutely choose that as a weakener, without hesitation.

They love to take 'most' and 'some' statements that would work, then twist them into something that doesn't work by inverting and/or negating them. If you can recognize quickly that the elements of the statement are in the wrong place to be useful, then you can save yourself a lot of parsing of the language. I'm far more likely to be able to catch the backwards-ness of the most statement quickly than I am the more subtle language issue you've picked up on below, and on a Q8, I'm aiming to be moving pretty fast.

appind wrote: noticed that 8.A may be wrong even without this. the argument doesn't say that boulder is moved >100 miles only by glacier, it only says that it's >100 miles from its birthplace. so it's actually not a premise at all in the stim that glacier has to move the boulder more than 100 miles.
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... r#p2509207

Great observation! You're right that the argument doesn't actually conclude that it was moved the entire 100+ miles by a glacier, just that it was "probably deposited here....by a glacier". The does leave open the possibility that aliens moved it the vast majority of the distance, and then a glacier moved it the last little bit. We need a glacier to move it for the conclusion to make sense, but not necessary the whole 100 miles.

nlee10 · Post by **nlee10** » Tue May 05, 2015 1:24 pm

RZ5646 wrote:Whatever happened to Zac? This thread has lost a lot of people.

I'm a bit more focused when it comes to studying this time around. This means less distractions on the forums.

biggestlawman · Post by **biggestlawman** » Tue May 05, 2015 1:37 pm

Rigo wrote:
santoki wrote:
Rigo wrote:
santoki wrote:nothings changed, i see

BLM being BLM
This thread's storpappa.

Who the hell is that? Rigo, I thought you would show me some respect!

PoopNpants · Post by **PoopNpants** » Tue May 05, 2015 4:07 pm

So I thought I was getting nice at games, and then I came across this bullshit game 4 at the end of PT 38 that was super weird but I felt good when my boy JY said that shit was weird as fuck too, but the weird games could be the ones in June so now I'm super nervous fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck

Shakawkaw · Post by **Shakawkaw** » Tue May 05, 2015 4:11 pm

biggestlawman wrote:The vacation is in France, Greece and Turkey!

Take me with you? Tyia.

I can fit in a carry on. Rigo can confirm.

biggestlawman · Post by **biggestlawman** » Tue May 05, 2015 4:27 pm

Shakawkaw wrote:
biggestlawman wrote:The vacation is in France, Greece and Turkey!
Take me with you? Tyia.

I can fit in a carry on. Rigo can confirm.

Haha!

Its very cold in the baggage part of the plane. No to human trafficking!

biggestlawman · Post by **biggestlawman** » Tue May 05, 2015 4:29 pm

PoopNpants wrote:So I thought I was getting nice at games, and then I came across this bullshit game 4 at the end of PT 38 that was super weird but I felt good when my boy JY said that shit was weird as fuck too, but the weird games could be the ones in June so now I'm super nervous fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck

Let it not be PoopNpants in the LSAT!

biggestlawman · Post by **biggestlawman** » Tue May 05, 2015 4:47 pm

RZ5646 wrote:
Big Red wrote:
biggestlawman wrote:
Big Red wrote:Anyone know of a 4 week study plan?

Guys I'm being serious
But we are serious. Physical fitness is an important part of LSAT prep.

And study plans are dumb. Getting a top score is such an individual thing that following someone else's study plan isn't all that useful. Figure out what you personally need to do and do it.

Agreed!

RZ5646 · Post by **RZ5646** » Tue May 05, 2015 5:01 pm

biggestlawman wrote:

Aside: that weight loss chick should have made a stage name. "Jessica Smith" is extremely generic and hopeless for SEO.