December 2012 Re-takers Forum

[applemaroon]

.

[Lenahan3]

Lets do a late model. 65, 66, 67?

i vote 66. im sick to death of 67, but ill look over it again.

anyone up for some more cambridge RCs?

I haven't reviewed with you guys. What's the norm, everybody take the test then review together?

[Lenahan3]

OK, LETS DO PTs 66/67 SUNDAY OR MONDAY EVENING.

We'll make a decision about what night in 24 hours after enough people have had a chance to have their say as to which night.

I vote Monday.

Why not Saturday morning?

[dowu]

Question for Weaken questions: If there is a some statement in the stimulus, a some statement in the AC wouldn't really weaken the argument and should be eliminated?

Example: Many people go to the mall. Therefore people love to shop.

Weaken it:

A. Some people go to the mall to eat and dont go to shop.

I mean in this example, it's obvious that A is wrong because the argument leaves room for those people; plus don't go to shop =/= doesnt love to shop. What I'm trying to ask is, is a some statement in the answer choice almost always wrong?

Not always wrong. You'd want to attack the assumption in her argument, which is that people go to the mall in order to shop.

uDown, that's not the assumption. Anyway...

If the stimulus is saying that many or even most people like to do something, then by nature an answer choice that only addresses some is not going to sufficiently weaken the argument. But this stem is kind of weak, we dont know what the author means by people when he says "therefore people like to shop". If it is ALLpeople then we have a "part/whole flaw". If its some people then we'll need an answer choice that shows that its possible that ALL people do not like to shop. If it is MOST people then we'd need show that there's a trait missing in most people that would be neccisary for us to conclude that they like shopping.

"Only people with money like to shop, most people are broke."

Look at it like this: pretend you're having an argument with your significant other and he/she says "ALL of your friends are losers", you can break this conclusion by pointing to your one non-loser friend.

Pretend they says most of your friends are losers, well now you might need to do some finagling "if most of my friends were losers then it would be highly probable that I would be a loser too, I'm not a loser so thus it is UNLIKELY that most of my friends are losers". You dont win, you just weaken.

If they said some of your friends were losers then you would need to somehow show that it is unlikely that any of your friends were losers.


[I kind of went astray here but I'm gonna leave it anyway]

What? How is that not an assumption?

[bitsy]

Lets do a late model. 65, 66, 67?

i vote 66. im sick to death of 67, but ill look over it again.

anyone up for some more cambridge RCs?

66 works. What do you mean by cambridge RC? do a whole bunch of passages and then review?

yeah, last week we picked a bunch of passages and then went over every problem we missed. makes drilling more competitive, and it was nice to have others help me understand my mistakes.

I haven't reviewed with you guys. What's the norm, everybody take the test then review together?

we take the test together, like in The Perfect Score
(jk)

[Lenahan3]

Lets do a late model. 65, 66, 67?

i vote 66. im sick to death of 67, but ill look over it again.

anyone up for some more cambridge RCs?

66 works. What do you mean by cambridge RC? do a whole bunch of passages and then review?

yeah, last week we picked a bunch of passages and then went over every problem we missed. makes drilling more competitive, and it was nice to have others help me understand my mistakes.

I haven't reviewed with you guys. What's the norm, everybody take the test then review together?

we take the test together, like in The Perfect Score
(jk)

Cool. I'll do 66 or 67, but I vote 67.
Also, if it's just between Sunday/Monday, I vote Monday.

[boblawlob]

Great insight Worm! Thanks.

I have another weaken question that I'm trying to figure out.
PT 20-S4-Q25

Argument: Not Aware of humming -> Humming INvoluntary -> She is NOT responsible

A = aware
V= voluntary
R = Responsible

C is the Wrong answer. C says Some Involuntary actions are where the person is aware. Denoted as (Some Not V -> A)

But a way to weaken is for the sufficient to occur but NOT the necessary.
So we could weaken the argument by attacking the first 2 parts of the argument:

Not A -> V
the contrapositive of that is Not V -> A. This matches answer choice C, albeit answer choice C is a "some" statement. Shouldn't that be enough though?

[applemaroon]

.

[Lenahan3]

@Lenahan3

We're going to go over both 66 and 67. Its game time.

also, happy 1,000th post!

--ImageRemoved--

Scoreeee haha, thanks! 66 Sunday and 67 Monday or what's the plan??

[dowu]

You'd want to attack the assumption in her argument, which is that people go to the mall in order to shop.

Nope, people go to the mall BECAUSE they love to shop. Never said anything about IN ORDER TO shop. You made one of those lay connections.

^ ^ douche ^ ^

I said that you'd want to attack the assumption (that people go to the mall in order to shop) if you wanted to weaken the argument. If you negated the assumption I stated, it would read: "It is not the case that people go to the mall in order to shop", which would weaken the argument by showing that there are other reasons that people go to the mall to shop and therefore weaken the connection between people going to the mall and people loving to shop. There are various phrasings of the assumption in that simple and flimsy argument, so stop being such an inane simpleton.

Yes, the assumption that "people go to the mall BECAUSE they love to shop" is also another phrasing of the credited assumption that can be attacked. It's pretty similar to what I said.

Go sit on your dad's dick.

[Lenahan3]

66 and 67 review on the same day magn, not hanging out with you fools two nights in a row. What do you think this is, a waiting thread?

Eff. Aight.

[boblawlob]

You'd want to attack the assumption in her argument, which is that people go to the mall in order to shop.

Nope, people go to the mall BECAUSE they love to shop. Never said anything about IN ORDER TO shop. You made one of those lay connections.

^ ^ douche ^ ^

I said that you'd want to attack the assumption (that people go to the mall in order to shop) if you wanted to weaken the argument. If you negated the assumption I stated, it would read: "It is not the case that people go to the mall in order to shop", which would weaken the argument by showing that there are other reasons that people go to the mall to shop and therefore weaken the connection between people going to the mall and people loving to shop. There are various phrasings of the assumption in that simple and flimsy argument, so stop being such an inane simpleton.

Yes, the assumption that "people go to the mall BECAUSE they love to shop" is also another phrasing of the credited assumption that can be attacked. It's pretty similar to what I said.

Go sit on your dad's dick.

I whipped up the stimulus real quick just to try to get my point across in trying to seek help. No need to insult other people on the boards. I obviously did not spend hours trying to make the stimulus as perfect as can be with only 1 flaw like LSAT writers would.

[applemaroon]

.

[dowu]

You'd want to attack the assumption in her argument, which is that people go to the mall in order to shop.

Nope, people go to the mall BECAUSE they love to shop. Never said anything about IN ORDER TO shop. You made one of those lay connections.

^ ^ douche ^ ^

I said that you'd want to attack the assumption (that people go to the mall in order to shop) if you wanted to weaken the argument. If you negated the assumption I stated, it would read: "It is not the case that people go to the mall in order to shop", which would weaken the argument by showing that there are other reasons that people go to the mall to shop and therefore weaken the connection between people going to the mall and people loving to shop. There are various phrasings of the assumption in that simple and flimsy argument, so stop being such an inane simpleton.

Yes, the assumption that "people go to the mall BECAUSE they love to shop" is also another phrasing of the credited assumption that can be attacked. It's pretty similar to what I said.

Go sit on your dad's dick.

I whipped up the stimulus real quick just to try to get my point across in trying to seek help. No need to insult other people on the boards. I obviously did not spend hours trying to make the stimulus as perfect as can be with only 1 flaw like LSAT writers would.

Hey, and that's fair. That was the point I was trying to bring home and the point that worm apparently can't see. He was acting like the assumption he pointed out was the one and only way to say it. The argument was so basic, which opens up the range of assumptions/phrasing of assumptions greater than what worm was preaching.

[dowu]

You'd want to attack the assumption in her argument, which is that people go to the mall in order to shop.

Nope, people go to the mall BECAUSE they love to shop. Never said anything about IN ORDER TO shop. You made one of those lay connections.

^ ^ douche ^ ^

I said that you'd want to attack the assumption (that people go to the mall in order to shop) if you wanted to weaken the argument. If you negated the assumption I stated, it would read: "It is not the case that people go to the mall in order to shop", which would weaken the argument by showing that there are other reasons that people go to the mall to shop and therefore weaken the connection between people going to the mall and people loving to shop. There are various phrasings of an assumption in that simple and flimsy argument, so stop being such an inane simpleton.

Yes, the assumption that "people go to the mall BECAUSE they love to shop" is also a credited assumption that can be attacked. It's pretty similar to what I said.

Go sit on your dad's dick.

I get it now. Go read up on the difference between sufficient assumptions and necessary assumptions and then come back.

I know the difference you fack. Stop acting like you're some LSAT genius when you're really just some washed up mouth-breathing old fogey. Get real you ass clown.

[Lenahan3]

I know the difference you fack. Stop acting like you're some LSAT genius when you're really just some washed up mouth-breathing old fogey. Get real you ass clown.

Can't tell if you're trolling or just a moron...

Edit: And by moron I mean complete douchebag.

[dowu]

I know the difference you fack. Stop acting like you're some LSAT genius when you're really just some washed up mouth-breathing old fogey. Get real you ass clown.

Can't tell if you're trolling or just a moron...

False dichotomy. Look it up.

[Lenahan3]

I know the difference you fack. Stop acting like you're some LSAT genius when you're really just some washed up mouth-breathing old fogey. Get real you ass clown.

Can't tell if you're trolling or just a moron...

False dichotomy. Look it up.

Definitely troll.

[dowu]

I know the difference you fack. Stop acting like you're some LSAT genius when you're really just some washed up mouth-breathing old fogey. Get real you ass clown.

Can't tell if you're trolling or just a moron...

False dichotomy. Look it up.

Definitely troll.

lolno. Stop trying to defend your e-friend. I'm sure he can (most likely not) handle himself.

[PickledPanda]

I have hiccups.

[dowu]

I have hiccups.

You. I like you.

[boblawlob]

From analyzing several tough weaken questions (difficulty 3 from the Cambridge packets), it seems as though answer choices that include "some" are ones that one must be extremely careful about picking. That is, pick it if all the other answer choices are SUPER horrible.

Like I recall this one weaken question from one of the PTs involving stretching and running, and one of the answer choices included a some...and it was wrong because some could include or exclude conditions mentioned in the stimulus...the vagueness and the uncertainty makes it wrong. And also, there was a much better answer. (which weird because usually it's 1 absolutely right answer and 4 wrong ones).

But however you have a question like the one on Indo Euro languages (PT 29-S1-Q16). Stim talks about a culture that doesn't have a word for "sea," so it had to have lived in a non-sea, winter area. The correct answer talks about some languages lacking a word for their environment, but again we don't even know with any certainty...it's vague...but it does weaken. And the other answer choices are absolutely horrendous: A. fish can be in non-sea area too...in small lakes in the Artic C. talks about the present when stim talks about past D. heat is very vague...there could be heat in anywhere E. being nomadic doesn't mean anything with respect to living in a winter or a non-winter area.

Basically, the LSAT is a total bitch. I just hope it's my bitch.

[PickledPanda]

I have hiccups.

You. I like you.

You make Panda blush.

[Lenahan3]

lolno. Stop trying to defend your e-friend. I'm sure he can (most likely not) handle himself.

Lulz. Total troll.

[Cobretti]

nmop has proven himself to be a lazy douche with every post he's put in this thread. just ignore him.

@ group study peeps:

I can do Sunday but I can't do Monday (Class from 4-10pm PST)

And here are my arbitrarily chosen cambridge RC passages that we can go over:

Social Sciences:
Pg 6: pt24s1p2
Pg 8: pt6s1p2
Pg 38: pt12s3p2
Pg 40: pt17s4p3
Pg 66: pt8s3p4
Pg 68: pt32s2p2

Law:
Pg 12: pt36s2p4
Pg 14: pt7s3p4
Pg 46: pt24s1p3
Pg 48: pt4s2p1
Pg 68: pt30s3p3
Pg 70: pt35s2p4