Discussions

All posts

New post

265 posts in the last 30 days

I have spent about 30 minutes on this one, and I just don't see how A is correct or how C is incorrect.

Context: lines were crossed between the Jacksons and Sara.

Here was the sufficient assumption I was looking for; I used this to pick out the PSA:

Helpful to Sara and Not difficult for Jacksons to to pass on correct number----->Laudable action by Jacksons

Jacksons do not pass on correct number/Jacksons only tell caller that they dialed wrong number--->Action not wrong by Jacksons

Answer A: Helpful---->Laudable. Wrong----->Led person to believe . How is this the correct answer? Isn't the first condition missing the idea of something not being difficult? Also, -Led person to believe----> Not wrong? Where does the stimulus imply that this isn't wrong? To me, the passage doesn't link this idea.

Answer B: Completely wrong.

Answer C: This is what I chose. Helpful and Easy-----> Laudable and not wrong. Isn't this really good? Sure, easy isn't necessarily "not difficult," but this is a PSA question, not a SA question.

Answer D: Laudable--->Blah blah blah. Laudable should be the necessary condition.

Answer E: Laudable---> Blah blah blah. Same as D.

0

Feb peeps! Please take a look at this tentative schedule below and comment your thoughts/revisions. You should also add me on Skype. My username is dmlevine76 . Please include in your friend request message that you want to get into the February Group .

NOTE: I front-loaded the PT 70s for Fridays because I believe that people need to get eyes on 70s sooner rather than later. We’ll still have PT 76 and PT 77 available to PT in February. After we’ve finished the 70s, we could do the lower 40s on Fridays. Trust me when I say it is worth it to do these tests twice.

Note:

  • For the newbies and regulars: Add me on Skype, using handle dmlevine76.

    • Note:PLEASE INCLUDE IN YOUR FRIEND REQUEST

    MESSAGE THAT YOU WANT TO BE ADDED TO THE

    FEBRUARY TEST GROUP.

    We’ll now have two sets of Skype chats going on

    (quite literally at the same time), and the potential

    for miscommunication is pretty high. Thanks for your help.

  • For everyone: take the PT under timed conditions; BR as you are able; join us for all or part of the call—everyone is welcome.

  • Note: For the purposes of the call, we like to check our group blind review score together at the very end of the call :) So at least don't say ... "No guys, really, it's D, I checked it."

  • These groups work best when folks from ALL stages of prep and with all different goals join in! Not just for "super-preppers" and definitely not just for the casual LSATer (does such a person exist?).

  • The only expectation anyone has for these calls is for you to have fun and ask questions as you desire. We are just a bunch of LSAT lovers who gather via Skype and intellectually slaughter each test.

    • Wed Dec 9, 2015- 5pm - 8pm FEB Group BR PT 60

    Fri Dec 11, 2015 -5pm - 8pm FEB Group BR TBA

    Sat Dec 12, 2015 - 5pm - 8pm FEB Group BR PT 61

    4

    I really don't understand how the correct answer choice addresses the paradox.

    After some people witnessed a fake crime, two lawyers questioned the witnesses. The first lawyer tried top mess them up and the second lawyer tried to correct the inaccuracies. The witnesses who gave testimony that had FEWER inaccuracies during lawyer one's interrogation had the greatest NUMBER of inaccuracies than most of the other witnesses when questioned by lawyer two.

    What I am looking for: I was convinced during the exam that the correct answer choice was going to be some bias the accurate witnesses had over the other witnesses. Or, that the second lawyer phrased questions that confused the accurate witnesses/asked questions about different topics than lawyer one. These were not answer choices, so I ended up spinning my wheels a lot on this.

    Answer A: This explains possibly why they were more accurate at the start, but why did they have more inaccuracies later?

    Answer B: This is a lot like A. If they had better memory, why did they all of a sudden have inaccurate testimony? This makes it weirder, I think.

    Answer C: I don't see how this helps resolve the problem. I eliminated it during the exam and during BR since I thought it made the problem even weirder. I think it does explains why they were so accurate to begin with: they were not swayed by lawyer one's bullshit. But how does it explain the fact that they were more inaccurate later? To get this to work, don't you need to assume that either these witnesses became less confident after lawyer one's questioning (which seems bizarre since this sort of contradicts this answer choice's entire point) or that the second lawyer's line of questioning focused on the stuff that these witnesses didn't remember? But how do we assume that this latter case is true? Additionally, wouldn't the "most of the other witnesses" also be inclined to increase their inaccuracy as well? I just don't understand how this makes the paradox anything but weirder, let alone resolve it.

    Answer D: This definitely makes the paradox weirder. If they were unsure to begin with, then how were they so accurate?

    Answer E: This is what I chose during the exam/BR since it was POE. I didn't really understand how it actually resolved the paradox (which was flag one/the reason why I marked it for BR). I think to get this to work, you have to assume that they gave so many more details, that they got a lot of stuff accurate since they were spewing details out left and right (this would explain the accuracy part). To resolve the other part, you have to assume that the "most other people" started remembering things more accurately, so those people improved over the originally accurate people. This was my line of reasoning during the exam and BR, but I knew I was making way too many assumptions. However, since I could at least think of a plausible reason for this one, I picked it.

    0

    Im wondering if its worth it to retake for December being that their is a possibility of getting a lower score. I received a 160 for the October exam and was hoping to get a 163. My target school is Fordham and I could not find anything on their website on whether they take the highest score or they average them out.

    Are schools now mostly taking the highest score or are they averaging them? I now the policy used to be different in the past. Also if you take it in December then the schools wont look at your application until they have your score correct?

    If anyone has some knowledge pleasee let me know best of luck to everyone in the application process!

    0

    I saw a link to some video a while back, of this man talking about how he scored a 180, despite not a lot of PTs being available at the time. He just retook the same test over and over again - does anyone know what I'm talking about? If so, can you share? Google coughed up a lot of unsolicited advice from randos - thanks!

    0

    I improved 18 or 19 points from my first cold PT, primarily because of your services. Already saved me around $300 in application fees. Took the test twice and baaaaarely improved the second time but its enough to put me in the 75% for my dream school. Couldn't have done this without you!

    2

    Got my October score back, and it was more or less what I expected - 172. However, my average for the last 10 full, timed 5-section PTs was 176 and I hadn't score below 173 for at least 15 prior PTs. I slept very poorly the night before test day and was primarily caffeine-powered. I'm shooting for Stanford, and 172 puts me directly on the 50th percentile LSAT. My GPA is 4.03. My question is, if you were in my position would you re-take in December? I have both admissions and potential scholarships in mind. Thanks for the input.

    0

    Hi thanks in advance if anyone can help. How should I deal with conditional answer choices in strengthen and weaken questions. Does it matter if the sufficient condition is triggered in the stimulus or does it not matter? Sometimes I have trouble with these answer choices because I'm hesitant to choose them since the stimulus doesn't indicate that the sufficient condition has been met even though the necessary condition will either weaken or strengthen the argument depending on the question stem.

    0

    Basically, I've taken 8 PTs and as of recent I'm scoring 157-159, while taking about 2 a week. Originally, I was scoring 156 more or less. -7/8 on LR, -5 on LG, -8 RC averages around. I feel that I never drilled much before starting my PT phases. I only did about a 1/6 of the logic game bundles and never drilled RC too much. Should I break from PT'ing and focus on doing the Logic Game bundles and RC sections before I start PT'ing? I feel like since my score isnt in the 160s after 8 PTs that maybe it's a bit premature and if I drilled RC/LG for a few weeks, it would help me jump into the 160s. Thanks.!

    0

    Hey guys! I apologize if there is a similar thread to this.

    I just received my Oct. score and did worse than my first diagnostic test. I really want to commit to a schedule and focus on improving my score drastically (+15 points) by the February test. Do you have any recommendations?

    Thank you so much!

    0

    Hey guys! So this is my first time waiting for my score and I was wondering what the grey arrow is. I can't seem to find it under LSAT Status and am DYING to know when my score will come out.

    Thanks! Good luck to everyone!

    0

    If anyone would like to meet up in the DC or Northern Virginia area to go over some practice tests leading up to the December LSAT, feel free to reach out to me. I work in Arlington (Ballston) during the week, but am available most weekends leading up to the test. Also, most days after work if we schedule in advance. If anyone prefers skype that's an option as well. Trying to set myself up for success on this test, and I feel that it would be beneficial to have someone else to bounce ideas off. Let's crush this test together.

    -Chad

    1

    Confirm action

    Are you sure?