What do I need to do? Forum

[splittermcsplit88]

I am concerned about LR. Right now, I'm getting 17/24, 20/25 on the two sections in one exam. Usually, I find one or two questions per section where I didn't read clearly or I think "okay, I could have solved that, just don't make leaps next time, and try to circle an exact answer." Then, I have two or so questions per section where I'm just like "okay, I could not have solved that." For example, this weaken question:

Researchers in South Australia estimate fluctuations in shark populations by observing the "catch per unit effort" or CPUE. The CPUE for a species of sharks is the number of sharks commercial shark-fishing boats catch for each hour per kilomoter of net set in the water. Since 1973 the CPUE has remained the same. Therefore, the population of this shark species must be around its 1973 level.

C. A significant threat to shark populations, along with commercial shark fishing, is "incidental mortality" which results from catching sharks in nets meant for other fish.

E. Since 1980 commercial shark-fishing boats have used high-tech equipment that allows them to locate sharks with better accuracy.

C is not the answer because incidental mortality could still have existed around 1973. How in the world would I have thought of that with the time crunch??

So this pattern of misreading 1 or 2, not knowing 1 or 2 completely is what's keeping me from a high score on LR. What do I do? I bought the Manhattan book that groups questions by type so I plan to get through this book before the October LSAT.

[thebestwes]

Hmm, I definitely would not have picked C for that question. Maybe you should take a step back and really drill/review with what types of attributes a correct and incorrect answer to a given question would have.

So for this one I would be thinking about the fact that I need to show that the CPUE's relationship to shark populations is not the same as it was in 1973. Maybe try taking similar questions, not looking at the answers, and asking yourself what types of thing ~could~ potentially be right answers and why.

For example, this question wants to know how boats could catch the same number of sharks but the number would not correspond to population in the way it previously did. Immediately I'm thinking of things like maybe shark feeding habits change, sharks are generally living in deeper water and not encountering nets, fishermen are more or less effective, etc. I'm also trying to think of what things wouldn't answer the question, which is any potential answer which doesn't change the relationship between CPUE and population.

No idea if this is helpful to you or not, but maybe focus on pre-forming potential answers and really trying to understand what types of answers a question could be looking for. That's helped me quite a bit.

[MrBalloons]

Hmm, I definitely would not have picked C for that question. Maybe you should take a step back and really drill/review with what types of attributes a correct and incorrect answer to a given question would have.

So for this one I would be thinking about the fact that I need to show that the CPUE's relationship to shark populations is not the same as it was in 1973. Maybe try taking similar questions, not looking at the answers, and asking yourself what types of thing ~could~ potentially be right answers and why.

For example, this question wants to know how boats could catch the same number of sharks but the number would not correspond to population in the way it previously did. Immediately I'm thinking of things like maybe shark feeding habits change, sharks are generally living in deeper water and not encountering nets, fishermen are more or less effective, etc. I'm also trying to think of what things wouldn't answer the question, which is any potential answer which doesn't change the relationship between CPUE and population.

No idea if this is helpful to you or not, but maybe focus on pre-forming potential answers and really trying to understand what types of answers a question could be looking for. That's helped me quite a bit.

Absolutely this. Weaken questions seem pretty open to pre-phrasing.

That question is telling you that the CPUE is the same, therefore the number of sharks is the same. In order to weaken that, you'd think: "how/why might CPUE be misrepresentative of the actual number of sharks?" One of the ways is that shark fishermen could be getting better at locating fish, thus upping their catch-per-shark efficiency and throwing off the connection between CPUE and actual sharks.

I'd bet if I looked back at that question in my drilling binder, I wrote beside response C a big "so what?" Sharks get caught in nets that aren't meant for them. Why would that have an effect on the way CPUE is reflective of the number of sharks in the water? So what? Let's say fishermen have been catching 10 sharks per day in this spot since 1973. If we learn that some other sharks are getting caught elsewhere, that alone doesn't lead me to believe that there are either fewer or more sharks out there now than there were in 1973.

[Talarose]

Hmm, I definitely would not have picked C for that question. Maybe you should take a step back and really drill/review with what types of attributes a correct and incorrect answer to a given question would have.

So for this one I would be thinking about the fact that I need to show that the CPUE's relationship to shark populations is not the same as it was in 1973. Maybe try taking similar questions, not looking at the answers, and asking yourself what types of thing ~could~ potentially be right answers and why.

For example, this question wants to know how boats could catch the same number of sharks but the number would not correspond to population in the way it previously did. Immediately I'm thinking of things like maybe shark feeding habits change, sharks are generally living in deeper water and not encountering nets, fishermen are more or less effective, etc. I'm also trying to think of what things wouldn't answer the question, which is any potential answer which doesn't change the relationship between CPUE and population.

No idea if this is helpful to you or not, but maybe focus on pre-forming potential answers and really trying to understand what types of answers a question could be looking for. That's helped me quite a bit.

Absolutely this. Weaken questions seem pretty open to pre-phrasing.

That question is telling you that the CPUE is the same, therefore the number of sharks is the same. In order to weaken that, you'd think: "how/why might CPUE be misrepresentative of the actual number of sharks?" One of the ways is that shark fishermen could be getting better at locating fish, thus upping their catch-per-shark efficiency and throwing off the connection between CPUE and actual sharks.

I'd bet if I looked back at that question in my drilling binder, I wrote beside response C a big "so what?" Sharks get caught in nets that aren't meant for them. Why would that have an effect on the way CPUE is reflective of the number of sharks in the water? So what? Let's say fishermen have been catching 10 sharks per day in this spot since 1973. If we learn that some other sharks are getting caught elsewhere, that alone doesn't lead me to believe that there are either fewer or more sharks out there now than there were in 1973.

Agree with all of this. With weaken questions, and many other types, you need to be able to identify the flaw/what is wrong or missing from the argument. In this specific question, they tell us one solution (that because the CPUE has remained constant, the population has remained the same) and assume that to be the answer. When you need to find a weakening point, think, ok, could there have been another reason for the constant rate other the fact that the population remained unchanged? What other possible reasons could there be? And that is where you might face trouble because you think, like you stated above, that it is information that you have no prior knowledge of. I mean, what typical person knows anything about shark populations dating back to 1973? But that is how the LSAT tries to diverge you from the point. It is not asking you to know other alternatives, it is asking you to pick a logical one from the 5 choices they have presented. So it may or may not be factual, but if true, it would weaken the argument.