I notice that almost ALL the questions I get wrong on PT (not many) are at or near the end each section. These are questions I worked on, and answered; I didn't have to guess. Also I generally don't have problems running out of time before I'm done with all the questions, so I don't think I was rushing it...
Any comments on why this may be? Any suggestions? I can't help but feel there's a psychological reason this keeps happening to me.
Keeps the blood pumping, keeps me alert, keeps me focused. And I can tell you were being facetious Pacifico.
What are the rules for what I can't do during the 15 min break?
- can I exit to use the bathroom?
- can I do some exercises in the hall (such as shadow boxing and pushups)?
- can I do some exercises in the test room (such as shadow boxing and pushups)?
- can I make noise (yet not enough noise to he heard in another room)
- can I leave the room to get some water?
Thanks in advance!!
Don't study habits and skills as much, instead shift your way of thinking and mind set such that those habits and skills flow naturally, without much force. In that way, the effectiveness of those habits and skills will be maximized. Anything forced is never as good as that same thing flowing naturally from an outlook with which it is mutually inclusive.
My 2 cents.
@smmallah773 did some searching on the site, good point you raised. What i said was true for me, and so assumed that it was thus also true for most others.
I meant that I would do it under the table so no one can see. Is that against a rule?
The LSAT rewards a mind set, more than learned skills and habits. A mindset is a product of years of experiences. It's specifically designed to see how analytically and critically one thinks naturally, and it's difficult to change ones natural outlook by studying the habits of a much different outlook; those habits are a product of that outlook, so to master the habits one first must master the outlook. It's like trying to learn Kung Fu by merely practicing the moves, and not the mindset that allows those Kung Fu moves to flow naturally, in turn permitting them to be their most effective. Studying the habits instead of the mindset will do far less than making serious strides towards shifting the mindset towards whats rewarded on the LSAT. I'm not saying it's impossible, just very difficult.
Just my humble 2 cents.
I'm no expert, so instead of advice alone, ill tell you my experience. For me, my background in polysci and history (my majors undergrad) really prepared me perfectly for RC. Dense scholarly polysci and history articles are jam packed with fodder, and a student MUST become able to scan it, sift through it quickly to find the relevant points. A lawyer has to do similar work, very often. Imagine a discovery process requiring document review of thousands of corporate documents, memos, spreadsheets, etc, from the other side of the litigation, and you have a deadline before which you must find specific information from the documents that will help your case. Being able to quickly ignore information not of primary importance is tantamount.
That being said, I think there is nothing that can sharpen this skill better than practice practice practice. Doesn't even have to be LSAT. Pick up an editorial section in the WSJ and see how quickly u can pace out the reasoning structure for each article.
Just my 2 cents.
I know it might have been asked a billion times before in a billion different ways. Here goes a billion and one.
Can someone give me some insight on the logistics of test day? It's the only aspect I'm nervous about. I feel like something I expect won't be present on test day, or something I didn't expect will be present, and it will throw me way off. Here's a few specific concerns?
A) can I drink during the test?
B) can I pee in a bottle if necessary, as to not waste time traveling to the bathroom?
C) can I chew a small piece of rubber, makes no noise?
D) is scrap paper at all permissible? I tend to need lots of space for LG questions.
E) how much space does the test booklet give for each LG set up to allow me to diagram and what not?
F) how will the proctor indicate time intervals?
G) can I track my own time?
H) can I track my own time with my cellphone? A watch?
I) can I stretch, stand up, or otherwise do other body movements to get the blood flowing, while taking the test?
J) can I make loud noises, and exercise, during the short breaks?
K) can I bring food, or a snack?
L) can I bring an extra source of light, such as a small lamp?
I have other paranoias (what if the room is stuffy? what if it smells horrible? what if there's someone I know in the room with me?), but these here listed are my primary ones.
Chewing helps a lot. But it doesn't have to be gum. I chewed a small piece of rubber during my SATs, and simply let the proctor know before hand that I was chewing rubber and he said he didn't care as long as it wasn't gum and it didn't make a loud noise, which it didnt. Pollyanna the same for LSAT, proctor tend to follow rules by the letter, never by the spirit
How is it not flawed to say that the absence of a factor resulting in the absence of an effect indicates that the factor causes the effect? That's "standard?" I mean, I can memorize such a rule, but if I don't understand it at all I doubt it will help me. *sigh* :(
http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-1-question-22/
The following is my reasoning for why the answer to PT64S1Q22 is D, and is not B. The answer-sheet states that the answer is B, while online explanations for why the answer is B seem to me to be confusing, non sequitor, flawed, and specious. That being said, im likely wrong, and the LSAT writers and expert teachers are likely right, and I simply currently cant see why. PLEASE someone explain to me how my reasoning is flawed, and why B is correct. THANKS!!
....
Summary: The arguments conclusion incorrectly points to a cause (using the word "promoted"), based on a correlation. B indicates a correlation, not a cause, so B doesn't strengthen the argument. D, however, points to a cause (an indirect cause), helping to justify, and thus strengthen, the argument. D is therfore the correct answer.
Argument in Question Stem, presented in syllogistic format:
Sewage sludge concentrated with heavy metals = C
Surviving bacteria of C are resistant to heavy metal poisoning = Rh
Surviving bacteria of C are resistant to antibiotics = Ra
• C
• Rh
• (C --> Rh) (relationship is causal)
• Ra
☆ therfor, (C --> Ra) (relationship causal)
Flaw: The correlation of Ra, C, and (C --> Rh) does not mean there is a causation from C to Ra. The answer which strengthens this argument will show that (Rh --> Ra) (C causes Ra because it causes Rh which causes Ra) or directly that (C --> Ra) (C causes Ra) or some contrapositive to that effect (~Ra --> ~C) or (~Ra --> ~Rh)
Answer choices, presented in syllogistic format:
A) (~Ra --> ~Rh) with a correlative relationship, not causal. Also uses the word "most" further discrediting a potentially causal relationship. Wrong answer.
B) [(~C --> ~Rh) & (~C --> ~Ra)] with correlative relationships. Even if they were causal, it at most only proves the latter relationships contrapositive that (Ra --> C, relationship causal) which in no way strengthens the claim that (C --> Ra) for the existence of a causal relationship in one direction in no way indicates that such a relationship exists in the opposite direction. Wrong answer.
C) (Ra --> Rh), relationship causal. This doesn't tell us that (Rh --> Ra) for the existence of a causal relationship in one direction in no way indicates that such a relationship exists in the opposite direction. Wrong answer.
D) (C --> A), whereas the relationship is correlative and A = the presence of significant concentrations of antibiotics. This isn't the ideal answer, clearly. However, it introduces a new player (A), which in turn offers a prospective causal link. If (C --> A) then it's possible that (A --> Ra) which would obviously mean that (C --> A). Though we don't know to what degree it's possible that (A --> Ra), the existence of this new possibility is real; indeed, it makes sense from outside knowledge that higher levels of antibiotics in a medium likely means that the only bacteria who will survive are those that are resistant to antibiotics (duh). This renders the reasoning in the argument much stronger. Correct answer.
E) [(~Bs --> Rhp) & (~Bs --> Ra)] definitely wrong because it's completely changing the subject matter.
So what's my Achilles heal here?
I get them right on BR. Thanks for the advice, I'm probably rushed without realizing it.