User Avatar
michaelbenji377
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free
User Avatar
michaelbenji377
Friday, Dec 02 2016

Hey @jhaldy10325 , thanks for the guidance. I took your advice, took it a bit slower this week. Thanks!

0
PrepTests ·
PT144.S2.Q24
User Avatar
michaelbenji377
Friday, Nov 25 2016

Another possible approach:

We're first presented with a statement which can be understood as follows: Authors writing books to give pleasure, and those books imparting truth, are INCOMPATIBLE.

The next statement, the conclusion of the stimulus, is that the above statement "cannot be true." In other words, these two things ARE compatible (authors writing books to give pleasure, and those books imparting truth). (Said another way, SOME of the time at least, authors write books to give pleasure, and those books also impart truth.)

You have to process the premises a bit, but they're really saying that it must be the case that some of the time people get pleasure from books that also impart truth (because the idea that no popular books impart truth is absurd). So getting pleasure from reading books and those books imparting truth ARE compatible. But wait, we're missing something: People getting pleasure from books, and the author writing books in order to give pleasure, are in an annoyingly hair-splitting way not necessarily linked. So...what if they are? If the only way for readers to get pleasure from books is if the author intended them to get pleasure, then we've linked these two concepts. Now, people getting pleasure from books (e.g. best-sellers) means those authors must have written those books in order to give pleasure, and some of those books impart truth. So books being written to give pleasure and those books imparting truth must, in fact be compatible.

21
PrepTests ·
PT144.S2.Q25
User Avatar
michaelbenji377
Friday, Nov 25 2016

I think even if you assume for answer choice B that a show produced "last year" was also a "new" show, the answer choice still doesn't help much.

Let's say that 51 shows out of 100 that W&W produced last year were police dramas. That's "most." We also know that "most" of the shows produced by W&W last year were canceled (from the stimulus). Let's say that's 51 shows. So let's say that out of 51 shows canceled, 2 were police dramas. The other 49 police dramas all did amazing. Police dramas might generally be unpopular but W&W is just killing it with the police dramas (no pun intended). So if all the above possibilities are the case, how does that help us conclude that most of the new programs W&W is producing, all of which are police dramas, would likely be canceled?

1
PrepTests ·
PT144.S2.Q15
User Avatar
michaelbenji377
Friday, Nov 25 2016

Regarding Answer Choice B: It seems like the publishing of sensationalistic gossip prevents media from achieving their purpose (to inform people about matters relevant to the choices they make) at least in those specific instances where people are reading the sensationalistic gossip (assuming it actually gets read and that those people can only consume one article/story at a time, both of which seem like reasonable assumptions). I suppose, however, that the media could be achieving their purpose at the same time with other readers/watchers. Hm.

Answer choice A seemed to me to be attributing intentions where perhaps there was no basis to do so (reasons why media report non-choice-relevant content), but the strong characterization of this content as "sensationalistic gossip" I suppose is enough to make a reasonable attribution of non-journalistic intentions to those who report it.

1
PrepTests ·
PT143.S1.Q25
User Avatar
michaelbenji377
Tuesday, Nov 22 2016

One other reason D might be wrong is because superciliousness is not the absence of confidence. More importantly, in the premises of D, there is statement of causality ("will gain votes as a result"), which contrasts with the premises in the stimulus, which only describe a correlation. The causality language in the stimulus is only found in the conclusion.

0
User Avatar
michaelbenji377
Sunday, Nov 20 2016

@jhaldy10325 @jhaldy10325

OK guys, I followed your advice! I foolproofed all the LG for PTs up to 39 (at least the ones I could get---there are a handful of early PTs I had trouble getting which only just arrived).

I'm still scoring high 160s to low 170s, and I'm often missing more on LG than on the rest of the three sections put together. I know I am getting better overall at LG--now it typically takes me 1-3 do-overs to feel like I 'own' a game. The last two PTs I was fine with the more familiar games, but when I'm thrown a new type of game, or a really hard one, I fall apart (PT 74 I went -8 on LG).

I'd love some guidance with a study plan. I have 14 days. I still feel I have room for improvement in the other sections.

I have clean PTs 75-79 and C2 left to take of the most recent ones, also PTs 60 - 65, and then most of 40-55. I'm thinking I should just take 3 days to do whatever LG I can from 40-55 and the early tests I just got, and then the LG from 60-65 throughout the next 10 days along with the last 5 PTs.

Please let me know what you think! Thanks!!

0
PrepTests ·
PT142.S1.Q25
User Avatar
michaelbenji377
Saturday, Nov 19 2016

I found this question challenging only because I was trying to be so meticulous in mapping the logic. Did anyone else have this problem?

There is cause and effect language ("does not cause them to develop harmful symptoms"), which I thought must find its way onto the map, and there is the word "many" which I instantly think should be translated to a "some" statement. All of this...totally unnecessary.

2
PrepTests ·
PT140.S2.Q19
User Avatar
michaelbenji377
Thursday, Nov 17 2016

Another way to look at why Answer Choice C is incorrect might be to consider the time frame.

The cause-effect phenomenon at issue happens around the debate only. After the debate people think Lopez had better arguments (phenomenon), the supposed cause for this is pro-Lopez bias before the debate.

The vote happened after the debate. For all we know Tanner may have, in the intervening period between the debate and the election, been involved in a scandal, thus causing Lopez to win the election. Or Lopez might have promised in a miraculously convincing way to bring coal jobs back to rural areas. Lopez winning the election could have resulting from many causes, so tells us nothing about whether or not viewers were biased before the debate, so his winning has no bearing on the supposed cause of the phenomenon.

As J.Y. points out, we also don't know that the people who vote are the same people who watch the debate.

0
PrepTests ·
PT140.S2.Q14
User Avatar
michaelbenji377
Thursday, Nov 17 2016

I think of answer choice A as describing something akin to a side effect. A parallel argument might go:

The most important function of parents is to keep their children alive.

Parents do this by providing meals that kids are willing to eat.

Eating this food makes kids happy and gives them a sense that they are loved.

Answer choice A says "An important function of parents is to make kids happy and give them a sense they are loved."

Answer choice B says "Parents accomplish their most important function by providing meals that kids are willing to eat."

0
PrepTests ·
PT144.S3.Q11
User Avatar
michaelbenji377
Thursday, Nov 17 2016

I agree with Accounts Playable below: I think the way that answer choice A is relevant is that the possibility of current environmental damage from dumping sewage actually seem to help the argument. If the now-dumped sewage, currently disposed of in a way that harms the environment (dumping), will instead get turned into oil that can be used to generate power, then we're preventing harm to the environment that dumping sewage may otherwise have caused. This helps to support the second hope---that we can "better protect the environment from harm than we do at present." (I guess no one considered air pollution, but maybe this is some special, special oil.)

2
PrepTests ·
PT136.S4.Q14
User Avatar
michaelbenji377
Tuesday, Nov 15 2016

I was wondering if it would always be correct to stop reading an answer choice like (A) at the point J.Y. does: "A university denies a grant application [STOP]." The answer choice could read, "A university denies a grant application...for a field of theoretical research which would almost definitely yield insight into a practical problem that affects millions of people, and the university has therefore failed to fulfill its obligation." That judgement would be justified by the principle in the stimulus.

The question stem, however, wants an answer choice for which the stimulus justifies the action described. In this case, it seems like the only correct answer choices could be ones in which the obligation was fulfilled (research funded/promoted).

I'm not sure, if we are looking for an action that would be justified by the principle, if the contrapositive could even be used in a correct choice; can anyone enlighten me?

0
PrepTests ·
PT136.S1.P1.Q5
User Avatar
michaelbenji377
Monday, Nov 14 2016

I'm a little puzzled about Q5 here. I chose correctly but on BR was torn between A and C.

The correct answer choice (A) says "The need for warehousing will shift from that of individual books to that of paper and binding material." But the passage says that the digital publication of a book online "involves no physical inventory, thereby eliminating the costs of warehousing..."

If costs for warehousing are eliminated, that seems to contradict the idea that anything could wind up "shifting." The passage doesn't say the costs of warehousing books will be eliminated; it says the cost of warehousing, period, will be eliminated.

It seems plausible to me that there wouldn't need to be warehousing in the new model; the locations with the printing machines could just order paper and binding material, as needed, Amazon.com style, like small businesses do with printer paper. Yeah, sure, the stuff would have to be warehoused by the manufacturer/supplier, but that storage was already happening isn't a direct cost for the publisher.

Maybe the issue is cost of warehousing vs. need, but still, regardless of the model, there's a need for paper/binding material, and a need for it to be stored.

5
PrepTests ·
PT136.S1.P2.Q12
User Avatar
michaelbenji377
Monday, Nov 14 2016

Question 12, asking for a principle that underlies the arguments in both passages.

Answer Choice (E) says "Fingerprint examiners must follow objective standards if fingerprint identification is to be reliable."

I get that Passage B definitely has this as an underlying principle. Because there are no objective standards (among other reasons), we don't know if fingerprint identification is reliable.

On BR I realized that Passage A's argument is more something like "BECAUSE there are objective(-ish) standards, THEREFORE fingerprint identification is reliable." If this is an accurate evaluation of the argument in Passage A, isn't this a mistaken reversal of the conditional statement in the correct answer choice (B→A)?

1
PrepTests ·
PT140.S4.P2.Q8
User Avatar
michaelbenji377
Friday, Nov 11 2016

Hey AP, I also had a tough time with Q13 here. I think the connection between "intentionally commodified" and "intellectual property" is buried in the first paragraph. "Most multiplayer online games prohibit real-world trade in virtual items, but some actually encourage it, for example, by granting participants intellectual property rights in their creations."

If real-world trade is encouraged, I think that counts as "intentional commodification."

I definitely think POE is the way to go here. This is the first time I can think of where the answer to a line-referenced question is really buried really far away from the referenced line!

2
PrepTests ·
PT140.S1.Q22
User Avatar
michaelbenji377
Friday, Nov 11 2016

Thanks for this thorough analysis GtB. I didn't really get into the second half of what you wrote, but I think the first part is spot on and I found it really helpful. Negating the correct answer choice would basically lead one to say "Not every pricing practice that prevents companies from raising prices to unreasonable levels is acceptable." Well, yeah, if that's the case, then the argument is wrecked, because there's not necessarily a connection between the premise and conclusion.

I think part of what is confusing for people here is that in the core curriculum, J.Y. (correctly) emphasizes that Necessary Assumption answers are often super weak. And this one seems very broad.

The interesting thing is, a correct answer choice here could also be (I think) "There exists at least one pricing practice that does not result in unreasonable prices which is acceptable."

Curious to hear your thoughts....

1
PrepTests ·
PT139.S1.Q19
User Avatar
michaelbenji377
Saturday, Nov 05 2016

I like how in the video explanations for more recent tests, J.Y. just lets it all hang out.

9
User Avatar
michaelbenji377
Sunday, Oct 16 2016

@jhaldy10325 , this is just what I needed to hear (and see--thanks MJ). I'm starting today.

0
User Avatar
michaelbenji377
Sunday, Oct 16 2016

@tutordavidlevine115 Thank you! This is helpful!

0
User Avatar
michaelbenji377
Sunday, Oct 16 2016

Thanks @tutordavidlevine115 and @jclaridge202 ! I appreciate your input! Yes, I will take this on. If I spend two weeks in an LG intensive, that leaves me only 4 weeks to PT which does make me nervous, but targeted study is probably the best option. I may just take 1 PT/week so I don't slide back on my RC/LR progress.

0
User Avatar
michaelbenji377
Sunday, Oct 16 2016

@michaelbenji377 @jhaldy10325 : Just wondering if either of you had any other input here! Thanks!

0
User Avatar
michaelbenji377
Sunday, Oct 16 2016

@jhaldy10325 Thanks so much for the advice and encouragement. I will do this. Most of those 1-35 games I think were covered in the core curriculum, but I will revisit all of them. I'm a little nervous about just leaving tests 'on the table'--I'm only going to have gone through about 20 PTs before the actual test if I follow this plan, but I will give it a shot. Thanks again!

0
User Avatar
michaelbenji377
Saturday, Oct 15 2016

Hey @jhaldy10325! I mean that every game I've done so far (core curriculum and PTs), I've printed out copies and done the game as many times as I needed to feel like I 'owned' the game and completed it under the recommended time.

0
User Avatar

Saturday, Oct 15 2016

michaelbenji377

Study Plan Guidance Request – Six Weeks Out

Hey ’Sagers.

Here's my situation: I’m 12 PTs in, and I’m scoring generally between high 160s and low 170s (BR usually 178-179). I was hoping to take the exam in December, and my target score is 175+. I am not there, most of all because of LG.

I’m all over the place with LG, and generally way, way under where I want to be, which is starting to unnerve me because I was planning to sit for the exam in six weeks. I’m missing -0 to -8 (last PTs: -4, -2, -0, -8, -7, -7), generally riding these sections out as a pencil-gripping emotional mess, usually not getting to every question and missing others. I’m headed back to review in/out games, lessons I guess I rushed through initially, which is probably why these games in particular are a challenge. I foolproof every game and then go back and do the entire LG section at once to get a feel for proper timing. (Also I should say that I did the foolproof method for every game so far, including those in the core curriculum.) I 'get' the games eventually, it’s the first time around (the, um, one that matters) that I seem to fall apart.

I feel any remaining gains in RC and LR will happen largely through PTing, but also that I should hold off on burning through LG sections until I am more confident on games. So my plan as of right now is to continue to take PTs, skipping the LG sections for now, subbing in a section or two from an older test so I can still get a feel for the full length of the exam. That way I can still work on RC and LR and overall strategy. Then, when I feel more confident on LG, I'll catch up on those sections, adding them as a fifth section to my PTs.

I’m also thinking about going through the LSAT Trainer for just games and wondering if it’s too late to start that. Or maybe getting a tutor in NYC. I’m six weeks out from my desired test date. If I postpone until Feb that means waiting another year to apply, or applying very late, both of which I REALLY do not want to do.

I also realize that at this point that if completing 2 PTs/week on average means I will do only about 24 total PTs before 12/3. I want to get the best possible score (like, obvi), so I’m wondering if I should just plan on moving things to February, maybe applying extremely late or just the next cycle. (Again, I do not want to do this.)

So the questions:

1) How does that 6-week strategy sound? ~2 PTs a week, plus LG ‘bootcamp,’ maybe with The Trainer, waiting to do LG sections until I’m more confident [2 weeks, hopefully, which would give me a month to practice on the actual PTs.])

2) Does anyone recommend adding the LSAT Trainer for LG? Could I get through the games chapters in 2 weeks? Or am I just going to add an unnecessary cook into the kitchen?

3) Would the difference between taking roughly 25 PTs vs 40 PTs warrant postponing applying until February or the next cycle?

4) Has anyone worked with a tutor for LG in NYC and had a positive experience? Again, I’m game-proficient, just not within the time constraints of the exam. Ideally I'd want someone to look at what I've done in past exams, maybe watch me do a section, give me feedback.

Thanks!

0
PrepTests ·
PT141.S4.Q9
User Avatar
michaelbenji377
Saturday, Oct 15 2016

It's interesting how understated answer choice C is.

"You have zero evidence to support your hypothesis. Nada. Zilch. ZERO."

"I see you are questioning the sufficiency of my evidence."

This question threw me because there's no "evidence" that Fraenger even puts forward!

5
PrepTests ·
PT131.S2.Q21
User Avatar
michaelbenji377
Tuesday, Oct 11 2016

So..is this one of those rare cases where the answer choice directly attacks a premise?

In this case a premise is that it is "implausible" that hunting could lead to extinction. But the answer choice contradicts this idea, yes? It's supporting the idea that there actually is a causal relationship here between hunting and extinction.

2

Confirm action

Are you sure?