ENFJ

I am

I use a random number generator, because test day it will be essentially random. Set it to 1-5 and give it a go

https://www.random.org/

@.aaf

Well if it's not going to affect how the admissions perceive you as a candidate, it doesn't seem like a big deal.

I think all your worries would be eliminated by simply attaching a special note in the addendum section of the application, that says everything you just wrote in this post. Then the admissions will understand.

The flawed argument works in this manner, like you've illustrated:

1. I > T

2. L > T

3. L

4. T

5. T > I

Conclusion: I

But note that arriving at T (4.) is actually not an assumption; it's derived validly from premises 2 and 3. But yes the 'illogical' move is thinking that you can derive (T > I). This is where the confusion lies, namely confusing the necessary condition for I as the sufficient condition for I.

If you do this:

1. A > B

2. B

Conclusion: A

then you have confused the necessary condition (B) as a sufficient condition for acquiring A, which is not supported by the premises.

If you do this (where ~ means 'not'):

1. A > B

2. ~ A

Conclusion: ~B

then you have confused the sufficient condition (A) as being necessary for the existence of B. You have essentially claimed not B simply because A is not present. B might be around for some other reason; it might have some other sufficient condition.

@

I did not pay for a course. My diagnostic was a 157. I scored a 168 after 9 weeks of studying. I scored a 176 a few months after that. Logic games was also my worst section initially. I learned how to do logic games 100% from the free videos posted on 7sage. I took around 30+ practice tests. You can definitely get to where you want without a course, but you have to be pretty darn serious about what you want. I studied 8 hours a day for 5 days a week the month leading up to my first take and didn't come even close to my target score. But still I'm just here to say that you can definitely do it without a course. But I guess I should add that I got perfect scores in a couple of the logic courses which they offer at my university, so I didn't have to learn any of that from the ground up. That's why I was able to learn to do logic games just from watching the vids, because I had a very solid grounding in logic.

i got a 176

self-studied 100%

only ever bought the LSAC official PT sets

@

Thanks

how does one know that the LSAT scores are being released today? Has anyone got their's yet?

@

I suggest diagramming them at least in review. You may not be quick enough to diagram then yet under timed conditions-- a lot of them you can be solved in your head under a time crunch. But you should learn how to diagram them well, and then you'll be able to start doing it under timed conditions, and you'll never miss one. Parallel reasoning is about as reliable as Logic Games-- you can essentially be 100% that you got it right.

@

171 on 70,

177 on 71,

174 on 73,

168 on 75, (even though I took this one in June, wtf?)

and

166 on 72.

LG really got me on 72 (-8)

RC really got me on 70 (-7)

@ that's exactly my thinking

@

"Without strength or (without) endurance, the fight is all but lost."

S = Strength

E = Endurance

F = the fight is all but lost

original sentence, translated:

(~ S v ~ E ) > F

do a D'Morgan equivalence:

~ ( S & E ) > F

contrapose:

~ F > ( S & E )

...

“Unless you understand the homework, which cannot happen without either paying attention to the lecture, or understanding the text, or both, you will find the final on Monday extremely difficult.”

This will be fun!

H = Understand the homework

P = Paying attention to the lecture

T = Understanding the text

F = Find the final on Monday extremely difficult

translating original sentence:

( ~ H > F ) & ( H > ( P v T ) )

...

And your question:

"My question is, how do you go about accurately translating something like “which cannot happen without either paying attention to the lecture, or understanding the text, or both”

The “or both” seems to leave open both of the possibilities illustrated here. Any thoughts?

I'm going to give you a lesson!

In logic, the word 'or' is a logical operator, just like 'not,' 'and,' 'if... then...' etc.

As a logical operator, 'or' differs from the way we use it regularly in English!

As a logical operator, 'or' is inclusive.

This means that if both sides of a disjunction (a statement containing 'or') are true, then the disjunction itself is also true. A disjunction is not true only when one side of it is true! So for example, take the sentence, "Steve had eggs or ham."

This is easily symbolized as:

E v H

But what if Steve had both eggs and ham ?

That would look like this:

E & H

So, the question arises, if the sentence, "Steve had both eggs and ham" is true, does that mean the sentence "Steve had eggs or ham" is also true? In logic, it does!

It doesn't matter if this matches with your intuition about language, because we are talking about the formal language of logic, which relies on strict norms about truth! Logic doesn't care about your intuitions!

So now take the sentence, "Steve had eggs or ham or both."

It might be your desire to translate it as:

( E v H ) v ( E & H )

But considering what we just learned, the second half of this equation is superfluous!

We only need

( E v H )

to capture the logical force of "Steve had eggs or ham or both."

The sentences ( E v H ) v ( E & H ) is actually equivalent to ( E v H ) ! This means that the sentences will be true at the same times. You can try this out if you want, and discover that indeed they will be true in the same situations!

Thus is the power of the inclusive 'or' !

I hope this helps!

"the habit of volunteering cannot be said to have been fostered in a person who has not yet volunteered for anything"

The habit of volunteering = H

Volunteered for anything = V

Original Statement:

~ H if ~ V

unfix the 'if':

~ V > ~ H

contrapose:

H > V

That is, If someone has a habit of volunteering, then they must have volunteered before.

You end up with a wonderfully clean conditional at the end! Who knew!

a

a

@

You can 100% keep the same LORs on file for however long you want. Better get them now too so you are also relevant in the writers' minds (i.e. if you are done with undergrad this year).

If the professors ask you for dates and stuff for when you want the letter done by, you should tell them as if you are going to apply this year so that you have the LORs this year if you do apply.

They don't need to submit twice.

For me after I wrote in June I had to retake in Oct. Before June I made my priority the quantity of hours that I was studying. I burnt myself out (go figure) and got sub 3 my average PT score for my June take. For Oct I pretty much realized that my skillset was already up to par (you might be the same way) and I literally studied probably a tenth as much. I would take 1 PT a week and drill another PT throughout the weekdays, like a section or two at a time. This gave me a 5 point increase from the average I had going in before the June test (translated into an 8 point increase between actual June and Oct scores). Everything about studying is particular to your situation. But if you are like me, and tried to go super hard the first time around and found yourself feeling wiped, then maybe you should be stoked that you already have the endurance and the fundamentals down, and you can work on your mental game and the really particular stuff that is holding you back. I had to really focus on RC, so that's what I did. I would sit down and just say to myself, "I'm going to absolutely destroy this reading comprehension" and that's what I would I do. And then I would kill RC that day and do bad on LR and LG, because I put all the effort into RC. And then next time I would be like, "I'm going to kill RC but not let it hurt my LG and LR so much" and then I would do only slightly better. And then I would focus a little on LR or LG, while retaining my newfound RC skills... and I would just keep switching what section I focused on until I got everything to the exact average I wanted... and believe it or not I literally scored exactly my average for each of my sections (for example -5 LR, -2 LG, -2 RC) on my Oct test...

@

said:

To join the BR groups with 7sage

To BR intensively including writing out my thinking process in word documents for each problem and writing out JYs explanation

Writing out your own thinking is one of the best ways IMO to study. It will also make you seem really intelligent in front of all your friends when you can say exactly what you want to say. Literally so few people in our society have that skill set to formulate their thoughts into logically perfect words.

a

a

a

I legitimately focused on timing-- I remember I would get blasted like -8 on LR because I would miss them all in the first 20. Focus on time if time is what you want-- focus on accuracy if accuracy is what you want-- and go back and forth until you're hitting both the accuracy and timing that you want.

There is no double negative. In the antecedent of the now contraposed conditional,

@ If one does not know she knows nothing, then she does not have true wisdom

We are only negating what was the consequent of the original statement, "One knows she knows nothing."

I understand what you are getting at-- in "knowing nothing" there seems to be a negation... but we can't cleanly pull out a statement which will eventually take the double negative; we can only accept the fact that the statement "One knows she knows nothing" is already complex, and negate it just as it is when we perform the contrapositive. Does this make sense?

Think about it this way. Try translating "One does not know she knows nothing," with a double negative and arriving at an equivalent statement. It's not going to work, because the sentence isn't of the form "Not Not x," but is rather of the form "Not (x Not y)."

And to answer your question, "One does not know she knows nothing" does not mean "One knows she knows something," in any sense. She neither knows something nor knows about knowing this something.

The only true wisdom is in knowning you know nothing

rewrite it as logically clear: One has true wisdom only if she knows she knows nothing

symbolize, where T is "one has true wisdom" and K is "she knows she knows nothing"

T > K

the contrapositive is, using a '~' as negation symbol,

~ K > ~ T

which in English is,

If one does not know she knows nothing, then she does not have true wisdom.

I did exactly what you did with every LR question I got wrong for probably 10 PTs in a row. I'm sure someone has done something similar to a larger extent. I scored mid 170s. If you can explain why the answer is right thoroughly, which is often very difficult at first, you eventually develop the skill to explain it in your brain, so during test conditions, instead of acting on a whim or intuition, you can actually, within a short amount of time, explain in words in your brain why it is you are making whatever decision (sometimes). You should keep doing what you are doing.