@

said:

Can anyone tell me when it's most prudent (with respects to sacrificing time) to use the 4 wrongs make it right formula? Are there question stems worded in ways (i.e. must be true, etc.) that would alert you to this, or are there specific questions types (i.e. parallel, etc.) that should signal using this approach

@ I think some folks are mixing up POE (certainly, there is overlap) with this technique. Indeed for LR and RC sometimes the wrong answers are more clear than the remaining "right" answer(s) - and you go with it. But this is more a "back up" rather than primary technique applied from the get-go.

What you are asking for (as a primary technique) applies to LG Could Be True (CBT) questions because their quantitative nature allows for an approach tailored to question type.

How so? Because Must Be True/False (MBT/F) answers are singularly absolute and therefore more efficient to identify. In contrast, Could Be True/False (CBT/F) answers present multiple possibilities and therefore take longer - plus risk being misidentified if all possibilities are not correctly accounted for.

For example, for any MBT question, only one correct answer MBT. Four incorrect answers CBF (and occasionally MBF). Therefore the most efficient method is to simply check for and identify the MBT answer then move on. There is no logical need to waste time checking all the incorrect CBF possibilities (i.e., if double-checking then time is better spent double-checking the sole MBT answer).

On the other hand, for any CBT question, only one correct answer CBT. Four incorrect answers MBF. The most efficient and accurate method is to check for and eliminate the four MBF answers. There is no logical need to check the correct answer unless double-checking (if you have time, to confirm your rules understanding, etc.). A common application of this technique is to Acceptable Situation questions: you apply one rule at a time to screen out answers, and the last remaining is the correct answer.

Using this technique (plus understanding the underlying rationale = confidence) optimizes a balance of efficiency (time) and effectiveness (accuracy). HTH

tldr: eliminate 4 wrongs for LG CBT/F; find 1 right for LG MBT/F

@

said:

I didn't realize that I had left my [XYZ] but my LSAT stuff was packed safely in the car

Guilty here, too. Thankfully, haven't forgotten the baby yet, just some of his stuff. :D

@ My problem is that the A>B>C relationship, doesn't that essentially say B (Paul going) is sufficient for Ted to go, which isn't what the stimulus is saying?

It's not clear to me what you are asking but here's a guess at it. The stimulus logic chain ( R --> P --> T ) and its contrapositive ( ~T --> ~P --> ~R) both "state" the same relationships - just in two different ways.

@ Just don't neglect your GPA to study for LSAT.

This. LSAT + GPA are the main determinants for law school admissions. However, LSATs can be retaken but upon graduation your UG GPA is chiseled in stone. Many of us only wish we could go back and fix the latter.

You have the advantage of time + our hindsight: Focus on (1) highest UG GPA possible, and (2) obtaining awesome Letters of Recommendation. I wouldn't even bother with LSAT prep until these two priorities are secured.

@.Sieradzki : awesome explanation! Especially how you reconciled both the instructor's and @ 's diagrams by explaining how Open Minded functions as both a necessary and sufficient condition. Brilliant.

@ I’m no longer 100% certain anymore with my logic.

Yet that critical mindset is necessary for attacking the LSAT. I empathize: anyone who's been prepping hard for the LSAT tends to mentally attack every argument on auto-pilot. That said, in the interest of maintaining relationships (especially with my wife) I personally refrain from always verbalizing such thoughts...:)

@ (Internal Empathy --> Partial Understanding) --> Open Minded

EDIT: After further thought and testing, I too agree with this diagram:

"X grants Y but only if Z" translates to "( X -> Y ) -> Z"

Therefore, the answer to the question is no effect because, via the contrapositive, NOT Z (Barry is NOT Open Minded) means X does NOT trigger Y:

NOT Z --> NOT ( X -> Y )

This all disagrees with the OP's friend/his instructor's diagram and so I still remain interested in how they arrived at their solution. @ could you find out?

@

@

said:

To test the diagram, substitute a parallel argument: A [Vaccine] will grant [Immunity] but only if the individual is [Already Healthy]:

Immunity --> Vaccine + Already Healthy

To explain the flaw in your logic, I’ll use your parallel example. There are people in the world who are immune to diseases but haven’t necessarily been given vaccines. Maybe the immunities were passed from the mother in breast milk or they were genetically passed to the offspring. So, immunity is not a sufficient condition to getting a vaccine.

What you say is true in the "real world" but irrelevant to LSAT LR. If the LSAT said, "All clowns are blue but only if they are short" then you could argue the argument is flawed (more precisely: unsound) because in the real world there exist tall, blue clowns. But LSAT LR doesn't care.

The purpose of this "test" (substituting in simpler terms) is to help distill the underlying conditional logic from an argument obfuscated by strange terminology (e.g., internal empathy, partial understanding, etc.). In other words, the purpose is to help understand an argument's validity rather than its "real world" soundness - which LSAT LR never "tests."

So our problem still remains: What is the valid diagram for the OP's statement (below) and how is it determined?

@

said:

Internal empathy will grant partial understanding, but only if the individual is open minded towards the process.

@ Internal Empathy AND Open Mindedness together are sufficient to guarantee Partial Understanding

This seems to mix conditional logic and causation. I rather read the argument as "Internal Empathy AND Open Minded(ness) are both necessary for Partial Understanding."

@ What confused was the "only if" that was mentioned before open mindedness. This definitely was not easy for me to grasp, but now it makes sense.

I'm also/still confused by this confirmation because [Open Minded] ought to be a necessary condition for the reason you stated.

Could someone (JY Ping, Jonathan Wang, quinnxzhang) definitively explain how to construct this argument?

@

@

said:

How do we translate this statement and it's contrapositive: "Internal empathy will grant partial understanding, but only if the individual is open minded towards the process".

To answer this question, I’d translate that sentence as "Internal empathy + open mind --> partial understanding” because the open mind is necessary for internal empathy to guarantee partial understanding.

This statement is not intuitive to diagram (any philosophy major, please weigh in) but I think this version better represents the argument* (and more consistent with your explanation) to make short work of the answer:

Partial Understanding --> Internal Empathy + Open Minded

To answer the OP, since Dina fails a necessary condition (i.e., not Open Minded) she does not gain Partial Understanding.

-----

*To test the diagram, substitute a parallel argument: A [Vaccine] will grant [Immunity] but only if the individual is [Already Healthy]:

Immunity --> Vaccine + Already Healthy

You're kidding, right? That was a solid decision based on what you know - rather than what you hope. What you can count on is that you will be even better prepared to earn a higher score next time.

Also, plenty of people have done what you did and, as a result, worked out for the better.

None of the shows [not cancelled] were police dramas = No shows [extended] were police dramas.

@ Yet another person who thinks Steve Schwartz went to Columbia Law School. Can't even blame him for the creative wording in his bio, because clearly it's working.

Trump transferred from Fordam to UPenn for college (and never went further) yet he consistently refers to his degree from "Wharton."

@ @ @ Thanks for all the responses. You made me think harder about this question because I still wasn't comfy with Answer D -- and I think I figured out why: Answer D is (correctly) a NA and not (as I originally viewed) a SA:

Argument:

P: O --> not DR (contrapositive: DR --> not O)

C: RC --> not O --> S

Answer D:

RC-->DR

O (Ordinary detergent in front-loader)

DR (Dissolves Readily in front-loader)

RC (Really Clean in front-loader)

S (Special detergent in front-loader)

The conclusion introduces two new elements (RC & S) but only RC is linked to the premise, by Answer D (RC --> DR --> not O). The link to S (not O--> S) remains an unsupported gap.

This means another NA could be, for example, "There is no additive to ordinary detergent that would cause it to dissolve readily in a front-loader." Negated, this would lead the argument to another conclusion (i.e., ordinary detergent, in lieu of special detergent, can get clothes clean in a front-loader).

Because Answer D does not completely bridge the gap between the premise and conclusion, it's not an actual SA but rather (correctly) a NA. Well played, LSAC, well played.

Concur. The RCB seems written as an afterthought.

Thanks for the explanation! I see and agree with your reasoning why B doesn't have to be true: For Answer B to be correct, the specially formulated detergent's dissolving should have been compared to ordinary detergent rather than its performance in different washers - very sneaky!

However, negating Answer D (a Sufficient Assumption) only rules out one way to close the gap in the argument, rather than ruling out the conclusion itself. Note the conclusion is, "you need a detergent especially formulated for FLW to get clothes really clean." What's to say that "especially formulated" doesn't refer to a special cleaning agent to compensate for not dissolving as readily? So on and so forth - because Answer D is a SA (just one way to close the gap) rather than a NA.

Are there other example NA questions for which the CR is a SA?

Your scoring goal is very reasonable within the allotted time. If applying fall '17 (to matriculate '18) I recommend taking the June sit (more prep time, disclosed, still allows Oct retake) over Feb (undisclosed). Best:)

I think your question indicates a wrong approach.

The reason why? IMHO the "30min rule" (or whatever pace you set) is more a diagnostic result rather than any magic technique in preparation. High scorers will finish in 30min naturally with high accuracy; simply replicating the 30min will not improve your score without parallel improvements in accuracy. So the real key is to maintain awareness of both pace and accuracy - both are necessary - in order to identify and fix between the two the relative weakness.

What's the fix? Given that questions tend to get progressively harder, and that both accuracy and pace are necessary, I recommend starting with 10Qs in 10min with 100% accuracy, then progressing to 15Qs in 15min with 100% accuracy, and so on, until you reach whatever your goal is. It's about building up rather than setting some arbitrary benchmark.

Geologist argues the scientists' view (that petroleum was formed from deep carbon deposits dating from the formation of the earth rather than fossilized remains of plants and animals) is refuted by the presence in petroleum of biomarkers (molecules indicating the past or present existence of a living organism).

For his conclusion to hold true, the geologist assumes that deep carbon deposits have never contained life. Answer D, if true, introduces new information that counters this assumption and therefore casts doubt on the geologist's conclusion.

A principle is a broad rule, belief, or claim and (on the LSAT) often appears as a premise and/or sufficient assumption.

Answer A simply fails to describe the economist's method of reasoning. If the economist stated a different principle (for example), "taxes ought to be proportional to changes in economic activity," then Answer A could be correct. Instead, in order to attack the politician's argument, the economist simply applies the politician's own principle to demonstrate a contradictory conclusion.

P.S. Recommend you title this type of post in a more general format, for example, "PT19.S4.Q18 - Politician: A government that taxes" categorized under Logical Reasoning.

@ I'm in like sin. I'll start with the PT 44 June 18th!

Could someone post the schedule (link?) in this thread (OP?). I thought the BR schedule listed PT45 for 18-Jun.

@ LG/Analytical Reasoning

This. Only LG/AR have CBT questions. Glad to help.

Depends on what you mean by "practicing." You may need practice with the mechanics of developing clear diagrams and so on, but simply repeating questions vs. moving on to new ones is a false choice that won't help you improve. Rather, any benefit is a direct function of understanding what you did and why (both well and not-so-well) in order to improve your approach to new questions.

This works because the vast majority of LG problems (and their approaches) follow a well tread pattern. Don't be fooled by the new names or numbers of elements/slots/groupings. Your goal is to understand these patterns and develop your approaches: diagramming, inferences, hypotheticals.

I would not advise "moving on" to new questions until you master a particular game. Once you have gone through all the major game types, and/or run out of newer games, you can then revisit older games to evaluate your progress.

@

said:

I'm considering changing, can someone who maybe have an experience with the live course vs. 7sage or anyone at all tell me why they find 7sage to be more beneficial.

Which way do you learn best? TM live course is a 3-month set schedule. 7sage is self-paced and online. Both are proven alternatives. Either way, your results will be based on what you put in.

Other than that, consider cost and timelines. I assumed cost is not a factor but if you need to re/take beyond Sep, then what will TM cost and offer? In this regard 7sage is less expensive and offers flexibility to adjust timelines.

Hey Wilderness, I realize this a tough time and, right now, hard to simply ignore - so you gotta make this your motivation to succeed even more on the LSAT. Many of us have gone thru breakups and have come out even better - if only to prove your ex is wrong - and you will, too. Every breakup however painful is a growth opportunity and, as a result of becoming a better and stronger person, someday you will find someone even better that you would not today. Trust me on this but, most importantly, trust yourself in this.

This is time to kick ass and take names - you can't worry about things out of your control - so channel 100% on what you can control: and kick ass on the LSAT!

@ Depending on your schedule, plan around 8-10 timed PTs per month using the most recent tests you have. Newer PTs (e.g., with comparative reading passages) are freaking gold - do now waste them! Instead, use older PTs to practice sections, drill problems, provide a fifth section to your timed PTs, etc.

If you are just starting now, I recommend signing up for 7sage or getting The LSAT Trainer (by Mike Kim), or both. Based on your question, it's safe to assume there is a ton of information that you need to get started right within a compressed (yet still doable) timeline. HTH