When the question stem uses the word "Most"; IE: Most Strengthens, Most Weakens, Most Resolves, do you guys find this to be indicative of more subtly correct answers and also potential trap ACs? I remember JY mentioning in one video that the term "Most" in LR stems is in some cases like a cop out for LSAC to defend ACs that may have the potential to come under fire. Not sure if confirming this would change my approach, but could be a good hint to pay extra attention and carefully eliminate ACs. What do you guys think?
I am having some trouble comparing A and B to each other. I believe the flaw itself is that Sid is confusing the consequences of a hypothetical with just one person walking across the grass. Can anybody shed some light on A and B?
I realized that I tend to focus more and have greater confidence when I have a really sharp pencil. I also always start PTs or timed sections on even numbered minutes. What are some of the little idiosyncrasies or superstitions that you guys have when doing PTs?
I wanted to share a resource which has helped me and a few others gain a better understanding of logical reasoning. The Wireless Philosophy Youtube channel has a 35 video playlist on what they call Critical Thinking. These videos address what arguments are, fundamental principles of reasoning, and common fallacies. I especially like the fallacy videos because they are a bit outside of the normal "cookie cutter" flaws that we think of but nonetheless are heavily used on LR questions. Many of these fallacies slap a label or term on reasoning patterns that we all know "feel" wrong but can't always articulate.
I did not watch these videos in order. I watched a couple a day to supplement and break up my studies. I think there is much value in thinking about arguments and the LSAT from many perspectives. Hopefully these videos help something click for someone out there!
D is telling us that most TAs earn a stipend beyond just tuition. Our conclusion is that the sole purpose is to fund education. D is consistent with the conclusion because 1. Maybe they earn a just a tiny bit beyond tuition, yet the sole purpose of the stipend being awarded for their services is to fund education. 2. There are factors other than tuition that go into funding education. Maybe the amount above just tuition is to cover books or other tangential education costs.
So just because most TAs earn a stipend that is beyond tuition does not mean the sole purpose of the position is not to fund their education.
Many of us dive into PSA mode as soon as our eyes scan the words "Most Helps to Justify". That is, hunting for the answer choice stating: If premise then conclusion. This is efficient and works a large majority of the time, however, I have noticed that recent tests have thrown a wrinkle into this strategy. The trick lies in the wording of the stem.
For example, the full stem looks like: "Which of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in the argument?"
Let's break this down. We are going to be given an argument: Premise + Conclusion. The answer choices will provide us 5 principles. We are to assume each one is valid or true. It is our job to identify the answer choice or principle which would most help to justify the reasoning. By reasoning it is meant how the premise supports the conclusion. In other words, we need a principle that most helps the premise be considered good evidence to reach the conclusion.
I bolded the word "most" twice because it means that we need the best answer choice in relative terms. An answer choice which creates or comes close to creating a valid argument is great, but, it is not necessary! An answer choice which lightly strengthens and requires less assumptions than all other answer choices also fits the task required of us by the stem.
Interestingly enough, when LSAC uses the "Most Helps to Justify" stem, the credited answer choice usually makes the argument close to validity. That is why the stem is commonly classified by 7sage analytics as a PSA question.
But remember, the wording of the stem does not necessitate reaching near validity. All we need is an answer choice that most helps the argument get closer to validity.
On the past few tests I have noticed that there will be a "Most Helps to Justify" stem whose credited answer choice is not the traditional "if premise then conclusion". Instead, it lightly strengthens the argument, while the other answer choices are irrelevant. Because the answer choices did not match my pre phrase, I panicked. Consequently, I eliminated all answer choices and had to skip the question. But, if I kept in mind that "Most Helps to Justify" does not require near validity, I would have been fine and saved lots of time and stress!
Takeaway/TLDR; "Most Helps to Justify" is a PSA question 95% of the time, but, the wording of the stem does not rule out that these types of questions are just light strengthening questions, which is the case the other 5% of the time. Be flexible and do not panic if your "If premise then conclusion" pre phrase is not found.
Well, 7 takes and nearly 2 years of prep has come to a head! I am really happy to share that my June score was a 169! I cannot thank this community and all of you guys enough. For those of you still grinding, keep your head up and know that it will one day pay off. Seeing your dream score in an email is one of the best feelings in the world!! I ultimately learned that the only way to reach a desired end is to fall in love with and find fulfillment in perfecting the means. I already miss prepping. I will certainly make another post with more specific lessons learned and approaches that I found useful, very soon. But now I am off to celebrate!
This is a great post! I use a similiar method for approaching arguments except I use the "But what if..." I approach all questions that contain an argument this way, even strengthen and necessary assumption questions. For strengthen questions I make this objection so that I first try to weaken the argument and in strengthening it I am looking for the strongest way to block where the argument is weak. For NA questions making this objection then allows you to block the objection in the weakest way that still allows the argument to stand.
I am curious if you used this approach as broadly as I do or only for question types like weaken?
I agree that your method is equally serviceable and a great way to think of it! Ellen Cassidy refers to it as the "Loophole". Anyways, yes I do think that both methods can be applied broadly for any question type involving an argument. This is because our job is simply to understand and articulate why an argument is invalid, and then either make it better, worse, or simply call it out (flaw questions). A drill that is useful is to take a question involving an argument and then find ways to strengthen/weaken/call out flaw/ identify PSA,SA, and NA. You will begin to see that seeing the gap between premise and conclusion is always the necessary first step!
The vast majority of LR questions turn on your ability to see the gap between premise and conclusion. If you can understand why the premise is good or bad support for the conclusion, the question type becomes trivial and the answer choices fall into your lap. Evaluating an LR stimulus is similar to LG -- do the work up front and you will be rewarded. This post will discuss a way of thinking about arguments that may help you to better evaluate them.
The idea is pretty simple. First, identify the premise and conclusion. Then ask yourself : Just because premise... does conclusion HAVE to be true?
Example: It is a very sunny day outside. JT's ice cream shoppe will be busy.
Just because it is sunny out, does JT's ice cream HAVE to be busy?
Well probably not...
What if JT's ice cream sells god awful product?
What if JT's is in the middle of a desert and no customers are even close to it?
What if it is sooo sunny out that people are too hot to leave their homes?
This test helps to expose why the premise isn't really great support for the conclusion. This is the first step in LR success. If you can consciously figure out why an argument isn't great, you take active control of the question. This makes you less vulnerable to traps and more likely to pick the credited AC.
It sounds trivial, but LR is as simple as thinking about why premises do or do not support conclusions. The difficulty lies in slowing down, understanding what the words are really saying, and putting the gap in your own terms. Hopefully the "Just Because" framework can help make this easier!
In Logical Reasoning sections, LSAC loves to test us on how we interpret studies. For example, a study is described, a conclusion is drawn, and it becomes our job to evaluate how well the study supports the conclusion. These questions are common and come in the form of: flaw, strengthening, weakening, necessary assumption, sufficient assumption, and if they are feeling really ambitious: resolve reconcile questions.
These questions mostly turn on how well the study is controlled. This video below takes you through what it means for an experiment to be controlled and why it is fundamental to "good" science.
Next time you do an LR section, notice how much the controlled experiment comes up, and how you must understand what makes it better or worse!
Thanks for all of the kind words. I will possibly follow up with some more posts like this in the coming weeks. There is so much to be learned from the content and process of the LSAT. It is a wonderful sport of the mind and spirit.
@ said:
Everything stated here is probably the truth and nothing but the truth. It's something that I can also testify to. Its comforting to see someone say it and believe it to remind me of that. Thanks for this!
That last part though.. the myth.. the later PTs being harder, I'm trying overcome it but I just can't seem to get that misconception out of my head. Did you struggle with LR post 70s? Or were you consistent throughout? If you did suffer, do you know what you did to get out of that zone? I'm taking the test next week and it's something that has placed me in sort of a slump.
Hey, don't worry too much about difficulty! At the end of the day your job is to read words on the page and analyze arguments. That part will never change. You belong here and can do this! Go be great!
As I begin law school at Cornell next week, I have felt increasingly compelled to reflect on my LSAT journey. I spent 2 years tirelessly grinding, putting my entire being into the test. To say that there were highs and lows would not do the feelings of each justice -- the lows made the world feel like it had ended and the high (getting my goal score) is a moment that I will never forget. Anyways, my experience was likely somewhat unique and I would like to share what I learned in hopes of streamlining your success.
1. Find an LSAT Buddy
Your family and friends will never understand this test. You need someone to be able to vent to and commiserate with. You need someone who you can text when you get wrecked by a timed section and you feel like the world is ending and you should re consider your entire future. You need someone to call you out when you are being lazy about your reasoning for eliminating or picking an answer choice. Blind reviewing with someone forces you to articulate your beliefs which makes them vulnerable and you will be more likely to challenge or change them. A study buddy will help you see questions and ideas in ways which were not possible by your life experiences and biases. Find someone you click with and you will lift each other to new heights. I ended up spending 100s of hours talking to and ultimately became close friends with my 7sage study buddy!
2. Growth= Stress + Rest
We get better by pushing really hard, letting ourselves recover from that stress, and ultimately growing from it. The secret is that the growth requires a resting period. If you only push, you simply just burn out, and risk losing your gains because your neurosis will create a loss of confidence and all kinds of negative feedback loops. So.... the key is to push really hard, take some time off, and then jump back in. If you plan the time off, you have control. Otherwise, burn out will force you to take time off and that is not fun. Go hard for a few days (or study sessions), forget the LSAT exists for a day or 2, and then jump right back in. This will keep you fresh and motivated. The rest period gives you a chance to cease the stories and biases you tell yourself. Burn out is simply when those stories and ideas seem so real that they weigh us down to the point where we cannot think rationally.
3. A Journal will keep you Sane
The biggest determiner of your growth will be what changes you make from day to day. A journal helps you to reflect on your current state and brainstorm ways to evolve. Don't try to hold it all in your head; when you write it down, it becomes real!
After you finish any section (timed or untimed) immediately record what went well, what did not go well, how you felt, and how you can improve next time out. Before taking the next section, look back on your prescriptions and go into the new section with the intention to implement what you learned. You will begin to notice recurring themes and you will be able to see and remedy them. Don't rush through your reflection-- LSAT success is a function of who can evolve best!
4. Meditation
Meditation shows you what your mind is like without thoughts or typical programs of consciousness running. Knowing what this is like allows you to recognize when thoughts and moods arise. This is relevant to the LSAT because sensing stress or fear at its onset is super important. If you catch it early, you can nip it in the bud before it snowballs. We are all prone to not understanding say #8 on an LR section, thinking we are out of our league or not good enough, reading #9 in that stressed out state, and getting even more stressed. This generally builds on itself until it comes to a head and you are left doubting everything and not able to think rationally at all. So meditation will help you to better understand and deal with life and stress as it happens to you. This will allow you to build a better inner dialogue. and perform better under timed conditions.
I am big fan of Sam Harris' Waking Up app. It is philosophical yet practical and accessible, and it avoids the corny feeling of Headspace or Calm.
5. Do not Underestimate Novelty
Ever heard the expression "Just Sleep on it" ? This is so oft used because it works! Our thought processes and conscious experience are determined by our inputs. If you keep your inputs the same and are stuck in routine, your results will not change. I cannot tell you how many times I was completely stuck and feeling hopeless on an LR question, did something else (like run, go on a drive, listen to music etc. ), and returned to see the question with perfect clarity. Under timed conditions this is why we skip. It gives us a chance to let our neurons slightly re arrange themselves and approach the question with new eyes. Novelty destroys the stories we tell ourselves which hold us back. Change your routines often, step out of your comfort zone, and try new stuff! If nothing changes, nothing will change.
6. LG is a Muscle
Unlike the other sections, the more LG you do the better you become at it. Practice trains you to make inferences sub consciously and quickly. I found that even taking a few days off would make me slower and clunkier. Get your reps in and stay fresh!
7. Untrained Intuition is Very Dangerous
Some of the worst atrocities ever committed were done so because people truly believed things for very bad reasons. Trusting your intuition is essential on this test, but you first must make sure it is warranted. The work you do in BR and untimed sessions are what trains your intuition. You are training your machinery under the hood to be able to fire efficiently and effectively when called upon. Challenge yourself to always write out why you think what you think. Lots of times ideas "feel" right in our head until we are really forced to write or articulate them. Your BR score is a decent indication of how much you can trust your intuition. When you are satisfied with it, see how you do with timed work. Find where your intuition fails you and fix it during BR--- rinse and repeat until you improve! Here is an example of my written explanations: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NEb2hPezf10STZByj0fHHeWwuCGNFEQ5/view
8. Being Well- Read Matters..... A Lot
Having a basic understanding of terms in Science, Philosophy, and Art is massive. Being able to visualize and understand such topics means you can spend more time analyzing arguments and structure and less time confusedly parsing grammar. The people who do well on this test without much prep are the ones who are already familiar and versed with such topics. For example, JY triple majored in Economics, Political Science, and Philosophy-- He was pretty much bred for this test! The good news is that you have plenty of time and resources to catch up. I saw big returns on my efficiency and performance from doing more outside leg work. Below is a list of my favorite resources:
https://aldaily.com/ -- Articles on Art, Philosophy, and Literature which are written in a very similar way to RC passages. Reading a few of these a day will make you an RC god.
https://www.youtube.com/user/Kurzgesagt --- A Youtube channel which does visual explanations regarding questions on philosophy and science. They do a great job of simplifying complex ideas and making them digestable.
Philosophize This Podcast-- Accessible way to learn about famous philosophers and ideas. Nearly every episode covers a topic that has been brought up on the LSAT.
This book gave me my greatest LR gains. It discusses the science behind why we reason, discusses the underpinnings behind informal logic, and provides many many examples. This is far beyond the concepts tested by the LSAT, but it will challenge you and sharpen your conscious thought and logical reasoning. An old LSAT test writer said on the LSAT Unplugged Podcast that he used this book as inspiration to write LR questions.
9. Speed Reading is a Myth... but Mastery of Grammar is NOT
Trying to read faster will make you worse. Be wary of anyone purveying this advice. The key is to understand what you read more effectively and efficiently. Especially in RC, what you are reading is something that author spent a lot of time working on and perfecting. It is like a prized musical piece to them. Being a master of Grammar helps you read the notes just as they were intended to be hit and get into the rhythm of the writing, as if you had direct access to the author's thoughts. I became a much smoother and confident reader after learning the "why" behind grammatical markings and use.
To do so, it is important to truly understand the function and usage of commas, colons, dashes, semi-colons, and other markings of writing. Some resources to get you started:
Note: I also found it useful to check out some basic concepts from linguistics. Check out some tree diagramming videos on Youtube and learn to see the elements of a sentence. This will help you to break down abstract, difficult language when the LSAT throws it at you.
10. You know the importance of sleep + nutrition + exercise... Stop ignoring it.
These things are all inter connected. If one is lacking, the others will begin to lack and eventually you will lose your ability to think clearly. You cannot expect to score at an elite level on the LSAT and not take care of other facets of your life at an elite level.
This should convince you:
11. Tune out Dogma
You will find all kinds of people with "secrets" to the LSAT and supposed necessary conditions to success-- Be skeptical! Think about success in undergrad: Everyone had their own approach; some were much more effective than others, but the only right way was the one which worked for you. So stop listening to Webinars, Podcasts, Reddit, and other resources looking for the magic solution. Just keep grinding, trying things, and seeing what works for you. I do understand the irony of me giving advice yet also telling you not to take advice from those who offer it (Lol!)
My favorite dogmatic myths:
-Later PTs are harder
Later questions are always harder than earlier ones
-You should take a PT a week
-You aren't ready until you have PT'd your goal score 19 times and waited 6 years
-RC is not easy to improve on
If you believe these things ... they will be true!
Happy LSAT'ing and enjoy + embrace all parts of the journey :)
Lucas, do you think this issue could be responsible for the difference between timed score and BR score?
For sure! Time constraints create a challenge to the test that is not present during BR; It is much easier solving questions with unlimited time to think and digest.
There is no worse feeling during a timed section than when you come across a difficult question, have trouble processing it, and feel like you should be able to answer it. You start to question why you can't do it, why your brain isn't working, thinking about the clock, and how you NEED to get this one correct and NEED to do so quickly. This stress can quickly compound and sometimes even render you staring blankly at the page wondering if you can ever do well on the LSAT.
This has happened to me many times during practice and unfortunately many times during real takes; it is not fun. So why does this happen? I think that we tend to take how we feel at the present point in time and assume that we will feel that way for the indefinite future. For example, when we come across a really tough question that we are not understanding, we tend to think that that feeling of difficulty and inadequacy will remain for the rest of the section, rest of our test, and ultimately the rest of our lives. This becomes a very scary prospect. When this is on our mind, it becomes nearly impossible to think objectively or rationally. The idea of hell is so scary because it involves the infinite feeling of suffering.
So, how do you prevent and effectively manage stress before it snowballs? First, know that it is going to be present. No matter how good you are at this test, there will always be very tough questions and ones which do not even come close to clicking at first. Stress and adversity are inevitable. I have found that the key is recognizing stress when it begins. Try to realize when your mind begins to feel uncomfortable and like a question has rendered you weak and powerless. Remind yourself that you have come across some adversity and that this is completely expected and normal. The difficulty that you are having now with this one question is not permanent and you can/will pop right back up for the next one. Move on to the next question with confidence and be ready to skip that one too if it does not click!
This takes practice, but try to recognize the stress/fear/doubt as soon as it arises, tell yourself you were expecting it, and that it will not shake you. When I am hit with stress during a timed section, I like to think "ahhhh there you are! I knew you were coming, but you will not trick me this time." During a timed section you will inevitably think that you can't or that your mojo isn't there, but I promise it usually is! In short, don't project how you feel in the present about a question onto the rest of the test!
Lots of times process of elimination will be your best friend. For example, you may know that the argument in the stimulus makes a math error or requires an assumption regarding a proportion. If an answer choice has nothing to do with numbers, you can quickly eliminate it. You can let the remaining answer choices feed you rather than trying to work out the math on your own.
There is data to pretty confidently conclude that no law school averages and they all consider the highest score. This has to do with their incentive to maintain the highest possible LSAT medians to achieve a high US News ranking.
Here is some more information regarding this: https://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/do-law-schools-average-lsat-scores-or-use-the-high-score/
Hey! I’ve been waiting for your next post haha. My eyes are always peeled.
More trap answers include:
What people think, feel, believe, wish, want, their intentions, etc.
Wrong group - like if the stimulus is discussing pink ducks, and the AC is talking about blue ducks. It can be very subtle.
The other X, another X, is better than/greater/faster etc.
A little off topic, but what is your approach on 58-4-23? This is also a strengthen question, where a corroborating dataset just doesn’t cut it. I think I was a little traumatized from the question.
Thanks for your kind words! I posted a detailed explanation in the comments section. That question is pretty tough, but cracks right open if you focus on the argument!
You could say the second argument “flows” better or is more "supported"; however these labels are skin deep and do not get to the heart of what makes a good argument.
A good argument is one where when the premise is true, the conclusion is highly likely or certain to be true.
A useful technique is to think about when the premise is true, can you think of more possible worlds where the conclusion is true, or are there more possible worlds where the conclusion is false?
We reason with our imagination and past experience. For example, in evaluating the first argument, I draw upon all the times I have experienced heavy rain. Sure, some of those times traffic has become backed up, but not every time. Moreover, the rain probably was not the cause of the traffic-- the traffic would have happened anyways.
I can think of more times and imagine more hypothetical worlds where rain is heavy and traffic is normal. Thus the premise being true does not really correlate with the conclusion being true.... so the argument is weak.
A good argument contains a premise that when true, means that the conclusion is more likely than not to also be true.
For the second example, I have trouble thinking of a world where it could rain heavily and the ground does not get wet. Drawing on my experience and imagination, every time it rains heavily, the ground must get wet. When the premise is true, the conclusion is extremely likely to be true.... so we have a good argument.
Another way to think about it is viewing the premise as an input. When that input is true, how often do we get the conclusion or output? Do not be afraid to use your imagination!
Strengthening/Weakening questions merely ask you to take the premise (or input) and increase/decrease the likelihood that it will produce the output. For example, to strengthen the first argument, we would just say that water greatly inhibits vehicle speed and handling. If this is true, the input becomes more likely to yield the output or conclusion.
Good reasoning is human nature and evolutionarily advantageous. Those who can see connections and properly anticipate the future better than others are more successful. For example, if you can make the connection that sun causes crop growth, you can manipulate the world to your benefit. However If you reason poorly, thinking that interpretative dance creates crop growth, you will not have many crops and will be disadvantaged!
Also, I will be available again for tutoring between now and February when my courses start back up. My apologies to those who reached out via DM the past couple months, 1L chaos prevented me from being able to keep up with my inbox.
The most insightful part of the podcast was NOT telling people about the 7th take. Also, not to make an over-reaching conclusion, but maybe having 5+ takes for many more people won't preclude them from t14.
This one is known as Phenomenon Hypothesis. In this argument form, an observation about the world is made, followed by a proposed explanation. This post will discuss some common answer choice types LSAC uses to effect the strength of a hypothesis in explaining a phenomenon or observed occurrence.
1. Affirm/Deny Mechanism
Tells us exactly how the hypothesis would explain the phenomenon.
For example, if I say: there is a correlation between white blood cells and strong immune systems, therefore white blood cells cause strong immune systems.
A mechanism would be explaining a plausible way for white blood cells to improve immune systems. Like: white blood cells contain disease fighting chemicals that kill all bad bacteria. So this information strengthens our hypothesis by providing a plausible mechanism.
To deny the mechanism or weaken, we would show that white blood cells have nothing to do with the immune system.
2. Corroborating Data Set
This is when we bring in a new data set which corroborates or jives with the notion that our hypothesis explains our phenomenon.
For example, if I say: bees left a part of Florida that was experiencing a heat wave, so it probably was the heat which drove them out.
A corroborating data set could show that a heat wave happened recently in Nevada and the bees left as soon as it began. This corroborates our hypothesis and makes it stronger by showing that we introduced the purported cause and got the intended effect, right away. This does not make our hypothesis have to be true, but it does make it more plausible or strengthen it.
3. Competing Data Set
The opposite of a corroborating data set. So, a new set of info that makes our hypothesis a less attractive means of explaining the phenomenon.
To stick with the bee example, we could show that another state experienced a heat wave and the bees stayed put. This would show that we have our purported cause without the effect. This does not kill the argument entirely, but it does weaken or make it slightly less plausible.
4. Consequences
Science operates on eliminating hypotheses. We determine what would be necessary if a hypothesis were true. Such that:
Hypotheses true——> Consequences True
Next, we test those consequences. If they are not true, the hypotheses is not true. If they are true, our hypotheses does not need to be true but it lives to fight another day. We then find more additional consequences that would be true and test those. The hypothesis that survives this consequence testing is deemed best and closest to truth, until proven otherwise.
Example:
There was a UFO sighted over Nevada, close to Area 51, it must be aliens.
A consequence of this hypothesis being true would be that aliens exist, are able to travel, or can build things. If we find out any of these are untrue, the hypothesis is no longer possible.
This form is sort of like a Necessary Assumption for science.
5. Block/Introduce Alternative
This answer choice would either build up or break down a competing hypothesis.
In our Alien example, we could say that the US military was conducting weapons testing during the time the UFO was reported and in close proximity to the sighting.
This being true would explain the observed phenomenon without our hypothesis needing to be true. It also is more plausible than our hypothesis. So, our argument would be weakened.
To block out such an alternative, we would just say that the US military was on holiday the day of the sighting and conducted 0 activity in Nevada. Ruling out an alternative hypothesis, helps make our hypothesis slightly more likely.
6. Temporal Affirmation
If a hypothesis is going to explain a phenomenon, it needs to make sense time wise.
For example:
On Monday, it rained and the highway had 35 car accidents. Normally, there are only 10 accidents per day. I hypothesize the rain created poor driving conditions and thus more accidents.
For this to work, we need the additional accidents to have happened after the rain. To strengthen the hypothesis, we say that the day was average at first and the accidents piled up after the rain
To weaken this, we show that there were already 32 accidents that day, before the rain.
7. Irrelevant
Most Answer choices you see on phenomenon hypotheses questions will have nothing to do with how the hypothesis explains the phenomenon.
Always ask yourself: Does this piece of information have any bearing on how the hypothesis explains the observed phenomenon?
For our Alien example, some irrelevant answer choices might look like:
Aliens are more intelligent than Lizards.
Human beings do not have sophisticated enough means to communicate with Aliens
The UFO was sighted by 3 people with doctorate degrees
A similar sighting happened in Nebraska, in 1984.
These things are all great, but they do not address whether or not the object was in fact Aliens!
This list is not meant to be exhaustive and I am sure there are many other ways to strengthen or weaken such arguments. Feel free to share any others below :)
I noticed a repeating pattern of argument structure that some may find useful. I call the form "Cost Benefit”, below I will discuss how it functions and why it matters.
The argument structure offers one benefit as a premise and concludes from this that the benefit is compelling to make a statement about the original “thing” being good overall.
Let me give an example:
The Dirt Devil vacuum cleaner has the most efficient suction system out of any vacuum on the market, moreover, the Dirt Devil is the most cost effective option on the market. Therefore if you are in the market for a vacuum, look no further than the Dirt Devil.
Here our premise holds 2 benefits (most efficient suction system, most cost effective) out to conclude that the Dirt Devil is the best to buy.
The assumption here and with every “Cost Benefit” argument is that there is not a cost being overlooked that outweighs these benefits.
So,
To Weaken such an argument: Introduce a cost that may outweigh the benefit
To Strengthen: Block out the possibility of potential costs, introduce another benefit, or emphasize the importance/relevance of the benefit.
Additionally, this argument structure is often used for Necessary Assumption questions. The NA simply stating something to the effect of: “The benefit is not outweighed by certain costs” or “The benefit is not unimportant to making a judgement about the original thing”.
The “Cost Benefit” argument also has another cookie cutter form. It uses a cost as a premise and then concludes that something is not good or we should not do something. This argument structure works the same way as the above one, except the assumption is that there is not an overriding benefit.
Cookie cutter arguments matter because patterns of reasoning are finite and LSAC re uses many of the same forms, just dressed up with confusing subject matter. For example to make a “Cost Benefit” argument more difficult, they may make the subject matter abstract or create an argument that makes perfect sense intuitively.
Boiling questions down to empirical structure is like distilling their blue prints and from there you can think about how new questions may spawn from them. Hopefully this is helpful, if so I will make some similar posts in the future!
I will be taking the LSAT one final time this March in hopes of getting off of a few waitlists and upping my scholarship prospects. I would like to find an LR study buddy to BR over Skype with. I usually miss between 4-6 questions between both sections and would like to work to get that down a bit for a shot at 170s. I am open to working with anyone. Shoot me a message if you might be interested!
I want to quickly discuss a common type of causation argument that LSAC uses.
Here is an example:
Those who wear glasses are more likely than those who do not to have knee problems. To ensure good knee health, ditch the glasses.
We take a correlation and make a recommendation, seems pretty innocuous- maybe this is sound advice.
No! This advice is rooted in making an assumption. This assumption is a really bad reasoning error. It is assuming that wearing glasses is what causes knees to have problems. That is why the advice to stop wearing glasses to prevent knee damage is given. Notice how the argument never comes out and says "Glasses cause Knee problems", that would be too easy. The implicit assumption that the argument makes is inferring causation from correlation.
As we know, when A is correlated with B, there are 4 possibilities :
A causes B
B causes A
3rd common cause
No relationship
For our advice to ditch the glasses to work, we would need A to cause B, or, in other words, glasses to cause knee problems. If it really is the case that knee problems cause people to wear glasses (B causes A), then just stopping wearing glasses will do nothing, the advice would be terrible. Similarly, if genetics causes both knee problems and glasses and that is why we have our correlation, then taking glasses off will do nothing. In short, the only way our advice works is if glasses really do cause knee problems. We cannot say this is the case just based on the existence of a correlation, there are 3 other possibilities which are equally likely.
Boiled down to variables the argument goes like this:
**A is correlated with B
If you desire B, just do A.
or
If you want to prevent B, don't to A**
Well, for this advice to make sense, we must assume that A causes B and we cannot do that based on a correlation.
These questions are sometimes tricky because they make intuitive sense. They will really try to make the advice sound good, despite making a correlation causation error. Here is one last example:
People with a lot of sugar in their diets tend to get disease XYZ more often than those who do not. To lower your risk of XYZ, cut out sugar from your diet.
Well, we know sugar is bad for health, so this does not seem bad at all. BUT, this argument commits the error of taking a correlation and jumping to the conclusion that sugar is what is causing XYZ. This is done implicitly (hence to title of the post) and is not ok for the reasons discussed above!
@ was the heat when I was learning the ropes last year (last last year? Its all a blur.). If you guys are considering help, do take advantage of this rare instance of a solid sage/tutor having some availability.
I have time to work with 1-2 more students a few times per week this summer. 1L expanded my ideologies about the test and its importance. More about my background can be found on the tutoring page here:
Update: My inbox filled up more than expected and I no longer have openings. However, I am always willing to offer insights about the test or admissions process via DM. Happy Studying!
recognizing syllogism patterns in LR. I highly recommend getting a logic book (something a college class in logic would use, not something trivial without substance), you'll have lots of lightbulb moments
LR will suddenly jump out as more cookie cutter in its forms
Hey I may be able to help. I just finished up 1L at Cornell and am tutoring again for the summer. More about my background can be found on the tutoring page: https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/comment/68763
Hey I may be able to help. I just finished up 1L at Cornell and am tutoring again for the summer. More about my background can be found on the tutoring page: https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/comment/68763
Just wanted to say thank you to the community and JY for creating this amazing site that enables people to pursue their wildest dreams'. It is apparent that 7sage's true intent goes far beyond making money and exists to create good in the world by empowering others. Whatever way tomorrow goes for those of us taking the test, it is comforting knowing we have an entire community that has been there from the beginning and will be there through the entire journey. September Test Takers: Lets do this!!
I agree with your "many" interpretation. This is because often is subjective. If you say you go to the park often, it cannot be taken to mean that you are there most of the time; rather, it just means you go there sometimes.
This interpretation has served me pretty well through all of the LSAT-- I have yet to be burned yet!
I struggle with RC the most and really appreciate you posting this! Do you have any skipping suggestions/things you found beneficial when you would be taking an RC section during a PT?
I find that pre phrasing is important to skipping. This is because when you pre phrase, you force yourself to determine if you understand the question and the relevant part of the passage. If you cannot pre phrase or if the question asks about a part of the passage you really struggled with, then you can just skip right away.
For example, suppose we have a science passage about Gamma Rays. Maybe you understand the structure of the argument and main point but not the details. If a question stem asks about the details of how Gamma Rays behave, just skip before dealing with the ACs. If you really do not understand the concept, the ACs will only make it worse and trap you, while sucking your time.
So, know what you know and don't know and skip aggressively based around that. Do not be afraid to get out of a question entirely if you end up hating all of the answer choices.
Lastly, do not feel bad or ashamed about skipping- see it as an opportunity to save time and dodge bullets. Each passage usually has 1 very difficult question. Do not beat yourself up over it if you are not getting it. See it as a luxury that you will give yourself a chance with if you have time at the end but do not need to get correct.
To flush this out let me give an example:
Student A is against skipping. He read online that you should just do everything in order because it will be fresh in your mind. There are 4 really tough questions on this RC section: #4, #13, #22, and #27. Student A cannot remember the detail that the question stem in #4 talks about. He spends 40 seconds in the passage looking for it. On #13, he dislikes all the answer choices and goes into the passage to find a resolution. This takes another 40 seconds. #13 and #22 are similar, each using 40 additional seconds. So Student A has burned nearly 3 minutes by not skipping the 4 hardest questions. Sure, maybe he ended up getting a few of them correct, but they are inherently very difficult so he likely still missed 2 of them. The real problem is the time spent. Now he must make up for those 3 minutes somehow. This will manifest itself in rushing through reading passages or question stems/ACs; as a result, being vulnerable to make silly mistakes on easy questions.
Student B is a skipper. On #4, #13, #22, and #27, she nopes right out of them when she realizes she does not understand what is being asked of her or dislikes all ACs. Instead of ruminating over these, she saves those 3 minutes. This gives her less timing pressure/stress and allows her the ability to not need to rush in understanding passages or doing the other questions. She is less liable to silly mistakes. She gets through the section with 2.5 minutes left over. At this point her mind is in a different spot than when she struggled with those 4 questions. Maybe some time away from them or something in the other questions helped 1 or 2 of them click. She has 2.5 minutes to battle it out and try to pick off a few of them. She avoids having to rush on the easier questions. She recognizes that there will be really tough questions and is cool with missing a few of them; she will miss them quick, giving her time to crush the easier ones.
I created explanations for the first LR section of PT 89. I also included cookie cutter take aways for each question. Hopefully this is helpful to some! Let me know if you have questions or alternative ways of reasoning; I would love to hear them!
RC success is a function of knowing what to read for and a healthy balance of focus and confidence. Without confidence, it is hard to really focus. Knowing what to read for helps to build confidence, which increases your willingness and ability to focus.
I will briefly discuss how you can practice knowing what to read for below. This is difficult at first, but gets easier with repetition- the more you do it, the faster and more accurate you become.
First, why RC? Why does LSAC care to test us on RC and what do they really want us to do?
In law school, we will be reading tons of cases written by judges. It will be our job to discern the main point of the case, determine what the judge really thinks, and how they build their argument. Once we have this understanding, we can (with the help and insights of professors) analyze the strength of the argument and think about its implications.
The LSAT tests our ability to identify the main point or thrust of an argument, discern the authors’s view, and be able to see the author’s logical progression to the main point or conclusion, in other words to map the blueprint of the argument.
The questions are almost all based around these elements. By reading with the intent of figuring these things out before the questions, the questions fly by. This is analogous to making up front inferences during Logic Games.
RC is hard because we are not used to reading and thinking in this manner. Most of the things we read, we just skim.
So here is a template to fill out when you read RC. Filling this out yourself will get you in the habit of consciously thinking about the things LSAC requires of you. The more you do this, the better your ability will become. After writing these things out many times, you will eventually be able to hold these elements in your mind. This is how comfort, speed, and accuracy is built. So focus on filling this template out untimed at first. Then hit the questions. During the questions, you will find that you have thought about many of the concepts asked if you already.
So here is the template:
Paragraph #1 Low Resolution Summary:
Author’s separate paragraphs to signal a shift in ideas. Each paragraph is the reporting of a different idea. We want to identify what that idea is.
We are looking to summarize the takeaway from the paragraph. This will show us 3 or 4 different ideas. Then we take these ideas and examine how they relate. The relationships of the paragraphs come together to allow us to see the takeaway of the whole thing.
P2:
P3:
P4:
Main Point? - What does the author want you to take away from this? What are they trying to argue, show, or tell you about?
Author’s tone? - Where do they show their opinion and what is it? Pay close attention to when the author is speaking versus when they are telling you about the opinions of others. Do not conflate the 2!
Argument Structure?-
How does each paragraph relate to one another? Use your low res summaries to tell a story. For example: Paragraph 1 tells us about a strange phenomenon, Paragraph 2 then gives us Jones explanation for the phenomenon, Paragraph 3 introduces Kate and she offers a different explanation for the phenomenon, Paragraph 4 ends with the author telling us why they think Kate’s explanation is better than Jones’.
Analyzing an RC passage and doing this is time consuming and even draining- for harder passages it will take me sometimes 1.5 hours to fully feel like I have a full understanding of the passage. This is normal, take your time and shoot for quality of training over quantity. Knowing deep down that you have a true understanding of the passage is how you develop confidence! Like I said earlier, this process will start out slow and painful, but it will pay off if you stick with it.
Once you have completed the template, and feel comfortable with it, you are ready to hit the questions.
More so than LR, you need to take your time to fully understand the question stems, or what is being asked if you. For example, in LR a stem may ask you which AC most strengthens the argument. You can read this and know your task in about 2 seconds because you have seen hundreds of these. However, an RC stem is more likely to be unique, specific, and its meaning may turn on a single word. So it is important to take your time with stems.
Use Pre Phrasing! After reading the stem, answer the question in your own words. Think about what a credited answer choice might be. For example, if the question asks you what an author would most likely agree with, think about what you know about the author’s opinion. This type of conscious thought before looking at answer choices will make you less prone to traps and more efficient. It also forces you to full understand the question stem. I found that many of my mistakes were a product of not understanding the task at hand.
Steps:
1.Fill out template untimed (this will take forever at first)
2. Analyze the questions. Read the stem and pre phrase before looking at answer choices. Write out justifications for every answer choice, right or wrong.
3. Take a break, reset your brain, repeat
4. Check answers/grade
5. Over time this will become easier and you can try doing 2 passages in one sitting
6. Once you can do 2 passages in one sitting and go -1 or -0 per passage, you are ready to add in timing
7. Complete a 35 minute strictly timed RC section. Pick the 2 passages you found most difficult and complete the template and question justifications, untimed.
8. Keep an excel sheet tracking your results, timing, and takeaways. Before you take a timed section, revisit this sheet and set intentions/ goals going into the section.
118
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
D is telling us that most TAs earn a stipend beyond just tuition. Our conclusion is that the sole purpose is to fund education. D is consistent with the conclusion because 1. Maybe they earn a just a tiny bit beyond tuition, yet the sole purpose of the stipend being awarded for their services is to fund education. 2. There are factors other than tuition that go into funding education. Maybe the amount above just tuition is to cover books or other tangential education costs.
So just because most TAs earn a stipend that is beyond tuition does not mean the sole purpose of the position is not to fund their education.