Hello,
I was working on PT35.S4.Q11, and came across the expression "if all and only those", and it seemed to me as a biconditional indicator, but I haven't come across it yet. Do you agree?
Lawgic: real (---) "entities posited by the most explanatorily powerful theory of the science"
Hey --
For those of you taking the the LSAT abroad, your test might be at 2pm even though your ticket says 8:30, as mine does. Check with the venue!
I also "just read" and agree that diagramming takes away my attention from internalizing the text itself.
I've been averaging -3 on RC and this method makes it hard to pinpoint how to improve to -0 or -1, which is my goal. I think that for me, I'll improve by simply remembering the text better, which I can best achieve by being more focused and interested in it. If I don't feel that way naturally as I sometimes don't, I try to fake interest and use mindfulness.
Do you all have any tricks for being energized and interested in the text? Does it come naturally always for anyone?
Hello,
As we all know, matching the formal elements in answer choices to the stimulus is a good way to find the correct answer on Parallel type questions. However, on this question, only the flaw matches and but the formal elements don't, in particular the certainty of the conclusion. In the stimulus, the conclusion states "probably did not" and the correct answer states "we will be unable."
I am curious if anyone else has come across questions like this and how often they come up.
Thanks!
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-76-section-2-question-21/
Thanks @ for the very helpful answer. It is hence the order of the quantities of the gases that is the crux of the argument. The gold/silver/bronze medal analogy is great.
Hello,
This is an NA question that I have been trying to grasp. It's REALLY hard.
I will explain how I can justify the to myself and I would be so grateful if anyone wants to chime in and add any additional analysis.
The stimulus -
CTX: There is frozen nitrogen, methane, and carbon monoxide on the surface of Pluto, which vaporize to make Pluto's atmosphere.
P: The proportion of each gas in Pluto's atmosphere results how readily the gas vaporizes.
C: Pluto's atmosphere is made of nitrogen, methane, and carbon monoxide gas, listed from greatest to lowest proportion.
The correct answer states that there is no frozen substance (let's call it X) on Pluto that vaporizes more readily than methane but less readily than carbon monoxide. In other words there is no gas X in the atmosphere of which there is more than methane and less than carbon monoxide. The negation would read like this: C > X > M , there is a fourth gas in the atmosphere and there is more carbon monoxide than methane (if I understand correctly).
I think my issue at first was that I did not read the conclusion to say there were only three gases in the atmosphere and no others; I suppose stating "the components are..." does imply that. So, if there was a fourth gas in the atmosphere, there are not three, as the conclusions claim. Moreover, with the CA negated, there would be more carbon monoxide than methane, which wrecks the argument. This seems to be an example of a really bare minimum NA, that makes you go "doi."
I chose (D), which states that nitrogen is only found in the atmosphere if it is also found as ice on the planet's surface. It's useless to the argument. Natm --> Nps ; /Nps --> /Natm. Neither of these statements reveal anything new or relevant about the situation.
Thanks in advance for any input!
Please tag me! Thanks!
Hey -- NA questions are the most difficult for me, but my "ah ha" moments increased when I started thinking about them as MBT questions. If the stimulus is to be true and the argument valid, the correct answer must be true, that's why it's necessary. And that's also why the negation test works. This thinking also helps me rule sufficient assumptions.
@ that's a really good idea. I'll try the new+old back to back strategy. Are you talking an entire old PT, so 4 new + 4 old sections? Seems like a great way to train endurance.
I was just about about to post this question!
I am in the same boat -- I have averaged 170 on my last six PTs. I am super happy for this accomplishment but I would like to push further.
I know that for me, I need to get faster and work on timing and skipping. Now, I finish most sections right on time, with one or two minutes to go (a bit more for LG). This leaves me no time to review the questions that I then get correct during BR. It also makes me frantic on the last two questions. I also need to become more conscious of not wasting time. I have been putting off filming myself doing a PT but I think the time is now.
Mostly, I get -0 on LG, and that is crucial for my high score, as I am averaging about -2/3 on LR and RC. I want these at -1. All my recent BRs are in the 99th. My incorrect answers do not seem to be tied specific question types, but rather not paying attention, misreading, misunderstanding, stimulus difficulty, or interpreting the lawgic incorrectly.
Does anyone here consistently get -0 during BR?? HOW do you do it? Infinite patience?
Perhaps I should note that I have been studying on and off for a year, but doing serious PTing for about three months.
I think my focus is as good as it will get, but I need to find ways to keep my energy higher, especially on the third section. Maybe I should start PTing with 5 sections?
Sometimes, I slack on prephrasing, which leads me to wasting time on answer choices because I don't have a clear idea of what I am looking for.
I'm looking forward to any and all input on this!
Hi! I am nearly done with the CC and don't think that I will go through a second time, maybe only the parts that I might be shaky on. Reviewing material you are solid on is a waste of time :)
For the entirety of the CC, I used a moleskine notebook (they make me feel professional) and took notes on every single lesson by hand. It is proven that the best way to study is by summarizing in your own words and then recalling/rewriting the summary (which explains the Memory Method). Also, it adds a human element for me to the online course and it makes me feel more on top of the material to have my notes all in one place. I also always use the same pens that I really like and for some reason it encourages me to write more notes.
One important piece of advice is to budget more time than the CC outline suggests per lesson. I probably take twice as long because I take notes and pause a lot to make sure I understand. That applies to the whole CC as well, I have read about that about 3 months is good, but life happens and it will take longer. I started 5 months ago and am just finishing. I like my pace as I have not felt any risk of burnout, which happens easily for me.
Also, for any of JY's explanations of LSAT questions/games/passages, I like to do them before I watch the explanation. This seems to help me retain the strategy much better than just passive listening (I think that's how we're supposed to do it but I didn't see it stated anywhere). This means that I print all the LSAT questions/games/passages that JY explains, which I find very useful.
Finally, if you are unsure of anything, don't avoid or postpone understanding it, figure it out in the moment.
Hope this helps :)
thanks @. That's really helpful and encouraging.
Hi Vanessa,
Perhaps you've already moved on from this question, but I just did PT61 and was stumped on it as well.
@ said:
Is it because it is a biconditonal? That is the only thing I've been able to come up with
The biconditional explanation is the only one that fully works for me.
I don't know if you like using outside explanations, but this one helped me a lot, and diagrams the stimulus as biconditional: https://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewtopic.php?t=6710
With about two weeks left until the test, I am wondering how many PTs I should take and what to focus on.
I've been studying for a year and have taken 27 PTs total with an average of 170.5 on on PT65 to 75. My goal has been 175 on PTs so that I can be pretty sure I get 170+ on the test, but I am cognizant that that might not happen. LR and RC fluctuate from -1 to -5 and LG is mostly perfect.
I have PT 76 through 82 left. How many do you all think I should do?
I am curious about the experiences of people who did a lot of PTs before the test and those that did few.
I am worried about burn out but my energy levels have been good and I am mostly enjoying studying at this point.
I am also BRing thoroughly with clean copies.
I feel like I have a solid grasp on CC -- I lose points on details, inattention, and bad timing. I feel that most of my issues are strategic, which is why I feel I should be still taking tests in the first place.
Anyone in a similar boat?
My BR fluctuates and it's frustrating, but I think it depends on the day / my energy. I usually get BR 175-180 and I've been PTing around 171. I really respect a consistent BR 180!
I don't scan them in general, because trying to actively look for answers to those while reading is impossible and would interfere with comprehension.
One thing that I have started doing recently is on comparative passage, I read passage A, then check to see if there are any questions on A only, or both, but that I can use passage A only to eliminate. I find this reduces my confusion between passages.
Wow, thanks for all the recommendations, got lots to read now :smile:
I agree with @ , Malcolm Gladwell seems more interested in finding unexpected relationships between phenomena and sensationalizing them than super rigorous research... but it's entertaining. That said... his Revisionist History pod was a fun listen.
@ said:
letting go of everything, even your goals and aims for success (as well as your fears of failure). This allows a certain kind of focus that I think keeps you more in the present.
I agree with this so much! Knowing how to do this while also studying or taking timed tests will allow us to use our mental resources exclusively for the task at hand and hence maximize our chances of doing well. Meditation has helped me get closer to this kind of mindfulness.
I recently started using Headspace for meditation, how do you meditate @ ? Good luck to you too :smile:
I just finished reading Smarter Better Faster by Charles Duhigg and found it to be very useful for finding ways to increase focus, motivation, and productivity with my LSAT studying. It is also very readable since the gist of the book is structured around storytelling.
Full disclosure: My bachelors degree is in cognitive psychology and I love behavioral science, so I might have gotten carried away a bit with the length of this post, but I do believe that the using psychology to master the LSAT is necessary for doing well.
Here’s the stuff I found most useful for LSAT prep:
Ch.1 - Motivation:
Positive emotional reward linked to making decisions (gained through experience) AND belief in having control over our lives and surroundings AND linking mundane tasks (such as studying) to greater purpose or personal values, thus transforming them into a choice —> motivation to act
(Yes, those three conditions are sufficient for motivation, according to science.)
Motivation depends on emotionality.
Motivation is a skill that can be learned and honed, not a static personality trait.
Following a success, praise yourself for hard work, not your intelligence. (Focusing on static traits like intelligence shuts down motivation.)
Ch. 3 - Focus:
This chapter was most useful to me. The author talks about the concept of mental models (a story of what should happen in a future scenario) and how they can help combat cognitive tunneling (focusing one irrelevant or insufficient thing due to being overwhelmed by information) and reactive thinking (reacting to external stimuli randomly or as they arise instead of intentionally).
Mental modeling works in several ways. It helps us know what information to pay attention, because we already have a plan, so that we are better able to successfully complete a stressful/high-risk task. The author uses a story of a pilot successfully landing a totally wrecked plane and it was very relatable to trying to answer an LR question with a seemingly incomprehensible stimulus on a timed PT…
Mental modeling also provides us with a picture of what a situation should like, and when it doesn’t look that way, an alarm goes off in our head and we fix it, rather than proceeding with the bad strategy. To increase focus and avoid distraction or mistakes, the author hence recommends visualizing the anticipated task. For example, I have a hard time not getting distracted during LSAT studying by other tasks, and mental modeling allows me to set an intention and better catch myself when I deviate from what I intended to do, such as browsing the Discussion Forum instead of BR or forgetting to identify the premises and conclusions in an argument stimulus in LR.
Cognitive tunneling and mental shutdown (the flight or fight mentality that the CC talks about leading to inability to do higher order thinking) is exactly what happens to me when I get stuck while studying or a timed PTs, so it has been useful to try to transform material and strategies from the CC into mental models of what I should be doing instead of panicking. I think that the mental model idea works for individual small tasks, like answering specific question types on LR, as well as for whole sections, such as creating a mental model for active reading during RC (still a bit of a struggle for me). Another useful mental model might be for remaining calm, focused, and confident for the actual LSAT. You can practice mental modeling anytime - while commuting, cooking, showering… In relation to LSAT prep, it’s just another way of studying, but it can also be applied to any aspect of your life.
“Mental models help us by providing a scaffold for the torrent of information that constantly surrounds us. Models help us choose where to direct our attention, so we can make decisions, rather than just react.”
The concepts mentioned in the book definitely overlap with recommendations for studying and test taking form the CC, not that 7sage needs even more proof of being effective :).
Ch. 4 - Goal Setting:
Pairing two types of goals:
Ch. 6 - Decision Making:
Decision making is integral to the LSAT - choosing the right answer, choosing what to focus attention on, choosing when to skip questions…
ability to envision what will happen next (“forecasting”) probabilistically AND comfort with doubt (knowing what you don’t know) AND realistic assumptions —> good decision making
We have a success-bias, i.e. we tend to notice success more than failures, even though failures offer more insight on how to succeed, in other words, not fail. (focus on areas of struggle in LSAT prep instead of searching for ways to increase score)
Ch. 8 - Absorbing Data:
data must be understood and then applied to be useful (e.g. actually formulate study plans out LSAT Analytics page on 7sage; active reading)
large amounts of data can best be absorbed by asking series of questions (e.g. while digesting a complex LR stimuli ask: what are the Ps and C? what is the strength of support? are there any assumptions?…)
hand-written notes are the most effective because the disfluency of hand-writing forces us to take more time to reformulate the information. I believe that everyone should take comprehensive notes by hand while doing the CC.
If any of this spoke to, do yourself a favor and read the relevant parts of the book, I’ve tried hard to summarize it accurately here but you will get much more from the book :)
What do y’all think? Has anyone else read this?
What mental models would you make for studying for the LSAT?
I agree that the Post-CC Strategies webinar is awesome and has lots of awesome, specific advice.
Also check out this webinar for tips- https://classic.7sage.com/webinar/lsat-prep-for-170-plus/
Hi! Please record if possible, I cannot attend due to timezone differences :smile:
Another reason why A is incorrect:
The "Factual information & not(understanding the significance of the information) --> not(equipped for independent study) premise cannot be used justify it as the correct answer because answer choice A talks about the significance of plants and animals, not information regarding them.
Moreover, A mentions nothing of independent study or breadth, which the "any" in D implies.
Missed this one even during BR. I wrongly equated "often" with "most". I missed the correct answer because I thought that "enough clues to infer the correct solution" was not supported in the stimulus, but in fact it is. It is couched in the idea that the brilliant detective is able to find the correct solution with the clues given in the story and the "chance". I assumed that we have no way of knowing if sometimes the clues are sufficient for the reader solve the story, but the "chance" of solving the mystery pushes it over into being supported. This one got me!
Another way to discredit B and E is to think of them as loosely strengthening Bernard's argument, since they provide support that technological advances have actually occurred and that that hence initial technological limitations are irrelevant to the original purpose behind the distribution of keyboard letters.
Awesome!! Thanks for the suggestion @ and all your work finding and linking those @!
I agree @, hopefully through exposure we will see some concrete rules and inferences pushed out of these dreaded questions. Would be great to keep each other posted on any breakthroughs.
Sharing this in hopes that it might be useful to some:
In an effort to feel more comfortable with "mathy" questions (involving proportions, percentages, averages...), I searched the discussion forum for a list of such questions and it seems that only @dannyshaw had looked for something similar.
I quickly realized that there were lots of them, at least 4-5 questions in each PT. I found them by searching "proportions", "percent", or "average" in my digital PTs. Does anyone have any suggestions of what other keywords to search? I can also come up with "number", "incidence", and "prevalence", but those don't seem to come up as frequently.
Has anyone else drilled these types of questions? Is it more useful to read something like How to Lie with Statistics than drill?
These are several "mathy" questions I found just in PTs 1 and 2.
PT01.S3.Q11 - proportion
PT01.S3.Q21 - proportion
PT01.S3.Q12 - average
PT01.S4.Q04 - percent
PT02.S2.Q04 - average
PT02.S2.Q14 - average
PT02.S2.Q16-17 - percent
PT02.S4.Q05 - proportion
PT02.S4.Q15 - percent
Cheers!
Hi! I am not a 7sage approved tutor, but I am actually a full-time personal tutor for middle and high school students in various subjects. I just scored a 169 on the December test and I am thinking about going into LSAT tutoring also, but I haven't done LSAT tutoring yet but am keen to start.
Send me a direct message if you want to chat more.
Thanks @ for the reference.
I deleted it, sorry about that!!
I guess if you're not in Europe it could be a totally different time than 2! Not sure...
@ I find out because I went to check out the campus two days ago to find out exactly where it would be and to check the time. My ticket said 8:30AM, which I thought was weird because I was under the impression that in Europe the test usually starts at 2PM, so that we're all writing it at the same time. At the campus, the receptionist told me it started at 2PM, so I checked with the Law School Dean and she looked into it. A few hours later I got a general email from LSAC that some of the tickets had the wrong time and that I should reprint it. The ticket has the right time now. So ... I'm sure glad I went and checked! :smile:
@ -- they are at the end of each preptest, in the Acknowledgements section.