What’s your criteria for owning a game? By owning as in- you won’t have to look at that game for awhile and when you come back to it in say 2 weeks or so(or I don’t know in how long really) the speed at which you can recall the inferences won’t have diminished.

Perhaps finishing it well ahead of the suggested time? (like if it’s a 5 minute game- and you finish in 3:30~ 4 mins. Or if it’s a 12 minute game, maybe finishing in 10 minutes or sooner and if it’s an 10 minute game- maybe finishing in 8 minutes.)

After repeating a game for 5 times or so, I find myself plateauing/maxing out time-wise.

Anyway, thoughts?

"Without strength or endurance, the fight is all but lost."

This is #5 on the quiz on complex conditional translations to lawgic.

We are to translate this into lawgic and write the contrapositive.

So I figured for statements containing “unless, without, until” we are to negate sufficient and leave the necessary alone.

Following that formula- I got

~L—> S or E (if the fight was not lost, there was either strength or endurance)

~S and ~E—> L (if there was neither strength nor endurance, the fight was lost)

But according to the answer, the correct translations are as follows,

~S or ~E—> L ~S—> L ~E—> L

~L—> S and E

The “or”s and “and”s are switched. What did I miss in translating this?

I understand the logic of A or B —> C

That is, either A or B will get you C, and clearly that’s what’s applied in the correct translation it seems.

Does the formula (the one pertaining to unless,without, until) not apply in this situation?

If so, why does it not? Does “without” have a different meaning here?

When it comes to these time consuming questions, what’s a good time to aim for? Under 2minutes? (Assuming you can do the freebies like sufficient assumption, PSA or principle questions in under 30 seconds)

Ok here’s an odd question and probably not of much practical use, but I’m hoping some of you might be able to relate to this and shed some insight.

You read the stimulus. It’s a tougher question. You read it slowly once. There’s a sentence whose meaning you couldn’t fully process. You re-read it, it’s become clearer- the argument’s become clear and you’re ready to answer the question. You’re down to a couple answer choices, D and E and the more time you spend looking at it, the less clearer the right answer gets. It feels like you’re all maxed out in terms of your reasoning capacity. It’s gotten counterproductive to keep staring at the question.

You do a few other problems, and then come back to it- and the right answer jumps out at you. Not D or E. But A or B or C- the answers you had dismissed the first time around. I’m inclined to wonder why the right answer can become so clear and obvious on the second go.

Why is it that a question can seem a lot easier when you come back to it? Does your mind/brain naturally come away with a fresher perspective after a break? Is your subconscious mind doing the work for you even when you’re not consciously thinking about that very question? Maybe this is a question for a psychologist; I don’t know but I can’t help but think about it. It’s gotten me curious.

I find this tendency to be counterintuitive since one might figure the first time around you’re at an advantage as opposed to the second time when you’re having to re-process the information in the stimulus.

Thoughts?

17.4.2 #15 The author is primarily concerned with…

So this is what I got from the passage.

Paragraph 1 presents as intro about the law’s completeness or its lack thereof when it comes to had cases.

Paragraph 2 details Hart’s model.

Paragraph 3 is about Dworkin’s view that’s contrary to Hart’s.

Paragraph 4 refutes Dworkin’s views and reiterates why hart’s theory of hard cases is still the most persuasive.

After hearing JY’s explanation, it’s become quite clear why the answer is E; my guess is the point of the whole passage is to convince the reader that Hart’s model is still worthy of respect and refute an argument(dworkin’s) that attacks it; “It would be a mistake, though, to dispute Hart’s

theory of hard cases on this basis alone.”

So, where I went wrong it seems was with the way I understood the question stem. How do you tend to interpret :”The author is primarily concerned with?” For the sake of simplicity, could we rephrase it and understand it as “what is the purpose of the author writing this passage? Why did he/she write it?” “what is his/her objective or goal?” “what is he/she trying to convince us of?”

For this question, I chose D. When I looked at E- I did want to choose it because I got the author’s position; siding with Hart and not Dworkin. I went with D because, the amount of “real estate” -if you will- occupying the passage is bigger for Hart. (silly reason, I know. It reflects my difficulty in distinguishing the way I go about doing main point/idea questions from this kind of question) I also figured “ critiquing” means to evaluate objectively in this context and not necessarily to take a critical stance on a view. By mentioning Dworkin’s views, could we say the author technically does (D) but it’s not what he’s primarily concerned with? That is, he does (D) in order to do (E)? Also, does he in fact do (D) ?

Thanks.

So about RC, the memory method is definitely helping my understanding of passages. Retention is better. I don’t get bogged down with every single detail. I’m currently working on “more RC;” which is the section just before “Intro to Logic Games”; so still lots of lessons to do before moving on PT's. My problem is I, for the most part still require more time than what JY prescribes; both for reading the passage and for doing the questions) Of course sometimes there are passages where I do finish in time. But on average maybe a minute or two more than what JY prescribes?

So I want to ask the veterans who had to deal with this reading speed issue- does it improve over time? How did you come to read faster? Can you retrace some of the steps you took that helped improve your speed?

From what I’ve gleaned, I’m aware of a couple things that should help.

1. Just having better developed reasoning skills (which I reckon and hope will come in time, by doing the lessons)

2. The habit of moving on quickly from one question to the next when you’re really sure of an answer and skipping ones you know that’s gonna be more time consuming.

Are there other things that should help? Thoughts? Advices?

I don’t get this problem. Please tell me where my logic flawed.

JY's explanation is here FYI, http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-24/ and yet I still don't get this.

So according to the explanation,

X—Y= Z

X= the amount that’s been mined.

Y= the amount consumed

Z= the remainder , that is what was mined but not consumed

I plugged in some random numbers and I couldn’t get the logic to follow satisfactorily.

So if we say the Z is 1990 is 50 and the Z in 1991 is 30, then couldn’t the following scenario be possible?

X in ’90= 70

Y in ’90= 20

Z in ’90= 50

Let’s say

X in ‘91= 200

Y in ’91= 170

Z in ‘91= 30

It doesn’t seem 170 is greater than 200. My set up must be wrong.

What I am missing here? Is there something in the "Furthermore, Country Q has not imported or exported coal since 1970" that I am not picking up on? Thanks in advance.

How often do you guys review your stack of questions? My stack of questions is getting quite big now. I’ve got about 160 of them and I’m working on Pseudo Sufficient Assumption Questions. I reckon my stack will only get much bigger as I move along in the course.

Reviewing these questions that you didn’t get right, certainly helps to reinforce correct reasoning skills obviously for questions you got wrong or got right but weren’t 100% sure.

The problem is the bigger your stack gets, the longer it takes to review. (It took a little over an hour for me to review all 160 of them. I reckon it’s gonna take quite awhile to review all of these questions once I’m able to move onto doing PT’s)

Also, inevitably you end up memorizing the correct answer choices. Any thoughts?

Hey everyone. After much contemplation, I needed some clarification for this one.

(E) says the “province could keep its workers and use them more effectively, with a resulting savings of $600 million in its out-of-province expenditures.”  I get the concept of paying for the workers by using them more effectively. 

JY says the money to pay for the workers is coming from  “$600 million in cost savings.” 

So does the cost savings refer to the “$600 million in its out-of-province expenditures?” 

Does this mean that after the government has refunded the $600 million to the taxpayers- they still have another $600 million left in their budget and they’re going to be very thrifty with that money by cutting down certain expenses? 

Thanks.