Hey @ can you further elaborate on "cookie cutter questions"?

You also want to be careful not to make an answer choice truer than it is - especially in paradox questions. Sometimes we are so busy trying to convince ourselves that a particular answer choice is correct that we run out of time and have now elaborately convinced ourselves that the incorrect answer choice is actually correct!

With these questions, I find that the correct choice very clearly resolves the paradox. It's almost too easy sometimes, you'll see!

@ I think you're forgetting something ... LSAT can't win. Good luck!

@ said:

K(----)M is a biconditional. It is read both ways and we can also read the contrapositives. This is designed to cover every possible world in the in and out game. So unpacking the biconditional reading the arrow forward we have:

K(-(strong)-->M

If K is in then M is out

Contrapositive of that statement is

If M is in then K is out

Now we read the statement backwards:

K(----(/strong)>M

If M is out then K is in

Contrapositive of that is:

If K is out then M is in

The purpose of mastery over this concept for in and out games is that we have every single base covered via a sufficient condition:

What happens when M is in?

What happens when M is out?

What happens when K is in?

What happens when K is out?

By "what happens" I mean what is triggered/what is necessary

This works out so neatly for in and out games because we only have (for the most part) two categories.

The Not both rule you have written above as number 2 is often far more restrictive in what we can draw from it. I think of this rule as it relates to grouping games: if you have Three groups and K and M cannot be together, but if K is in group 1, the only thing we can draw from that is that M must be in group 2 or 3 (assuming we have to use all the piece.) A way I have of looking at a not both rule for grouping games is I tell myself "If I see a K, I better not see an M in that group" For in and out games, because we are playing such a restrictive in/out game board, this simple not both iteration might cause some confusion, because as you point out: we might fail the sufficient condition and (wrongly) assume that the rule falls apart on an in and out game.

Now, there is a small exception in my estimation on in and out games where the rule you have listed as number 2 might provide us with a greater ability to manipulate the game pieces: that in which we have an in and out game with sub categories. Meaning from a group of 7, we are choosing two groups of 3 with 1 out for instance. In this case, the biconditional does not hold the same way it does for traditional in and out games.

I hope the above helps

David

This. Needs. To. Be. Published. Thank YOU!

@ said:

Because LSAC is gonna wreck us on Saturday.

Or ... Or ... And hear me out on this one, LSAC is gonna .... completely wreck us.

Thanks Vanessa! Hay is in the B A R N folks! Good luck to everyone writing :)

@ that's so kind of you to do. I am off and currently not working (aside from law school applications) so I could potentially pull it off. Any specific course you'd recommend? I see you mentioned the 'medium level'? Any specific reason? Also as per @'s comment I should mention I am no where close to that 170 range you speak of! Far from it - so pls recommend with that in mind! Thanks so much for all the help guys ... need all that I can get esp with how this day has been going.

I'm based in Toronto and my score is out

@ said:

Btw. What is your section breakdown?

OK Great! I'm gonna start working on that today. What do you mean section breakdown?

@ said:

Hey @ i mean i wouldnt exceed 3 maybe 4 max. Your brain can only handle so much . Rather do less and understand them vs more and literally gain nothing.

Are you Blind Reviewing? Or just reviewing after you grade it?

Hey Nathaniel!

I'm fairly lazy with my BR. I will only BR logic games and complete any LR Qs or RC passage that I was unable to complete. Perhaps doing a complete BR is where I should begin.

Hey Idil! I'm also in Toronto, well Port Credit, which is close enough. I am however writing the September LSAT, don't know how it'll go, but I've decided to "attempt" to slay the dragon. Worst case, I guess I'll re-write. Nonetheless, I'm happy to study together! Send me a PM :smile:

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

Yes, you can use a marker to make markings on the watch. At least I know people who have done that without any problems.

Just keep in mind that everything is subjective and at the proctor's discretion.

Oh yeah, absolutely! I definitely think one should always take an unmarked, non-LSAT watch just in case there are any issues!

I wonder if there is any way to contact the centre you're testing at beforehand to ask these questions re: watch markings?

Oh so happy to see all these comments I'm not invisible!! Amazing! Thanks everyone I'll definitely keep all of this in mind :-)

Unfortunately I'm in Canada so the LSAT watches for me are nearly double the cost not accounting for shipping ... gotta love that exchange rate. If so many people can do it without the watch, then so can I. Love this forum and the support! Woo!!! Let's kill the Sept. LSAT guys.