It's difficult to label out the stimulus when we view it from the video. Do you guys print out those questions? Or do you just mentally take note of the premise(s) and conclusion.
For some reason I have difficulty identifying the appropriate answer choice to weaken the support between Premise and Conclusion. What are some tips or techniques you use to identify the gap in an argument.
Currently I'm struggling with the LR section mainly because I can't consistently get the weakening questions correct. I do 90-100% on Main Point and Strengthen. Weakening questions on the other hand are a 50-50 accuracy. Anyone know how to improve?
One parallel flaw could be:
It has been argued that manual transmission cars are the fastest race cars. However, historically in most races the losers of the race drove manual transmission cars. However at the same time some of the world's fastest race cars have automatic transmissions. (The flaw is that maybe the argument doesn't consider the fact that the type of transmission is neither necessary nor sufficient for having a fast race car). I don't know if this is a correct parallel or not to be honest.
I can't view the graph on section performance within the LSAT analytics.
Question 24 took me 1 minute. Remember the passage states, "As the precise effect on the behavior of every variety of each neurotransmitter-gated ion channel is deciphered, pharmacologists may be able to design drugs targeted to specific receptors on defined categories of neurons that will selectively impede or enhance these effects." Okay, the difference between B & D in my view stems from what these pharmacologists want to achieve. I don't believe they're trying to design drugs for "specific receptors" to respond to treatment. The bigger picture here that the author is excited about is being able to change brain function. Patient A, "Hi doc, I'm depressed". Patient B, "Hi doc, I forgot everything due to Alzheimer's". Etc. These types of cases could possibly be corrected, if pharmacologists could influence brain functions. A response to treatment could mean side-effects. If they design a drug for "defined categories of neurons" and my response is an allergic reaction that could be encompassed under answer (B). Instead they want to change our brain function specifically, which is (D).
When you complete a practice test are you supposed to circle the questions that require blind review during the test? Or after the test is completed. Lately, I have just completed tests, rested, then came back and completed the entire test over again without time pressure. I think that's what blind review is, but something in my gut tells me it is wrong.
What techniques do you guys use to figure out whether a particular question that is NA requires a bridge or a block? I tend to use the negation test almost always and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Think of it this way you're the head of recruiting for a law firm that is "number 1" in the nation for healthcare law. You're looking for young law school student who will make a great addition to your firm, maintain/exceed the legal standard of work you produce, and able to fit in with the style, culture, and demands your particular firm has. Do you hire a graduate of University of Maryland which is rank #1, or Harvard Law School which is #10 on that same list.
I live in the northern OC area looking for a study budy as well.
jamesedition.com