JY thinks emotive reactions to answer choices qualifies as an explanation-- it's not!! please be more direct and expressive in the explanations. #feedback
These are very poor explanations!
I got the question right intuitively but still can't articulate the reasoning. The lesson didn't help much either.
I am confused about how the costs are equal. The first sentence implies that resident sorting their trash would not cost the city as much (so it is saving money?) but then the last sentence says it the voluntary system costs as much as the involuntary system. I am confused. #help
When I first learn how to translate, the hardest part was getting rid of words and only capturing the most essential to input into the translation. Now, that's become automatic to me and I was able to see the valid structure of this argument and omit information that will not help me understand the logical structure. The the next step now, is to continue doing that while being mindful of what we were omitting to make the translation. Here, I knew "people believing" is not the same as arguing "X is Y" but that was not important to understanding the logical structure. Once I realized the logic was ok, it was easy to anticipate that the problem was gonna be with that omission that I intentionally overlooked in the translation.
For those confused about B:
The sufficient condition here does not allow us to deliver the results because it sets a higher bar for the sufficient condition. The stimuli only needs “reasonable expectation” whereas B is demanding that the expectation in fact existed. The state of mind is different:
1. Factual Expectation:
1. Definition: This pertains to the actual state of mind of the subject, in this case, Ms. Sandstrom. It deals with whether she actively and consciously anticipated a particular outcome.
2. Assessment Approach: To determine "factual expectation", one would need to delve into Ms. Sandstrom's personal beliefs, thoughts, and anticipations. This could involve examining her statements, actions, or any other evidence that might reveal her actual intentions and expectations at the time she wrote the column.
3. Example Application: If, for instance, Ms. Sandstrom made a statement saying, "I was sure that by writing this, people would flood the Mendels’ farm," then she had a factual expectation of the outcome.
2. Reasonable Expectation:
1. Definition: This refers to whether, given the circumstances and available information, a typical person in Ms. Sandstrom's position would or should have foreseen a certain outcome. It evaluates the expectation against a general standard of reasonableness, irrespective of her personal beliefs.
2. Assessment Approach: To establish "reasonable expectation", one would compare the circumstances to a hypothetical benchmark: Would a reasonable, prudent person in Ms. Sandstrom's position, having the same information she did, have anticipated potential damage to the Mendels’ farm?
3. Example Application: Even if Ms. Sandstrom personally didn't think her column would lead to harm, if general standards or typical reactions suggest that any reasonable person in her position would see the potential for damage, then a "reasonable expectation" of harm existed.
Hi folks,
I just finished the foundational course. For some of the lessons, I took it very seriously and tried to master it but then I went a bit faster and was not matriculate so I think I still need to master it or come back to it. Should I move onto the LR lessons and come back to the foundational course later or when I need to? or should I try to revise and nail it down before moving to LR.
Thanks!
Properties of part vs properties of whole was very useful!
#help I thought the flaw was going to be that the legislator assumed the results of the poll which was overwhelming opposition to high taxes to apply to corporate taxes. How are we just assuming the two are talking about corporate taxes since the poll is not clearly indicating that?
In my mind, I was thinking the poll asked "do you support high taxes?" and that didn't specify corporate taxes so the people that responded were rejecting high taxes thinking it is targeted towards them.
I know I made a lot of assumptions there but that's what made me waste so much time on the question because I was looking for answer choice that will conform with my pre-phase. How should've I known that I got my pre-phase wrong?
Is it just me or they did really put all the hardest questions in this Sufficient Assumption section on purpose
Hi everyone,
I am an international student going into my junior year and I am hoping to go directly to law school after college. In October, I am starting a year-long law program at the faculty of law at Oxford. I hear that the program is very intensive and I am bit worried about how realistic it would be for me to do LSAT prep while there. I am very hard working and driven which has also made more prone to burn out just because I always try to do too much and overthink everything (as you will see from this post). I am afraid the same would happen for my LSAT and Oxford program so I am seeking advice on how to go about it.
I did a diagnostic test and I got 139 and my goal is in the range of 167-172 (I need about 30 points increase which is a lot I know). I am really bad at standardized tests but I know I can improve with practice. I also like the learning that comes with LSAT so I am motivated in that way. I am willing to take as much time and effort as possible to reach my target score even if that means taking time off after college. But I also can't help but want to go directly to law school.
I have been working at a T14 law school and a top law firm this summer which has been a great experience. The general advice I would often hear with the legal professionals and my colleagues is that we highly recommend taking time off after college but they would tell me that they don't think I need that. They would say I am already mature enough and have the experiences of a professional. I am a couple of years older than the typical college student. This is not to brag but to give a perspective, I also founded my NGO at age 16, managed grants projects with +100k dollars budget, and I have lived and worked internationally. At my college, I have loved the academics and studying but it has been harder to connect with the rest of the student body because it feels that we are at different stages of our lives. Even my professors would say that I am like a grad student to them and I have built great relationships with them.
Now all that to say is I am impatient about law school and becoming a lawyer and I think I am ready for it. But I am also very insecure about my LSAT and ability to improve within that time frame I have left (a year) given my intensive academic program. What are your thoughts? Am I being irrational and paranoid? Do you think my LSAT target score is realistic within that timeframe? Also, should I just let go of studying for LSAT at Oxford and instead focus on my program there and plan to apply to law school in the 2024 or 2025 cycle?
I have noticed these forums have been very helpful others so wanted to give it a try and be as transparent and vulnerable about my worries as possible.
Thank you everyone!
I am surprised this is a 4 star question. I got this right in 37 seconds even though my formal logic is not that solid.
I think what helped me is read the stimulus quickly and got a bird's eye view of the logical structure without going to specifics. This allowed me to see it was invalid argument structure in the forms of
A--> B
/A
-----
/B (invalid)
I also inferred /A because immediately assuming yeah they're saying it's unlikely they will favor, I will take that to mean they will not favor. I know it is not accurate but it helped me spot the logical structure of the argument much quicker.
I think BR for the start is not that useful because you are basically doing it after having attempted the question. The best thing you could do for now, in my opinion, attempt most (if not all) the questions untimed. When you do each question, spend as much time as you need pre-phasing. That means you will write a low res summary, figure out/write down the logical relationships (if present), parse grammar....etc. Then, you could also write down what you anticipate the correct answer will be. Most of the time, you can't really anticipate it and you'd have to do eliminations. But either way, you also need to write down why you you think each AC is wrong, and why the right AC is correct. And then you pick the correct AC.
You do all that before even looking at the correct AC. Each question might take you 15-30 minutes but that way you make sure you have fully thought about the question and have done your best. I am sure you'll start seeing that you are getting a lot more questions right.
For questions you got wrong, I would then do something similar to LG foolproofing. Look at the explanation, understand it, and see if you can replicate the process, steps, and logical reasoning. Try to internalize the thought process. And keep coming back to it until you realize that you've adopted that mindset of approaching questions if that makes sense.
is it that the question not deserve 5 stars or should I just cherish that I got it right?
Hear how i went about it:
Principle:
Outcome: should hire
Trigger: FQ+/A —> mp
Application:
Outcome: /hire Krall
Fact: D is FQ (but why are you telling me this? are you trying to convince me to hire D instead of Krall? Yes, if D meets the remaining sufficient conditions/triggers (/A + mp)
E provides /A + mp
180!! They don't know me son!!
#feedback this was a great explanation!
Main Argument: Judges are qualified to decide upon the reasonableness of a government minister's administrative decision.
Supporting Points and Structure:
1. Descriptive Statement (P1): Judges have training.
Explanation: This point establishes a factual basis. Judges, by virtue of their profession, undergo significant training in the legal field.
2. Normative Statement (P2): Because of their training (P1), judges should be equipped to determine the reasonableness of government decisions.
Explanation: This is an "ought" statement. It's making a claim about what should be the case based on the fact that judges have training. However, this jumps from a description to a prescription, which raises the question, "What if they can't decide?"
3. Conditional Statement (P4): If judges can't determine the reasonableness of government decisions, then the entire legal system is flawed (/A --> B).
Explanation: This statement tries to bridge the gap between the "is" and "ought". It introduces a condition: If our expectation (that judges can decide due to their training) isn't met, then there's a larger issue at play, namely, the entire legal system is in question.
4. Denial of the Flawed System (P3): The judge believes the legal system isn't flawed (/B).
Explanation: This statement serves as a reassurance. By asserting that the legal system isn't flawed, we are indirectly strengthens the claim that judges, being products of this system, are indeed equipped to make the judgments in question.
Conclusion:
Judges are qualified to decide upon the reasonableness of a government minister's
administrative decision.
Super women right here!! I'm sure you will make a fantastic attorney and even a more fantastic mom. Best of luck!
Argument makes a logical leap
Argument assumes that moral code = values. Based on that, the argument assumes that having different moral codes necessarily means having different values. This is a leap because while moral codes (specific rules or practices) can be based on values, two different moral codes can still be rooted in the same underlying value.
To illustrate:
Both Middle Easterners and Westerners might have the value of "caring for elderly parents." However, how they express this value in action — their moral code — differs.
- Middle Easterners might believe that caring for the elderly means keeping them at home and personally taking care of them until they pass away.
- Westerners might believe that sending the elderly to a nursing home ensures professional care, community, and proper monitoring.
The premise (or observation) is that Middle Easterners and Westernershave different moral codes regarding the care of the elderly. The logical leap is to then conclude that Middle Easterners and Westerners have entirely different values.
However, as the analogy highlights, both cultures value "caring for the elderly." The difference lies in the moral codes, or the specific ways they believe is best to express or act on that value. Iraqis and Americans might have different beliefs about the best methods of care (different moral codes), but they share the same foundational value of caring for one's parents when they are old.
So, the logical leap in the question is assuming that different moral codes automatically equate to entirely different values, without considering that the same value can manifest in different ways across cultures.
Why A and B are wrong?
The reason why A and B traps us into thinking it is correct by making us think of the question in certain way. In this case, to reconcile the scientist's conclusion that the current funding is not enough with the evidence provided, we are thinking about finding a statement that explains why, despite the increase in funding, the current funding might still be insufficient. This approach is wrong.
A tells us why despite the increase in funding, the funding is not enough. Why? mismanagement of funds. This means that even if there's more money, it's not being used properly. This could explain why more money is needed; because the money we have isn't being spent effectively.
Similarly, B tell us that despite increase in funding, and despite the fact that inflation is accounted for, there is another factor has not been accounted for. what is it? increase in scientist salaries working on these preservation at a rate higher than the inflation. If salaries of scientists employed for wetland preservation have increased at a rate higher than inflation, then a significant portion of the increased funds could be going towards these increased salaries, rather than direct preservation activities. So, that’s why the increase in funding is not enough.
But both of these answers rely on the assumption that there is a conflict between increased funding and the conclusion that the funding is not enough. No such conflict exists because we don’t what the baseline funding was 10 years ago.
What's another reason why C is wrong beside B being right? If we had no other options, would C be right?
So did you mostly study using PTs and drills? or did you try to build a good foundation/theory first? I am spending way too much time on the Core Curriculum and the Theory and too scared to start PTing unless I am fluent in the core curriculum.
My diagnostic was 140 but I recently did an untimed PT and I only got 6 questions wrong.
#help can someone explain JY's explanation of why C is wrong? It got me confused a little bit.
I had a more direct approach for why it is wrong:
Rosa vacation — July 2-weeks OR October 3-weeks
Options 1 (July 2-weeks) fails because the trail she wants to go on takes 3 weeks
Option 2 (October 3 weeks) fails because the trail she wants to go on is CLOSED
---
Therefore, if she takes a vacation, it won’t be the one she planned (the trail?)
C is wrong because both options fail. That alone is enough for us to know it is wrong. But also, if both options fails, we can’t conclude one of the options which the stimulus does. This question is basically like In/Out games. Option 1 is OUT, Options 2 must be IN.