Hey I'm looking for a group that can meet Tuesdays and Thursdays from 5:30 pm - 7:30 pm EST to prepare for the August or September 2022 LSAT. Let me know if you're interested and I'll pm you! Was thinking of having it via Zoom.
P.S. I know there is a similar post made not too long ago but I wouldn't be able to make the timings due to my work schedule. So, I'm hoping to provide an option for people in the same boat!
Anyone who A also B. B is wrong, so anything A is also wrong. This is the only difference between A and E.
"it has been demonstrated that there are none" is equivalent to "has been conclusively refuted" you could switch these two phrases out in an essay and it means the exact same thing.
I'm pretty stumped on the "belief" bit. Intuitively, I think it just boils down to a subtle difference in logical force. "Belief in" is equivalent to faith which is equivalent to absolute trust in something AKA something being true. E does this more explicitly, but A essentially encapsulates the logical force of it while also maintaining the most important part: the structure.
Tip when it comes to parallel reasoning: looking for the same type of wording is usually more helpful with quantifier words. As for the rest, structure trumps wording.
Interested!
Hey everyone thanks for your interest. Due to the size of the group we have established the group on Discord to accommodate more people. If you are still interested and I haven't already messaged you directly, feel free to send me a PM for the discord link!
We are all helping each other out outside of the weekly meetings as well in case you are looking for study buddies.
Wow, you really math'd the hell out of this. You must be really smart!
I'll try my best to help you although I fear my advice will just frustrate you more, but when it comes to the logic of the LSAT you really don't have to do any of the stuff you did above. You don't even need a baseline wattage to work off of to really make sense of it, but then again, everyone's thought process is different so take that with a grain of salt.
Basically, it will help your mental state/endurance throughout the LSAT to keep things as simple as possible so that you don't burnout halfway through the test. Often times when it comes to logic, you might find it helpful to approach an LR stimulus with a "rubberband" mentality. For example: Whenever you see that a store is having a sale offering 40% off on most of their t-shirts, your brain should automatically tell you that means that SOME t-shirts are not 40% off. See the rubberbanding here?
Going forward, I will just attempt to explain to the best of my ability re B.
B) is possible to ascertain as the correct answer choice without even having to do any calculations. You just need really basic math knowledge. Firstly you noticed that the key term here is each sterilization, meaning 1 sterilization where the stimulus only tells us about energy use with 50. It's saying that it takes more energy to do just 1 sterilization than it takes to manufacture those instruments. The thing is, the only way that this is logically possible is if it would take at least 1 x as much energy to do one sterilization as it takes to manufacture. That means this would only be possible if it literally took AT LEAST 50 x as much energy to do 50 sterilizations of that set, and yet we know it only takes 3.4 times to sterilize that set of nylon instruments 50 times than it takes to manufacture them. Just knowing this is sufficient for you to know this answer choice must be false/can't be true so it fulfills the EXCEPT of the stem.
If it helps, you can pretty much simplify this answer choice as basically saying: "it takes more energy to do 1 sterilization of the nylon instruments than it takes to manufacture that instruments". which means 1 sterilization's worth of energy must be =/> the energy it takes to manufacture them. When you phrase it in this equivalent way, see how this obviously seems absurd now? Notice how we didn't have to do any arithmetic here. Math is founded on logic, but you don't have to do math, you just have to do the logic, and by that I mean using the "rubberbanding" mentality I was talking about earlier. Instead of using 100 watts as a baseline to help you understand this, it would be even simpler to just do what the answer choice is saying and ask yourself what would happen if you assumed that the answer choice is actually true (that one sterilization takes more energy than manufacturing)
If this still doesn't make sense then let's actually do the math and use your benchmark as an example at 100 watts to manufacture the nylon instruments. B) is saying that a single sterilization needs to exceed 100 watts. So if we take the bare minimum of 100 watts per sterilization which is = to manufacturing energy, then 100 x 50 = 5000. This scenario would only be possible if the stimulus said it took 50 times the energy of manufacturing to sterilize 50 times, 1 per time.
P.S. get some rest! LSAT burnout is a thing.
Isn't it fair to argue that just because a counterexample is no longer effective as a counterexample, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's no longer relevant to the point at issue? Relevancy and logical force can be close but I understand them as two separate things. Unless we narrow the term relevancy to mean "relevant as an argument" but that would require me to make that assumption in the first place.
Like, KD might be a contestant against Lebron James for best current basketball player. But, just because KD is not proven to be a better basketball player than Lebron James, that doesn't mean he's irrelevant to basketball. Am I overthinking? Regardless, would love to hear someone else's input as I enjoy discussing the ambiguity of terms on the LSAT.
"Boner for Homer" keeping it classy as always, J.Y.
Ok so I digested and regurgitated this:
The author is making a distinction between opinions based on feelings, and opinions which... aren't. The result of opinion based on feelings which is pushed out as argument is inherently counterintuitive and counterproductive. The reason being that people who argue based on opinion which is grounded on deep belief (which, we can assume to imply that even the proponents of said opinionated arguments grounded on feelings don't even fully comprehend themselves) lack a true understanding of the foundation of those opinionated feelings based arguments. Yet despite this, the same proponents will often refute and rebuttal with even MORE feelings based opinions, which will further entrench their faith in their opinions due to their passions being validated by argumentative response. What we, as logic sages in the making, can infer is that this situation will never lead to reasonable, logically-sound arguments and the arguments of these proponents will just keep trying to cover it up.
But then again, as a logic sage in the making who has done plenty of humbling curve-breaker reading comp questions, I might be completely wrong.
Thanks for the exercise!
Hello, I'm glad you managed!
Is there any chance you'd be willing to share the spreadsheet you made? I'm at the point in my studying where I only miss curve-breakers now both in LG and LR and this sounds super useful.
Thanks!
Hi everyone, thank you for showing your interest! Unfortunately we seem to have reached capacity here and I sent private messages to people in order of when they posted or messaged me regarding their interest in the group.
However I'm sure there might be some people who decide to opt out of the group or we might decide to make it bigger so that we have a network to bounce ideas off of each other and become study buddies outside the group as well. If you're still looking for a group and I haven't messaged you, please feel free to PM me your interest and email and I'll be sure to follow up with you.
Thanks everyone! Wishing you all the best with beating the LSAT.
Hello. To answer the second part of your question, I often found it helpful to tackle 4 logic games at a time either at varying difficulties or at similar difficulties (if you go resources ----> problem sets you might be able to filter the questions based on difficulty and type and I suggest trying that, or targeting LG sections in PTs).
Big tip for the Logic Games is something that you've probably heard plenty of times, but really most of the battle comes down to your initial diagram and your understanding of the rules. Make sure to read carefully and be sure that you actually understand what the game is telling you, often times we THINK we understand a rule only to realize that the true meaning got lost in translation because of our own biases. You should spend the most amount of time in a logic game doing the initial diagram. Make reasonable deductions once you finish diagramming the rules/setup but don't always make a conceited effort to draw out every possible solution and stretch it out as this takes up time and you'll fill in the blanks as you go through the questions. The best way to know if you are stretching out your deductions too much is if you have made connections between each of the rules that has a similar factor/variable. For example if you have a set ABCDEFG and you notice rule 1 and rule 2 both involve F then see if it's possible to make a deduction using those rules. Sometimes there are LGs where you can't make any initial deductions, this is OK.
Know the difference between when you need to approach a question by diagramming a new scenario, and when you can solve the question just by checking the scenario against the rules mentally.
If you can fully understand the rules and you diagram accordingly, you can easily achieve a perfect score for that game. Logic Games is probably the one section, in my experience, that can be solved perfectly, consistently, and with confidence the best out of the three. Practice, practice, practice and pay attention to the exact point that you began to misinterpret the game.
Best of luck!
*Edit: Added the extra tip at the end of the second paragraph.
Anyone else feel that this question is much harder than lvl 1 difficulty?