Community Profile

General · From 138 to 171!

rrmradi209

Friday, Jul 24 2020

Beautiful

1

General · anyone else think Powerscore LG is awful?

rrmradi209

Thursday, Jul 23 2020

I concur with @

The only powerscore that's useful is the Logical Reasoning Bible.

I know from your other post in which I left a comment that you're looking to ace the LSAT in 45 days - you need 7SAGE.

As I eluded to in my other comment, organization and deconstruction of LSAT material is the difference between learning fast and learning slow. 7SAGE helps immensley. From creating problem sets to filtering questions by question type. I actually first picked up 7SAGE purely because I needed to filter questions according to question type, and therefore begin to deconstruct the caveats of each question.

Later after going through the LR course syllabus briefly, I found that it also added that extra level of depth via more interactive teaching (videos) as opposed to just reading a book and interpreting the information for yourself.

Get the LR powerscore bible, and pick up a 7SAGE membership for everything else. Use the problem set creator to seperate questions once you've gone through the general material.

Like wise start practicing LG ASAP on 7SAGE

1

PrepTests ·

PT125.S2.Q19

rrmradi209

Thursday, Jul 21 2022

It seems as though if you did not contrapose the conditionals about J losing/winning, then answer choice D would have flown over your head

0

PrepTests ·

PT125.S2.Q18

rrmradi209

Thursday, Jul 21 2022

If the first sentence, being the context, was not included then this game would have been easier. I believe it's there to just cause some confusion. Otherwise, the gap in the logic is all the more apparent when you read the stim without the context/first sentence.

0

LSAT · LG: Almost at -0 Need Advice

rrmradi209

Monday, Jul 20 2020

Proof your must be true questions, those dogs are usually the cause for -1 on a game.

0

PrepTests ·

PT117.S3.Q17

rrmradi209

Thursday, Nov 19 2020

Fair question but relatively odd in that it incorporates statistic and probability principles. Indeed it is more than reasonable to assume that higher quantity = higher probability for error, but stuff like this is often beyond the contextual scope of the LSAT - making this a five-star question. Not sure how I feel about it though.

4

General · anxiety when timing myself

rrmradi209

Monday, Oct 19 2020

It will happen regardless, but you can alleviate this by practicing timed sections only for sometime before moving on to doing timed practice tests.

0

General · Stuck at 169 trying to get to 173+ before October

rrmradi209

Saturday, Sep 18 2021

@ said:

I didn't say there wasn't a pattern. I said the pattern does not seem to be linked to the categorized question type.

It doesn't matter. If you cant see a pattern of any kind that would give indication as to what you are doing wrong in getting -4, then you're not looking hard enough. There's no way around this, the reality is you've still got work to do in achieving a consistent sub -2 and to neglect that by suggesting that your -4 is because of random chance or misreading/rushing is misleading to OP.

Getting -4/-5 out of 25 questions is no margin of error. Its indicative of a lack of understanding of some aspect of LR.

-1 is an acceptable margin of error, maybe -2 if your LR section happens to have an impossibly difficult question that we see every now and then.

Each question type is nuanced in what you are expected to do and look out for, and each question difficulty further builds on that nuance. To suggest that you've done all that you can in mastering LR questions but you're stuck getting -4 is just delusion; that's why I said, if you can't see a pattern you're not looking hard enough.

Being able to answer every question on BR means nothing if you're spending 6 minutes trying to answer a higher difficulty rated question. Time is simply part of the equation on the LSAT, to try and separate time from performance is just doing yourself a disservice. Using the idea that you do well on BR to support a claim of having done everything but still getting -4 is just delusion.

To answer the latter part of your initial comment where you pose the question of a potentially better method than just practicing and time management:

Try selecting question types you tend to underperform on, or you think are not your strongest, then go to problem sets and filter for that specific question type. Then filter that specific question type by difficulty. Then do each difficulty, or just start on 3 stars since that's probably going to be where you want to start as someone getting -4. Do a ton of those, and as you do them, note on a word document for each question, the nature of the answer.

For example, flaw question types:

pt 1 s2 q13:

Argument blah blah blah false dichotomy. Just describe in your own words the flaw in the reasoning.

Once youve done this for a ton of flaw questions, try to determine the frequency of each flaw as it appears in the stimulus argument. Find out what is rare, what is common, what is easier in terms of wordiness within the answer choice, etc....

Move onto 4 stars, do a ton of those, try to see how they differ from 3 stars. Is the stimulus harder? Are the answer choices wordier? Is there more trap answer choices? etc...

You want to dissect the answer choices, and this will reveal to you certain information about that question type, e.g characteristics of 3 star flaw questions. It is this way that you will then be looking hard enough.

Another example, albeit more ambiguous, some people tend to think of strengthen and weaken questions as opposites. This doesn't really help because there's a different approach to each question type that you should have mentally assumed before taking a look at the given answer choices. Simply saying, I'm going to do the opposite of weakening and strengthening doesnt suffice. Strengthening questions are significantly more subtle in the way they expect you to strengthen it. There's a stronger emphasis on contextual relevance in strengthening questions and this lends to more subtle answer choices especially in the 4/5 difficulty range.

0

General · Stuck at 169 trying to get to 173+ before October

rrmradi209

Saturday, Sep 18 2021

@ said:

I didn't say there wasn't a pattern. I said the pattern does not seem to be linked to the categorized question type.

It doesn't matter. If you cant see a pattern of any kind that would give indication as to what you are doing wrong in getting -4, then you're not looking hard enough. There's no way around this, the reality is you've still got work to do in achieving a consistent sub -2 and to neglect that by suggesting that your -4 is because of random chance or misreading/rushing is misleading to OP.

Getting -4/-5 out of 25 questions is no margin of error. Its indicative of a lack of understanding of some aspect of LR.

-1 is an acceptable margin of error, maybe -2 if your LR section happens to have an impossibly difficult question that we see every now and then.

Each question type is nuanced in what you are expected to do and look out for, and each question difficulty further builds on that nuance. To suggest that you've done all that you can in mastering LR questions but you're stuck getting -4 is just delusion; that's why I said, if you can't see a pattern you're not looking hard enough.

Being able to answer every question on BR means nothing if you're spending 6 minutes trying to answer a higher difficulty rated question. Time is simply part of the equation on the LSAT, to try and separate time from performance is just doing yourself a disservice. Using the idea that you do well on BR to support a claim of having done everything but still getting -4 is just delusion.

0

General · Stuck at 169 trying to get to 173+ before October

rrmradi209

Friday, Sep 17 2021

@ said:

if you do not see a pattern in your incorrect LR answers while usually getting -4 you are not looking hard enough.

0

PrepTests ·

PT122.S2.Q14

rrmradi209

Sunday, Aug 15 2021

Reality is that if we looked at this question like any other weaken question complying with the lawgic of the LSAT, we would strike B out as a shitty answer fairly quickly as it does not weaken the argument in a way that weakening an argument typically takes place on the LSAT. The argument in the stimulus proposes the conditions for making advanced or sophisticated weapons (used synonymously), and based on the conditions provided determines that this advanced weapon creation must have taken place after prehistoric humans (ancestors) stood upright. The relevance of a prehistoric human ancestors being in possession of advanced hunting weaponry, alone does nothing for us LSAT takers; there is simply one too many assumptions required to render this answer as what would be typically correct. We would have to assume, as JY noted, that they did not steal it or find a way to possess it by any means other than creating it themselves. We also are required when selecting this answer choice to presume that weapons are included within the category of 'tools'- while this is not fatal, and likely a function of common sense, does contribute to casting doubt on the legitimacy of this answer choice.

This DOES NOT conform to the essence and nature of weakening questions. The point is this answer when compared to answer E is the lesser choice.

Why?

While answer B requires you to flat out make assumptions, which on weaken questions constitutes an erroneous sin since doing so on any other normal weaken question would lead you to select a bad answer (meaning there exists an obviously better alternative answer choice that you seem to be foolishly missing which does not invoke a dangerous assumption). A weaken answer choice is suppose to do the opposite of what this answer choice does in essence: A weaken answer choice calls out the erroneous assumptions embed in the stimulus argument of Premise -> Conclusion. To then, in response to this stimulus, select an answer choice that itself contains 'dangerous' assumptions is counter intuitive and what I think is a fatal mistake on part of the LSAT makers.

Answer E on the other hand only requires you to make the common sense assumption the the conditions imposed on ones ability to make a tool, is the same conditions imposed on ones ability to use that tool which is made. Lets for example take answer B's use of "advanced hunting weapons". The ultimate assumption here, is that if the human physical faculties necessitate up right standing to create advanced/sophisticated tools, then the exact same human physical faculties (being limbs and hands and such) are required for their use. This presumption is similar in nature to the presumption of weapons = tools in answer B. They are presumptions of equivalent magnitude, and while they are presumptions nevertheless they are not fatal.

Do we build hammers to use them with our feet?

What a bull shit answer choice.

1

LSAT · ⚖ Official November 2022 LSAT Discussion Thread ⚖

rrmradi209

Tuesday, Nov 15 2022

@ said:

I ended up with LR-LG-RC-LR. First LR felt fine...but I fully didn't finish game #3 about the dog walking. I must have missed an inference/spent way too long on games 1 and 2 because none of the games seemed very difficult...it was just like I couldn't get my head in it so I guessed on probably 6 or 7 Qs which I am SO disappointed about. RC felt difficult, especially the one passage with 8 (???) questions, but at least I finished everything. The second LR was hard but I was also so checked out by the time I got there.

Did your RC include a passage about whales and pitch?

0

General · Suggestions on Books Required!!

rrmradi209

Wednesday, Oct 12 2022

Ellen Cassidy: Loophole. great book for logical reasoning

3

Admissions · Do you think that a diversity statement/ personal statement to use too much of "creative language"..

rrmradi209

Wednesday, Oct 12 2022

It makes sense. If you are talking about Canadian schools, I would avoid "creative language" and go for just a more straight forward approach at addressing the given topic of the statement.

0

Admissions · Is the January LSAT too late for Fall 2023?

rrmradi209

Friday, Nov 11 2022

@ said:

Also, you’re showing the admissions team that you’re carefully planning ahead, and contrary to the appearance of applying “late” you’re actually considerate, strategic and well organized as evidenced by your strategic early application to the school, even though your lsat score is not yet available.

While applying with your LSAT score already on file is advantageous, "appearing well organized as evidenced by your strategic early application the school" is not a legitimate consideration that law schools take into account. Not sure where you heard this, but this doesn't factor into admission considerations. The January LSAT is accepted by all (most?) schools, they don't go further to then determine whether you taking the January LSAT is a consequence of your disorganization. Conversely, they don't assess applicants who already have an LSAT score on file as 'more organized' than any other. Any negatives associated with taking the January LSAT is already reflected through the consequences of being evaluated late within a rolling basis admissions process, which is that places are distributed overtime and not all at once. This is the extent to which taking the Jan LSAT can be problematic, nothing more. People have various reasons for taking the January LSAT, just as some may have been able to take it in October vs. November or any other month. When a school agrees to accept the January LSAT, they're not saying you're going to be considered in an inferior light to your "more organized" competition. You're going to be considered as any other applicant; according to the standards and requirements set out by the school, with the caveat that some seats have already been filled. Any further determination as to how "organized" an applicant is based on when he took the LSAT, or how that factors into his application as a whole is seriously unjustified. Even more grossly so, when you imply that this has an effect on how he is assessed as an applicant, i.e. how likely he is to succeed in law school once that application in its entirety has already arrived in the laps of the school's addcom.

Law school admission process is, in short, just them assessing how likely you are to succeed in their law school (and beyond that, how good of a fit you are), often accomplished through considering EC's, grades, LSAT scores, Personal Statement, and other considerations that that vary from school to school, but are usually explicitly mentioned in the guides that schools provide for students looking to apply (none of which mention an inherent disdain for Jan LSAT test takers). They don't bother making arbitrary and wildly speculative assessments about your application, such as he applied for the January LSAT therefore he's relatively disorganized compared to everyone who did not, for the obvious reason that its a ridiculous conclusion to arrive at.

The obvious reasons anyone takes the January LSAT, is they believe they can score better than if they were to take it any earlier, or that there were some circumstances that prevented them from taking an earlier LSAT date. In the former, you are better of taking the LSAT in January if it is going to lend to a significantly stronger application, and therefore further evidence you're likelihood of being able to succeed in their law school (which is any law schools primary concern). Encouraging someone to preclude themselves from the opportunity to strengthen their application because of some speculation that you will somehow appear disorganized is very strange.

If you can guarantee a significant boost in your LSAT score by taking the January test, then its worth taking, generally speaking. If you have an already strong score on file, then that becomes debatable. It just depends on your likelihood of being admitted given your current score, and your preferred schools requirements. Are you a competitive applicant with your current LSAT/GPA, if so, then doing the LSAT again is not ideal.

You should not be giving out wrong advice, and by extension of the nature of the advice you're giving, encouraging applicants to worry about factors that are grossly speculative that in-turn can have a negative effect on those factors that admission committee's do in fact legitimately consider.

You're not showing the admissions team anything of that sort ,as the above poster described, by applying with an LSAT score already on file vs an LSAT score taken in January. Admission committees are not involved in playing any guessing game, they look at the resulting score of your LSAT (amongst other factors such as GPA). A 155 in November does not beat a 160 in January (assuming the difference is pertinent given the school you're looking to apply to).

4

LSAT · Always choose wrong AC pf 2 ACs in LR...Please Help!

rrmradi209

Tuesday, Oct 11 2022

Further example of my process, PT 57, S2, Q 10.

Process:

Conclusion: "On our farm we have great concern for our cows environmental condition"

Premise: Increase cows comfort

Intermediary conclusion: Increase cows comfort also increases profit

What I then say back to myself: 'Increasing your cows comfort is equal to being concerned for your cows environmental condition. Really? Oh it also helps to boost your profit, go figure. '

At this point, I have some understanding of the argument. The sarcastic remarks I tell myself are reflective of skepticism, at this point I am skeptical of the farmers claims, particularly that he has great concern for his cows environmental conditions. On an intuitive level, I understand I can weaken this argument by saying he cares about the profit, and not the environmental conditions. I can similarly strengthen this argument by mitigating this, I understand that the correct AC for a strengthening question stem would address the farmers interest in profit, specifically would down play such interest while supporting a greater concern for the cow itself. I also note that the stimulus oddly equates a cows comfort with its environmental condition. In this sense the conclusion in the stimulus is too strong/broad for its premises. I think nothing more and move on.

With this in mind, I move on to the question stem.

"of the following propositions, which one is best illustrated by the dairy farmers statements"

The answer must be provable, not powerful. (concept from Loophole Ellen Cassidy's LR book)

AC: A) Conditional + physiology of milk? What in the hell? Immediately eliminate.

AC: B ) Ok sounds good

AC: C) More than other animal? Stimulus makes no mention of other animals. Immediately eliminate.

AC: D) Prescriptive answer choice; (telling us how something should be done when the stimulus doesn't do that.) Huge no, immediately eliminate.

AC: E) Stimulus makes no mention of "ThE KeY To MaxIMIzInG ProFIts" (Insert DJ Khalid). Immediately eliminate.

1

LSAT · Always choose wrong AC pf 2 ACs in LR...Please Help!

rrmradi209

Tuesday, Oct 11 2022

In my opinion, if you go into the answer choices hoping to find the answer somewhere there, you will almost always be spending way too much time on the question, getting it wrong, or both. You should know the answer, roughly at least, before going looking at the answer choices.

Actually I shouldnt have said this, because many times my process wont necessarily lead to anticipating an answer choice, maybe because the argument is extremely sound, or perhaps overly ambiguous. In any case, the process will provide you with a better understanding of the stimulus, and a more simplified version. Which will ultimately up the chances of settling on the right answer choice.

Admittedly, sometimes things don't click, something about the stimulus is just so foreign to me that I cant wrap my head around the argument being presented. PT 57, S2, Q7, ( I got a -2 on timed take of this LR, and -1 on BR), this is the question I couldn't get timed nor on BR. Despite being one of the apparently easier questions in this section, I simply could not wrap my head around the stimulus. It happens, it is what it is.

1

LSAT · Always choose wrong AC pf 2 ACs in LR...Please Help!

rrmradi209

Tuesday, Oct 11 2022

You are falling into some trap you are unaware of. Remember, there is no guessing in LR, consider that every wrong answer choice is intentionally designed to be attractive.

To directly address your concern, yes there is something for you to further improve on if you're finding yourself in the situation you've described.

On a more elaborate note, I've been studying LR for sometime and have managed to get -1/-2 on timed LR and -1/0 on BR. Usually the -1/0 on BR for me comes to down heavy conditional question, SA/PSA/Flaw, that require relatively excessive diagraming of conditionals.

I saw the greatest improvement in my LR the moment I understood that the "answer to an LR question is in the stimulus". Its very simple, if I go into the answer choices already knowing what the correct answer would/should address, then I'm highly likely to immediately select the correct answer after skimming through the choices while easily eliminating the others without falling into traps. If I read the stimulus, and couldn't figure it out, then I'm likely to spend significantly more time looking through the answer choices, thinking deeply about each one and whether its right or wrong, while also being increasingly more likely to pick the wrong one and ultimately also wasting a bunch of time.

There is a process to LR, an ACTIVE Process that you must keep in mind while you go through that section, this process is what gave me the most improvement:

I read the stimulus, mentally note the conclusion, the premises, and then in my own words I summarize the argument presented in the stimulus, while also noting what is potentially wrong with it. If I identify it is a premise set and not an argument, I simply do the same but instead I note to myself what the inference is likely to be.

At this point, I have a good understanding of the argument, and I am already anticipating the correct answer choice.

I move to read the question stem, based on the question type, I categorize the answer as needing to be either powerful or provable (concept from Ellen Cassidy Loophole book, very good LR guide book).

Based on 1 and 2, I am able to select the right answer choice with high confidence, while also quickly eliminating wrong answer choices.

In my opinion, if you go into the answer choices hoping to find the answer somewhere there, you will almost always be spending way too much time on the question, getting it wrong, or both. You should know the answer, roughly at least, before going looking at the answer choices.

2

General · Should you pay $30 more for JY's live LR classes, and is it worth it?

rrmradi209

Thursday, Nov 10 2022

@ said:

i am struggling with LR, just hit 19 on a 25 and want to perfect it best way i can. im wondering if this is a good class to register for? i am considering both this 7sage and the lsat demon live course.

Tomorrow at 12 pm there will be another live session with JY, if you sign up for the upgraded membership ($99), you can attend that, Just navigate to the top bar on the website, hover over 'course' and click live classes. Tomorrow (or later today?) the schedule will show JY's class.12 pm (EST) Nov 11 ( tomorrow) you'll be able to click and join on zoom.

We had one today, it was great as expected. Give it a try before you sign up for other courses, since presuming you're already signed on a 7sage regular membership, it would be better to exhaust your options here before you spend and even greater amount to access an alternative studying resource. (don't know anything about lsat demon other than I've been getting more frequent youtube adds from them).

1

LSAT · Only have 1 month to study for RC

rrmradi209

Monday, Oct 10 2022

@ said:

Depending on where you’re scoring, the answer changes dramatically. A lot of people actually do worse on RC after “studying” it. Especially in the -4 to -8 range, people got to be careful.

Any reason for this? Genuinely curious and asking.

0

PrepTests ·

PT107.S3.Q19

rrmradi209

Monday, Jun 06 2022

He’s trying to argue that it wasn’t the large meteor because of the status of the rocks in relation to the polarity of the earth or whatever (spoken in layman).

Having the impact be of sufficient size to cause the mass extinction is a precondition for him to reach the conclusion THAT IT WAS IN-FACT NOT THE METEORITE IMPACT SIMPLY BECAUSE the rocks would have been correctly aligned with the polarity.

So in reality, that is a necessary assumption, but answer choice ‘A’ doesn’t note that, it notes “MORE THAN SUFFICIENT”. Because answer choice ‘A’ includes “MORE”, it no longer is a necessary assumption for the argument the professor makes.

If the impact size was not sufficient in size to cause the mass extinction, then by default it would not make any sense to consider the meteor as the culprit in the first place. The problem with answer 'A' is the phrase "MORE THAN SUFFICIENT". What is NECESSARY, would be the size being "SUFFICIENT".

0

PrepTests ·

PT107.S3.Q19

rrmradi209

Monday, Jun 06 2022

A could have been a correct answer choice if the word "most" was not included. Classic case of providing a stimulus and question stem intended to overwhelm and confuse the test taker when the solution in actuality relies on simply being aware of the fact that 'A' is a 'nonsense answer'.

0

PrepTests ·

PT118.S1.Q19

rrmradi209

Monday, Sep 06 2021

Stimulus establishes that a certain wealth is necessary to adopt and sustain these environmental policies that have brought about improvement.

Stimulus tells us that a nations wealth MAY/POSSIBLY come from utilizing natural resources.

Answer choice A tells us that all nations indeed do sustain a substantial portion of their wealth from the utilization of natural resources.

The strengthening in this question/answer choice takes place by affirming as fact what otherwise was only a possibility

1

General · How to deal with abstract/philosophical topics on morality, etc???

rrmradi209

Sunday, Oct 03 2021

Read about moral philosophy, nothing more to it. They're almost always cookie cutter moral principles.

1

PrepTests ·

PT119.S2.Q21

rrmradi209

Sunday, Oct 02 2022

I'm pretty sure D is wrong because the overwhelming disastrous consequence is the psychiatrist breaking her duty to patient confidentiality.

Answer choice A: A student's chance at an internship might be harmed (of which the teacher presumably knows nothing about, so the element of overwhelming evidence of disastrous consequence is not present)

Answer choice D: Psychiatrist 100% knowingly breaks patient confidentiality

Therefore answer choice A

To support this further; if you are doubting the 'disastrous' nature of the psychiatrist breaking patient confidentiality, answer choice D makes somewhat of an effort to communicate that this duty (duty to her patient) is equivocal to the duty of reporting a crime (duty to the law).

0

Discussions

Should you pay $30 more for JY's live LR classes, and is it worth it?

Confirm action