Subscription pricing
I'm really stuck. I understand that the correct answer is A, but I can't diagram the logic out. I'm fairly certain it involves subsets, which has always thrown me. So if anyone knows how, please share!
PT Questions
jspence316289
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
jspence316289
Sunday, Jul 31 2016
jspence316289
Saturday, Jun 25 2016
In your explanation JY, you wave away AC (D) by saying that the net gain of 0 could just be babies being shipped out and mid-aged people getting shipped in, which would increase the avg age without increasing the number of 65+ people. Fair enough.
But why can't you do this to explain away AC (A) as well? You can easily say that the net gain in people under 18 years old was just one person, while hordes and hordes of 40 - 60 year olds moved in, or that hordes and hordes of 20 - 40 moved out, or both. Both would cause the avg age to increase without increasing the number of people over 65 years old. Thus also not strengthening the argument with any certainty.
So why is choosing AC (A) any better than AC (D)?
jspence316289
Saturday, Jun 25 2016
This answer makes absolutely no sense. Nowhere in the passage does it mention the religion or religious ethics of the society, professed or otherwise, that shunned Naomi. At one point it mentions religion and the culture/ethics of society in the same sentence (at the beginning of the 3rd Paragraph) in which it says: "Kogawa's use of motifs drawn from Christian rituals and symbols forms a subtle critique of the majority culture that has shunned Naomi." But this in no way implies that Vancouver or elsewhere in Canada or the US were Christian, and it certainly does not imply that it violated their own Christian values by shunning Naomi.
How can one assume that because an author used Christian motifs in their symbolism, that the society in which the protagonist was shunned violated its Christian ethics? I can use Christian motifs to describe a Syrian refugee being shunned in Egypt, but that doesn't make Egypt a Christian society and it certainly doesn't imply that Egypt has violated its religious ethics.
What's worse is that answer choice (A) is very feasible given the wording at the end of Paragraph 2 which states that "...Naomi breaks through the personal and cultural screens of silence and secretiveness that have enshrouded her past..." How can this possibly not validate Answer Choice (A)?
The only possible explanation for this is that they expected the reader to know that the value system of the majority culture Canada and the US around the time of WWII was based on Judeo-Christian religious principles. I of course know this, but this is outside knowledge that the passage never mentions. This alone is a leap, but what truly makes this a frustrating question is that nowhere is "shunning" someone a violation of Christian culture. I'd say it is inherent in Christian culture.
Can anyone give me any guidance on this?
jspence316289
Saturday, Jul 09 2016
i found locating the conclusion in this question to be particularly difficult. To me it looks much more that a fact-set than an argument. Can someone explain to me how you went about identifying the conclusion? That step is skipped in the explanations. And does the conclusion include the first and second sentences? Or just the first?
jspence316289
Thursday, Sep 01 2016
This was a huge issue for me as well. When I learned about and started applying split boards, I thought they were this clever little back-door to getting answers fast and on the cheap. But that is far from the case.
There are multiple factors to consider (Powerscore lists 15) when deciding if you should diagram out multiple game boards. Much of it is based on feel and intuition, something that only comes from doing and re-doing lots of games. What it comes down to is that you want to split game boards when you have a hunch that there are only a handful of ways to solve the game. Here are some of things that I find the most useful (these are mine, not Powerscore's, but you should look up Powerscore's as well, they call it "How to Recognize Limited Solution Set Games"):
1. By game type:
grouping game with multiple groups, splitting is likely a good option.
straight in/out game, it's unlikely.
straight in/out game with sub-groups, it's unlikely.
straight sequencing, almost never
single layer sequencing, toss up.
multi-layer sequencing, toss up.
2. If you have a hunch that the game might be best approached by splitting, and you see a good rule/variable to base the split on then split it! But don't do it until you've read all the rules. when you do do it, do it the right way so in the event you shouldn't have split, you don't lose any time. Here's how: Take the most limited rule/variable, ie, the variable you think will have the most influence on the game, and use it to determine your split game boards. Make them clear, organized by progression, and equally sized. if, after you've split the game board, you decide that the game isn't all that limited, then all is not lost! use the split boards as clean, well-organized places to refer to and work in during the questions. Since they're built around the most limited variable, they're sure to reveal some insights as you move through the questions. And that means you haven't wasted any time in your failed attempt to split the game. You've just front-loaded.
3. This is probably my most important insight. Don't worry about solving splt boards to completion. I'm on PT 69 (working my way up) and over the past 10 or so tests I've noticed a sharp decrease in the amount of games that can be solved to completion or near completion by split game boards. It seems more important lately to use split game boards as open ended guides, from which you can base your visualizations when you're going through the questions. This trend may have reversed in the more recent LSATs, but it's still a good rule to live by.
4. If a game is straight-forward, don't bother with splitting out all of the possibilities. If you do see a benefit in splitting, split it partially. You should be able to easily visualize whatever else is needed.
5. Lastly, a lot of my over reliance (and time wasted) on splitting game boards was due lack of self confidence when dealing with games that weren't very limited. I wanted games to be more limited than they were because I hadn't developed other strategies to deal with the more open ended games. Best thing for me was watching the live commentary JY does for the games in PT41,42,43,44,45,51,59,61,71,76. Watch them all, and try out different strategies. It's a huge boost to get out of your own head and see how others are approaching the questions.
So all in all, identifying a definite split will never be a sure thing. Best thing to do is hedge against time wasting by using the boards you drew as you go through the questions, being ok with partially completed split boards and moving on to the questions, and developing your other skills so that you aren't itching to split when you just shouldn't.
Good Luck!
jspence316289
Monday, Aug 01 2016
The biggest jump for me came when I tried an experimental theory one morning on a prep test. It worked so well I never looked back. It's LR specific, but since that's 50% of the test, it's still super helpful.
Here it is: for the first 10 questions of each LR section, don't overthink the questions. Just glide through them! Almost as if they are just a warmup for the actual questions. Read for detail, be attentive, select the best answer and just move on. If you do this, you'll have a much much better chance of finishing the section on time.
It sounds useless, but you'll be amazed. You really should be able to get through the first 10 questions in 10 minutes. Sometime even the first 13 in 13 minutes. Not only is that 20 points you're not dropping, it's also very very useful minutes in your pocket for when you need to take on questions 10-25. Also, you're more focused and less taxed going into the harder questions. But once you do hit question 10, gird your brain loins.
Occasionally they do sneak a difficult question or two into the first 10, but you'll recognize them when you see them. While you're practicing, assume that all 10 are easy and avoid overthinking at all costs. If it turns out you missed a few of them, identify what made them difficult questions. That way you'll know to slow down a little when you see a similar question next time.
I really believe the most dangerous traps on the lsat are the ones we set for ourselves. Stroll through 1-10, then machete your way through the rest. Of course this all assumes that you're willing to take upwards of 30 practice tests, and review them in detail. If you're not doing that, then do that.
The score boosters in LG and RC come with learning their unique nuances through sheer repetition. There's no magic bullet, it's more like a magic buckshot that you agonizingly build one magic pellet at a time. That's my most useful insight. God speed!
1. My name is Jack Spencer, I'm 28 and graduated Poli Sci/Int'l Relations from GWU in 2011. I'm somewhat of an atypical law school candidate. After graduating I lived in Egypt for three years and became fluent in Arabic. I now freelance translate (Arabic-English) and work for an Int'l Human Rights org here in the US. I'm averaging around a 171 and had a 3.6 in undergrad.
2. My biggest worry about my application are my references. I have one strong professional reference. I could have a second solid professional reference as well, but it would be from the same job, so potentially redundant. More worrying is that I don't have a strong academic reference. It's been 5 years since I had a professor with good written English. I could reach out to a few from five years ago or to a few foreign professors, but I fear the reference letter they'd write would be rote. Should I include an academic reference even if it's weak? Should I have three references instead of two, even if the third doesn't add much? And what's the statute of limitations on references? Is going back to someone I knew well 8 years ago too far?
3. I plan to write about my experience learning a foreign language, living abroad in politically unstable country, and my recent work with Middle Eastern human rights activists and lawyers. I plan to tie this together to show that I can commit to something difficult and to give a glimpse into why I want to study international law.