Discussions

LSAT

New post

206 posts in the last 30 days

Are the MP questions in PT1-35 representative of the MP questions on the newer tests? I know how to find the conclusion and main point, but for some reason I do not seem to get all of them right even though I should when I am drilling. I have done the corresponding problem sets and went over the CC covering MP and how to identify conclusions for the second time.. and I have gotten them all correct so I don't know what's going on.

HELP!

0

Hello. I have some trouble in nailing this question.

(C) How could this strengthen the conclusion? The conclusion is about a causation between oval orbits and close encounter with other planets. But this answer choice is correlation; that is, it says that where planets are orbiting a distant star more than one planet are found near the star. I have learned that generally a mere correlation does not strengthen a causation.

(B) why is this answer choice wrong?

Thanks

0

I am weak at disagree questions. I tend to miss these ones about 50% of the time. I find this weird because when it is agreement I ace it. Does anyone have a strategy for these kinds of questions other than making a Y/N chart to the side? How do you engage with the stimulus, what are you looking for in the AC, how can you tell what specifically they are disagreeing over?

0

I have an issue with B. The stimulus stated that an equal number of painters, sculptures and photographers entered, how then, can we conclude that the increased price had any impact on which art gets exhibited? since the overall submissions were equal for all three types of artists we cannot say that more painters and sculptors might have submitted works if their fee was lower.

Are we to assume that only rich but bad artists submitted photos and sculptors whilst, good photographers poor or rich can afford the $25 fee? nevertheless, and equal number submitted and they all met the traditional criteria and were all exhibited as result of.

this question confuses me.

1

I retook the RC from the June exam yesterday, and still missed 5 (on the actual exam I missed 7, wrecking my score). I've got to say, I am very confused about some of these questions, even upon review and under untimed conditions. Fair to say it's one of the hardest RC sections of all time? I had 2 RC sections on test day, and the experimental one was SO MUCH EASIER.

Is anyone who took the June exam willing to go back and forth about some of these questions?

0

So I didn't do so well on this game because I played the children multiple times because it didn't say that they had to be played exactly once, so should we assume that they need to be played at least once unless stated otherwise? Thank you!!!

0

I am curious to gain some insight on how fellow sagers trained themselves into answering 10 questions in 10 mins and how you worked up to 15 in 15 and so on. Was it mainly drills or through timed PTs?

0

With 5 weeks until the day of the test, I have been consistently scoring in the mid-60s, anywhere between 162 and 165, with my best test at 167.

I find myself getting the same LR question types wrong (NA, SA, weaken, flaw, and sometimes resolve or strengthen). I have tried drilling the various question types and I still seem to be getting about -4/-5 per LR section.

The only book I have used for studying LR has been the PowerScore LR Bible, so I'm wondering if I should buy a different book to try and master these question types? I don't particularly want to spend more money but if it'll really help I'd be willing to do so.

I've read in discussion forums about the LSAT Trainer or Manhattan books. If someone could let me know what they think/their experiences it'd be much appreciated!

0

I can score anywhere from -1 to -7 (yiiiikes) on RC... sometimes it really just feels like a crapshoot. I usually do really well with reading comp on standardized tests (SAT, subject tests, GRE, APs, etc.) and even tutored for a while. What freaks me out the most about RC is that I often don't catch my mistakes even during BR; I'm making mistakes with confidence haha. Strong and wrong! On my last PT I got 4 questions wrong on a single passage, which would have bumped my overall score from 171 to 174.

I don't usually feel like I'm running out of time, it's more that I can't easily eliminate the wrong answer choices the way I can with LR, for example. So yeah, any tips/advice? :D

0

I'm in kind of a weird spot. At this point, I'm getting nearly all difficult questions, including ones I initially flag for BR, correct. But I still end up missing 1-3 questions per section- on questions that I breeze through. The obvious answer is to slow down, but in order to get the difficult questions right, I need every second that I'm given. Were I to slow down up front, I wouldn't be able to finish the section. I know to reach for the low-hanging fruit but that doesn't seem to apply here. I'm not missing any specific type of questions and my stupid mistakes vary. (Sometimes I misread the stimulus, sometimes the answers, or I don't give myself enough time to fully understand the argument.) But there is a confidence error every time. I also know that practice increases speed, so theoretically I should be able to get faster on the difficult questions to leave myself more time up front, but I'm pretty sure I've maxed out my pace. Any advice on how to drill out the stupid is most appreciated!

1

Well folks it's just over a month until the September 2017 test. Of course that feels like the test is tomorrow.

I'm not really sure what to do. I am fairly consistently around a 168-170 right now, even on the more modern tests. My section break down is;

-0/-1 LG

-3/-5 LR (each)

-4 RC

I want to maintain, and maybe see if I can squeeze out one or two more points some how. I'm just not sure how. I am back on schedule to do 1 PT a week with blind review. Right now I am alternating between RC/LR every day of the week but it's all starting to feel more like review and less like learning new habits and skills.

What do you guys think? What are you doing for the next month?

0

Is it me or is the RC section of this exam extremely difficult. I took a 5 section exam and this was the 5th section of the exam, half way through it I felt like my brain was about to shut down. I pretty much gave up going into the 4th passage of the section. Anyone got some advice or any experiences ?

0

Hello,

I have a question on a reading comprehension question (PT 19 S3 Q18). I was really shocked to see that the answer was E. While testing, I thought this was a typical trap answer choice used in weakening questions on logical reasoning, and I can't seem to understand why this is the answer. With respect to the rate-of-speciation hypothesis, the author of the passage compares the arctic and tropics, stating that the "subgroups in an arctic environment are more likely to face extinction than those in the tropics," and that "the latter are more likely to survive long enough to adapt." (lines 57 - 61)

On the other hand, answer choice E states that "most of the isolated subgroups of mammalian life within a tropical zone are found to experience rapid extinction." In assessing this, I thought this had no bearing on weakening the argument made in the passage because it did not compare between the arctics and tropics. Who cares if "most" of the life in the tropics experience rapid extinction? I thought:

(1) most? if there were 100 million subgroups, and only 20 million survived, who is to say that this is not enough to create a new species?

(2) the rate-of-speciation hypothesis is in regards to the rate of speciation compared to that of extinction (lines 45 - 48). Even if there is a high rate of extinction, if there is a higher rate of speciation compared to that of extinction, the hypothesis would still hold

and

(3) as this answer choice does not compare arctics to tropics, who is to say that the arctics do not have an even more rapid rate of extinction? Therefore, there a more species in the tropics than the arctic.

Is there something that I'm missing? The only reason I can think of to why the answer is E is just that it is just the best out of the bunch. Still, I would like to think that if such a question were to appear on a logical reasoning question, it would be a wrong answer choice... Any help would be great with this question!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-3-passage-3-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-3-passage-3-questions/

0

is it logically valid to conclude that if A-->B, then A+C -->B?

I am reviewing S3 Q19 from PT 51.

The correct AC seems to mobilize this reasoning.

0

In one lesson, Jy says, the contapositive of "If Tom plays then Jerone and Simmi play too", is " If Jerone and Simmi do not play, then Tom won't play". However, it can be that J and S can play, even though T does not. If it would say "Only if Tom, then..", then ok I agree with this. But I do not understand why it cannot be that J and S can play, even though T does not?

0

Hi all,

I am having difficulty gaging the rolling admission process. I am taking the September exam because I have been planning to get my app in as soon as possible. But, I don't think I'm ready. I will probably remain scoring in the mid 150s. But I've had less than a month of proper study time. I know I can do a lot better if I wait for December. But, I have a fear it is detrimental to apply that late in the game. Is that true?

0

I can't see why E is a better AC that D. Any thoughts?

Flaw

Argument Summary:

Context: The presence of X has conditioned the US to support a substantial defense budget.

Premise 1: X is gone.

Conclusion: Doubtful that the public will support an adequate defense budget.

Prephrase:

X-->Y

/X

/Z

Huh? What is an “adequate” budget in the absence of X? That is the issue here.

Answer Choices:

A) No it definitely does not. It does just the opposite and presume the public cannot be manipulated in the absence of X. Eliminate.

B ) Well it does do this but that is not the flaw. The issue lies in term “adequate”. Eliminate.

C) He uses the descriptor “doubtful”. Definitely not it. This is confusing because it’s hard to understand. But it is false and not the flaw. Eliminate.

D) Well yea it does do this. The argument concludes /Z, but provides no support for that in the argument.

E) Yes it does this too. What the hell does “adequate” even mean?

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?