Are there strategies for identifying when a conclusion is implicit beyond the question stem and that it might feel like there's no real conclusion in the stimulus?
@FrancisZaklukiewicz Yes, it's a very popular approach for all question types. I find it helpful because I know what to look for in the stimulus before reading it, relevant facts and parts of the stimulus stand out if you know what to look for ahead of time. That way you're less likely to have to read the stimulus a second time.
Of course, some people prefer reading the stimulus first so try a couple of drills with each approach and see what you like better.
For the bacteria question, I don't know if it's a correct line of thinking (don't take my words as correct, just sharing my thoughts) but part of why I ruled out C alongside it simply not being the conclusion is that the question establishes that "in fact", "bacteria are extremely diverse", whilst the answer choice casts a bit of uncertainty through the "if". I felt as though the argument isn't based on a logical pattern of "if X then Y" and moreso "because X, then Y". Again, wasn't my primary way of confirming the answer but I found that it helped me eliminate it in comparison to B.
Kevin, I have been in business for decades, worked with 20+ lawyers, read and worked to modify tens to a hundred legal documents and contracts. My father, uncle and two grandfathers were attorneys. So by way of experience, I have a ton of exposure to the legal system.
I'm gonna call BS on one attribute of the LSAT; that of intentionally obscuring language in both the stimulus and choices. That just does not happen when lawyers are paid for legal work. Lawyers who've presented me with confusing language have been sent back to do better, or I found another lawyer. Having spent more than $3,000,000 on attorney's fees over the years you can be assured that I knew what I was paying for and demanded quality work. Never, ever, have I encountered such intentionally confusing language in any legal document as we are told we must decode on the LSAT. And yes, that includes documents prepared by adversarial parties to a deal. I'd reject them until they were clearly written.
Thus, although the LSAT creates this unreal environment and challenge to hold down scores on the exam, it has NO bearing or relevance to what a lawyer does. I am asking myself, why spend so much of my valuable time learning a skill which has no value in the real world, either as a lawyer or a consumer of retail law? The only answer is, I am wasting my time as a life learner as far as the obfuscating language goes and investing only in passing a test.
And as for this business of time and working under the pressure of time. Very rarely has that been the case. Far from it. Parties to agreements require time to fully understand and clarify agreements. As plaintiff in one of the largest Intellectual Property lawsuits ongoing in 2005, it was resolved with the sale of a company and only 30 days to close. The financial and organization due diligence was pressured, but the legal documents were not.
Lawyers are paid by the hour, as far as my experience goes. If a lawyer brought me a low invoice and poorly written work, I'd give him one opportunity to adjust his priorities. So that is another unreality of the LSAT. In testing under time pressure, it is not measuring proficiency fully, and productivity fully, it is compromising the measurement of proficiency by forcing test takers to fail to apply the full measure of their intellect to each problem. Either the work is rushed or the work is not done because the time ran out. The structure of the test hides proficiency.
Perhaps if a lawyer works for a contingent fee chasing firm that requires fast turnover of document production and filings, the productivity/proficiency combination rises to the fore. Even then, a far better measure would be to allow unlimited time but report both proficiency (score) and time. The nuanced nature of the student's strengths and weaknesses would be exposed and could be evaluated for admissions and work. Even at the worst ambulance chaser must do adequate work. Like the old business adage, "We are losing money on each unit, but we are making it up in volume.", well, no...
Having been at this for months now I have mastered many of the skills required to work out the logic, flaws and other worthwhile aspects of this test, but I continue to be frustrated and annoyed at the requirement to spend time trying to understand what the writer was saying, but intentionally obscured.
Decoding poorly written text is not a valuable skill in any theater of the legal profession to which I've been exposed.
Is it better to watch these lectures BEFORE drilling the question types or AFTER? I imagine the answer is after just to avoid disappointing yourself. Looking for more opinions!
@annikav123 You might try a few drills first of a question type and then come back to watch. Also, don't watch the whole Fast Track Module straight through -- it's best to get some drilling of te relevant type in before moving to the next question type.
@annikav123 I did a ton of randomized drills and came back after completing more of the curriculum to refresh my memory. Seems to be helpful since these questions are very reliable examples of the overall set.
For question 3, I got it right but I was tempted by C. I decided C was wrong because it says "if bacteria are extremely diverse" , and the author doesn't question IF they are diverse he is stating that they ARE diverse. Therefore I crossed it out leaving me with B. Was my reasoning off?
Question for you guys: so I just completed the LR curriculum and am going through these as a high-level refresher. I got 60% on this drill. Is it worth drilling these more? Do I aim for perfection... keep practicing... or move on?
@saulgoodman13 Don't aim for perfection! Just make sure to drill a few MC every week and review mistakes on old MC.
The reason shooting for perfection doesn't work is because you'd have to be in the 170s already to actually achieve it reliably. So if you don't move on until you get perfect, you might not move on to other things that are more helpful.
That said, MC questions are very important, so make sure you really think through what gives you trouble when identifying the main conclusion of an argument.
These LR fast track segments are truly amazing, and I was wondering when/if we will get a strengthen/weaken question type video sometime in the near future? Kevin's insight on the various formulations of those questions would be of much help, as these are usually the hardest questions.
Just echoing the others and saying that this was super helpful and looking forward to doing the rest of these before jumping into RC. This is the perfect recap of all the time spent doing LR thus far. Thank you!
OMG, this instructor is top notch! I wish he offered tutoring! I have known him from his days with Blueprint and then he started his on site for a while. Because of him, I improved significantly on LG when those were a thing. Awesome breakdown, please offer more stuff like this!
39 comments
Is it safe to skip the video if you get 100% on the associate drill? My lsat is in September and I want to make the most of my time!
@MistiNoelWorden Of course; and in any video you do watch, you can skip through if it's all stuff that seems easy / you already follow the advice.
Social critic = Timothee Chalamet
For the bacteria one, I don't get what's the difference between a main conclusion and an overall conclusion.
@LawrenceCheung88 Main conclusion = overall conclusion. I don't see a difference between these terms.
Are there strategies for identifying when a conclusion is implicit beyond the question stem and that it might feel like there's no real conclusion in the stimulus?
Kevin is the goat when it comes to teaching the LSAT
In this video, he reads the question first and then reads the stimulus. Is this generally good practice for all question types?
@FrancisZaklukiewicz Yes, it's a very popular approach for all question types. I find it helpful because I know what to look for in the stimulus before reading it, relevant facts and parts of the stimulus stand out if you know what to look for ahead of time. That way you're less likely to have to read the stimulus a second time.
Of course, some people prefer reading the stimulus first so try a couple of drills with each approach and see what you like better.
"dumb children" is diabolical!
For the bacteria question, I don't know if it's a correct line of thinking (don't take my words as correct, just sharing my thoughts) but part of why I ruled out C alongside it simply not being the conclusion is that the question establishes that "in fact", "bacteria are extremely diverse", whilst the answer choice casts a bit of uncertainty through the "if". I felt as though the argument isn't based on a logical pattern of "if X then Y" and moreso "because X, then Y". Again, wasn't my primary way of confirming the answer but I found that it helped me eliminate it in comparison to B.
Does anyone know where to find the video? I only see the drill option.
Thank you! I got a 3/5 but I understand where I went wrong and will keep studying ^^
aye 5/5!
Kevin, I have been in business for decades, worked with 20+ lawyers, read and worked to modify tens to a hundred legal documents and contracts. My father, uncle and two grandfathers were attorneys. So by way of experience, I have a ton of exposure to the legal system.
I'm gonna call BS on one attribute of the LSAT; that of intentionally obscuring language in both the stimulus and choices. That just does not happen when lawyers are paid for legal work. Lawyers who've presented me with confusing language have been sent back to do better, or I found another lawyer. Having spent more than $3,000,000 on attorney's fees over the years you can be assured that I knew what I was paying for and demanded quality work. Never, ever, have I encountered such intentionally confusing language in any legal document as we are told we must decode on the LSAT. And yes, that includes documents prepared by adversarial parties to a deal. I'd reject them until they were clearly written.
Thus, although the LSAT creates this unreal environment and challenge to hold down scores on the exam, it has NO bearing or relevance to what a lawyer does. I am asking myself, why spend so much of my valuable time learning a skill which has no value in the real world, either as a lawyer or a consumer of retail law? The only answer is, I am wasting my time as a life learner as far as the obfuscating language goes and investing only in passing a test.
And as for this business of time and working under the pressure of time. Very rarely has that been the case. Far from it. Parties to agreements require time to fully understand and clarify agreements. As plaintiff in one of the largest Intellectual Property lawsuits ongoing in 2005, it was resolved with the sale of a company and only 30 days to close. The financial and organization due diligence was pressured, but the legal documents were not.
Lawyers are paid by the hour, as far as my experience goes. If a lawyer brought me a low invoice and poorly written work, I'd give him one opportunity to adjust his priorities. So that is another unreality of the LSAT. In testing under time pressure, it is not measuring proficiency fully, and productivity fully, it is compromising the measurement of proficiency by forcing test takers to fail to apply the full measure of their intellect to each problem. Either the work is rushed or the work is not done because the time ran out. The structure of the test hides proficiency.
Perhaps if a lawyer works for a contingent fee chasing firm that requires fast turnover of document production and filings, the productivity/proficiency combination rises to the fore. Even then, a far better measure would be to allow unlimited time but report both proficiency (score) and time. The nuanced nature of the student's strengths and weaknesses would be exposed and could be evaluated for admissions and work. Even at the worst ambulance chaser must do adequate work. Like the old business adage, "We are losing money on each unit, but we are making it up in volume.", well, no...
Having been at this for months now I have mastered many of the skills required to work out the logic, flaws and other worthwhile aspects of this test, but I continue to be frustrated and annoyed at the requirement to spend time trying to understand what the writer was saying, but intentionally obscured.
Decoding poorly written text is not a valuable skill in any theater of the legal profession to which I've been exposed.
5/5 but i was over by ~1 min 30 sec. :/
Is it better to watch these lectures BEFORE drilling the question types or AFTER? I imagine the answer is after just to avoid disappointing yourself. Looking for more opinions!
@annikav123 You might try a few drills first of a question type and then come back to watch. Also, don't watch the whole Fast Track Module straight through -- it's best to get some drilling of te relevant type in before moving to the next question type.
@Kevin_Lin Thank you!!
@annikav123 I did a ton of randomized drills and came back after completing more of the curriculum to refresh my memory. Seems to be helpful since these questions are very reliable examples of the overall set.
Did the drill before watching the video: 4/5! I see where I slipped up, let's keep going everyone!!
@GenMorro2m well stated
For question 3, I got it right but I was tempted by C. I decided C was wrong because it says "if bacteria are extremely diverse" , and the author doesn't question IF they are diverse he is stating that they ARE diverse. Therefore I crossed it out leaving me with B. Was my reasoning off?
This was great. Thanks for the overview
feeling good about MC questions my biggest OP will be time for sure but i need to just drill,drill,drill!
Question for you guys: so I just completed the LR curriculum and am going through these as a high-level refresher. I got 60% on this drill. Is it worth drilling these more? Do I aim for perfection... keep practicing... or move on?
@saulgoodman13 Don't aim for perfection! Just make sure to drill a few MC every week and review mistakes on old MC.
The reason shooting for perfection doesn't work is because you'd have to be in the 170s already to actually achieve it reliably. So if you don't move on until you get perfect, you might not move on to other things that are more helpful.
That said, MC questions are very important, so make sure you really think through what gives you trouble when identifying the main conclusion of an argument.
This was great Kevin. Very helpful, thank you.
These LR fast track segments are truly amazing, and I was wondering when/if we will get a strengthen/weaken question type video sometime in the near future? Kevin's insight on the various formulations of those questions would be of much help, as these are usually the hardest questions.
@MohabSha It's coming! Within the next week. It just needs to be uploaded.
@Kevin_Lin Perfect! Thank you!
Just echoing the others and saying that this was super helpful and looking forward to doing the rest of these before jumping into RC. This is the perfect recap of all the time spent doing LR thus far. Thank you!
Kev- These are sooo good! Thank you!!
OMG, this instructor is top notch! I wish he offered tutoring! I have known him from his days with Blueprint and then he started his on site for a while. Because of him, I improved significantly on LG when those were a thing. Awesome breakdown, please offer more stuff like this!
These are highly valuable recaps.
I wish there were more so I could review them before my LSAT saturday haha.