JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread Forum

[griffin.811]

@GL Im having the same issue. If I get RC down I should be consistently in the high 160's low 170's. Im going anywhere from -6 to -13 per section.

Right now I'm trying to get the MLSAT RC strategy down (similar to voyager's). I think the reason strategies like these work for others is because they establish a repeatable set of actions, which in turn allows you to perfect the skill, and identify weaknesses.

If you attack the passages without a particular strategy you may find it difficult to identify where your issues are.

That said, RC def seems to be more of an art than a science so I'd say do what feels most comfortable. The most important thing is to keep drilling.

Try 12 min per passage, once you get good, drop of 30 seconds until you get down to 8-8:45 per.

[objection_your_honor]

Economist: Comet headed towards Mars. One of the LSAT's favorite topics, along with Native Americans and dinosaurs.

[Guerrilla Logic]

griffin, Does MLSAT strategy have you mark while you read too or do you wait until the end of the paragraph?

I guess I just don't want to waste time trying all these different strategies if people with similar styles are getting success in a particular way and I could just copy their process. I'd like to have my strategy determined by the end of March.

I did 2 passages today both under 8min, -2 and -0. The ones I got wrong were actually not due to comprehension in the passage. I misread a question and the other I eliminated the correct answer too quickly. I felt pretty good on retaining the info. Let me know how it goes for you.

[griffin.811]

That was a great article! if all the LSAT passages were about astronomy I'd be in good shape (so long as they avoided all the physics).

[Fianna13]

How do you guys approach LG? It is the only section that's keeping me down. I mean I get that drilling them will help me. but is there another process that I'm not doing besides just keep doing the same game over and over again? I feel like I'm not improcing on Lg at all.

[Daily_Double]

How do you guys approach LG? It is the only section that's keeping me down. I mean I get that drilling them will help me. but is there another process that I'm not doing besides just keep doing the same game over and over again? I feel like I'm not improcing on Lg at all.

Just like Sandusky, except with games instead of boys. That and a lot of drilling, but that was implied in the first statement.

[Fianna13]

How do you guys approach LG? It is the only section that's keeping me down. I mean I get that drilling them will help me. but is there another process that I'm not doing besides just keep doing the same game over and over again? I feel like I'm not improcing on Lg at all.

Just like Sandusky, except with games instead of boys. That and a lot of drilling, but that was implied in the first statement.

that comment was below the belt man

[Guerrilla Logic]

How do you guys approach LG? It is the only section that's keeping me down. I mean I get that drilling them will help me. but is there another process that I'm not doing besides just keep doing the same game over and over again? I feel like I'm not improcing on Lg at all.

make sure after you do some drilling or at night or whatever that you reflect on your strategy and process and try to come up with reasons why things are not working out for you. If you can come up with 1 small thing to try differently that can help. Don't mindlessly drill. There has to be occasional reflection on what is going wrong. Improvement comes in little steps that you do differently.

Example:
I took a tip from reading TLS1776 and I started numbering each rule and circling the number when I notated. This helped separate my inferences from my rules and so when I got to questions where you exchange a rule for a new rule I knew exactly what was included and what was not. It also has made my mind more organized. I go through each rule 1-5 especially on the first 2 questions on a game.

[Daily_Double]

How do you guys approach LG? It is the only section that's keeping me down. I mean I get that drilling them will help me. but is there another process that I'm not doing besides just keep doing the same game over and over again? I feel like I'm not improcing on Lg at all.

My bad. Just watched the South Park episode, couldn't help it. Anyways, to give you better advice:

First off, check out the books, Manhattan's LG book is awesome, and goes far beyond Powerscore, there are a couple methods I dislike about Manhattan, but just doing it will help you a bunch. After Manhattan, then just drill hard, get Cambridge's bundle of games from PTs 1-38, and do them twice, or more. Some people dislike Powerscore a bunch, I really struggled with games for awhile, then I did Powerscore and Manhattan and things got much better, so the combination of the two worked for me; after doing the games from 1-38, it's consistently a -0 section. You'll get there soon, just keep working, and if you have any specific game questions, post them and I'm sure someone will post a diagram and their solution.

[CanILive]

I'll be back on the test-prep bandwagon after a break (at the urging of everyone) tomorrow.

I also have my second interview for a legal assistant position at a local firm tomorrow afternoon

[Daily_Double]

Also, I won't be able to review 67 tomorrow due to a lack of hustle on my part. Midterms are approaching, and I'd probably do better on any PT at this moment, in terms of missed questions, than my exam on Wednesday.

[Daily_Double]

Also, another popular one for you guys:

Advertisement: Copenhagen interviewed dentists across the U.S. during the development of its new product Copenhagen Longer Cut Original. A majority of the dentists interviewed say that it is the best product on the market for your gums. So if you want a healthy mouth, choose Copenhagen Longer Cut Original.

What's the flaw?

[objection_your_honor]

'Best for gums' --> 'healthy mouth' is assumed.

[Daily_Double]

True, what else is in there Objection?

[Fianna13]

hmm.. I see at least 2. first of all, there may be a sampling flaw. maybe a majority of dentists said that, but what if only 1 percent of dentists were interviewed? another flaw I would say taking popular opinions to as something that's true. but i'm not quite sure if professional opinions would qualify as popular opinions or not.

[Daily_Double]

hmm.. I see at least 2. first of all, there may be a sampling flaw. maybe a majority of dentists said that, but what if only 1 percent of dentists were interviewed? another flaw I would say taking popular opinions to as something that's true. but i'm not quite sure if professional opinions would qualify as popular opinions or not.

You're killing it today, good work. The correct answer, because that's the main flaw, would be similar to: fails to state the number of dentists surveyed, leaving open the possibility of an unrepresentative sampling.

[CardozoLaw09]

hmm.. I see at least 2. first of all, there may be a sampling flaw. maybe a majority of dentists said that, but what if only 1 percent of dentists were interviewed? another flaw I would say taking popular opinions to as something that's true. but i'm not quite sure if professional opinions would qualify as popular opinions or not.

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing; would appeal to popular opinion also be a flaw in the argument?

[Fianna13]

One of the reason why I prefer LR over LG, the instant gratification when you know you got the answer right. On the side note, I feel like this is a cool way of retaining some basic flaws. We may not be able to construct a perfect argument like LSAT, but we can certainly get some of the concept down like this. I feel everyone should make up their own little problems and post them on here, even if its just for giggles, maybe to see who can make the most outrageous argument.

[Daily_Double]

Good thoughts guys. Challenge accepted Fianna13, also great idea. Couple things before I get back to schoolwork:

I doubt the appeal to popular opinion is a flaw, for a couple reasons. First off, the advertisement isn't saying that this product is the best on the market for your gums, it's just saying some number of surveyed dentists think that, and that because they think it, you should choose it. Furthermore, an appeal to popular opinion would be more suitable if the argument said something along the lines of "Everyone in this town thinks this is the best, therefore it is the best." This argument appeals to expert opinion, they're qualified in the scope of the argument, so popular appeal doesn't really fit.

[bdeans91]

Also, another popular one for you guys:

Advertisement: Copenhagen interviewed dentists across the U.S. during the development of its new product Copenhagen Longer Cut Original. A majority of the dentists interviewed say that it is the best product on the market for your gums. So if you want a healthy mouth, choose Copenhagen Longer Cut Original.

What's the flaw?

(1) Assumes that healthy gums is sufficient for a healthy mouth. Actually, it doesn't even say explicitly that it creates healthy gums so there is another leap there, if you want to be nit-picky. Best product for your gums in what regard? Gum health? Gum aesthetics? Gum ____?

(2) Potential sampling issues. Was it random sampling? Was it representative of the USA? Is the USA representative of the general population outside of the USA? Etc...

(3) One thing that popped into my head was that it undermined potential alternatives to Copenhagen, but it doesn't say the healthiest mouth possible. So it may be the case that Copenhagen is only introduced as an option.

(4) Maybe not an appeal to pop. opinion but definitely appeal to authority. I dunno if this is LSAT-worthy, but I'd certainly wonder if the dentists had vested interests in recommending Copenhagen.

I'm sure a question on the actual LSAT would narrow things down a bit more so only one flaw was present.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Also, another popular one for you guys:

Advertisement: Copenhagen interviewed dentists across the U.S. during the development of its new product Copenhagen Longer Cut Original. A majority of the dentists interviewed say that it is the best product on the market for your gums. So if you want a healthy mouth, choose Copenhagen Longer Cut Original.

What's the flaw?

(1) Assumes that healthy gums is sufficient for a healthy mouth. Actually, it doesn't even say explicitly that it creates healthy gums so there is another leap there, if you want to be nit-picky. Best product for your gums in what regard? Gum health? Gum aesthetics? Gum ____?

(2) Potential sampling issues. Was it random sampling? Was it representative of the USA? Is the USA representative of the general population outside of the USA? Etc...

(3) One thing that popped into my head was that it undermined potential alternatives to Copenhagen, but it doesn't say the healthiest mouth possible. So it may be the case that Copenhagen is only introduced as an option.

(4) Maybe not an appeal to pop. opinion but definitely appeal to authority. I dunno if this is LSAT-worthy, but I'd certainly wonder if the dentists had vested interests in recommending Copenhagen.

I'm sure a question on the actual LSAT would narrow things down a bit more so only one flaw was present.

This kind of question stumps me. I know the answer is sampling issue (2) after doing PT51 and getting a very similar dentist question wrong but I'm still having trouble why the biggest flaw (part of the argument most vulnerable to criticism, etc etc) is the who and how of the people surveyed/interviewed.

[CardozoLaw09]

Also, another popular one for you guys:

Advertisement: Copenhagen interviewed dentists across the U.S. during the development of its new product Copenhagen Longer Cut Original. A majority of the dentists interviewed say that it is the best product on the market for your gums. So if you want a healthy mouth, choose Copenhagen Longer Cut Original.

What's the flaw?

(1) Assumes that healthy gums is sufficient for a healthy mouth. Actually, it doesn't even say explicitly that it creates healthy gums so there is another leap there, if you want to be nit-picky. Best product for your gums in what regard? Gum health? Gum aesthetics? Gum ____?

(2) Potential sampling issues. Was it random sampling? Was it representative of the USA? Is the USA representative of the general population outside of the USA? Etc...

(3) One thing that popped into my head was that it undermined potential alternatives to Copenhagen, but it doesn't say the healthiest mouth possible. So it may be the case that Copenhagen is only introduced as an option.

(4) Maybe not an appeal to pop. opinion but definitely appeal to authority. I dunno if this is LSAT-worthy, but I'd certainly wonder if the dentists had vested interests in recommending Copenhagen.

I'm sure a question on the actual LSAT would narrow things down a bit more so only one flaw was present.

This kind of question stumps me. I know the answer is sampling issue (2) after doing PT51 and getting a very similar dentist question wrong but I'm still having trouble why the biggest flaw (part of the argument most vulnerable to criticism, etc etc) is the who and how of the people surveyed/interviewed.

We don't know any specifics as far as how many dentists were surveyed relative to the absolute population of dentists in the U.S. Like Fianna mentioned, it could only be 1 percent of dentists in the U.S. that were interviewed and a majority of these dentists said it's the best product. For obvious reasons, 1% of the entire dentist population is unrepresentative and so this can't validate the claim being made in the argument. For numerical support, consider a dentist population of 1000 in the US and only 1% were surveyed -- 10 dentists -- and a majority of these dentists said it's the best product; that is, only 6 out of 10. Clearly, we got a problem here.

[Daily_Double]

Crazyrobin with the win. I based it off that question in PT 51, because I remembered liking how predictable it was during the PT and during my review, also I think it clearly shows that when you have a flaw question involving percentages that support the core and the stimulus does not (1) say the sample is representative, or (2) say the total number surveyed is sufficiently large, I'd say 1000 randomly picked, etc., the flaw is likely related to the possibility that the survey is too small to be representative. Also, because the surveyed results are the only support for the argument core, if the support is erred, then the core will not necessarily follow. Boom, Flaw.

[bdeans91]

Crazyrobin with the win. I based it off that question in PT 51, because I remembered liking how predictable it was during the PT and during my review, also I think it clearly shows that when you have a flaw question involving percentages that support the core and the stimulus does not (1) say the sample is representative, or (2) say the total number surveyed is sufficiently large, I'd say 1000 randomly picked, etc., the flaw is likely related to the possibility that the survey is too small to be representative. Also, because the surveyed results are the only support for the argument core, if the support is erred, then the core will not necessarily follow. Boom, Flaw.

In the actual question you based this off of, did they supply other flaws that were not the MAIN flaw?

I can see where someone would be tempted to maybe go for the other 3 I mentioned. Even though the main flaw would definitely be sampling.

If the only actual flaw in the 5 answer options was sampling, then that is a very easy "wagging the answer/flaw in your face" type of question.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Crazyrobin with the win. I based it off that question in PT 51, because I remembered liking how predictable it was during the PT and during my review, also I think it clearly shows that when you have a flaw question involving percentages that support the core and the stimulus does not (1) say the sample is representative, or (2) say the total number surveyed is sufficiently large, I'd say 1000 randomly picked, etc., the flaw is likely related to the possibility that the survey is too small to be representative. Also, because the surveyed results are the only support for the argument core, if the support is erred, then the core will not necessarily follow. Boom, Flaw.

Why wouldn't the flaw be that it's appealing to a public that doesn't know any better than to just listen to what a "majority of dentists" would say on the issue? Much like answer C (I think?) of that question in PT51.