Has anyone used this book and found it useful? I do have 7sage ultimate and have completed the CC but am still struggling with LR. My LR scores have gone down post-CC, and I am really just looking for something else to help boost my LR. I also have the LSAT trainer and find some of the material useful but most of it not.
Thanks in advance.
I live 20 min south of downtown LA. I just finished CC and am currently taking PTs/drilling. I'm scoring in the mid 160s and am looking to score 170+.
PM me!
You are on the right track but I don't think it matters that there's a possibility of them both being illegal. (A) is saying that two pesticides shouldn't both be LEGAL. Them both being illegal is in concert with this statement.
I think what you mean to say is that (A) precludes the possibility of them both being legal. This stimulus says, however, that either one should be banned/made illegal or the other one should be legalized. Hence, the stimulus leaves open the possibility of them both being legal, whereas (A) does not.
I also like to close my eyes and take some deep breaths. Focusing on the rhythm of my heartbeat while taking the breaths helps immensely.
You have to try to figure out its meaning using context clues from the sentence and the sentences around it.
The following sentence begins "this is a serious deficiency", which provides a clue that a "dearth" means something negative. This phrase, in addition to the rest of the second sentence ("since court records are of vital importance..."), should be enough to figure out that there's a lack of actual court records.
Wow this great! Thanks!
In case anyone is wondering, forms 1 and 2 have names:
Form 1 - denying the sufficient/antecedent
Form 2 - affirming the necessary/consequent
Yes, D is also a sufficient assumption. If you diagram, it'll become clear.
IGE → ~RA
Therefore: BG → ~RA
The gap here is BG → IGE, which is (D).
Key: IGE= intuitive grasp of emotion; RA= remain in academia; BG= become great
I asked this question a while ago and the consensus was that diagramming on paper is a tool used rarely and only for the more difficult questions (under timed conditions). High scorers are able to diagram most questions mentally but sometimes are forced to do it on paper when the arguments are more convoluted.
Great video. Thanks for sharing!
I think the flaw can be described succinctly as one in which the experiment lacks a control group.
Yes thank you for doing this!
I disagree with J.Y.'s emphasis on the correlation/causation flaw here. I agree that that flaw is present within the stimulus but I do not agree that that is the flaw that is paralleled (I don't think the correlation/causation flaw is present in AC (B)). Rather, I think the flaw that's being paralleled is one of overweighting/giving too much consideration to one factor at the expense of all others.
To those who consistently score well in RC, do you usually have significant time remaining at the end like in LG or LR?
I too live in the South Bay but am willing to commute occasionally
I, too, wrote the premises G → FC ←s→ ACB but still got the question right. This diagramming also works in the same way as JY's subcategory method. The conclusion that ACB ←s→ G is invalid for the same reasons no matter the method.
The same argument made valid would have the premise FC → G instead of the G → FC as it is in the stimulus. This is where the necessity/sufficiency mix-up occurs. The valid argument would thus conclude ACB ←s→ G from
ACB ←s→ FC → G.
Key:
G: good actions
FC: favorable consequences
ACB: actions considered bad
If you're struggling to ID the words when they first appear then flashcards may be useful.
If you're struggling understanding necessity vs sufficiency then practicing LR and LG may be the way to go. Diagram and try to understand on an intuitive level every conditional relationship you see.
I wouldn't get caught up in mastering conditional language right away. For me, understanding necessity and sufficiency developed over time. I struggled with the ideas for some time but constant exposure to the material improved my intuitive understanding. Personally, I would recommend not dwelling on the issue. I'd review the material and then move on, only going back to the lessons when other issues arise.
I've taken some formal logic classes in the past and am familiar with some of the rules they use. I've really been struggling with parallel reasoning questions so I've returned to studying valid categorical syllogisms. Long story short, I've encountered some areas in formal logic which seem to contradict the lawgic lessons of 7sage.
For example, universal negative propositions (No S is P) can be diagrammed in lawgic S ---> ~P. This form of diagramming and the 7sage lessons imply that P ---> ~S is a valid inference (contraposition). In formal logic, however, this is not a valid form of contraposition. You can contrapose No S is P to infer that some non-P is not non-S (with limitation).
I don't mean to get this deep into formal logic but this contradiction is apparent from even a shallow review of valid syllogism forms.
Am I missing something? Or are there areas on the LSAT that do not conform to formal Aristotelian/Boolean logic?
Is there anyone else that has studied formal logic deeply and successfully applied it to the LSAT?
All direct proportionality means is that a change in one variable induces a change in another variable in the same direction (i.e. if X increases then Y increases or if X decreases, then Y decreases).
I'm jointly studying for the LSAT and GRE but the LSAT usually takes precedence.
I haven't studied for the quantitative section yet because my math skills are up to date (I am a tutor by profession).
For the verbal section, I've been using Manhattan Prep's essential and advanced vocab flashcards. There are 1000 words so going through those will take some time. I definitely recommending getting these. I've been studying the flashcards in tandem with a paid service called Membean, which uses periodic quiz questions to reinforce already learned vocab words. I'd recommend Membean but with some hesitation, though, as their modes of learning seem a bit too easy (I wonder about longer-term recall). One thing that I do really like is that they include the roots for every word to help you understand the relationships among different words.
Does anyone have a blank copy of the spreadsheet Pacifico used to keep track of his LG progress?
Thanks in advance
thanks!