coinpurse

I really dislike this flaw q and I've historically had trouble with it so I'd love some feedback to see if my understanding of the stimulus and the AC is finally correct. Also there's no video explanation for this one.

Stimulus:

In an experiment, researchers ran rats through a maze, some of which were missing one of their five senses--sight, taste, hearing, etc. Regardless of their specific missing characteristic, ALL rats finished the maze in the same amount of time.

Researchers found out that kinesthesia (sensation of body movement) could also be relevant to finishing a maze, in the same way sight, taste and hearing is helpful.

Off of this info, the researcher concludes: kinesthesia is sufficient for maze running.

I had a really hard time understanding the stimulus the first few times I saw this question especially w the double negative sentence, and more so with the unstated idea in the conclusion that the researchers were presuming kinesthesia ALONE is sufficient for maze running. From the language in the conclusion, I didn't see the researchers ruling out the possibility that the other senses in which the rats were not deficient (aka the blind rat using his/her sense of smell) could've helped as well in finishing the maze. So would love to see how people came to this flaw on their own or how I should've better identified it when attempting to prephase.

I got to choice B by process of elimination. Ruled out A because it was descriptively inaccurate with "small deficiencies in proficiency." Ruled out C, D, E, because of the phrase "it can be determined from the data." None of those things can be determined from the data for sure.

Thanks!!

Hi guys,

RC is by far my worst section. Though I have improved by a point or two, I haven't seen any drastic improvements and I have been studying for a while now.

In the past, I could not get through the entire RC section. Doing timed sections has definitely helped me out in this regard. However, I still struggle with accurately answering the questions.

I score -7 on BR, which clearly indicates that I still can increase my BR score yet I haven't been able to increase my timed score much either despite doing a timed section everyday and then completing BR.

Any suggestions? What strategies have you tried to improve RC?

I have a real hard time seeing the correct answer on this one. The correct AC is (B). I chose (E). I really didn't like E, but AC (B) I only liked 1/2. The 2nd half of the answer, ..."to make up for the attendant loss is tax-revenues" threw me off. I dismissed it in the last second because the stimulus stated that there was a side benefit to the government in relatively small cost in lost tax revenues. The stimulus goes on to say that there was never a net gain since folks just transferred money from account to another, and overall personal savings was unchanged. So there is my issues. (B) says nobody is going to save more, (I agree) and it's not going to make up for the attendant loss in tax revenue. BUT, there won't be any loss in tax revenue, since no additional money is going to be put into personal savings. I'm interpreting "attendant" as accompanying. Where did I go wrong?

I will be testing in just a few days and have to say the majority of my nerves are from not knowing what to expect during the actual test. I have a few (possibly really dumb and/or basic) questions I am hoping someone can assist me with. 1) Is the timer visible at all times (will I be able to tell if I am on a good pace)? 2. I know there is supposed to be more room to write and diagram on the test itself than in the past - is there any guidelines around how much you can or can't write on the test itself? 3. What am I allowed to bring into the room to actually take the test? 4. Any basic advice for a first time test taker in regard to the actual test environment? ..... I appreciate any advice you can offer.

In the "Logic Games Habits for Speed and Accuracy" section J.Y. lays out a particular approach.

As you start a new LG, always put your pencil down and read the stimulus, the indented set of rules, and the acceptable situation question (ASQ). Take some seconds to absorb the information. The ASQ's answers often reveal the game board. Visualize what the game board will look like. Then, pick up your pencil. Read the stimulus again. Jot down your game board.

Is this method meant to be used in all scenarios or just for practice (FP)? It seems that reading the stimulus/rules twice would really be a time suck, but I suppose if it gives a much deeper familiarity/understanding of the passage then it could be worth it. Is this method generally well-subscribed to in practice and test conditions?

Hello everyone,

I took my first test in December and ended up scoring 8 points lower than my PTs leading up to it (164 down to a 156).I had been taking my PTs under normal testing conditions so I thought that I was prepared for the test setting. When I assessed my answers I realized that I missed some insanely easy questions in the first section. I remembered being very anxious and rushing through, which then spilled over into the next section. It turned out that I missed 80% of my questions in those two sections.

I feel like this is the only thing that is holding me back. Recently I've been scoring in the upper 160s and I want to do whatever I can to stay consistent on test day.

What do you do to start the test off calm and collected?

Thanks

I can process premise and conclusion and even anticipate the answer correctly. However, some answers are just so weirdly written and I end up picking wrong answers. I know practice is a key but is there other tip you 7sagers can share with me to spot the answer?

Here is a concept which LSAT sometimes tests:

false positive/false negative

I learned this concept a couple months ago and went:

https://media.giphy.com/media/wWuNgWHR7ZzMI/giphy.gif

Unlike other concepts, I don’t see it often on the LSAT, so I tend to forget about it.

But I see it again and again:

PT11.S2.Q15; PT15.S3.Q21; PT41.S3.Q17; PT45.S1.Q24; PT54.S4.Q20; PT61.S2.Q20; PT80.S1.Q10

So I'm making this post so that I can explain and understand fully!

False positive:

a result that shows something exists when it actually does not exist.

　Examples:

　・A medical test shows that someone has a disease when the person actually doesn’t.

　・A DNA test falsely shows that A’s DNA matches the DNA at a crime scene when it doesn’t actually match.

False negative:

a result that shows something does not exist when it actually exists.

　Examples:

　・A medical test shows that someone doesn't have a disease when the person actually does.

　・A DNA test falsely shows that A’s DNA does not match the DNA at a crime scene when it actually matches.

https://media.giphy.com/media/GSpDlV6BbFTyw/giphy.gif

In order for a test to be good, both the false positive rate and the false negative rate have to be low.

To sum up:

• True positive: correctly identified

• False positive: falsely identified

• True negative: correctly not identified

• False negative: falsely not identified

Actual LSAT questions:

:star: PT11.S2.Q15 Flaw

The computer security system has never incorrectly accepted someone, which means it has never committed a false positive error (falsely identified). The argument concludes that it will give access to the right people.

But what about false negative? In other words, it might not accept people who should be accepted. So this is the flaw.

:star: PT15.S3.Q21 MSS/Misc.

The EEG reading is a reasonably reliable indicator of temporal lobe epilepsy, so false positive rate is low.

But EEG test might not be able to detect abnormal electrical impulses even though the impulses are present (“false negative”). So not being identified doesn’t mean you don’t have temporal lobe epilepsy.

Let me know if there are other examples (other than the ones mentioned above)! :)

Got a bunch of messages from another thread requesting the LG spreadsheet I use. Here's a download link for it. It has room for all of the tests, PTs 1-83.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1vtJeqvQRCYVZejcXU10u9BRgbnkdkmKq?usp=sharing

Hello all! I understand how Negation is different from the Contrapositive, as with Negation we are denying the relationship / conditionality (I think, right?), but I'm struggling to figure out where the Negation aspect fits into LR Question application - types of questions and how an answer / stimulus would fit into the mold - thoughts?

In the MSS question sets, I found two interesting question stems. Even though they’re both categorized broadly as MSS questions, I found some nuances for each of them that might be helpful for shaving off time. If you find a flaw in my reasoning, please point it out!

Here are the two question stems and my comments for each:

“The statements above, if true, serve LEAST well as evidence for which one of the following?

- Correct answer not supported; every other answer at least a little bit supported

- In the videos, JY compares this to an MSS except question, where the incorrect answer choices each have a ton of

support

“Which one of the following is LEAST compatible with the information given in the stimulus?

- Correct answer not supported (contradicts, even); every other answer compatible, but not necessarily supported (Why?

Because they could be irrelevant and still be compatible)

SO, why does this matter?

- In a “serve LEAST well as evidence” question, each one of the incorrect answer choices must be relevant to the stimulus

in some way. If it’s not relevant, then you know it’s the right answer choice.

- In a “LEAST compatible” question, an incorrect answer choice does not have to be relevant to the passage. Don’t just

choose it because it’s irrelevant.

For examples of each q-stem, see: lsat 25.s2.q19 & lsat 35.s4.q22

Hello, everyone. I’ve been drilling strengthening questions and I’m having an issue with causation/correlation and phenomenon type arguments. The lines have become blurred for me. Often times I cannot tell which the argument is presenting because they seem to be so similar but my accuracy with this question type has increased. I think I have a strong definition of the two but I’m having a tough time differentiating between the two when presented in arguments. I initially had PT 25-S2-Q10 as causation because I thought the argument was stating the ultraviolet light is causing the insects to be attracted to the webs but I changed to phenomenon because I figured that the insects being attracted to the webs because of the ultraviolet light is an observed phenomenon and the info about Glomosus spiderwebs was given as supporting evidence. Does “probably” give hint to anything here? I figured it would give hint to phenomenon rather than causation but idk if you can saying something “probably” caused something in causation/correlation type arguments. Either it did or it didn’t. When i hit the AC I’m looking for specific AC types depending on whether it’s a phenomenon or causation/correlation type argument. I haven’t come across many arguments by analogy. I haven’t paid attention but could there be both types of AC to trip you up? This is my greatest worry. For PT23-S2-Q14 I initially chose phenomenon but changed to causation. I got the question right but looking back I actually think it’s phenomenon. Which is it??! Also, please let me know if I’m doing too much with this question type. I’ve seen improvement but maybe I’m focusing on this too much and not something else enough. TIA

Hey guys

I took the LSAT in September and scored a 150, I studied quite vigorously all summer but unfortunately I was unable to balance summer school and a full course load in September. After the semester was over I picked my studying back up and am consistently scoring in the 156-159 area. I am writing a prep test every other day, and when not writing or reviewing I have decided to focus entirely on logic games. I can consistently score anywhere in the 17-21 range for RC and LR, but unfortunately I always bomb the LG section, timing being my biggest issue. I just bought the premium package today, but if anyone has any suggestions for where to allocate my study time from now until February tenth I would really appreciate it, I am aiming to score around the 162 area. Any advice helps!!!

I had a short 4 month study period while working full time. Recently, I've done 70, 71, 72 and previous 60s and a few 40s.

What do you suggest as my final timed two PTs? I'm thinking a late 70's and maybe an 80-83. Any particular 70s or 80s?

During the week, I'll do various individual sections during the day. Which PTs would you recommend I use of those?

TIA

If anyone has a good explanation as to why number 23 on section 2 is C, I would love to here it.

[Admin edit: title]

Hi all,

well, this question has been asked a million times, but I will ask it again...apologies.

My goal is to get 165 +.

Long story short I've been studying for almost a year now. Started Last March, more or less. My studying has been....a learning process. I started out quite erratically - I figured "oh, I have so much time!" and didn't put in that many hours (I also work full-time). I didn't buy a class or anything.

After 3 months or so of doing a few hours a week with some old power score books that a friend gave me, I realized that it would be better to get a class. So I got the 7sage course (the most basic one). I worked my way through about 2/3 of the lessons. During this time, I was occasionally doing practice sets, but I was mostly focused on logic games but I would do one game at a time. I kind of jumped around and did not use the foolproof method. Please don't ask me why. I think I just wanted to rush through everything because I underestimated how difficult the LSAT is.

In August I started to panic because I wanted to take the September LSAT, and I thought "oh my god I need to start doing full practice tests!" I took a few. This revealed that my score was still basically at the point where my diagnostic was (156).

I decided to postpone the September exam until December. I finally understood that score had not changed since my diagnostic because I didn't apply myself enough and didn't take enough time to learn the fundamentals.

I started learning the fundamentals. December arrived and I had done a few more practice tests- maybe 3/4 ( I only have time to do one a week) but my PT score had only climbed from a 156 to a 162.

I decided to postpone again.

Because I felt ridiculous, I did register for the February test. My mother, and my colleagues (I work at a law firm), were all saying that I should just take it. I figured that I absolutely needed to do the Feb 2018 exam because I had put it off so many times.

Fast-forward to now, and my highest PT score has risen from a 162 to a 165. I have something like 2 weeks but I'm working the whole time (I can't get days off). And I'm freaking out.

I want to score a 165 or higher. So...I'm almost there. It feels kind of ridiculous to put it off AGAIN... I'm close, so maybe, if I'm truly lucky, I will get that 165. But I think that that is not super likely. I assume my score will actually go down on test day, so it's probable that I'll get a 160, maybe lower (I score more consistently at 163 than 165).

If I postpone I will have time to do more than the 10 total practice tests I've done. And my logic games (this is my worst section) are finally getting better since I've started with the fool-proof method. But I'm still getting 8-10 wrong consistently. I can't finish all 4 games, EVER. Maybe this will improve.

This said, if I put it off, I have to deal with the stress of this dang test hanging over me for 6 more months - I fear that I've built this up so much that I'm just psyching myself out and looking for excuses to delay taking it. I fear that this psychological stress will get worse if I wait longer. I can always just take it in February (I've already paid) and take it again in June.

It is also possible that I've hit a plateau. I started with a pretty good diagnostic, and after a year I've only gone up by 9 points (and I only got a 165 once). My logical reasoning has completely stagnated - I always get 3-4 wrong. My reading comprehension has improved, and my logic games are getting there, but I'm ASTOUNDINGLY bad at them so I fear I actually will never do better than I'm doing now.

So. Do I put it off, given the possibility that another 6 months won't help much, and will just end up putting more pressure on me since I've delayed again?

Or do I just take it, but take it knowing that I am extremely unlikely to get the score I want - basically guaranteeing that I will have to retake?

Sorry for the wall of text.

I have been fool proofing for a few weeks now. The gains have been steady, and I am at the point where I can typically complete a game at least close to the target time while getting all the questions correct. Obviously, the goal is to finish below the target time with all questions correct every time, but I'm simply monitoring my progress. Last night I did the games section for PT 32 and scored a -9 in 35 minutes. Surprisingly, that's progress for me. I fool proofed each game by itself this morning, and will review the section again until i nail the thing with no problems.

Today, a little frustrated with my performance from the night before, I decided to try another LG section from PT 10. (Might not be the smartest method, cramming 8 games in 2 days, idk) This time, I did each game by itself. If I skipped a question and went on to the next game, I would write the time down on my paper, restart my watch, then move on to the next game. By the end of it, I had 3 minutes do do the three questions I skipped. The entire section took me 36 minutes of actual work (it took me 4 minutes to finsih the last 3), and I only missed 1 question. So, in reality maybe I would have gotten -2, or even -3. But that is much better than -9... I understand variability in section difficulty can have an impact, perhaps I would have scored a little worse on an overall harder section. Despite this, it is obvious that I struggle with bearing the weight of having to do all 4 games in 35 minutes as opposed to 1 game in 8 minutes. When I do one game at a time, I feel like I am in control. When I try to do all 4, I feel like a rag doll that has strings pulling on it from all different directions.

Is the hardest part bringing the sections together? I don't really know what to make of this. Should I try doing two games from a section, master that, then three from a section, master that, then do a full section?

Any suggestions as to what I should try?

(My goal is to have -2 on LG at most, preferably -1 or -0)

So it seems like we're going to have the July LSAT as well!

https://twitter.com/official_lsat/status/956924504172847109

UPDATE 2:

It's undisclosed :(

https://twitter.com/Official_LSAT/status/957003399299502080

Hi, I was wondering whether it is advisable/necessary to scan through all of the answer choices in a Main Point question, instead of just looking for the answer (which will be a paraphrase of the main conclusion that you already identified in the stimulus)?

Hey Everyone,

With 15 days until the next LSAT -14 days of review time left - I would like to hear the opinion of others on how to spend the next 14 days. Would it be best to write PT's for the next two weeks, practicing everything under gametime conditions. Or, would it be better to drill types of games, and questions, while doing timed practice sections for the next weeks; keeping the mind sharp for the big day.

What are your thoughts on how to approach the next 14 days?

Cheers,

When I read the Necessary assumption answer choices, I can only understand when the answer is wrong by negating it. How I understand why the answer is wrong without the negation, because, on the actual test I can't negate as it will take way to much time. Please if you have any suggestions, let me know :).

When is it valid to add percentages of two different sets. I know that sometimes the two sets could be overlapping and their percentages can't be added together, but are there times when you could validly add them? For example, if we said 30% of dogs are brown and 40% of cats are brown, could we say that 70% of cats and dogs are brown?

I know JY advises against moving onto the ACs without coming up with a prephase for flaw questions, but there are unfortunately usually 2-3 flaw questions on PTs that I just can't seem to see the flaw, even after skipping and coming back to it. And as some of you can guess, I get trapped by attractive sounding answers because I'm wading in muddy waters. How have you all overcome this? Do you have a methodical way of approaching flaw questions? (I try to boil down the MP and the MC and see the gap each time.)

Is drilling flaw questions the best way to fundamentally fix this problem? I'm thinking maybe I just haven't been exposed to enough flaw qs to see the patterns.

Thanks :)

Hi all!

I'm hoping that someone can help me out here. I started studying for the LSAT around Christmas, at when I took my diagnostic and a few subsequent LR sections/PTs, I was going -1/0 pretty consistently on LR sections. However, in the past two weeks or so, I've been doing a bit worse, ranging from -2 to -4, with a lot of -3.

Is it possible I've gotten worse? That I'm burning out? Any thoughts would be appreciated, especially if you've found that you've gotten worse on a section since studying!