Subscription pricing
This question was removed from scoring. Weird! It's extremely rare to see a games question removed from scoring so I'm really curious what this question was.
PT Questions
brennan660
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
brennan660
Sunday, Jan 15 2017
This is case-by-case. Have you been given extra time on standardized tests (like the ACT/SAT) in the past? If so, they will base it on that (you can read the exact details on LSAC's website). If not, it is extremely unlikely that they will give you extra time on the LSAT.
brennan660
Friday, Jan 13 2017
Yep, your reasoning in your follow-up comment is correct.
In 7-11, we're (if we exaggerate only very slightly) talking about the view that judges should make rulings according to their own moral judgment basically whenever they want, which is further than Dworkin is willing to go.
In fact, Dworkin probably would agree that judges shouldn't override legislators. But he would argue that "overriding legislators" means overriding the actual laws they wrote (as well as the internal logic of the system of laws as a whole), rather than their intentions. Dworkin never claims (at least not according to this passage) that "intentions" are the correct way to interpret legislative activity.
In the games videos, when JY sees the rule "if P, then not Q", he writes:
P -> Q
But when he sees "if Q, then not P" he writes:
Q -> P
But these mean exactly the same thing. Why write it one way but not the other?
It seems to me that something like P (-|-) Q would express the symmetry better, and visually indicate to the reader than P and Q are "equal" with respect to their relationship under this rule.
brennan660
Friday, Jan 13 2017
You also say:
> My issue was that the passage says that the solution to the problem is crop rotation. (The solution is not replacing one species with another).
Replacing one species of plant with another is exactly what crop rotation means, though.
brennan660
Friday, Jan 13 2017
The idea is that different species of phytopathogen prefer hosts that are different species of crop.
Let's say phytopathogens x and y inhabit the soil; x kills plant A and y kills plant B.
Initially the levels of both phytopathogens are low (or zero). You plant A. After a while, x colonizes the plants. Over time, due to their having a nice host (the plant A) they are able to multiply in number. Now the levels of x are high and y is still low. Because x is high, yields of A decrease.
Now one season you plant B instead of A. Levels of y are low (or zero), so B thrives. Since x can't colonize B (it only colonizes A), its levels decrease and are eventually low again. By the time there are a lot of y (hurting the yields of B), hopefully x will be low and it's safe to plant A again.
General
·
Need assistance with some grammar around sufficient and necessary conditions (noun, predicate verb)
brennan660
Sunday, Jan 08 2017
I don't really understand what you're asking.
Those sentences mean exactly the same thing.
"P is a sufficient condition for Q" means exactly the same thing as "Q is a necessary condition for P".
Can I rip off pieces of the page? I don't mean stuff with text on it, just blank margins.
I would like to cover the bubbles from previously-completed sections while working, to minimize the probability of accidentally mis-bubbling.
brennan660
Sunday, Jan 08 2017
I don't think this really has to do with math. Maybe stats or applied math.
By the way, I can't find what question you mean. PT 31-S2-8 for me is something about eggs and sperm being needed for reproduction in reptiles.
It seems JY recommends copying the game board for questions that give you new premises
Like: if a question says "if M is in lane 4, what might be true?" then you would make a mini game board and put M in 4, then add whatever deductions you can from M being in 4.
To me it seems much faster and less cluttered to write the permanent rules, board, and deduction in highlighter, and the temporary ones in pencil. Then after each question, you can just scrub the entire board area with your eraser, instantly deleting all the work that is local to one question.
Of course, the con is that you don't save information about previous questions, chiefly examples of hypotheticals that "could be true". My gut feeling though is that this is only useful on about 10% of games, and the speed/clarity gains from not having to recopy the board over and over outweigh the loss of that benefit.
Anyone else have a perspective on this, or a preference one way or the other?
brennan660
Sunday, Jan 08 2017
@.E.D my first diag was high 160s although it wasn't totally cold since I had done a few sample logic games (not a ton) from the LGB first.
I was pretty solid on RG and LR already (math major must have helped) so I've just been drilling logic games almost exclusively. I've only done five or so full PTs but I've done a few dozen timed LG sections.
Currently PTing in the 176-180 range.
brennan660
Sunday, Jan 08 2017
@ how many timed LG sections have you done? I got my typical timed "cold" section misses from 7-15 down to 0-3 after a hundred or so games under timed conditions. I haven't done the "fool proofing" method yet but I will start soon. Planning on taking the test in Feb.
I feel the LGs are more of an issue of training than natural talent -- natural talent just determines how much training you actually need. If you are consistently getting great scores on RC/LR then I feel you are in a great position to do well on the test as LG can be learned.
brennan660
Saturday, Jan 07 2017
Read a lot of fairly high-reading-level stuff in your free time.
brennan660
Saturday, Jan 07 2017
I'm in Manhattan and reaching for 180 (but would be happy with 175+)
Dedicate 100% of your free time. A few points higher on the LSAT can be worth tens of thousands of dollars in extra scholarships, and -- since it can change what school you get into -- millions of dollars in increased total career earnings