User Avatar
victorsbao682
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free
User Avatar
victorsbao682
Monday, Nov 28 2022

I want to address your concern over feeling as if you did not "earn" the right answer.

Definitely retain a few untouched, ideally recent, tests for full, timed, simulated test sessions for your actual test. But you can still utilize your previous test and questions productively in your studying.

Sure, if you take a test with some questions that you remember the right answer was A or D or whatever and you just pick it because you remember it, then that score is most likely unrepresentative of your skill level. So do be mindful about how many tests you have in reserve.

But even if you have seen a question before, you can still re-use a question productively if you can, honestly and to complete certainty, perform the reasoning and operations that led you to the correct answer, as well as eliminate conclusively the four incorrect answers, you can consider that answer "earned". That is around 100 correct answers and 400 incorrect answers on a test. If you can accomplish that, then that thought process has been engraved in your brain and that time and effort has made you better at the LSAT. You have roughly 10,000 questions and 50,000 answer choices to do this.

If you have done an LG before, try to solve it in a different way and maybe you will find a more accurate or efficient method. Try solving a game doing only inferences and not brute forcing any answers. Try to identify more inferences up front that you haven't made before. Try to do a game with only your initial setup and draw no further diagrams for any of the questions. Try to solve a game without writing anything down. Try to solve a game accurately below target time.

Similarly, you might recall details and answers from an RC passage, but a re-take can still be valuable if similarly, you find absolute certain support for every answer and eliminate with certainty every wrong answer. Dissect the passage in detail, diagram the arguments, and locate support for every question. Try to do an RC section without writing anything down. Try to do an RC section using only your notes and not going back to the passage.

If you revisit an old test and dissect the questions to 180 and understand all the mental processes that got you there, then you have still earned those answers. And by understanding and solidifying all those mental processes, you have improved your LSAT skills. Periodically condition those mental processes with a new brand new test and see how you do, maybe every week or so. And while the real LSAT will be different, it will also be kind of the same...

0
User Avatar
victorsbao682
Monday, Nov 28 2022

Good morning,

E doesn't have any effect on the argument because the premises concern the number of visits per representative, and not the number of visits per physician, and thereby does not address the flawed necessary assumption in the argument. From the premises, it cannot be determined if invididual physicians received more or fewer visits.

The argument depends on the assumption that fewer visits per representative indicates that the promotion is counterproductive, and there are many ways that the assumption can be negated, which A directly addresses - fewer visits yes, but more time to each physician can be interpreted as not counterproductive.

1
User Avatar
victorsbao682
Wednesday, Nov 09 2022

Might be a while before the official video comes out but here are my notes for working out the game set efficiently. Let me know if this helps.

F G H I Q R S V

5/8 in, 3 out, conditional chains

G -> F -> S/V

H -> F

V -> Q and R

/Q or /R -> /V

H -> /Q and /I -> /V

G and S -> /I and F and /V

key inference:

S and V both out -> /F would force both GH out, insufficient remaining

therefore at least one of S/V always in

split three scenarios:

in: S

out: V

remain: F G H I Q R

in: V Q R

out: S H

remain: F G I

in: S V Q R I

out: F G H

/I, MBF: SV triggers I in

FH in, must be in?

in: FHS

out: QIV

remain: GR, must fill in to FHSGR

QV in, could be in?

in: QVR

out: H

remain: F G I S

a. SH violate V -> /H

b. SI ok

c. SF violate S/V

d. GI violate G -> F

e. GH violate V -> /H

/Q, must be in?

in: S

out: Q V

remain: F G H I R 4/5

can I out? SFGHR ok. eliminate choices with I.

a. SV no

b. RS ok

c. RV no

d. HI, I out possible

e. GI, I out possible

no test method:

S must be in, so eliminate CDE. V must be out, so eliminate A. B remains.

2
User Avatar
victorsbao682
Monday, Nov 07 2022

This question is challenging and potentially confusing in the setup since it introduces multiple ways of grouping the study subjects:

Treatment vs control group - treatment is effective

Blind treatment vs blind control - equal severity.

The setup is important, but the point of the argument can be summarized as: If no difference in severity between blind treatment and control, then there is no real benefit (implying the observed effect is just a placebo effect because some subjects knew what they were getting a placebo). To weaken the conclusion, the answer choice must prove that there is at least some benefit to the treatment.

The argument subtly relies on the assumption that the study is properly randomized and that the distribution initial acne severity between the treatment and control groups is uniform, which is exactly what A negates, weakening the conclusion. If A is true and the acne outcomes ended up no different, then the group that started more severe indeed gained more benefit from the treatment, so the conclusion is weakened because there is at least some benefit for the severe acne sufferers. And it is the strongest weakener as it addresses directly the relationship between both treatment and control groups.

C does not make a distinction between the groups in the study and has no effect on the argument.

B, D, and E are tempting as they all do address some form of distortion in the study subjects, potentially somewhat weakening the integrity of the conclusion, they fail in that they state a potential distortion affecting one group but do not exclude the other group from the same distortion, leaving the possibility open that both groups are affected by the distortion.

Key takeaways:

Questions about scientific studies come up frequently in LR, and the test will prey on an inclination to assume without question that the study is randomized or unbiased. One should read the stimulus critically to identify any possibilities of bias.

Weakeners that suggest a distortion to one group without addressing the other group are incomplete and might not be the right answer.

0
User Avatar
victorsbao682
Wednesday, Aug 24 2022

If you think about the arguments abstract terms:

Stimulus: Most things of a category have a property. Thing has property, so probably in category.

(C) Most things of a category have a property. Thing of a category probably has that property. (does not match the stimulus)

(D) Most things of a category have a property. Thing has property, so probably in category. (answer choice is in weird word order but this matches the stimulus).

0
User Avatar
victorsbao682
Thursday, Aug 18 2022

I’d suggest for weakening questions (as well as all LR argument questions), read actively with the intention and goal of inferring assumptions in the argument. To weaken, think of something that would make the assumption false. To strengthen, think of something that would make the assumption true. To identity a flaw in an argument, typically there is an unsupported assumption. With this framework, you can take any passage and convert it to any other LR question type too.

1
User Avatar
victorsbao682
Monday, Aug 08 2022

If you believe you would get more out of your PTs if you slowed down, then you answered your own question. What would be the benefit of achieving what seems to be an arbitrary goal of completing more than half of all available PTs if you sacrifice some quality in your practice and review? If you are getting close to your test date, it could be a better use of time to selectively focus on certain recent PTs that are more representative of the current test. And in the scenario that you keep studying past September, it could be crucial to really slow down and thoroughly dissect and analyze your scarcer remaining PTs in order to maximize your potential.

5
PrepTests ·
PT158.S2.Q21
User Avatar
victorsbao682
Tuesday, Jul 26 2022

Which ones?

0
PrepTests ·
PT158.S2.Q21
User Avatar
victorsbao682
Tuesday, Jul 26 2022

We don't know that it does apply, but we also don't know that it doesn't apply - so if the phenomenon exists, that introduces doubt and the argument is weakened.

2
User Avatar
victorsbao682
Monday, Jul 25 2022

Some mistaken conclusions drawn from the announcements here.

Background: The LSAT analytical reasoning section in its current form was ruled to be an unreasonable barrier to legally blind test takers due to its reliance on visual diagramming. LSAC announced that will be researching and developing new forms of logic games in the interest of fairness.

Some unexpected atypical experimental sections on the June 2022 were issued for LSAC's testing new simplified game types with follow-up survey questions regarding use of diagramming. This is most likely the direction that the games will change rather than outright removal of logic games.

0
User Avatar
victorsbao682
Sunday, Jul 24 2022

On official LSAT test day you will log into Lawhub to take the test.

0
PrepTests ·
PT138.S3.Q18
User Avatar
victorsbao682
Friday, Jul 22 2022

Sure, but the purpose of the question is to prove the conclusion true, not to prove the assumption false - and to prove the conclusion true based on any possibility that can follow from the fact pattern in the stimulus, not just the a particular extreme hypothetical.

Also, don't overlook the inclusion of "significant" as the descriptor:

If no significant raise, employees will definitely not be able to afford. The conclusion will be true.

If there is a significant raise, then maybe or maybe not depending on the actual prices, but any doubt on the conclusion renders the assumption necessary.

As a general rule on necessary assumptions: If an assumption is negated and it follows that the conclusion does not have to be true (but does not necessarily have to be false), then the assumption is necessary.

0
PrepTests ·
PT138.S3.Q18
User Avatar
victorsbao682
Friday, Jul 22 2022

Just reading the stimulus, I anticipated "employees will still not be able to afford" as the necessary assumption. (E) is the only choice that conforms to that idea. A, B, C, and D

While I believe the answer choice (E) is definitely the most correct out of the answer choices, I also believe that it falls short of being a truly required assumption.

The truly required assumption is that "employees will still not be able to afford housing after the move".

No significant pay raise does not exclude the possibility of an insignificant pay raise that nonetheless could be sufficient for employees to afford a home. There is another assumption within the answer choice that a pay raise that allows an employee to afford a home cannot be considered insignificant. That is another layer of assumption - is this the limit of assumption that test writers deem reasonable and acceptable?

Splitting hairs here, but I would guess that's how LSAC would reason if you challenged their question.

1
PrepTests ·
PT138.S3.Q18
User Avatar
victorsbao682
Friday, Jul 22 2022

Sure, but even in your hypothetical, the conclusion still follows.

Not my favorite answer choice, but the core of the necessary assumption is "employees will still not be able to afford", to which your hypothetical conforms.

Answer choice (E) "not be a significant pay raise" also conforms (implied) with "will still not be able to afford.

Both are somewhere on the spectrum within "will still not be able to afford".

Venture anywhere into "maybe will be able to afford" and the conclusion can be doubted.

0
User Avatar
victorsbao682
Friday, Jul 22 2022

Sure, taken in isolation that clause could mean any baby by any unrelated person. But in the context of a prenuptial agreement, by its very nature an agreement between the husband and wife only, it could be stated elsewhere in the document (or even just reasonably assumed) that “child” in this case refers to a child of at least one of the the husband or wife. Or that the term “child” in this case strongly implies “human under the parental custody of one or both of the parties”. Would be hard to imagine a divorce court enforcing the contract saying, “well, there were 1.2 billion unrelated children were born during the 12 years of marriage so you owe 120 trillion dollars.”

But yes, maybe a reasonable assumption but still an assumption. In another type of contract a similar omission could prove a wide loophole.

1
User Avatar
victorsbao682
Friday, Jul 22 2022

In short:

Almost certainly not screwed - almost certainly NYU doesn't average, at least arithmetically

Should not overthink and worry

Should focus on improving - that's the biggest factor under your control.

Ask for some time off if possible and make the most of it

Keep October on the table if you need it - 11/2 release is before the 11/15 deadline

But might be competitive for the regular decision pool anyway

Will probably get other excellent offers at great schools too

Will probably have a fine PD career no matter what

To elaborate, based on information gathered from every admissions podcast I heard and article I read in the last year or so:

Based on current available information, the possibility that NYU currently arithmetically averages of multiple LSAT scores is not supported. Here's an article from a likely credible source (Powerscore and Spivey) on the question of LSAT averaging (written 2017):

https://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/do-law-schools-average-lsat-scores-or-use-the-high-score/

Whatever reference to NYU's averaging that the Powerscore article referenced in 2017, there is no indication of it now.

The current applicant NYU application FAQ: https://www.law.nyu.edu/jdadmissions/applicants/jdapplicationfaq

Sure, requiring the submission of all LSAT scores could be consistent with score averaging, but if they did indeed average, would they not state it on their own informational materials? And the receptivity to omit an aberrant score suggests quite the contrary to any score averaging.

More strongly supported is that admissions makes inferences and preferences based on the pattern of multiple scores - as evidenced by this interview with a former NYU Law admissions officer for example:

https://classic.7sage.com/podcast-episode-54-columbia-law-and-nyu-law-with-jill-steier/

Her response to the hypothetical suggests that admissions officers do indeed make inferences and preferences based on the pattern of an applicant's scores, but no indication is given that any scores are arithmetically averaged. Sure, patterns can raise a red flag if they are abnormal or suspicious, but a pattern of improvement over time can hardly be regarded as abnormal or suspicious. For your situation, hardly a red flag, at most a question mark to be addressed with a brief addendum (as stated in NYU's own FAQ).

In addition, operating in the current system of top score only reporting, it would likely be mathematically impossible for NYU to maintain its competitive medians and ranking if it were to throw out stacks of lower-arithmetic average multiple-take applications, especially in recent years as LSAC data indicates a rising proportion of repeat-takers. Just some personal speculation here based on my non-scientific interpretation of that data.

As the October score release is on 11/2/2022, an entire 13 days before NYU's ED deadline of 11/15/2022, might be prudent to register for October and keep it as a backup. Perhaps you might risk your registration fee if you decide you don't need it before the test and after the refund deadline, but it would provide a helpful buffer to some psychological pressure. And seems like your stats are going to be at or above their medians anyway, so you will likely be competitive even if you are in the regular decision pool. So there is more time if you need it.

And if you are having trouble finding time to study, perhaps look into reducing your other commitments if possible. Maybe your colleagues at the PD office will sympathize, even be encouraging regarding your efforts toward your own legal career. Why let a temporary current commitment hold back your larger long term goals?

Perhaps all this is moot. If you do score around what you are able to practice testing now, you'll very likely receive multiple excellent offers from various fine institutions, any one of which could lead to a fine career as a PD.

Good luck, take care of yourself, and all the best,

Sincerely,

Somebody in a similar situation and on a similar schedule to drastically outperform an unsatisfactory score from early LSAT days, learned to stop worrying about it, focused on trying to get better at the test and writing more convincing essays.

2
User Avatar
victorsbao682
Tuesday, Jul 19 2022

Simulating at least some full PTs will be necessary to be comfortable and maximize performance on official test day. But it is not necessary to do PTs only in full simulation. Breaking a PT down into multiple sections can be justified and beneficial if full simulation proves an obstacle to getting sufficient practice and the act of breaking down PTs allows one to perform and benefit from more practice than otherwise.

2
User Avatar
victorsbao682
Monday, Jul 18 2022

Recently revisited this so here is one strategy to answer your question: Even though it's a sequence, not fundamentally different to what you might do for an in/out grouping game.

7 spots, 4 items. Every week will be a visit (no blanks). Each destination will be in (none out). From this infer some will repeat.

Given must be in: GJMMT.

5/7 items are established, 2 spots are indeterminate. M is fixed at 2, so the only three possible repeaters are G, J, and T.

From there you can infer the limited set of combinations for the final two spots, subject to the other rules may further limit the possible combinations and permutations (just going to leave it here to answer your original question).

Broad applicable strategy: Determine elements that must be in, count remaining indeterminate spots and evaluate combinations of the possible remaining repeating pieces.

0

Let's make those marginal gains in this marginal game.

Looking for like-minded LSAT loving loonies, preferably already PTing 170+ and can BR 175-180 with a goal of achieving PT-BR convergence and planning to absolutely kill it for the August 2022, maybe beyond.

Intending to discuss and document inferences that break LGs wide open, reading strategies that illuminate the densest RC passages, authoritatively reasoning the most convoluted LR questions, identifying and dodging LSAT writers' most subtle question traps, and making the most of all 2100 precious seconds of an LSAT timed section. Also intend to analyze common patterns of LSAT sections and questions with the intent of being able to identify inferences and predict questions and anticipate answers before even attacking the questions.

Planning on regularly scheduled strategy discussion workshopping, coordinated competitive timed PT takes, and exhaustively thorough and accurate blind review. Goal of at least a few hours of productive LSAT time daily.

DM with your info and availability, maybe a list of some of your untouched PTs. Will determine a workable schedule and setup zoom sessions or a discord server. Let's gooooo.

0
User Avatar
victorsbao682
Monday, Jun 27 2022

Not common advice given on the forum, but try to go extremely slowly on a game set with intent to complete a game with the most complete upfront inferences.

For each question, identify the key inference that it is implied to be testing. Take unrestricted time each question with the fewest steps possible - avoid brute force testing each answer choice. Sometimes you might find an even cleaner way of solving a question than those of the 7sage videos. Over time you might develop LSAT inference 6th sense, or at least familiarity with the types of inferences the LG sections frequently test.

LG questions and sections are intentionally written to be more items than normal human brains can process sequentially and test via brute force in 35 minutes. Rather, the intent of each question is to test higher and higher level inferences as the game progresses. Especially true in global MBF/CBT questions. They can be a huge time sink if you haven't realized the inference, but will fall away quickly if the inference is clear. Typically the clue is in the pattern of the answer choices.

Also:

Attack MBT answer choices targeting only determinate elements.

Attack CBT answer choices targeting only indeterminate items elements.

DM for specific examples or sections if you have questions.

4
User Avatar
victorsbao682
Friday, Jan 21 2022

Good morning,

I found this setup best to use a chart, similar to the PT88.S1 flowers game. This is copied straight out of my games notebook so let me know if you have any questions.

GHJKLM - each 1+

rst

1. Jr + r r

2. K st

3. K -> /H

4. /H -> J

5. M > J

key inferences:

Jr and Kst,

Kst forces Hr,

Jr+ s or t,

M>J forces Mrst,

all r's accounted for and HKM complete, only variables are remaining s/t for GJL

Master game board:

(X indicates must be empty, underscore indicates open space)

: r - s - t

G: X _ _ 1 or 2

H: r X X

J: r _ _ 1 not both

K: X s t

L: X _ _ 1 or 2

M: r s t

0
User Avatar
victorsbao682
Tuesday, Jan 18 2022

You should take all 4 sections. It is still important to develop mental endurance and be acclimated to the rhythm of the real test. And it could be detrimental to discard 25% of your practice materials as well.

The 4 section score can be easily converted anyway and if you really want to mitigate any risk of false confidence, input the worse score of your 2 LR sections.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat-flex-score-converter/

1
User Avatar
victorsbao682
Friday, Jan 14 2022

FGHJK ppp, infer nn

1: _ _

2:

3: Jn

1. 1 empty max

2. n -> /p

3. F -> /G

4. apt1: _ _ max

5. Hp+_p

6. apt3: Jn

Key Inference:

n-> /p and apt3:Jn and Hp+_p restricts to 4 possible distributions of ppp nn,

FGK remain.

If 2 open spots in same apartment, F/G cannot both be in, forces K into one of the empty spots.

1: Hp _p

2: _p

3: Jn _n

FGK any remaining spot

1: _p

2: Hp _p

3: Jn _n

FGK any remaining spot

1: empty

2: Hp Kp _p

3: Jn _n

FG any remaining spot

1: _n

2: Hp Kp _p

3: Jn

FG any remaining spot

1
PrepTests ·
PT155.S4.Q21
User Avatar
victorsbao682
Wednesday, Jan 12 2022

Hey this question confused me for a long time as well. Behind all the confusing percentages is the concept that if one part is below average, the other part must compensate by being above average.

Harrison is the whole pie. Westerville is contributing 29% of its slice to the 38% night class slice of Harrison. Pulham needs to contribute more than 38% of its slice to get to 38% of the whole Harrison pie.

Harrison is the whole - average is 38%

Westerville is below average at 29%

Pulham needs to be above average to compensate. More than 38%

Harrison 200, 76 night students (38%)

Westerville 100, 29 night students (29%)

Pulham 100, 47 night students (47%)

Harrison 10000, 3800 night students (38%)

Westerville 100, 29 night students (29%)

Pulham 9900, 3771 night students (that's 38.09%, technically more than 38%)

5
PrepTests ·
PT158.S1.P2.Q8
User Avatar
victorsbao682
Wednesday, Jan 12 2022

Per the second half of paragraph 2 of the passage, the act of marginalization is society's reaction to the disruptive freedom of the Picaro, not the reason why society perceives the Picaro as a disruptive freedom.

the causality chain:

picaro forces society to confront hypocrisy

then,

society perceives picaro as dangerous disruptive freedom

then,

society marginalizes the picaro

Marginalization is the effect, not the reason.

3

Confirm action

Are you sure?