greg883

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

Admissions profile

LSAT

Not provided

CAS GPA

Not provided

1L START YEAR

Not provided

Discussions

Study Groups · PRIVATE September Study Group

greg883

Tuesday, May 23 2017

Definitely interested. Sent a PM.

Study Groups · Any New Yorkers (NYC Area) interested in joining a Study Group for the June 2017 LSAT?

greg883

Wednesday, Apr 05 2017

Hey, I'm back NYC from my time in Tampa. Are you all still meeting at the 42nd st library? I'm definitely interested. @jimmyrivera201123 @gmehta94823 @katbustamante489 @yeramchoi168

General · Trouble Printing Logic Game Bundle

greg883

Wednesday, Apr 05 2017

Same problem. I just printed 50 pages at a time.

General · LR Crash Course Workshop #4

greg883

Wednesday, Mar 22 2017

I'd like to be included in the lottery!

General · [Webinars] Reading Comprehension: One Week, Three Webinars!

greg883

Wednesday, Mar 08 2017

@jhaldy10325, thank you so much for your great webinar. I can't stress how helpful it was to see you balance confidence and time.

General · Will grammar be the death of you?

greg883

Monday, Feb 27 2017

This is amazing. I can't tell you how many hours I've spent on LR passages deconstructing grammar during BR. Always asking myself, "What are they really saying here, and what are they not saying?" So, thanks @476 for the wonderful suggestion. This looks fun!

PrepTests ·

PT109.S4.Q21

greg883

Tuesday, Feb 14 2017

What Terry said:

B -s- FC

G -> FC

- - - -

B -s- G

What Terry needed to say:

CB -s- FC

FC -> G

- - - -

CB -s- G

What Pat Said:

G -s- /FC

B -> /FC

- - - -

B -s- G

What Pat needed to say:

G -s- /FC

/FC -> B

- - - -

B -s- G

Anticipation:

If both Terry and Pat had flipped the sufficient and necessary conditions of the second part of their arguments, then they would have made valid arguments.

(A) Comes out of left field. When I skimmed it, I just moved on after the phrase “…certain property distinguishes one type of action…” which is descriptively inaccurate.

(B) This is a part to whole fallacy. Saw it and moved on.

(D) Correct. This captures the sufficient / necessary shuffle that made both arguments invalid.

(E) This sounds kind of like an inverse of (A). The argument does not make the case that because favorable consequences are the shared by both good and bad actions, that only favorable consequences can be used to tell good and bad actions apart from other actions.

PrepTests ·

PT17.S3.Q22

greg883

Monday, Feb 13 2017

This is the first question in the flawed question problem sets that I got wrong, and it threw me for a loop ... even in blind review. I oscillated between (D) and (E), and just could not distinguish which one was more valid. It seems from the below comments that I am not alone. After some review, I think I've figured out where my own reasoning was flawed.

In both of my readings, I identified that Jerome had two reasons for not accompanying Melvin, on this or previous trips.

(Reason 1 - This trip in particular) The combined expense of forfeiting wages and spending the money required of this trip is economically unfeasible for Jerome.

(Reason 2 - Previous unscheduled trips) Unscheduled vacations seem to be problematic for Jerome. Upon my first timed reading, I had assumed this was because Jerome would have been required to forfeit wages for unscheduled vacations, but this is not stated in the passage, and thus must be disregarded in my analysis. All we know is that Jerome has refused to accompany Melvin on previous unscheduled vacations, nothing more.

Answer choice (D) is descriptively inaccurate:

"It assumes that if Jerome's professed reason is not his only reason, then it cannot be a real reason for Jerome at all."

According to this answer choice, the author assumes that there must be other reasons aside from Jerome's professed reason (that Jerome cannot accompany Melvin on this vacation is because Jerome is unable to afford the forfeited wages and the cost of the trip).

But the problem with this answer choice, and the reason it is descriptively inaccurate, is that the author makes no such assumption in his reasoning. The author does not assume that there must be another reason that Jerome is refusing to go on the vacation. Instead, the author outright dismisses that this is the reason at all. The author bases his reasoning on the fact that Jerome has turned down previous unscheduled vacations.

So, (D) does not describe the flaw in Melvin's reasoning.

What we see, upon rejecting (D), is that we need to choose an answer that acknowledges The author's wholesale dismissal of Jerome's stated reasons.

Answer choice (E) is descriptively accurate where (D) is not:

"It does not examine the possibility that Jerome's behavior is adequately explained by the reason he gives for it."

While admittedly not worded in a way that screams "Aha! This is flaw!" to me, this answer choice does adequately describe the author's flawed reasoning. The author's reasoning falls apart because he refuses to consider the truth to any part of Jerome's reasoning. It is possible that for Jerome, taking an unscheduled vacation, even without the added expense of a trip to the mountains, may be economically unfeasible. It could be that the added expense of this particular trip makes it more economically unfeasible. The point is that we don't know unless this distinct but related reason is duly examined.

PrepTests ·

PT107.S4.Q14

greg883

Monday, Feb 13 2017

Yeah. I waffled on this during my blind review and second guessed my answer (A) as possibly answer (E) because I thought to myself that reducing the amount of sulfur dioxide was not relevant to the conclusion regarding net profit.

In reality, the vast majority of the paragraph concerns the added cost of moving to a system that reduces sulfur dioxide output.

My instinct was right, that merely discussing the cost of the system without acknowledging the existence or lack of cost savings, is a flawed method of reasoning.

PrepTests ·

PT18.S4.Q20

greg883

Tuesday, Feb 07 2017

I approached this question a different way and got the question correct under time. Granted I did this in my head, but this was how I mentally mapped the thing.

Stimulus:

B: Business

U: Unprofitable

C: Closed

(cp): Of which county parks are a subset

B→(U→C)

/B(cp)

not necessarily true that (U→C)

Answer (A):

PTVS: Prime time TV Series

LA: Large Audience

C: Cancelled

(doc): Of which documentary is a subset

PTVS→(/LA→C)

/PTVS(doc)

not necessarily true that (/LA→C)

In both the stimulus and answer choice (A), the sufficient is denied, and so the rule becomes irrelevant.

PrepTests ·

PT106.S1.Q13

greg883

Tuesday, Feb 07 2017

PrepTests ·

PT107.S3.Q16

greg883

Tuesday, Feb 07 2017

I went back and diagrammed these after I completed the set. I had a slightly different approach to the stimulus and answer choice (E). They utilized the transitive argument form. Thoughts?

Stimulus:

L = Lift

H = Harm

G = Government

L → H

G → /H

G → /L

Answer (E):

F = Floodlights

U = Useless

S = Support

F → U

S → /U

S → /F

PrepTests ·

PT18.S2.Q16

greg883

Sunday, Jan 08 2017

Hello all,

I’d like to take a minute to further address this question for everyone who would like to understand why a particular answer choice does not support the industry representative’s argument.

Let’s simplify the stimulus, anticipate the answer, and operate on the stimulus by placing the answer choice into the industry representative’s argument.

So, let’s reword her argument to make it a little more straightforward:

The industry alone should be responsible for devising safety standards because of two reasons:

(1) The industry’s expertise in handling oil

(2) The industry’s understanding of the costs required to implement reform

For example, let me break down the recommendation that the government should enforce double-hulled designs, so that I may illustrate my point. Implementing double hulls:

(1) Creates new safety issues which are understood by those with industry expertise

(2) Creates cost issues that will have deleterious consequences for not only the industry but consumers as well

Now, let’s anticipate the answer:

This representative is using the double-hull design as an example to illustrate how industry knowledge is required to understand the ramifications of such legislation. Industry expertise helps understand the safety issues, as well as cost issues.

This argument depends on the double-hull requirement being a poor regulatory decision. If we had to bet on an answer, we’d probably be safe to say that it has something to do with supporting either the cost or the safety issues associated with the double-hull design (or both).

Answer Choice (A) would have her strengthen the argument by saying:

“I say this because a double-hulled tanker ran aground and it still did not leak.”

This doesn’t support her rebuttal. Remember, she’s arguing by using the double-hulled requirement as an example of the relative ignorance on the part of the government. They just don’t have the expertise or financial understandings to make this kind of requirement.

Answer Choice (B) would have her strengthen the argument by saying:

“Just look at the fact that this legislation would create regional oil cleanup and response teams.”

This doesn’t address either of the two points in the argument, nor does it support her specific example

Answer Choice (C) would have her strengthen the argument by saying:

“In fact, proposed legislation requires that single hulls will be phased out over the next 20 years.”

This does not support the argument because it doesn’t reinforce the idea that double-hulls are a bad decision from either a cost or safety standpoint. It’s not relevant.

Answer Choice (D) would have her strengthen the argument by saying:

“The proof is right here. Double-hulled tankers are more dangerous than single hulled tankers in the sense that gas can become trapped and explode.”

This makes perfect sense in the context of her argument. The legislation to require double hulls is ignorant to the fact that double-hulls introduce the aforementioned safety issues.

Answer Choice (E) would have her strengthen the argument by saying:

“This is because from now on, the oil industry will be required by recent legislation to finance a newly established oil-spill cleanup fund.”

Well, so what? This representative just said that the reasons the oil industry should be responsible for implementing safety standards can be understood in the context of the double hull design as being dangerous and costly. How does already having to pay for cleanup efforts strengthen this claim? It doesn’t address her argument.

I hope this helps!

General · Help! I'm moving at an absolutely glacial pace.

greg883

Friday, Dec 23 2016

@476.rizeq On the contrary, this is the best approach to achieve mastery! Often times, people are either flying through the material not gaining an ounce of knowledge or jumping around the lessons trying to find silver bullets to achieve their target score faster. This doesn't seem to be your case and that's something you should be proud of. It seems to me you understand the value of not moving on until you're fully confident in the lesson(s) and you have your drills to prove it. Keep doing what you're doing! You'll go places.

Thanks! I just hope I finish this before June, hah!

@476.rizeq

@greg883

said:

(1) I'm taking crazy copious notes. I'll watch every substantive video at least twice, pausing frequently, to transcribe the content on paper in my own words. I'll print out any written material and read through with a pen and highlighter before watching a video.

Taking notes is something I do too! I find myself not even referring back to them often but just the idea of writing down what you're learning can help so much later on when you begin PTing/Drilling. Don't overthink it though!

Yes! That's exactly why I take notes as well. I retain information so much better when I write lessons down in my own words. The most recent exception, however, are these damn logical indicators.

General

•

Friday, Dec 23 2016

greg883

Help! I'm moving at an absolutely glacial pace.

Here's my problem: I'm moving at an insanely slow pace through the 7Sage material. How slow? I'm taking at least four times longer than the time estimates on most sections. And often much, much longer than that.

Some context: I got a mid 150s diagnostic with a clear weakness in LG. I'm scheduled for the June sitting.

The source of my problem is two fold:

(2) I'm not moving on until I'm absolutely confident with the material (LR so far). I do drills from the Cambridge books on relevant material (MP/MSS questions so far) and blind review most questions. I take forever! I have taken upwards of 30 minutes to review my thought process on one question. If you do the math, this means that some days I will have reviewed as little as 10 questions, including the time it takes to initially test myself and to watch the 7Sage videos / read discussions after my self review.

Is it normal for studying to move this slowly? If not, what should I change?

PrepTests ·

PT117.S3.Q24

greg883

Thursday, Dec 22 2016

Think of this as an issue of scope as well as an issue of mistaken reversal. If you replaced "celestial object" with "star" then this sentence would absolutely hold true given the stimulus' (frustratingly unnecessary) discussion of stars.