Me as well
It took me a solid six months of studying 2-3 hours a day to see improvement in LR. It’s been the hardest section for me so you could see some improvement quicker
Lmao bro I had one guy say that studying for the LSAT will LOWER your score. People are idiots
We aren’t getting a year of social distancing, the economy can’t handle that. Just because they recommend it doesn’t mean Trump will put it in place.
They will fix it soon don't worry! It's happened once before for me. Keep calm in quarantine :)
#help
I'm a bit worried because I thought this was the hardest question in this section. I spent over 10 minutes on this during BR. Hear me out..
Let's look at E. Assume the grandson expresses his desire to the Loux that he wants to own a farm. Well, she must be alive and if after that she doesn't include anything in the will then it is a safe bet to conclude that she didn't care about his desire. Ok, so what if the grandson expresses his wishes to Zembaty? Then, if Loux would care about her grandson's desires than the AC is correct.
So, for E to be correct it has to be assumed (1) that the grandson is expressing this desire to Zembaty, which isn't obvious at all. And (2) it has to be assumed that Loux would care about her grandson's desires, which also isn't obvious. This just doesn't work as an AC.
Meanwhile, look at B. The passage makes it clear that Loux didn't express any desire about the farm. But are we talking implicitly, explicitly, or both? It could very well be true that Loux never said anything about the farm explicitly but implicitly did. That could come in the form of the expression "taking care of him."
I don't know am I just overthinking this?
If you want to practice LSAT reading skills with material that is much more difficult than what is on the LSAT I'd recommend reading "Explaining Postmodernism" by Stephan Hicks and "Fools, Frauds, and Firebrands" by Roger Scruton. Grab a notebook and map out the arguments and sub-arguments in those books; look for assumptions and flaws; and read for structure, i.e., try to notice how the passages fit into the arguments.
Both of those books contain lots of super dense prose and arguments from many big time intellectuals. If you can comprehend those arguments you will be ready for anything the LSAT throws at you.
@618792 said:
Not necessarily
My uncle went to an Ivy League school, and struggled immensely with the LSAT. It took him 3 years to get in.
In law school, he was at the top of his class. He was recruited by law firms in Boston & was very successful.
Some people are smart, they are not good test-takers. I’ll give myself as an example: my diagnostic was in the 130’s because I got so hung up on the hardest questions (I started with questions 25... don't ask). I kept reading and reading trying to make sense of the argument and spent all my time trying to get the hardest ones. Why? Because I like a challenge. I like to sit down and think. Think hard, think lots. Its my personality. I also get stressed when I am put under time constraints so there is a 15pt lag between my BR and PT score. But, I have no doubt I will do well in law school.
Also, the LSAT is poorly written. Bad grammar, plain, simple. It doesn’t get to the point. It is full of fluff. I have no trouble working with the income tax act (if you want to see a run-on sentence, go there) at work, but really struggled with some of the reading comp (think art, philosophy, history, peptides). Will my new knowledge on zeolites help me in law school? I really don’t see how. The LSAT is designed to be difficult.
I honestly do not think the LSAT is all its cut out to be. Maybe I’m just salty that I needed to put in a few months of studying. But, some of the schools are already abandoning it. Why is that?
I also believe that people who have to work hard for their grades are generally better prepared to work hard in law school. Those people are full of will, determination, and persistence: these are the ones that will be great lawyers, and thrive at work, and do great things because the will is there. The will triumphs all else; you would be surprised. My will has given me everything I have and enabled me to overcome many obstacles.
I truly believe the LSAT is just a money-making scheme, I wonder how many millions of assets LSAC is sitting on? I mean, think about it. It’s also there as a barrier to entry, and to weed out the ‘lazies’, give law school the “academically prestige” image. Also, some programs are much more difficult than others (think engineering vs economics or philosophy... sorry, engineering is much more difficult than either, at least for most).
I know everyone says otherwise, but I refuse to believe it. I have seen to many successful people perform poorly on the LSAT but thrive in law school.
Anyways, that is my two cents.
Yes, engineering is much more difficult than defending logic itself from people like Derrida and Foucault. Oh, and engineering is much more difficult than laying the groundwork for mathematics and computer science (and engineering). And engineering is much more difficult than formulating a priori deductions of the nature of necessity.
Philosophy major here
I've taken intro to logic, intermediate logic, and now an independent study in sentential and predicate logic. They haven't helped me very much LSAT-wise. The translations will be slightly different, you'll need quantifiers to deal with "some" and "most" statements, and it will consume a lot of your time (potentially lowering your GPA also).
I'd bet that it won't be worth it.
There are multiple definitions for each depending on which field of study you find yourself in. Philosophically speaking an assumption would be something made in the reasoning argument itself. A presumption is something you make before the argument I.e., a fundamental principle that exists in the authors worldview before he/she formulates the argument.
Ok so I’m on the first section of the CC reading comp but I have a few questions...
When I’m doing the problem sets should I go through them untimed or timed? E.g. should I do it timed using the memory method and then blind review it then watch JY? Or should I go untimed through using the memory method and be fully confident in my answers and then watch JY? I just don’t know how to get better in RC; it seems to be my worst section.
What are your guy’s suggestions?
When all is said and done it will have taken me about 2 years. Granted I started last October as a sophomore in college, but don’t worry about it just go at your own pace
For weakening and strengthening AC, must the correct AC always provide independent doubt/verification upon the likelihood that the conclusion holds?
If you don't mind me asking, what was your undergrad GPA and major(s)? And did you do any sort of reading or philosophical studying prior to taking the LSAT?
Personally I do the same and I'm also a double major and D1 athlete. LSAT and undergrad have basically become my life and I've just accepted it. I haven't really felt any burnout in three months and I'm not quite sure it exists (for me). For some people a break is necessary but it's very subjective. Just remember not to use it as an excuse to stop studying.
Alright, I'm not sure if I should be worried about this question too much as I hope (and have heard) that the newer tests are much more logically rigorous. Anyway, hear me out on this one...
This is a "Weaken Except Question" and we are given a fairly basic argument.
P1: Our neighborhood already has the most residents per [recreation] center of any neighborhood in the city.
P2: Access to recreational facilities is a necessity for this neighborhood
C: Closing this center is unacceptable
Assumptions I noticed: Does most residents per captia here mean that all of them actually use the facility? What if the neighborhood is comprised of people who don't use it?
AC:
B weakens the argument. If children, who are the main users of the center, are less populous in this neighborhood then we have more reason to close the center/have more reason to believe that it isn't a necessity.
C kind of weakens as we don't know what the subjective term "often" means.
D weakens because it does the same thing as B and C. These three AC are almost like a package because they all essentially argue the same thing - that the rec center is underutilized and that the conclusion (closing the center is unacceptable) is more likely to be falsified.
So we are down to A and E. This is where my trouble began. I looked at A and thought that it strengthens the argument. Well, it does and it doesn't. If the term "their locality" is taken to mean "their city limits" then yes, this strengthens the argument. However, if the term "their locality" is taken to mean "the residents homes" then this would weaken the argument as it implies that the residents wouldn't be able to leave their homes to go to the center, and thus essentially do the same thing as B, C, and D.
The real issue is with E though...
E states, "As people become more involved in computers and computer games, rec centers are becoming increasingly less important".
Ummm... If this was used in an actual argument in my philosophy class it would get laughed out. First, this AC assumes that the people in the stimulus are actually able to gain access to, and competently use computers. What if this is an Amish neighborhood? Well this AC doesn't work. What if this is a neighborhood in X nation without electricity? The location or time period of the neighborhood is never specified in the stimulus. Next, this AC equivocates "less important" with meaning "less frequently used". That's a terrible jump to make as well. Just because something becomes less important to me does not mean that I will use it less. For example, I've gotten more into the LSAT and as a result my lifting schedule has become less important. Does that mean that I lift less? No. It just means that I care less.
Let me know what you think #Help
Admin note: edited title
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-2-question-07/
Powerscore sucks, don't use them. I read 80 pages of their LR book and threw it in the trash. Why you ask? Because they use weird tricks instead of teaching the basic underlying logic, and I hated their explanation of MP and Weakening questions.
@gabeshelton3715 said:
Another recommendation, watch the "Flaw Intensive" webinar under the Resources tab. Jimmy does a great job of capturing the common flaws on the LSAT and uses examples as well.
Thank you for all the advice
So, working through the CC I've found that flaw questions seem to be quite difficult for me compared to other question types. I think that this could be due to me simply not having seen enough of these questions (I've worked through about 15 so far) to get used to the language that the LSAC hides the flaw in. So far I have been able to pinpoint the flaw in most of the stimuli but the AC trip me up because of how they are worded.
Did you guys get better at flaws just by seeing and doing more of them? I feel like exposure to hundreds of these may jsut be the best way to see all the patterns and traps. Or were there any specific ways that you guys approached these questions?
Take a look at their stats. To have a good shot at getting in you’ll have to have GPA and LSAT over their medians.
Personally, I hate the LR Bible. JY does a much better job teaching logic, causation, and pretty much like EVERYTHING. The main problem I have though is that I do not like how Powerscore classified wrong answer choices and also how “gimmicky” some of their “tricks feel”.
Obviously I’m not in law school yet, but, I have found it extremely extremely helpful to have knowledge of law concepts for RC passages. Also, I’m a philosophy major and my profs recommend something similar. Yet, if I didn’t study on my own and learn the language of philosophical discourse, I’d be lost.