Top Law Schools

I was wondering if anyone has come across a question they thought was just simply ludicrous, even after being explained a thousand times. Maybe I can then avoid these questions, or at least stop berating myself for missing one.

For me, that question would be PT 23, Section 3, Question 10.

My point: WHAT DO NONMOVING CARS HAVE TO DO WITH WALKING AND REDUCING POLLUTION

I can think of nothing. Abso-freaking-lutely nothing.

I guess it "most strengthens" the prompt and all the other answers are terrible, but still, come onnnnnnnnnnn.


What's yours?

simplytea wrote:My point: WHAT DO NONMOVING CARS HAVE TO DO WITH WALKING AND REDUCING POLLUTION

Nonmoving running cars contribute to pollution; so if people choose to walk instead of drive, there would be less nonmoving running vehicles on the road, which in turn reduces the amount of pollution. Hope that helps!

.

PT 20, second LR section Q#19 is a really hard one in terms of understanding why/how the CR is logically established. Many people that answer it correctly succeed via process of elimination but few people really 'see'/understand the logic behind it and/or are able to explain why the CR must be true.

IMO, it's one of the hardest LR questions to explain in a clear easily understandable way because it's a pretty tricky combination of conditional premises/formal logic quantifiers.

bpolley0 wrote:Here is one that comes down to interpretation of an idiom.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=233322

That is certainly a difficult question, but I disagree that the answer depends on interpretation of an idiom. Whether or not you treat 'almost certainly' as meaning 100% certain or what the phrase literally means (something like 99% certain), the CR works just fine to weaken because it undermines the assumption the reasoning of the argument relies on. Even though the common usage meaning of the phrase is slightly different than its literal meaning, I don't think the phrase can accurately be classified as an idiom.

Idiom:
an expression that cannot be understood from the meanings of its separate words but that has a separate meaning of its own

.

Post removed.

PT 12-S1-Q24

First couple of times I had read the explanation for this I felt like the guy who couldn't see the the image in a 3D stereogram.

Clyde Frog wrote:... I felt like the guy who couldn't see the the image in a 3D stereogram.

I've never been able to see the image in a 3D stereogram and have tried countless times with tons of different ones, but have no trouble seeing right through what's going on in hard LSAT questions.

I really really want to see the 3D image from one of those but my brain won't let my eyes play tricks on me!!! (well, that's my theory) I'm curious, when it works do you actually see a 3D hologram of a 3D object/scene floating in front of you like a non psychedelic drug induced hallucination of sorts? I've been feeling left out and fear I've been missing out on this for decades!

bpolley0 wrote:

Jeffort wrote:PT 20, second LR section Q#19 is a really hard one in terms of understanding why/how the CR is logically established. Many people that answer it correctly succeed via process of elimination but few people really 'see'/understand the logic behind it and/or are able to explain why the CR must be true.

IMO, it's one of the hardest LR questions to explain in a clear easily understandable way because it's a pretty tricky combination of conditional premises/formal logic quantifiers.

bpolley0 wrote:Here is one that comes down to interpretation of an idiom.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=233322

That is certainly a difficult question, but I disagree that the answer depends on interpretation of an idiom. Whether or not you treat 'almost certainly' as meaning 100% certain or what the phrase literally means (something like 99% certain), the CR works just fine to weaken because it undermines the assumption the conclusion relies on. Even though the common usage meaning of the phrase is slightly different than it's literal meaning, I don't think the phrase can accurately be classified as an idiom.

Idiom:
an expression that cannot be understood from the meanings of its separate words but that has a separate meaning of its own

I am not positive whether or not almost certainly is classified as an idiom. However, as used in my examples, almost certainly almost certainly means something different when used as such. Unless you know which version of "almost certainly" the author is using it sways the answer. Yes the CR still works but wouldn't be the answer that MOST weakens due to what I explained in the attached or at the very least leaves which answer is the right one up to subjective opinion.

I think you might have misinterpreted what DD said or disagree with it, he addressed that issue pretty well. On the LSAT, even though they phrase many stems with 'most' in it, leaving open the possibility that more than one answer weakens and you have to judge which does it more, in practice that's not how the LSAT works or is constructed.

Only one AC logically satisfies the task asked by the question stem and the other four do not logically accomplish the task. There is no subjectivity involved/allowed in logically valid LSAT reasoning/analysis and the logical validity/soundness of the questions and reasons behind why each AC is either correct or incorrect.

I don't want to derail this thread into that, we can do that in the other thread, but re-read DDs post you linked to again. Your justification for (B) requires applying a specific meaning to 'textual corruptions' that the phrase does not per se establish according to dictionary definitions. Common usage equivocal meanings people use for words and phrases in everyday life aren't fair game for use in evaluating LSAT questions and answer choices. To make the test fair, objective and logically sound, you must stick to literal dictionary definitions of words and phrases unless otherwise specifically defined in the question because LSAC sticks to that rule when writing questions. Textual corruptions literally means things like misspellings, omitted words, sentences messed up, etc, aka corruptions of the text (the words/sentences) themselves. In context this means errors were made transcribing the words onto the page while making a new handwritten copy from another copy. Keep in mind the context, the subject matter is old manuscripts from times before computers and mechanized printing reproductions machines/devices. Manuscripts : a book, document, or piece of music written by hand rather than typed or printed. Context is important when interpreting things on the LSAT.

The other part of your justification is that the broad interpretation of 'textual errors' would contradict the explicit premise the conclusion is based on, and would therefore destroy the argument. While that it is true that proving a major premise of an argument to be false does destroy the argument, that is not a method tested on the LSAT since it isn't weakening the reasoning and isn't a matter of logic, but instead is just about the truth of facts. LSAT LR arguments are all about the flaws in the reasoning and you are required to accept all stated premises as true according to the literal meanings of the words in the context used. Notice that the question stem specifically says to weaken the reasoning. Thinking about creative semantics with what things could mean or be interpreted to mean or how some people might misuse/misinterpret some words/phrases differently in life than established dictionary definitions is a temptation that many trap answers are designed to invite you to do to get suckered into picking them. You must stick to the literal meanings in their context of everything stated in LSAT questions. Critical reading skills are heavily tested throughout the test, not just in RC.

If you want to discuss this deeper, I'm more than happy to since it's an important foundational LSAT issue that is key to understanding and being able to recognize attractive trap answers for what they are, incorrect (and why) yet very tempting with enough bait for you to add a couple extra things (assumptions/interpretations) that aren't guaranteed to be true by the material in order to rationalize the trap answer. Just post again in that thread if you want to discuss it more. Building up your trap answer defenses is one of the most important skills for LR success! As DD said, your detailed level of critical thinking, depth of analysis and curiosity are all really good things for your LSAT journey, keep it up, keep fine tuning and adjusting as you learn more and you'll see significant improvement.

.

Jeffort wrote:

Clyde Frog wrote:... I felt like the guy who couldn't see the the image in a 3D stereogram.[/pictures I've never been able to see the image in a 3D stereogram and have tried countless times with tons of different ones, but have no trouble seeing right through what's going on in hard LSAT questions.

I really really want to see the 3D image from one of those but my brain won't let my eyes play tricks on me!!! (well, that's my theory) I'm curious, when it works do you actually see a 3D hologram of a 3D object/scene floating in front of you like a non psychedelic drug induced hallucination of sorts? I've been feeling left out and fear I've been missing out on this for decades!

I could never see these things either, until I came across a book that had a "solution" section at the back that showed the hidden image that was contained in each picture. Once I saw what these hidden images were supposed to look like, I could then see the images on my own while looking at the original pictures. Up until then, I had no idea what type of image was supposed to emerge; but I guess once I had an idea, I "knew" what to look for. However, I still couldn't see the images in pictures where I didn't know what the image was supposed to be

Try it if you're still interested--it was pretty cool and it was nice to finally see what everyone was talking about--but you're really not missing out on much!

I don't remember which tests they were in, but the rattlesnakes and Beethoven/VD questions qualify as some of the worst IMO.

Jeffort wrote:

Clyde Frog wrote:... I felt like the guy who couldn't see the the image in a 3D stereogram.

I've never been able to see the image in a 3D stereogram and have tried countless times with tons of different ones, but have no trouble seeing right through what's going on in hard LSAT questions.

I really really want to see the 3D image from one of those but my brain won't let my eyes play tricks on me!!! (well, that's my theory) I'm curious, when it works do you actually see a 3D hologram of a 3D object/scene floating in front of you like a non psychedelic drug induced hallucination of sorts? I've been feeling left out and fear I've been missing out on this for decades!

You do see the 3D hologram of the object floating. I had a book of 3D stereograms from when I was like 8 and was never able to see them until I randomly opened it the other day before bed.

Both of the brown dwarf questions.

I live in the SF bay area, and I will say if you've experienced the Bay Bridge during rush hour the concept of simultaneously polluting and nonmoving cars is very familiar.

This question is from about twenty years ago, yes? I'd recommend looking at different practice tests, because the form on this question is different from the form you'll see when you take the LSAT.

The fish/paper mills/dioxin question from December 2004 gets a lot of hate. Supposedly only 21% of the takers got it right at the time, which is basically what you'd expect if *everyone* just guessed.

I forgot the question or where its from but it was something about some friends take a picture, I just remember looking at the answers for hours and thinking to myself wtf am I reading

ScottRiqui wrote:The fish/paper mills/dioxin question from December 2004 gets a lot of hate. Supposedly only 21% of the takers got it right at the time, which is basically what you'd expect if *everyone* just guessed.

Oh dang, I just took that PT and had read a few threads/posts here on TLS about it being notorious and didn't realize that was the one!

I got it wrong but upon review understood why I got it wrong. I didn't realize that I just ran into a legendary problem, haha.

I don't know if this one has been mentioned, but it's the one about feeling uncomfortable and making friends. It's a flaw question, I think either PT 59 or 60, and it's one of the last questions (20-26). The way that is worded just precludes me from understanding it, but when I sit down and think about it, it makes sense; however, I don't think I could ever have attained that understanding during the test.

.