Can someone help with analyzing the stimulus?
I am having difficult time identifying the conclusion.
Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question”
Can someone help with analyzing the stimulus?
I am having difficult time identifying the conclusion.
Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question”
#help
AC A "effect contrary to" and AC B "effective" both seem to be vague and gives some room for different interpretation.
I chose B over A for following reasons:
As to AC A, Anika doesn't really seem to mention the outcome with contrary effect (contrary of "people more willing to buy"). She might have implicated somehow which requires our assumption but do not see any clear indication of it.
And I interpreted "effective" in AC B as appraisals being effective in removing objects of questionable authenticity.
Please somebody give help in explaining why A still is the better answer.
@ Thanks for your help!
Can someone please explain why AC A is right?
Is AC A right b/c "some" selfish opportunists to mean, out of all selfish opportunists in the world, only those who participated in local politics?
A: Hawthorne is unethical because he sold the influence to environmental interest group; there is no justification
M: Nope, he's not unethical because It's environmental interest group preventing pollution doing good to public.
Need help:
I kind of get why AC B is right but do not understand why D is wrong because how I also see the above is:
=>His gaining private benefit by selling unethical vs. His action somehow benefiting the public ethical
Can someone explain?
What do you mean "Logic reasoning games....in terms of LR"?
@ Thank you so much for the explanation. Now I get it!!
In Oscar's argument, he mentions "..and thus a country's economic well-being will not be a function of its geographical position..."
What the hell is "function of geographical position"? I have no idea what this means.
Does being northern or southern itself implicates any function? or does "economic well-being" serves as a function?
I get the idea that generally north is rich and south is poor as presupposed in the stimuli but simply don't understand that phrase.
Can somebody help?
#help
I'm having trouble understanding the stimuli.
First sentence states that Qs (that is 500M away) have been seen since 1963;
Then, it states Q burns away after 100M; which makes E the right AC.
If so, how could Qs have been seen in the first place(as mentioned in the 1st sentence)?
@ said:
PM me. Like you, I was consistently scoring within the -8 to -13 range in LR. Now I'm consistently scoring within the 0 to -3.range. Would be more than glad to share how I got to this point.
Thank you. I sent you a message.
@ said:
discussing LR questions in detail on voice calls, sometimes spending 30+ mins on a question, helped me. also some questions diagrams can really help. hope that helps you. but I got to commend your 10-months getting beat up by this test. wow! my spirit could not take it.
Many thanks for the comment. I feel so dumb for taking this long with LR but I do not want to give up.
@ said:
You have to figure out what learning style is best for you. Are you a visual learner or understand better by reading or listening. I have been studying on and off about a year and feel the same way. I completed both Blueprint prep and 7sage, However, I discovered that reading physical textbooks has helped me internalize the information better. Reading Powerscore bible lessons and actually doing questions on physical paper has helped me better understand the fundamentals than watching videos.
One piece of advice I'd give is to get very specific with the conclusion ( a lot of arguments in the LR section deal with conclusions) and DO NOT GENERALIZE! Try to understand exactly what the author is getting at word for word.
Also, I think most of the LSAT prep is very technical and abstract, and the best way to sometimes approach questions is intuitively. I like to look at the structure of the stimulus (which usually includes background info/context/other peoples argument) and which then the author steps in and basis their conclusion on the information in the stimulus. So instead of looking mechanistically at premise/conclusion indicators like how the lessons plans teach you, pay attention to how the author uses the information in the stimulus to make a conclusion ( and remember the purpose of a conclusion is to be persuasive). This is essentially what logical reasoning is (using information to make a conclusion/explanation/persuasion. etc...) How reasonable an argument is depends on how the information is interpreted and whether the assumptions are warranted or not ( most of the LR questions are flawed) such as, necessary/sufficient assumption, strengthen/weaken, flaw, parallel flaw. So you know you're dealing with flawed args.
So once you start recognizing structural patterns, it's much easier to find gaps in the reasoning.
Thank you for the great advice. Yes, indeed understanding the passage seems to be the key, and often times it is difficult to understand those abstract and convoluted sentences. When I approach the LR, I will keep your advice in mind and try to apply.
@ said:
Hey! I feel you, I have also been really struggling with getting my LR to improve and I've been studying for almost 5 months now. While I'm still not getting the scores that I want on that section, what I think helps is Ellen Cassidy's translation drill (she wrote The Loophole, it's a good investment tbh). Basically, you:
Read each stimulus and then re-write or re-explain it in your own words. This demonstrates that you actually know that is going on. I feel like a lot of issues with LR revolve around not knowing what the heck you just read before going into the questions.
You design your "CLIR", which is basically a basic prediction for each stimulus type:
Debate (the A and B convos) --> figure out their Controversy (what they disagree abt)
Argument (typical stimulus w/ premise and conclusion) --> figure out a Loophole/ basically a way to destroy their argument by attacking the truth of the conclusion... something like "well what if..."
Premise Set (the stimuli with no conclusion/ usually the MBT and Inf Q's --> figure out a safe Inference you can draw from what is given
Paradox (these are the RRE Q's) --> figure out a Resolution that explains how the conclusion can be true
Then you address the Q stem and go through the questions with a prediction in mind. Your prediction (Controversy, Loophole, Inference, Resolution) might not always be what is in the AC's but at least it forces you to engage with the stimulus and know what is actually going on
There might be some stimuli that you can't apply this to, but I've found that it's a lot more helpful to have some sort of idea of what you're looking for instead of drowning in wordy AC's. You should do this drill untimed.
Additionally, I think it's helpful to combine this with explaining and justifying each answer choice either by writing it down or typing it on a google doc. Again doing this untimed, you can go through and for each answer choice, write down why you think it's the wrong AC or why you think that it's the right AC, as if you're explaining it to a friend. I think this is helpful for tracking your reasoning errors or seeing what kind of questions give you a hard time. It also forces you to ask yourself if what you're choosing is actually relevant/happening in the stimmy or if you're just picking an AC out of (poor) intuition.
All in all, I know this is super lengthy but I hope it helps some!! I would also suggest getting a solid tutor who can point out errors in your reasoning that you likely have not noticed. I totally get the frustration and it's hard not to feel like you're behind but you got this!! Good luck!!
Thanks for the advice. Actually, I have read the Loophole twice, and agree that it was very helpful with understanding the fundamentals and gave me some good tips with approaching the question types. However, I kinda gave up on doing the translation drills which required me to burn the questions and doing it verbally was so exhausting. Since English is my secondary language, it was also difficult for me to rephrase it into my own words even though I kind of got the idea but I will take your advice and add translation drill into my practice.
I've been studying now for 10months and do not see much of the improvement.
Comparing to what it felt like 10 months ago when I first started to study, it was very difficult to understand the passages as well as the answer choices, and comprehending took so much time. I was always short in time by 5~10 minutes when I do the time section on LR(getting -7 ~ -14wrong).
Now, I feel more familiar with the LR passages, sometimes see the pattern and most of the time able to solve 1~2 star questions quickly and some of 4~5 star questions easy, and I am now able to finish timed section roughly in time.
But I don't see much of the apparent improvement and keep getting -8 and sometimes -12 if I was unable to focus and distracted. I will be very happy if I could get less than 3wrong consistently.
I am so devastated. Is this normal? Any advice will be very appreciated.
Hi all.
I need some advice with my study plan.
I have recently finished CC after 5 months of studying; I was only able to study 3 hours daily since I work full time.
Currently I manage to do the 1 or 2 PT(s) per week;
I understand that I would need to focus on Pting with more later version as nearing the actual Test date.
But I wonder if it makes much change(ie. starting from old Pts vs. skip old Pts, use it only for drilling and do newer Pts) at this stage because I presume that whether those PTs are old or new, they are testing the same fundamentals/principles.
Any suggestions?
I would appreciate any advice/comment.
@ Thanks for the great explanation!!!
@ Thanks a lot. Now I get it.
Need help in explaining why (A) and (D) is wrong.
I understand that we need to strengthen the argument that the firm's need to reduce the tests on live animals and therefore use new tests: cultures of human cells.
However, (A) seems to infer that because there has been a move against live animal tests by social activists, cosmetics firm is motivated to reduce live animal test and use new test.
(D) also seems to implicate that if the number of the tests can be reduced by using human cultures, then the firm should use it instead of live animal test.
I chose (E) anyway but still doubtful. Is (E) the best answer because I don't need to make any inference at all?
Stim: Japan is model for such sort of training effort & nothing is implicated about its economy
=>which makes ACs (B) and (C) to quickly be eliminated
(A) - worldwide shortage? who cares? irrelevant
(E) - ??? nothing is implied about European countries having better economies
(D)- can definitely be implied from 1st sentence and 3rd sentence together.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
By the way, I still get the conclusion from the stim. Is it the first sentence?
Note: national holidays do not include weekends.....duh
While I was struggling with LR, I encountered and read Loophole by Ellen Cassidy. I am currently working on basic translation drill a training method introduced in the book; I read the LR passages and cover it up and write down or elaborate in my own words within 20 minutes for all stimuli in the section.
This, I find it very difficult since my English is secondary language, and it takes 1 hour to complete a section.
This method of training seems reasonable approach to conquer the LR in time but I wonder if this is something that can be improved.
Any advice or thoughts will be very appreciated.
I personally don't see any benefit of taking PTs before you went through all the fundamentals with CC.
@ That is great and thorough explanation! Thanks, now I get it!!
I totally don't understand this question. Need help and let me know if I read correctly.
Stimuli provides: certain peculiarities are used unconsciously, and if used by more than 1 poet, it represents common usage; if used by only 1 poet, then its unique trait which plays as "fingerprint" allowing the scholars to identify the poem of that poet.
Q stem asks to choose the proof from ACs that goes against the stimuli.
(A) - wrong : didn't like "labor"
(B) - don't understand so I'll leave it
(C) - this was correct AC but I don't get it: well, if such peculiarity was not unique to that author, then doesn't it suggest that it could be the commonly used language among other poets as provided in the stimuli?
(E) - thought this was the correct answer; if peculiarities are used "conscious" (by other poets) even if it is supposed to be unique in other poems, then it would make the scholars hard to identify
Can someone explain?
@ Thanks for the great advice and kind words!
#help
For other possible AC, could it be true that most mail is damaged?
#help
So....being of intrinsic merit means good quality? And good quality means unlikely to make profit?
Hi I hope all is well with you 7Sagers.
It has been now 6 months since I've started to studying for LSAT but still struggling with many of the sections.
My diagnostic was 145, and last score was 153 (pt38: BR164) but this, I think was a fluke(higher BR score came from LG and RC, not much difference in LR). English is my secondary language.
I have full time job, and during week days, I manage to study for 3 hours per day. I meditate daily, listen to LSAT podcasts while driving back home from work; really trying to dedicate myself to LSAT studying.
I plan to take my LSAT next April; I have now about 6 months to prepare.
I foolproof LG with old PTs on daily basis (4games per day), and not doing any drills on RC yet (instead, I am currently reading Economics) as I feed the need to focus on improving LR at the moment.
After CC, I read Ellen's Loophole twice which made me feel pretty confident that I have the fundamentals strengthened, and I have been doing the basic translation drill ("BTD") for a month (but still takes 40 minutes to finish off one section).
*BTD is a translation drill that you read the stimulus and cover it up and repeat in your own words which will require fast understanding and quick memory; this process is quite tedious and even harder since English is my secondary language.
I plan to continue BTD until I can do it within 20 minutes (may be 30 minutes? I don't know) but not sure if this is something that can be improved because I will be facing different passages all the time.
Recently, I took timed LR section from old pts to see if there had been any improvement. I still felt nervous and digesting the stimuli difficult (maybe there was very slight improvement but generally difficult); I got -10 (BR -8); when encountering the questions, my fundamentals seemed to fall apart or mind goes blank, and this was so discouraging.
My general idea is that we do BR after taking PTs but since I need to work on my accuracy on LR, I am currently working on drilling with old LR sections (pt 1~35) doing untimed, and take as much time as necessary.
I have several questions:
In this case, is BR still necessary or recommended? Or should I do the drilling timed, and BR?
Also, should I spend more time on drilling old LR sections untimed? I realize that I have been focusing more on BTD and reading books to learn/familiarize the concepts.
Is drilling by solving lots LR sections from old pts is what it takes to improve?
With 6 months remaining, I feel desperate and lost with little improvement; with many things going on my head: trying Blueprint, tutoring or quitting. I am not sure if I am doing things right.
I would really appreciate any advice.
I have heard rumors about new type of LR that in experimental section of recent test added LR with games which sounds like hybrid of LR and LG.