@ said:

More consistent breaks in between and less long breaks. I think long breaks kind of disincentivise you to continue studying. I like shorter breaks in between. Maybe a 2-3 days off a week?

yes, i like the sounds of that. My problem is when I take breaks I feel like I am falling behind - missing my opportunity to study - forgetting everything - it is the worst feeling of doom and irrational

@ said:

I liked to change up where I study. Picking a new study spot is refreshing, even if it's just in a different room of the house.

Nice tip! However, the distractions are reaaaaal in my crazy house lol. So i study in my dingy basement haha

@ said:

Try to recognize where the line is for you between not studying enough and pure exhaustion. Then plan accordingly. That may look like studying for 3 hours 5 days a week or maybe for 4 full days a week with 3 off. That depends on you and your preferences.

It helps me to make a spreadsheet with what I want to work on for the week. I study for the time allotted so that I know I am getting done what needs to get done but I don't go beyond unless I have the energy to. I can get caught up in the LSAT and go over time because I consider some parts of it to be fun. But if you feel like it is causing you to become exhausted then pull back on the reigns a bit.

Hang in there!

Thank you so much! I am going to try making a spreadsheet and be more aware of my limits.

@ said:

I would be interested to see why people are doing 5 section PTs for a 3 section test? Is it just for stamina? Are you all intending to do flex and then a regular one afterwards? just curious.

I was thinking of practicing 4 sections for stamina but also because I am unsure which future tests will be flex or not. unless they already announced it and I am unaware

@ said:

Hi there!

Here are some examples of arguments I came up with that I think would be illustrations of the answer choices you gave.

For your first answer choice: In general, one should set aside some time each day to study for a test such as the LSAT. Doing a little bit of work every day will help the material stick in your head and help you avoid brain fatigue. This is much more effective than trying to cram a lot in a short period of time. However, it is also a good idea to try to start your law school application essays early if possible.

----- In this argument, the first sentence is the conclusion and the next two sentences are premises. The last sentence is just an add-on. You could agree with my conclusion and agree with the add-on about our application essays. You could also tell me im crazy and cramming is the best way to study. But you still agree with getting application essays started early because rolling admissions gives you a benefit for applying early. So, it is compatible with accepting and denying the conclusion.

For your second answer choice: "It should be taken as a given that one's family should be the most important thing thing to them. If you think that anything or anyone else is more important than your family, then you are a bad person. Yet, I do think that I should be considered to be a good person, even though my best-friend and I are very close and I consider them to be more important than some of my distant family members."

----- Here a conditional (or principle) is laid out. "If you think that anything or anyone else is more important than your family, then you are a bad person." The next sentence is a value judgement "I should be considered a good person," so I am making a prescriptive or normative claim. However, I think my friend is more important than someone in my family. I am making a value judgment that directly contradicts the principle.

For your third answer choice:

Person 1: I think that the presidential candidate from party A would be a very poor choice for the white house. He/she has a long track record of being selfish and dishonest. Not only that, he/she has been known for making terrible decisions in both foreign and domestic policy that are deleterious to the people in this country. Having such a leader is something that we should avoid if possible.

Person 2: Wow, I am surprised at the abrasiveness of your polemical argument. You should know that simply attacking all of the people who have a particular view is not a good way to bring people around to your side. Simply pretending like all of the supporters of party A are opposed to good policy is not going to persuade anyone that your viewpoint is correct. You really should have thought through your argument more carefully.

----- Here, person 1 makes a reasonable argument against voting for the candidate from Party A. On the other hand, person 2 distorts the argument and makes it seem like person 1 was making an ad hominem attack against the supporters of Party A's candidate. Person 2 then goes on to make a well reasoned attack against an ad hominem argument. So person 2 never interacted with the argument of person 1, he/she only attacked a straw man.

It is important to note here that if person 1 had actually made an ad hominem attack, then person 2's argument would be good. Person 2 correctly and accurately attacked an ad hominem argument, but that wasn't the argument that person 1 was making.

I hope this helps, let me know if I can clarify!

This helped me so much! Thanks a ton.

@ said:

Is 7-Sage going to create LSAT-Flex exams, with 3 sections?

This would be REALLY helpful!!!! @

how/when/where do we select the date and time we want to write it

#help can you not conclude things with contrapositive

PJ --> /SC and /BBH

My understanding

Premise: there are examples of people resisting technology in spite of the fact their working conditions would have been improved by it

Con: This fact^ shows us that social inertia is more powerful than desire for comfort or safety

In other words:

social inertia is what is causing them to resist technology

I think we need to show that something besides X (social inertia) could be causing this resistance or that social inertia is not powerful enough? or maybe comfort and safety are impacting people's behaviours/thought behind the scenes, in a way that is not obvious....something along those lines...

A - belief that these innovations cause job loss is what causes resistance [ so a belief that implies an alternate explanation , desire for comfort and safety could be operating rather than social inertia weakens the argument]

B - they are reluctant, ok but is it because of social inertia or other reasons? Seems to support social inertia idea which we are tasked with weakening

C - consistent with premises ; we did not say ALL tech innovations show people resist

D - I selected this initially - BUT the problem is that -although in my head it seemed like an alternate explanation - i was ASSUMING the changes in the argument were being implemented in an abrupt manner. Stimulus did not address the speed with which changes were being made - so irrelevant to argument

E - this does not weaken the fact that social inertia causing them to resist. How would this belief and/or its implications help us weaken the argument? it does not

I agree, it has been very very very challenging. I feel guilty for not studying when I try to take a break but I have been studying over a long period of time and taken numerous breaks and reviewed sections of the CC if I felt like I had 'forgotten' and continued. Here and there, I took PT's to see my weaknesses and what I needed to review in the CC - just depends on how far you are into it i guess. Anyways, i hope you can find your rhythm again, as we are all trying to do! You are not alone.

@ said:

@ said:

np. If you have A --> B or C and you are given C, then no you wouldn't have A ---> B remain as a rule bc A --> B or C doesn't necessarily translate into

A --> B

A --> C

It CAN because "B or C" always implies "or both" but it doesn't necessarily have to so you can't presume it always does. I feel like you have to remember that only sufficient conditions (A) trigger anything. So if you are given a necessary condition (C), that doesn't do anything/change any rules/nothing falls away. The only time I can think of C making any difference given A --> B or C is in the case of the contrapositive where /B and /C ---> /A so if you don't have C, then you can't have A. Otherwise, C doesn't trigger anything.

just to follow up - if we have

A --> B or C

and we find out /C

would we be able to conclude /A?

never mind - figured it out

@ said:

np. If you have A --> B or C and you are given C, then no you wouldn't have A ---> B remain as a rule bc A --> B or C doesn't necessarily translate into

A --> B

A --> C

It CAN because "B or C" always implies "or both" but it doesn't necessarily have to so you can't presume it always does. I feel like you have to remember that only sufficient conditions (A) trigger anything. So if you are given a necessary condition (C), that doesn't do anything/change any rules/nothing falls away. The only time I can think of C making any difference given A --> B or C is in the case of the contrapositive where /B and /C ---> /A so if you don't have C, then you can't have A. Otherwise, C doesn't trigger anything.

just to follow up - if we have

A --> B or C

and we find out /C

would we be able to conclude /A?

I feel like the first line where they talk about comparing two different chess playing programs is just a distraction to get you thinking about comparing different programs.

But as you read on they only talk about comparing the same program on different computers.

Your question as to why?

just a made up scenario to your question why you would compare 1 program on different computers...It provides slightly different output depending on the computer.

Example: It seems that my friend always has a better chance of winning than me.. My friend says it is because he is better than me but we want to rule out it is not because of computer speed allowing him to win...so we test same program- diff computers. then we find out it is because my friend's computer is faster than mine- meaning it can examine more moves and hence increases his chances of winning even though same program.

Edit: made it less confusing

@ said:

It doesn't look like they have announced a date by which they will announce changes. They announced the early June test change at the very end of April. So I imagine they will announce July around a month before as well.

good to know, thank you

interested

@ said:

hey yeah you still run the contrapositive because the contrapositive is:

/B or /C --> /A (like you said) which can be broken down into:

/B ----> /A

/C ---> /A

so if you are given /C then it gives you /A

I'm not sure what you mean about (A-->B) as a remaining rule. Your rule is (A --> B and C), nothing about this changes.

Thank you for clearing that up. How about

In the case A --> B or C

and we find out C is satisfied - would that part of rule fall away and would still have A --> B remaining?

especially in the context of logic game, this rule confused me^

@ said:

We need to reframe the issue a bit. 'Overthinking' is not the problem. If you blame 'overthinking', then you're suggesting that more time to think about the problem is a bad thing.

It's not that you're 'overthinking' - you're thinking wrong. It has nothing to do with how many times you see the question. Someone with perfect logic would give you the same analysis every single time, no matter how many times you showed him the same question and no matter how many different (wrong) interpretations of it you try to feed him. The problem lies with you talking yourself into a bad line of reasoning and abandoning a good line of reasoning for it, which is a skills problem every single time.

To fix it, you need to be able to understand why those lines of reasoning are no good, not just try to cut your process off at the perfect time to avoid the mistake that you're about to make. Or in other words, rather than wonder how you can have more confidence in your first instinct, it really ought to be the exact opposite - you should be learning that you shouldn't have confidence (yet) in your first instinct, because you are not yet capable of distinguishing good reasoning from bad reasoning. The goal, then, is not to prop up unwarranted confidence - it is to develop the skills necessary to ensure that any confidence that you do feel is warranted.

Always remember that "trust my gut" is not a problem solving methodology.

Wow incredibly insightful. thanks so much!!!! Will reflect on this.

@ said:

Yes. It is very possible. It is a matter of figuring out what is keeping your timed score from matching your blind review score. Some questions to think about are:

What did you do differently in BR that you didn't do under time?

For each individual problem: what caused you to miss it under time?

Did you rush under the time pressure and misread something?

Did you fall for a time trap which caused you to miss other problems because you had to rush through them?

Are you familiar with the game type? You may need to focus on Fool Proofing that type for a while if not.

Did you spend enough time working on the game board in the beginning?

If you can answer these questions, you can then implement strategies to change your approach under time. It may look like slowing down to help you stay calm or skipping certain questions until the end when you know you have got all the low hanging fruit. There are a lot of solutions but the first step is to figure out what is happening that needs to be addressed.

Thank you so much for giving me some things to think about !!!

Completely understood this in blind review but not a clue when I did it timed.

studying for july! meena96@.com

I just realized the difference in what 12 C is saying vs. what the lines in the end of the second paragraph say

passage says our failure to recognize we are making inferences leads us to think that we are infalliable (perfect)in IDENTIFYING what we think because we think "oh I am perceiving it directly" so "I can't be identifying my thoughts wrong"

whereas C says we develop an increased tendency to ignore our own errors in judgement within that field

Mistaking whether our thoughts are inferential or direct is different from making mistakes in judgements within a game of chess

This is how i tried to understand it

Line 1: General broad Principle: Democracy requires sharing ideas freely..without fear

Line 2: X (unmonitored conversations) is essential to democracy.

Why should I believe this? Because X falls under (sharing ideas freely)

For this reason^

Line 3: if we are not able to have a specific type of X

X* ( unmonitored internet conversations), we are failing at meeting the general broad principle (of democracy)

Why? Because X is needed for democracy (line 2) and Why do we think x is needed? because it falls under broad principle mentioned in line 1.

any thoughts?

#help what would the correct negation of B be?

lab conditions that ..blah blah.. can be unhealthy for animals.

It is not the case that lab conditions that... can be unhealthy for animals"

so

Would it be "lab conditions could be healthy" or

"lab conditions that ... must be healthy - "

Please explain why it would be which one if you know. Thanks!

meena96@.com

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

I liked to change up where I study. Picking a new study spot is refreshing, even if it's just in a different room of the house.

Nice tip! However, the distractions are reaaaaal in my crazy house lol. So i study in my dingy basement haha

I try to switch up where I’m studying too. I get too comfortable if I stay in the same place day after day. But I also have a lot of distractions in my house. What I end up doing is trying to get my assigned work done in my room and then if I feel like studying more, I may take it out to the living room for an hour or so. It’s not always super productive but it gives me a break from being in my room for so long so I guess that’s something!

Yes, good point!