When people say going over PT's thoroughly... Forum

[Patriot1208]

What exactly do they mean? And what is the best way to go about it? It seems like a lot of time and not necessarily helpful to re read every question I did. Just looking for the best advice I can get. TYIA

[dominkay]

It means usually going over the questions you got wrong, and understanding why you got them wrong, and why the right answer is right. I think it's also helpful to go over the questions you struggled with but ended up getting right (I would generally circle those during the test).

[deadhipsters]

What exactly do they mean? And what is the best way to go about it? It seems like a lot of time and not necessarily helpful to re read every question I did. Just looking for the best advice I can get. TYIA

I just try to figure why each wrong answer was wrong and why the correct answer was right. It sounds intuitive or basic, but it is surprising that so many people don’t do this the first time around, myself included. Some people recommend writing out the specifics of why each answer was correct for each missed problem. I didn’t do this on my second LSAT and received a 165. Might give it a try for October's test.

[Patriot1208]

Ok cool, I've only taken one PT since my initial diagnostic, got a 163. But I missed ten specifically because of running out of time. The rest when I went over them I could almost always tell why I missed them (like misreading or not understanding correctly the double negative in an answer.)

[Knock]

What exactly do they mean? And what is the best way to go about it? It seems like a lot of time and not necessarily helpful to re read every question I did. Just looking for the best advice I can get. TYIA

PT #25 Review

Section 1: -0 RC

Section 2: -2 LR

#10: Correct answer was E, I chose D. I circled this question as uncertain when I answered it.

Stimulus: Insects can see ultraviolet light and are known to identify important food sources and mating sites by sensing the characteristic patterns of ultraviolet light that these things reflect. Insects are also attracted to Glomosus spiderwebs, which reflect ultraviolet light. Thus, insects are probably attracted to these webs because of the specific patterns of ultraviolet light that these webs reflect.

Question Stem: Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument?

Incorrect answer:
D: When Drosophila fruit flies were placed before a Glomosus web and a synthetic web of similar pattern that also reflected ultraviolet light and both webs were illuminated with white light containing an ultraviolet component, many of the fruit flies flew to the Glomosus web. This answer is incorrect because, if true, this answer choice tells us that the fruit flies are attracted to the Glomosus web for reasons other than the ultraviolet light. Because both webs reflect ultraviolet light, that variable is held constant, and thus can not be responsible for why the fruit flies are attracted to the Glomosus web.

Correct answer:
E: When Drosophila fruit flies were placed before two Glomosus webs, one illuminated with white light containing an ultraviolet component and one illuminated with a white light without an ultraviolet component, the majority flew to the ultraviolet reflecting web. This is the correct answer because the argument concludes that the insects are probably attracted to these webs because of the ultraviolet light that these webs reflect. Since the webs were the same type, and only the variable of whether ultraviolet light was reflecting off the web, we know that that the ultraviolet light was the reason for why the fruit flies chose one web over another.

#25: Correct answer was D, I chose C.

Stimulus: Jack's aunt gave him her will, asking him to make it public when she died; he promised to do so. After her death, Jack looked at the will; it stipulated that all her money go to her friend George. Jack knew that if he made the will public, George would squander the money, benefiting neither George nor anyone else. Jack also knew that if he did not make the will public, the money would go to his own mother, who would use it to benefit herself and others, harming no one. After reflection, he decided not to make the will public.

Question stem: Which one of the following principles, if valid, would require Jack to act as he did in the situation described?

Incorrect answer:
C: One must choose an alternative that benefits some and harms no one over an alternative that harms some and benefits no one. This answer choice is incorrect because if Jack made the will public, there is no indication that it will harm some, it would just simply not benefit anyone else.

Correct answer:
D: When faced with alternatives it is obligatory to choose whichever one will benefit the greatest number of people. This answer choice is correct, because this principle, if valid, would require Jack to act as he did in this situation.

Section 3: -9 LG

Missed a key inference on game two, causing me to go 0/7, which was the numerical distribution. It either had to be 1-1-2-2 or 1-1-3-1.

#6: Correct answer is C. Because of numerical distribution, K and M can't both speak Russian.

#7: Correct answer was A. Numerical distribution again.

#8: Correct answer was B. Numerical distribution again.

#9: Correct answer was E. This answer comes as a byproduct of knowing about the numerical distribution.

#10: Correct answer was B. ND.

#11: Correct answer was E. Answer comes from the rule that is Klaus is assigned to Xerxes, then Michael speaks French.

#12: Correct answer was E, comes from the above rule.

Section 4: -2 LR

#11: Correct answer was D, I chose E. I also circled this one as uncertain during the test.

Stimulus: Taken together, some 2,000 stocks recommended on a popular television show over the course of the past 12 years by the show's guests, most of whom are successful consultants for multibillion-dollar stock portfolios, performed less successfully than the market as a whole for this 12-year period. So clearly, no one should ever follow any recommendations by these so-called experts.

Question stem: Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument EXCEPT:

Incorrect Answer:
E: The stock portfolios for which the guests were consultants performed better for the past 12-year period than the market as a whole. This answer is incorrect because this does indeed weaken the argument that no one should ever follow any recommendations by these so-called experts, by demonstrating that they are capable of choosing stocks that can perform better than the market as a whole. The correct answer needs to be neutral or strengthen the idea that no one should ever follow any recommendations by these so-called experts.

Correct Answer:
D: Performance of the stocks recommended on a television show was measured independently by a number of analysts, and the results of all the measurements concurred. This answer is correct because it is neutral to the argument that no one should follow any recommendations by these so-called experts.

#23: Correct answer was B, I chose D. I also circled this question as uncertain.

Stimulus: Only computer scientists understand the architecture of personal computers, and only those who understand the architecture of personal computers appreciate the advances in technology made in the last decade. It follows that only those who appreciate these advances are computer scientists.

Question stem: Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning of the argument?

Premise 1: Only computer scientists understand the architecture of personal computers
(UAPC → CS)
Premise 2: Only those who understand the architecture of personal computers appreciate the advances in technology made in the last decade.
(AAT → UAPC → CS) Here is the flaw, just because they understand the architecture of personal computers (UAPC), and therefore are computer scientists (CS) doesn't mean they appreciate the advances in technology made in the last decade (AAT).

Conclusion: It follows that those who appreciate these advances are computer scientists.
(AAT → CS) FLAWED

Incorrect answer:
D: The premises of the argument are stated in such a way that they exclude the possibility of drawing any logical conclusion. This answer is incorrect, because you it is possible to draw at least 1 logical conclusion from the premises, such as SOME people who AAT are CS.

Correct answer:
B: The argument ignores the fact that some computer scientists may not appreciate the advances in technology made in the last decade. For reasons stated above.

[CryingMonkey]

I'd pretty much just recommend checking out Knock's incredibly extensive preparation thread for a "how-to" of preparing for the LSAT.

[Knock]

I'd pretty much just recommend checking out Knock's incredibly extensive preparation thread for a "how-to" of preparing for the LSAT.

Just ignore any advice from me about game day performance .

[D. H2Oman]

Random tip for LR/RC: When reviewing, break down the questions by type and put the data into an excel spreadsheet or something like that. You'll probably notice that you are weaker on specific question types. You can focus your studying a little better.

[Audio Technica Guy]

you need to do more than just "why right/why wrong"

For every question you get wrong, you need to be able to answer 4 questions:

1) What about the wrong answer I chose did I miss that made it wrong?
2) What about the wrong answer I chose made me like that answer?
3) What about the right answer did I miss that made it right?
4) What about the right answer did I think was wrong?

For every question you get right, you should also be able to answer two (or five, depending how you count) questions:
1) What was the reason I could eliminate each of the wrong answers
2) What made the right answer right?

The more you can write simple, concrete answers to these questions, the more quickly you will be able to nail your process of elimination on a real test. Don't allow yourself to write "just seemed wrong" or even "obviously irrelevant". You have to be able to say why that is the case.

Doing this more thorough method for 15 tests is better than just writing "right/wrong" on 30 tests.

[DGLitcH]

you need to do more than just "why right/why wrong"

For every question you get wrong, you need to be able to answer 4 questions:

1) What about the wrong answer I chose did I miss that made it wrong?
2) What about the wrong answer I chose made me like that answer?
3) What about the right answer did I miss that made it right?
4) What about the right answer did I think was wrong?

For every question you get right, you should also be able to answer two (or five, depending how you count) questions:
1) What was the reason I could eliminate each of the wrong answers
2) What made the right answer right?

The more you can write simple, concrete answers to these questions, the more quickly you will be able to nail your process of elimination on a real test. Don't allow yourself to write "just seemed wrong" or even "obviously irrelevant". You have to be able to say why that is the case.

Doing this more thorough method for 15 tests is better than just writing "right/wrong" on 30 tests.

Is this approach effective with RC in general? And a wrong answer in RC could involve reading something wrong or missing something in the passage. Would this approach be useful in those cases?

[Hedwig]

you need to do more than just "why right/why wrong"

For every question you get wrong, you need to be able to answer 4 questions:

1) What about the wrong answer I chose did I miss that made it wrong?
2) What about the wrong answer I chose made me like that answer?
3) What about the right answer did I miss that made it right?
4) What about the right answer did I think was wrong?

For every question you get right, you should also be able to answer two (or five, depending how you count) questions:
1) What was the reason I could eliminate each of the wrong answers
2) What made the right answer right?

The more you can write simple, concrete answers to these questions, the more quickly you will be able to nail your process of elimination on a real test. Don't allow yourself to write "just seemed wrong" or even "obviously irrelevant". You have to be able to say why that is the case.

Doing this more thorough method for 15 tests is better than just writing "right/wrong" on 30 tests.

Is this approach effective with RC in general? And a wrong answer in RC could involve reading something wrong or missing something in the passage. Would this approach be useful in those cases?

I think it's always useful to figure out exactly where you went wrong. If you take careful note of why you missed the question (like you said, you read something wrong, or missed something in the passage), you can begin to trace patterns if there are any. Without notes on what you've done wrong/right and why you mess up/get the question correct, it's hard to see what your weaknesses are, as well as your strengths. Plus every time you make a stupid mistake - for example, I was killed by a logic game when I couldn't figure out Wednesday/Friday weren't consecutive, lol - and you go over this stupid mistake, you will be on the lookout for those kinds of mistakes later on and won't make them again.

[ArchRoark]

in my experience reviewing every question is actually helpful... its not like you have to spend an exorbitant amount of time on each question... although it is especially helpful to review those you got wrong (of course) and those that you narrowed down to a few contenders and guessed/wavered between two different answers.

I would just go through the test... look at the losers... think of why i marked it as a loser... look at the contenders... find out why each contender was wrong (too strong/weak language etc)... look at my correct answers and understand why it is the correct answer.

i would only do this on LR/RC and at first i just reviewed the answers i got wrong.

audio technica hit it on the head... do what he said : )

[Audio Technica Guy]

you need to do more than just "why right/why wrong"

For every question you get wrong, you need to be able to answer 4 questions:

1) What about the wrong answer I chose did I miss that made it wrong?
2) What about the wrong answer I chose made me like that answer?
3) What about the right answer did I miss that made it right?
4) What about the right answer did I think was wrong?

For every question you get right, you should also be able to answer two (or five, depending how you count) questions:
1) What was the reason I could eliminate each of the wrong answers
2) What made the right answer right?

The more you can write simple, concrete answers to these questions, the more quickly you will be able to nail your process of elimination on a real test. Don't allow yourself to write "just seemed wrong" or even "obviously irrelevant". You have to be able to say why that is the case.

Doing this more thorough method for 15 tests is better than just writing "right/wrong" on 30 tests.

Is this approach effective with RC in general? And a wrong answer in RC could involve reading something wrong or missing something in the passage. Would this approach be useful in those cases?

It works for both, though the answers are more variable in RC, because it includes stuff like "misinterpreted the passage" Which I guess also happens in arguments, it's just less frequent.

[lamentable]

How does everyone review their wrong answers on RC? I'm not sure I have got a solid idea of what that looks like...

[cshanson]

I would highlight any answer that you got right but even remotely had to guess on. In those cases, you could have been stumped but lucked out, something you won't be able to rely on in the test.

[youknowryan]

you need to do more than just "why right/why wrong"

For every question you get wrong, you need to be able to answer 4 questions:

1) What about the wrong answer I chose did I miss that made it wrong?
2) What about the wrong answer I chose made me like that answer?
3) What about the right answer did I miss that made it right?
4) What about the right answer did I think was wrong?

For every question you get right, you should also be able to answer two (or five, depending how you count) questions:
1) What was the reason I could eliminate each of the wrong answers
2) What made the right answer right?

The more you can write simple, concrete answers to these questions, the more quickly you will be able to nail your process of elimination on a real test. Don't allow yourself to write "just seemed wrong" or even "obviously irrelevant". You have to be able to say why that is the case.

Doing this more thorough method for 15 tests is better than just writing "right/wrong" on 30 tests.

+1

Heck, I would say that doing full break downs like that of 5 tests is better than just running through 30 tests.