hey! I'm in Ontario. Also planning on taking it in October :)
I flagged this question when I was doing a timed section on lawhub. I got two questions wrong on this section, this one being one of them. If you had asked me, gun to my head, to guess which two questions I got wrong, this one would not have been among my picks. This was deceptively difficult. I thought I had understood its nuance, and I flagged it only because I was in between answer D and E. I had immediately eliminated A because of the conclusion. It seemed to me to be a mismatch from the original since it was not talking about a belief but of a fact. Now I understand what that fact implies and why it is the right answer.What a question. I love being humbled by this test.
Look into hindsight bias. It’s easy to make yourself falsely believe that you knew it was the wrong answer all along. Blind review is the best way to combat this. If you are not 100% sure that you have it right go into BR and articulate the reasoning behind your answer. Write it down if it helps. Only then look at the results and video.
Hello!
I created a discord channel for those who are aiming for a 170+ and are serious about getting there.
The chats in it all serve a specific function. From specific question help to timing strategies.
There are also voice channels to blind review PTs and to be held accountable during study time.
Let’s push each other to our goal!
Taking mine in September. Would love to join!
It is based on how you have been performing so far. It means that with the selected level of difficulty on the drill you are expected to get 95% of the questions incorrect. I would recommend starting at the easiest level and going from there
Process of elimination really is my best friend
Question:
If we take the online LSAT, would we still be able to have a scrap paper? Putting this down on physical paper makes it a lot easier. And I’m not sure online drawing tools would be as efficient.
Are you doing blind review? If so, are you getting the questions wrong when you have all the time you need to think about them?
If you are getting them wrong on BR- then there is something in each question that you are misunderstanding. Try to verbalize the relationship between EACH answer choice and the stimulus. Write it down, and then watch the video explanation for the question. See how close your reasoning was. If you do this enough, you will start to notice error patterns in your mistakes. Hope this helps.
I love that the course got a lot more practical now. The explanations are very very helpful. I have been getting pretty much all the questions correctly, which shows that I am picking up what you are putting down.
One note, though: More commentary on how to improve in terms of timing would be incredibly helpful. Maybe even getting into technicalities. The usefulness of highlighting the stimulus. When to diagram and where. I'm relying on a physical piece of paper for some of the more complex questions and I am scared I won't be able to actually do that on the LSAT, which will affect my score.
I was ready to fight for my answer before he revealed the full stimulus hahaha. Plot twistttt
No, not always. Depends on the question.
The LSAT requires you to throw every assumption from common knowledge out the window. In the test you must work strictly with what is given to you.
So for example, if the tiger argument was given to you in the test.
You may be asked "Which of the following if true most weakens the argument"
And one of the options may be Tigers are not mammals.
That could be the right answer (given that there is not a better option) because they are asking you about the argument itself, not its truth value on the real world.
The point is, for an argument to be VALID it does not need to be TRUE.
Validity- the conclusion follows logically from the premises
Truth- The information corresponds with what is the case in the real world
That being said, I don't think the LSAT will purposely misrepresent something that is common knowledge. But it is good practice to make the habit to work strictly with what's on the page, and keep your common knowledge out of it.
Hope this made sense!
The tiger argument is weaker because it leaves space for an inference. You have to infer that an animal causing serious injury to humans makes them not suitable as a pet.
With the Disney argument, there is no space for an inference. If the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. There is no space for assumptions. Therefore, it is stronger. If you break both arguments down into their most basic logic format this becomes even more clear.
It would be nice to be able to see the full question before the video. I like being able to attempt the question on my own first.