I understand it is advocated by JY, specifically in MBT, sufficient/pseudo assumption and parallel reasoning questions. Even if one seems to be getting nearly every question correct without writing the conditional logic down (sometimes I internalize it, sometimes I just think about it intuitively), would you say it is still essential just for good measure?
How important is keeping the prep tests sequential? I am only at PT67 (pushing towards the September test). Tempted to knock out 84 tomorrow in order to be a part of this though.
26 and 27 both wrong, mainly by not identifying that crucial sentence as you said.
I think the LSAT writers reasoning in making trap answer A is that nomadic can be seen as juxtaposing "settlers". To settle in North America would be to relinquish your title as a "nomad". Those who missed this connection turned out to be fortunate, since it was referring to those people CLOSEST to North America. If it was "MORE DISTANT SETTLERS WERE NOMADIC" I could make a very compelling case for it weakening the argument that the further away fellows settled, but It does not and A is therefore correct.
@ said:
I'm referring to the method in this lesson:
https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/fool-proof-guide-to-perfection-on-logic-games/
Basically the process of repeating a game over and over until you can get it under the target time. You probably need to be focusing more on working on individual games than what your whole section time is for LG.
Thank you, this is helpful.
Is the diagram for every answer choice really necessary?
#help (Added by Admin)
@ what do you mean by foolproofing LG? You are probably correct in that the fundamentals (particuarly in terms of inference detection) aren't there yet.
@ said:
You don't have to do all the questions (that was an obvious point haha). How many do you get right our of the ones you attempt? Also, I would just focus on the little things that could get you more right answers--do you make worlds in LG? If so, how fast can you recognize how and when to split? In LR, do you understand the terminologies in an Argument Part or flaw question, such as confusing a necessary for sufficient condition, or vice versa? I would just focus on getting better in ways that you can, and that's from just recognizing the questions you get wrong in timed conditions and then drilling the fundamentals.
The problem is that I have the fundamentals. Under timed conditions I end up with the last 2-3 LR unanswered + most of the last LG unanswered - this is clearly untenable.
Danville here, I might be down.
Hello fellow masochists,
After a year of studying off and on, I took the plunge and signed up for September. Unfortunately, I cannot for the life of me get my time down on LR (bad) and LG (worse).
The fundamentals seem to be there, as I'm averaging 170+ untimed (-1 on LR, -2/3 on RC and -3-4 on LG). I have tried everything (skipping answer choices once I find the answer, minimizing rereading, etc.) but still am 3-4 minutes over on LR and 8-10 minutes over on LG. Recognizing the inferences too late in the games is probably the main factor, in addition to my ADHD.
I have burned through PTs up to 58 so far, so about 25 left. It is crunch time now, and I really don't know where else to turn besides maybe redoing the course (completed about 6 months ago)??
Any suggestions are appreciated, and good luck to fellow Septemberererers......yes, I am losing my mind. jk. but actually.
To get this correct you have to make a ridiculous generalization that "real" and "theoretical" are naturally opposing concepts. This is some real jedi mind fuck shit, where having scientific knowledge of philosophy and/or quantum physics hurts you. Hawking would tell you that something posited on theoretical grounds (i.e. Black Holes) can and should and ARE designated as real. You pretty much have to think as an LSAT writer aka Lawyer and just go along with the generalization.
13/14 were tough for me. The former due to not having enough time to look back at the passage and the latter due to the similarity in answers A and C. Lesson here, pay attention to detail!
This is confusing more because of the structure of the argument than the argument itself in my opinion. It isn't advocating a particular principle as much as it is calling bullshit on a flawed one. B strengthens the flaw in the original argument (explanatory = the only good) hence making the argument weaker and more flawed, when most people (including myself) were probably looking for an answer than makes the theoretical stronger.
Lesson here being pay closest attention to the wording of argument conclusions, as they often give clues about the structure of correct answer choices.