Top Law Schools

I'd like to hone my LR skills by helping anyone who has questions on specific problems. I think I am getting the hang of them and explaining them to someone else also helps me.

Please PM me your questions and I'll get back to you ASAP. Thanks and good luck!

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=113957

bump... I'd still like to help. Just send the PT, Section, Question #, and which answer choice you picked. Since I have all of the PTs, you don't need to type anything out.

PT 27 Section 4 #25 - I ended up choosing A as my answer choice...

Thanks in advance for your help!

LawTwin wrote:PT 27 Section 4 #25 - I ended up choosing A as my answer choice...

Thanks in advance for your help!

Check your PM!

Hi there,

I have few lr questions, can you help me out?

first, pre 27,sec 1, 3-4

the stimul did not talk about "same age" or assume blackbirds are same age, so why d is right?
for question 4, it was about blackbirds, so i am confused about "differernt specisies"....

prep 27,14, i chose C, and completely confused by the wording in B...

prep 20,sec 1,question 14
pprep24, sec2,question 17, i chose D, was it due to the "new info" about minor power introduced?

Thanks a lot!!

This is a great idea! I love this. I have a few that I would like some questions that I would like another perspective on and helping other people will help me.

So what I need: PT 59 Section 2 (1st LR) Question 20: The answer should be D, but I just don't get it. Why is D better than C? Also why are B and E wrong?

PT 55

section 1 (LR)

# 12
# 15

TIA

uchicago wrote:Hi there,

I have few lr questions, can you help me out?

first, pre 27,sec 1, 3-4

the stimul did not talk about "same age" or assume blackbirds are same age, so why d is right?
for question 4, it was about blackbirds, so i am confused about "differernt specisies"....

prep 27,14, i chose C, and completely confused by the wording in B...

prep 20,sec 1,question 14
pprep24, sec2,question 17, i chose D, was it due to the "new info" about minor power introduced?

Thanks a lot!!

PT 27, S1, Q3-4

This stimulus is an argument within an argument. Yasukawa believes that size is a determinant of a blackbird's survival chances and bases his conclusion on a study in which the percentage of smaller birds who survived over the month-long period exceeded the larger birds. The author objects to this conclusion (rightly so because it's based on correlation-causation reasoning) because Yasukawa fails to realize that smaller birds are generally younger than larger ones, meaning that age, not size, accounts for why smaller birds lived longer.

Q3 asks to find an inference (Must Be True). Even though the stimulus doesn't talk specifically about "age", we can infer from how the author objects to Yasukawa that what matters is the birds' AGE and not SIZE that determines their chances of survival. Therefore, in accordance with the author's conclusion, for two birds of the same age, their size may not be a determinant of their chances for survival.

Q4 asks us to critique the author's argument based on a misunderstanding of Yasukawa's argument. The author assumes that Yasukawa's study was based on blackbirds of the same species but of different sizes. However, what if Yasukawa was studying two different types of species -- one large and one small? If this were true, then size and age aren't really related. This question could have been answered using Process of Elimination (POE) as well. None of the other four answer choices pertained to the information in the stimulus, such as chances of survival, size, and age.

PT 27, S1, Q14 - The critic claims that it's not really important that many popular psychological theories are poor theories, since therapeutically they tend to have greater success than their scientific rivals. The question asks what the role of the last statement (about the relative success of popular psych theories) plays in the argument. You can prephrase this answer by thinking about how that statement plays into the overall argument. Here's how the stimulus breaks down:

Premise 1: Many popular psychological theories are poor theories in that they are inelegant and do not help to dispel the mystery that surrounds our psyche.

Conclusion: However, this is not really important.

Premise 2: The theories produce the right results: therapeutically, they tend to have greater success than their more scientific rivals.

Premise 2 functions to support the reasoning behind the Conclusion as well as to suggest that Premise 1's concerns are not as important as their rate of success in evaluating popular psych theories. In other words, according to the author, despite some of the shortcomings of these theories, the more important factor is that they are MORE successful. Answer C is incorrect because it exaggerates the author's argument -- she is not saying that popular psych theories are actually better scientific explanations than their rivals; she is only saying that they have a better rate of therapeutic success.

PT 20, S1, Q14 - Arjun disagrees with Yolanda using a scenario that COULD be true to support a definite conclusion ("Unauthorized use of medical records systems in hospitals could damage data systems on which human lives depend, and therefore computer crimes also cause physical harm to people.") This type of reasoning error is very common on the LSAT. Something that could be true doesn't lead to a definite conclusion. Just as a survey taken to show how people FEEL about a certain situation doesn't reflect on the ACTUAL situation (an example taken from another LSAT question).

PT 24, S2, Q17 - This is a Necessary Assumption question, so we need to find the foundation of the reasoning behind the structure of the Security Council is the way it is after WWII. The stimulus states that an 11-member Security Council was established to maintain world peace, but that only five nations who were THEN the major powers would permanently have sole authority to cast vetoes. The reason for this arrangement is that the burden of maintaining world peace would rest on these five major powers' shoulders, and no single nation should be required to enforce a decision it found repugnant.

The stimulus is worded very abstractly, so I think it would benefit us to put some names to the nations. Let's assume that the five major powers in 1946 were Russia, Great Britain, USA, China, and France, so they're the only ones with permanent veto power. Well, what if Saudi Arabia became a major power in the 1990s? The charter would deny this country veto power, and as a major power, it would not be able to veto a decision it found repugnant, which goes against the charter's reasoning. The charter assumes that the countries that were major powers at the end of WWII would forever be major powers. So, if you logically negated answer choice B, the charter's reasoning (or argument) would fall apart.

Answer D is incorrect because the actions of the minor powers have no effect on the major powers' veto power. Even if minor powers allied themselves with major powers, at the end of the day, major powers still have veto power. This does not need to be true in order for the charter's reasoning to be valid.

How about general problems with picking between the inevitable two tempting answers? What qualities usually lead you to pick one answer over another when both seem like they could be correct? 90% of my wrong answers come up in these situations.

am060459 wrote:PT 55

section 1 (LR)

# 12
# 15

TIA

Q12 - Most readers need to be emotionally engaged with the imaginary world it describes in order for a novel to be the highest quality. Since shifts in narrative point of view in a novel tend to make most readers focus on the author, the author concludes that shifts in narrative point of view in a novel detracts from the merit of the work.

We need to find the Necessary Assumption, so the foundation of the author's argument. For this question, we need to find the missing link between the premise and conclusion. Why does the author think that a reader's focus on the author would detract from quality of the work? She must assume that a focus on the author must take away from the reader's emotional engagement with the novel's imaginary world, which is answer choice C.

Q15 - Zack's Coffeehouse schedules free poetry readings almost every Wednesday. Zack's offers half-priced coffee all day on every day that a poetry reading is scheduled.

In other words, scheduling a free poetry reading is sufficient for Zack's to offer half-priced coffee all day. (Free Poetry Reading --> Half Priced Coffee)

We can infer from this that on almost every Wednesday that a free poetry reading is scheduled, Zach's offers half-priced coffees, which is what answer choice D says.

From the information given, we can't infer answer choice A because we only know that on almost every Wednesday, Zack's offers free poetry readings and half-priced coffee. It could also offer poetry readings on other days. Had the stimulus said "almost every Wednesday and no other day", then we could be sure that Zack's doesn't offer free poetry readings on Thursday, Monday, etc.

Answer B is wrong because, like answer A, we don't know if Zack's offers poetry readings on other days. Maybe he offers poetry readings EVERY Monday and almost every Wednesday.

Answer C is wrong because it is a Mistaken Reversal. Free poetry readings are sufficient for half-priced coffee to happen. Half-priced coffee isn't sufficient for scheduling free poetry readings.

Answer E is wrong because Zack's could find another reason to offer half-priced coffee. A free poetry reading is sufficient for half-priced coffee, but it's not necessary. Remember that the necessary condition can occur by itself without the sufficient condition.

Hey-O wrote:This is a great idea! I love this. I have a few that I would like some questions that I would like another perspective on and helping other people will help me.

So what I need: PT 59 Section 2 (1st LR) Question 20: The answer should be D, but I just don't get it. Why is D better than C? Also why are B and E wrong?

Hey-O, I'm saving PT 59 for Saturday, so I won't be able to get to this question for a while. Sorry!

Cant Let You Do That wrote:How about general problems with picking between the inevitable two tempting answers? What qualities usually lead you to pick one answer over another when both seem like they could be correct? 90% of my wrong answers come up in these situations.

If I have two contender answer choices, I scrutinize the sh*t out of them and cross check with the stimulus. I try to remember the mantra, "If you have to try really hard to prove something is right, then it's probably wrong." So I'll find a reason to dispel one of them and choose the other one. For example, for Principle, Must Be True, or Flaw questions, I try to see if the answer choice is really describing the stimulus and try to match each part of the answer choice with each part of the stimulus. For Assumption questions, I logically negate the two answer choices and see which one destroys the argument.

I find it easier to choose an answer based on POE because after I've had a reason to cross out the wrong answers, I feel more comfortable about choosing the last answer.

jjlaw wrote:

Cant Let You Do That wrote:How about general problems with picking between the inevitable two tempting answers? What qualities usually lead you to pick one answer over another when both seem like they could be correct? 90% of my wrong answers come up in these situations.

If I have two contender answer choices, I scrutinize the sh*t out of them and cross check with the stimulus. I try to remember the mantra, "If you have to try really hard to prove something is right, then it's probably wrong." So I'll find a reason to dispel one of them and choose the other one. For example, for Principle, Must Be True, or Flaw questions, I try to see if the answer choice is really describing the stimulus and try to match each part of the answer choice with each part of the stimulus. For Assumption questions, I logically negate the two answer choices and see which one destroys the argument.

I find it easier to choose an answer based on POE because after I've had a reason to cross out the wrong answers, I feel more comfortable about choosing the last answer.

Thank you, that was really helpful. Especially the mantra since I tend to force answer choices to make sense in fear of eliminating a right answer.

I don't have a specific LR question I need answered, just a question as to what you do in a situation. Sometimes I'll come accross an LR question where I don't understand the stimulus well and therefore need more time to pick the right answer, and no matter what, plugging in all 5 choices doesn't give me a feel that any are right (because I don't know). Usually in this situation my brain starts thinking in a way where in what scenario could this answer choice be right instead of why its wrong, and 99% of the time I get it wrong. What do you suggest? I think the best thing would be to skip it and come back to it with a fresh perspective, but I always worry about time and missbubbling in this situation. Would you just guess and move on? I want a 165 and can't afford to simply guess on the LR that I'm stuck on

confusedlawyer wrote:I don't have a specific LR question I need answered, just a question as to what you do in a situation. Sometimes I'll come accross an LR question where I don't understand the stimulus well and therefore need more time to pick the right answer, and no matter what, plugging in all 5 choices doesn't give me a feel that any are right (because I don't know). Usually in this situation my brain starts thinking in a way where in what scenario could this answer choice be right instead of why its wrong, and 99% of the time I get it wrong. What do you suggest? I think the best thing would be to skip it and come back to it with a fresh perspective, but I always worry about time and missbubbling in this situation. Would you just guess and move on? I want a 165 and can't afford to simply guess on the LR that I'm stuck on

Me too, sometimes, i got confused so easily, and if i decided to read again, i know it is going to run out time...
ps, jjlaw, i just sent you another question:)

uchicago wrote:

confusedlawyer wrote:I don't have a specific LR question I need answered, just a question as to what you do in a situation. Sometimes I'll come accross an LR question where I don't understand the stimulus well and therefore need more time to pick the right answer, and no matter what, plugging in all 5 choices doesn't give me a feel that any are right (because I don't know). Usually in this situation my brain starts thinking in a way where in what scenario could this answer choice be right instead of why its wrong, and 99% of the time I get it wrong. What do you suggest? I think the best thing would be to skip it and come back to it with a fresh perspective, but I always worry about time and missbubbling in this situation. Would you just guess and move on? I want a 165 and can't afford to simply guess on the LR that I'm stuck on

Me too, sometimes, i got confused so easily, and if i decided to read again, i know it is going to run out time...
ps, jjlaw, i just sent you another question:)

I think that even if you don't understand the stimulus, it's really important to just isolate the conclusion and figure out how all the elements play into the general argument (in other words, the method of reasoning). Sometimes you can eliminate 2-3 answer choices just by knowing the scope and method of reasoning in a stimulus. If it's still unclear, I would just circle it and come back to it.

uchicago- I'll try to get to it as soon as possible!