PT 7, Sec. 1, Q 19 and 21 Forum

[Trips]

Having the most trouble with 19. The correct answer is C, but I cant figure out why. If the answer is C why can't answer E fit just as well.

For 21, I can understand why the answer is B, but I'm more curious as to why the answer cannot be C.


And on a related note, I've seen sometimes that people make like google study sessions to go over tests. Is there a normal time and place for that? I'd like to get in on it.

Thanks.

[Clearly]

My take on 19
The stimulus explains 2 people under similar circumstances (albeit with different outcomes) and says that Peter was charged, while Alicia was not, the conclusion being that Alicia should have been charged as Peter was. It's important to note the conclusion isn't that they should have been treated equally (ie, Peter shouldn't have been charged), but only that Alicia should be charged as peter was, on the grounds that the circumstances were very similar.

If all of the information is assumed true (as it almost always is) each of the following is true EXCEPT:

(x) A) The interest of the JUSTICE would likely be served as long as the two people under similar circumstances had similar results, in other words, whether Peter gets off the hook, or Alicia is charged, Justice would likely have been served equally

(x) B) Alicia committing her first offense is irrelevant without knowing Peters history if making the argument that they should have both been charged.

( ) C) This perfectly counters the conclusion, it provides circumstances in which Peter's situation is far worse then Alicia's, invalidating the idea that they should be treated the same and both charged.

(x) D) Several things are wrong here. Alicia barely missing someone is not exactly important. On top of it, I'd shy away from it based on the fact that she was pulled over for driving a car that had defective taillights (not necessarily THE car with defective taillights).

(x) E) Could be true, could be false, irrelevant basically



Keep in mind, these old LR sections are pretty absurd by modern standards, you'd be unlikely to see such a fishy question on an upcoming test.

As for 21, C is just outside of the scope of the question. Be wary of any answer choice that introduce all sorts of shit that's not in the stimulus. Who's talking about dials and switches? The stimulus provides two example of human error, granted neither have anything to do with switches, it doesn't say anywhere that ONLY candles and plumbing cause problems, if it did...then indeed dials and switches would do no good. As the stimulus is laid ALL initial causes have been caused by human error. SOME (at least 1) was caused by candles, and SOME (at least 1) was caused by plumbing. There could be 99,998 examples in which people misread dials, 1 in which japanese plumbers suck, and 1 in which someone mysteriously dropped a freaking candle in a power plant...In which case dials and switches could have done a lot of good.


Edit: rushed through question, edited

[Trips]

Thanks, that was my first PT, and you're right, just gotta read everything carefully and be weary of bringing in new information. I can do this!

[Clearly]

While I'd recommend saving most of the more recent tests for closer to your test date, I highly recommend taking a more recent test to get a benchmark. I score consistently in the -1 range on LR sections, but tend to do terrible on older LR sections. Those older LR sections tend to be much wordier then newer sections, and while obviously similar, tend to be "trickier". This doesn't hold true all the time, or for every person I'm sure, but they're def different. You'd almost never see questions quite like either of these.

If you don't have any more recent tests, buy them. June 2007 is free from the LSAC, as well as distributed free just about everywhere, give those LR a shot.

[suspicious android]

I always feel like I need to come in and defend the early tests. There's this idea that the older tests are less rigorously written, As though back in the early 90s LSAC hadn't fully developed the ideas of logic yet.

Number 19 asks for the one statement that cannot be true based on the stimulus. E offers information about the driving records of Peter and Alicia. We know nothing about their driving records, so the statement could easily be true. E is not at all a correct answer, it is completely incorrect.

The style of the questions from older tests is a little bit different, but not really worth worrying about. Older questions are just as valid and carefully written as newer questions, don't let yourself dismiss them when you disagree, that's wasting a chance to learn from your mistake.

[Clearly]

To be clear, I didn't say never take old tests. I said for your very first ever PT, I'd recommend taking a more recent test. You'd like to see what you're getting yourself into when you take your first test, and recent practice tests are undeniably more relevant for this purpose.

[Br3v]

While I'd recommend saving most of the more recent tests for closer to your test date, I highly recommend taking a more recent test to get a benchmark. I score consistently in the -1 range on LR sections, but tend to do terrible on older LR sections. Those older LR sections tend to be much wordier then newer sections, and while obviously similar, tend to be "trickier". This doesn't hold true all the time, or for every person I'm sure, but they're def different. You'd almost never see questions quite like either of these.

If you don't have any more recent tests, buy them. June 2007 is free from the LSAC, as well as distributed free just about everywhere, give those LR a shot.

This, this gives me hope.

[Clearly]

As well it should (maybe)

Also, when I'm saying old tests, I mean maybe 1-24ish.. The difference may not be noticeable to others, I might just have a tendency to do better with the newer tests while others do better with older tests. It's not up to me. Obviously the ideal test taker would master all variations. Some say work from old to new. I personally mix it up entirely, while saving 3 of the most recent tests untouched for closer to the test. I think three recent tests is sufficient to be up to date in the 2 weeks leading up to test day, and I think spreading the remaining tests from 1-50whatever prepares me best and doesn't leave me stale to older sections by the time I get to test day. I will say I score noticeably better on more modern LR sections then I do on older sections, or at least score better more consistently.

Also, as I like to include:
Disclaimer: I'm not an LSAT whiz...Don't take my advice, don't assume we all handle the test the same, and absolutely don't assume I know more about this shit anyone else.