(bump)
Just a reminder to those that just happened upon this post: the update I posted in the comments shows how I improved upon the original post.
Thanks to Matt Shinners (who scored a 180) from Manhattan Prep, I learned the following nifty strategy:
List out the premises, correctly notating if it's an "all", "most", or "some" relationship for each one.
Focus only on the sufficient side of the arrow (affirming the necessary is always invalid).
See if 2 or more of the "strong" (all, most) elements on the sufficient side of the arrow can be linked up (NB: of course, you might have to take the contrapositive of at least one premise, though, especially on more difficult questions)
After doing 1-3 above, you simply have to remember that:
ALL + MOST = SOME, and it's valid.
MOST + MOST = SOME, and it's valid.
MOST + SOME or SOME + SOME is always invalid.
No sufficient side linkage = no valid deductions to be made
In fact, "some" will usually be the valid deduction, if there is one (NB: the one exception is "most A are B" and "all B are C", ergo "most A are C"). Therefore, when hunting for the correct answer on questions with quantifiers like this, check to see if the "some" answer choices are valid first, rather than simply going top-to-bottom.
That's it! To summarize: list out the premises, try to link up the "strong" elements (all/most) on the SUFFICIENT side, and if you can, there is surely a "some" relationship to follow (with one exception, as stated above).
When Matt told me this, it was amazing. It's soooooo much easier than trying to memorize all of the specific valid/invalid types. For me, the elegant simplicity of this method makes it more effective, especially when I'm in a time crunch and diagramming a tricky MBT, SA, or Principle question.
Thanks for the shout out, Marco. I hope others find those flashcards useful, too. If anyone has feedback on things I should do to improve them, or any good tips/strategies of their own that they'd like to share, please reach out.
@alexscrowley459 : you must give "More Perfect" and "We the people", a listen, too.
As a sample from each, I would recommend:
More Perfect's episode on "The Batson Rule" (i.e. preventing race-based juror selection) (http://www.wnyc.org/story/object-anyway/)
We the People's episode on "The Future of Digital Speech" (https://constitutioncenter.org/experience/programs-initiatives/podcasts/P10)
I agree with a lot of what's been said. I would recommend some additional podcasts (with the first two being most relevant to LSAT/law school, and the rest being of general interest for law):
LSAT
"The Thinking LSAT" . There's a lot of fluff and non-LSAT conversation, but you can pull out some interesting tips/strategies, too. (http://www.thinkinglsat.com/blog/)
LAW SCHOOL
"The Law School Toolbox". A wealth of information from two hosts who specialize in helping 1Ls get started on the right track. (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast/)
LAW
"Thinking Like a Lawyer" (from Above the Law) (https://abovethelaw.com/tag/thinking-like-a-lawyer-podcast/). Short, pragmatic episodes about basically of applying for law school and types of law
"More Perfect" (from the good folks at Radiolab, excellent narrative-style stories about landmark Supreme Court cases/issues." For a just-the-facts rundown and analysis, you can also check out "First Mondays"
(http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolabmoreperfect/)
(http://www.firstmondays.fm/)
"We The People" from the National Constitution Center, and "Amicus" from Slate. Wonderful interviews about timely legal topics from legal scholars in the field. (https://constitutioncenter.org/experience/programs-initiatives/podcasts)
(http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/amicus.html?scrlybrkr)
"Constitutional" from the Washington Post, is great for deepening your knowledge base around the history of the Constitution.
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/constitutional/?utm_term=.e2a1ef3f0045)
If you're interested in National Security, the "Lawfare" pocast and "National Security Podcast" are quite good, too.
(https://www.lawfareblog.com/topic/lawfare-podcast)
(https://nationalsecuritylawpodcast.com/)
You both pretty much summed up my thoughts, as well. Thanks again for the advice. I'm going to post another question that might interest you (see: "What is your favorite P.O.E./answering strategy for LR? Let's get a taxonomy going!", in the forum)
Goal: To further refine my process of elimination (P.O.E.) and answering skills for LR by building a crowd-sourced taxonomy of techniques.
How you can help me (and all other 7Sages): Contribute your favorite(s) below. Be sure to mention...
Here are two examples:
EXAMPLE A:
EXAMPLE B:
The more people that reply, the better we'll all get!
Hi, all. I'm curious to get your input about how you evaluate answer choices (ACs) on LR. Specifically, comparing the pros/cons of the two strategies below. If you're a "Sage" or have strong feelings on this topic, then I'm especially interested in hearing from you.
(1) Top-to-Bottom: Regardless of question type, start with reading A, decide to eliminate or keep, then repeat D-E. Finally, after process of elimination, selecting the best one among the remaining ACs.
(2) Scan-and-Select: Depending on question type, scan the ACs for what you think might be the correct one, read and evaluate, then repeat for the remaining ACs, always going from "most likely" to be correct to "least likely".
Of course, I have my own thoughts on both approaches, but for validity's sake, I don't want to bias your opinions one way or another. Here are some more factors to consider, as well:
So, what do you all think? Do you use one strategy over another? Do you use both, but under different conditions? Thanks in advance for anyone who has something helpful to contribute.
Bought, sight unseen, but without hesitation. If you vouch for it, I'm sure it's a keeper. Thanks again for everything, David.
Hello, everyone. As you craft your personal statement, I'd like to recommend an incredibly helpful book. Strunk and White's "The Elements of Style" is a classic, of course. But I think you'd be wise to supplement it with Clark's "Writing Tools: 55 Essential Strategies for Every Writer":
It's clear, pragmatic, and filled with tiny pearls of writerly wisdom. In addition to its short but lucid explanations, it offers excerpts from various authors. These serve as exemplars to vividly illustrate each point. And at the end of each chapter, there are specific "workshop" action steps to help apply these tips to your own writing.
Of course, even a great book is no substitute for an excellent editor. So, definitely consider getting help from @"David.Busis" , as well. I gained a tremendous amount from his P.S. curriculum on 7sage and from the edits he gave my personal statement.
You're right, man; that's an indirect but likely effective way to accomplish the same thing as a designated tag. Thanks, Alex!
I'd like to sharpen my technique on questions with lots of difficult conditional reasoning (arcane content, lots of confusing negations, embedded conditionals, etc.) Unfortunately, there is no "conditional reasoning" tag in the LR section of the 7Sage Question Bank (hint, hint @"Dillon A. Wright")
Does anyone have an efficient strategy for culling together and drilling questions?
Thanks for the prompt and thorough reply, Josh. You make some great points. In addition to posting this here, I emailed my LSAT instructor from Manhattan Prep (who got a 180) to get his perspective, too. He said:
"(B), but make a note on it. If I have time, I'll come back and check it more. While it will take a bit of time to get back up to speed later, it might also "click" better with some time to sink in. Also, if I don't have time to get back to it, I'll be happier with my 50-50 shot there (though, honestly, more likely 75-25 because there should be one you're leaning towards, and there should be a good reason for that) and a solid shot at another question than skipping a question (so 20% chance I get it right) and making that 75-25 into, if I'm lucky in the next minute of thinking about a question I'm already struggling with, 85-15."
Again, I really appreciate you taking the time to help. Speaking of which, do you still offer tutoring? If so, I'd definitely be interested in setting something up via direct message or email.
Quick question for everyone regarding LR timing.
Here's a scenario:
(A) skip the question and come back to it later on. Or...
(B) quickly make an educated guess and move on?
My concern is that I don't want to engage in the "sunk costs" fallacy and finish out then, simply because I've invested so much time in it already. Yet I also don't want to skip a difficult stimulus, only to come back to it later on and have trouble remembering all of the key components of the question again, rather than just answering when they are fresh in my mind.
Any thoughts/tips? How long do you wait before pulling the trigger to answer or to skip? I'm especially interested in people who have tried out both strategies above and prefer one over the other. Or, perhaps rather than "A" and "B" above, there is a strategy "C" that I'm unaware of. In fact, give me ANY advice you all have when it comes to finishing an LR because I sure as hell can't seem to do it.
Thanks in advance, everyone.
P.S. Yes, I have seen the 7Sage webinar "Skip It". Alas, I'm still unsure what do in this particular kind of situation.
I had:
RC
LR
LG
Break
RC
LR
If what you say about the "real" RC is correct, I had an experimental section RC section (whose non-violating LSAC policy) keywords for the first passage would be "Feminism & John Stuart Mill's wife"
Please forgive the typos above, everyone. (Rest assured, I actually proofread my flashcards.) :-)
*** UPDATE ***
I don't abandoned the "question stems" and "strategies by question type" linked in the original post. Instead, I combined the two AND updated the cards with improved strategies.
- "Stems & Strategies": https://quizlet.com/_2dy8ob
They're not perfect, of course, but it's definitely more efficient to study this one stack instead of the other two.
Also, as nice as the visuals of the "valid/invalid argument forms" cards in the original post are, I've since updated my thinking on this, too. It's simpler and for me, better. So, feel free to make your own strategy flashcard with this info. for "all"/"most"/"some" premises:
- List each conditional premise, 1-by-1
- Note the "strongest term" on the sufficient side. (Usually an "all", but sometimes a "most"; NEVER a "some").
- 2 strong terms MUST have a sufficient in common to combine. (Exception: Most A are B, All B are C; you can say Most A are C.)
- (SOME + SOME) & (SOME + MOST) = Always Invalid
I hope that helps, everyone.
I took the Dec. 3rd LSAT at CUNY Law in Long Island City, NY. Here is a brief synopsis of the testing facility experience:
- The location is right next to a subway stop for the E, M, and 7 trains.
- The building was clean, modern, and well-equipped.
- Approx. 120-150 people showed up and were split into 3 different rooms, based on last names.
- I was in a 2nd floor lecture hall that had long desks (no partitions) and they sat students in every-other-chair. There was plenty of room for my test booklet, answer sheet, and elbows.
- The room was quiet, comfortable, and ideal in every way for test-taking.
- The proctors were a group of 4-5 older women. They were prompt, courteous, and did everything correctly and by-the-book.
- I will likely re-take in June of 2017 and will definitely choose this testing site again.
I hope that helps, everyone. Good luck on future LSATs.
Will this video be edited and up soon? Sorry to bug, but I'm eager to check it out. Thanks!
@peskma01918 : I can send you a Word file, which you can turn into a PDF, as well. But honestly, I don't think it won't be as effective as studying flashcards. I'm a teacher and the research shows that distributed practice coupled with memory retrieval is far superior for learning than re-reading material. is a short but informative video that explains some other quick study hacks based the science of learning, as well.
Hey, everyone. In my quest to become an LSAT test-taking machine, I made some digital flashcards to help me memorize some key concepts in LR:
-- Valid/Invalid argument forms
-- Stimuli Indicators (premise/conclusion, sufficient/necessary, causation, some/most/all)
-- Strategies by Question Type
I'm going to flip through these every day from now until the September test date until they can instantly be recalled from memory. And obviously, they're a compliment--not a substitute--for other forms of preparation. I thought I'd pass them along, just in case you find them useful, too.
If you like them, great!
If you don't like them, please tell me how you think they can be improved.
If you spot an error, please let me know.
If you have some great flashcards that help you memorize important LSAT info, please pass it along, too.
Thanks!
Folks, as always, listen to the wise words J.Y. Ping. The R.O.I. for that $30 is incredible. I paid that amount long ago when it was just an "Intro. to Personal Statement" add-on, not all of the other admissions advice you now get. And even then, it was a steal.
David's advice on writing is tremendously clear, insightful, and pragmatic. If you attend the webinar tonight, I'm sure you'll come away impressed with what he has to say. And if that's true, then I highly encourage you to make that small but valuable investment. You won't be sorry. :-)
@974 @mes08820 : Thank you so much for your thoughtful, pragmatic advice. Here's where I'm leaning, as of right now.
1. I'm going to continue to diligently study for the September/December LSAT. I know that this is the single most important thing I can do to further my candidacy.
2. I realize that other than my undergraduate GPA (which is pretty good, at 3.85) and my LSAT score (which is TBT, of course), the next most important component of the application is the personal statement. I will likely seek out David Busis' help writing this in the next few months because my PS needs to be stellar, regardless of my LSAT score.
3. If I achieve an excellent LSAT score, then the value of Spivey Consulting will go down somewhat because my numbers and good PS (crafted with David's help) should be enough to open a lot of opportunities to me. I've read that consulting services are most helpful at the margins for so-called "splitters".
4. If, however, I do end up becoming a "splitter" after the September LSAT and decide to re-take in December, then there is a higher likelihood that I will use Spivey Consulting. It will be a bit later in the cycle and there is a chance I will remain a "splitter" after the December LSAT, as well. If my LSAT is lower than I would have hoped, then this will necessarily increase the relative importance of other components of my application. Many of these factors (e.g. wait lists info., mock interviews, scholarship advice, etc.) will not become relevant anyway until after I receive my LSAT scores because that determines how ambitious I can be in applying.
Thus, I guess I'll be using a sort of "wait and see" contingency on all of this. I do have plans to speak with a Spivey Consulting representative later this week to discuss the approach I outlined above. It never hurts to ask some follow-up questions now, right?
Anyway, thanks again to everyone who replied to this thread or PM'd me. You're all very kind to take the time to do so and I greatly appreciate it.
-Adam
@cocozhang9950157 : I agree that this sounds reasonable, and it was my initial thought, too. But I don't want to sit on my hands until September regarding getting personal statement editing because it takes time to craft and revise, especially if one tailors the PS slightly differently to each school. Also, what if I have to re-take the LSAT in December? Waiting until getting that score back and then trying to decide whether or not to get consulting services seems to be cutting very close.
If it's helpful to you all, here is list of the services Spivey helps with for a "full cycle" package:
- School List (i.e., where to apply)
- Application Review and Editing for every law school client wishes to apply to
- Resume Review and Editing
- Personal Statement Review and Editing
- Supplemental/Optional Essay Review and Editing
- Addenda Review and Editing, as needed
- Letter of Recommendation Advising
- Editing of all email correspondence to Law Schools
- Unlimited phone call discussions for strategic advice
- Mock Interview & Skype Interview Guidance
- Hold/Wait List Help
- Scholarship Essays, Interviews, and Negotiation
- Assessing Offers/Choosing a School
- Deferral help, if applicable
Again, if people have actually used @9570.busis and/or Spivey Consulting and can speak from that experience, that would be most helpful. Thanks!
> @redentore3337783 said:
> Can someone please explain
>
> "CIRCLE: all conditional, modal, and quantifier words."
>
> what exactly are conditional, modal, and quantifier words or where I can be directed to learn exactly what those terms mean.
>
> Thanks!
**Conditional Words**: words that express a clause/causal relationship, i.e. when something occurs or when it does not (e.g. "if", "unless", "as long as", etc.)
**Modal Words**: words that express the likelihood of something occurring or not (e.g. "will", "probably", "can", etc.)
**Quantifier Words**: words that express the amounts/degree of something occurring (e.g. "all", "most", "some", etc.)
Yes, as stated by others, the 7Sage curriculum (or other LSAT resources) are where you'll go to learn these how these specific modifiers affect LSAT arguments.
And the reason it's so important to notice ANY and ALL of these conditional/modal/quantifier words is that the presence of even one of them in a stimulus or answer choice completely alters argument. In fact, throughout all LR and RC sections, the difference between a valid or invalid argument, or a correct or incorrect answer, will often hinge precisely on the presence of one of these types of words.
I hope that helps.