Discussions

All posts

New post

588 posts in the last 30 days

Hi All,

I am just starting my studies for the June 2014 LSAT. I have signed up for the Ultimate Course and am excited to begin. I do, however, have a question about the extent of the materials used in the "practice" sections. Are all LSATs from 1 - 35 used for the various drills? If not, does anyone have suggestions on which additional materials I should purchase to use for drilling the various sections?

Thanks!

0

Hey - I'm looking for someone to review problem sets or practice exams. I'm on EST and can review on weekends or weeknights. Please let me know if anyone is interested. My email is Nocera4@tcnj.edu

0

Looking for someone to study with for the June 2014 LSAT. I've been studying awhile for this test, so I have most of the concepts down. I'm in the Midwest, so please consider different time zones. Thanks.

Alex.

0

I am very confused with a specific relationship between universal quantifiers and existential quantifiers. This confusion becomes annoying in Assumption Questions. Please help! So, basically this is it:

1. "A-->C + A -->B"

2. "A-->C + A -most->B"

3. "A-->C + A some B"

For each of three given premises, we can conclude the same "B some C" relationship. Though the first part is the same "A-->C", the second part is different. I thought that this difference is understandable, because "A-->B" implies "A-most->B" and "A some B". So, we should have the same conclusion for "B some C". But the problem often arises.

For example, PT 24, LR2, Section 3, Question 19. Sufficient Assumption.

"Every student who walks to school goes home for lunch. It follows that some students who have part-time jobs do not walk to school."

The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

Premise: Walks to schools-->Goes home for lunch.

Conclusion: Part-time jobs (some) Do not walk to school.

Take the contrapositive of the premise, we have "Do not go home for Lunch--> Do not walk to School"

Now, it becomes clear that he Sufficient Assumption to bridge the gap could be:

1. "Do not go home for lunch (some) Part-time jobs". This is the correct answer choice (d).

(d). Some students who do not go home for lunch have part-time jobs.

2. Do not go home for lunch -most-> Part-time jobs.

3. Do not go home for lunch --> Part-time jobs. (conditional)

If we take the contrapositive of 3, we have "No part-time jobs-->Go home for lunch". The contrapostive is logically equivalent to the original. Now, "No part-time jobs-->Go home for lunch" implies

"No part-time jobs -most-> Go home for lunch." and also implies

"No part-time jobs (some) go home for lunch." (This is exactly what the wrong answer choice A says.)

(a). some students who do not have part-time jobs go home for lunch.

Please help me clear this confusion. Is there anything I misunderstood? I really appreciate your help.

0

As the thread topic suggests, I'm looking for a study buddy or study buddies within SF or the greater Bay Area. Preferably someone that's been through most of the curriculum (I'm more than 70% through). PM me or respond to this post. Hope to hear from you soon!

0

I'm confused. I took a practice test in the book 10 new actual, official LSAT preptests.

I took and scored a test according to the book and got a 166. But when I put my answers in the 7sage calculator it says I got a 162. I went back and checked and it has the exact same questions marked wrong and no new questions marked wrong.

What's up?

0

Hi,

I work full time and I am preparing for the June exam. I would like to start a PT review/general online study group for people who work full time (review will be online (google hangout) and on weekends). Most of the PTs would be done on weekends with review on weekends/during the week. Please email me @ nmillmich25@gmail.com if you are interested.

0

I can't say enough how revelatory the Blind Review method is. Personally, I think this methodology itself was worth what I paid for the Testmasters course. I feel a pang of despondency having hammered through so many questions through that course without any constructive and pertinent thought. Hopefully, most of you have not had the displeasure of going through the same mistake!

Happy studying! :)

0

Hey All! I'm looking for a study partner to review concepts and go over PTs. I live in Long Island but would be willing to come into the city to meet up or we could talk via Skype. I'm scoring in the high 150's and am shooting for 165+. Taking the LSAT in June. Email me if interested vjgogia@gmail.com

Best,

Vijay

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?