June'18 Study Group | Blind Review PT 68 | Tuesday, April 10th | 7:30 pm EST

twssmith

June'18 Study Group | Blind Review PT 68 | Tuesday, April 10th | 7:30 pm EST

https://media.giphy.com/media/xox9kxPMcM81y/giphy.gif

Thank You Victoria for the gif to support the SG!!- @teamteamvicster

I hope you're ready or gearing up to start PTing for the June 2018 LSAT. Join us this Tuesday if you are finished with the CC.

Provisional Schedule: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=f3n8s2l60gkgm2ju8m8kk4vhn4@group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/New_York

Note:

For everyone: take the PT under timed conditions; BR as you are able on your own; then 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.” KEEP THE CORRECT ANSWER TO YOURSELF. Win the argument with your reasoning.
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 GoToMeeting and intellectually slaughter each test.

Enter any questions you wish to go over on the spreadsheet below!

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wLCip2bbWWD_h3WqGqBY6YaGPGdGQdSsr3gnphKYdxo/edit#gid=0

Please join the meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/851725797

You can also dial in using your phone.
United States: +1 (786) 535-3211

Access Code: 851-725-797

Joining from a video-conferencing room or system?
Dial: 67.217.95.2##851725797
Cisco devices: 851725797@67.217.95.2

First GoToMeeting? Let's do a quick system check: https://link.gotomeeting.com/system-check

June 18' Study Group Discord Link: https://discord.gg/kpGkYx6

Join when it is best for you in your studies! Look forward to Tues BR:)

@BinghamtonDave @Freddy_D @tringo335 @achen013 @airborne1 @SiliconJedi @abernardi @TaylorAnn @Moniagui22 @Sarah_39 @"Lauren L" @kjsmith914 @Brazil020511 @attalla253 @tmickjr__ @jourdan.gardner @Gladiator_2017 @nima250 @"Adam Hawks" @"Lizzette G" @meganqliu @lizgu316 @LSATlife @"Paul Pederson" @CJF_2180 @aguirreliz92 @"Jay Lee" @canadalegalbiz @shannon_ @"Shawn Nguyen" @manan1996narula @btownsquee @"Shazia..." @lsatplaylist @Guillaume @"Marco Antonio" @"Jamie Lynn B" @smartaone2 @justicedst @Jay_Camp @Chandymen @jbodnovich @RJmazo14 @yahejazi @ziegler6 @JayClarke242 @TheSailor @Kermit750 @CoffeeBeans @lakish2010 @JURISDOCTOR35 @samantha.ashley92 @"Grace..." @greybrownblue @ohnoeshalpme @Ignatius @J.CHRIS.ALST @akriegler @lzkosman @sillllyxo @TheNotoriousRBG @necessarynaomi @"forest.dearing.2017" @alyhobbs @alafuente @vrendonvasquez @akriegler @"alexandra.marlene" @jkatz1488 @moonrider919 @missmalo @"Kings Never Die" @chisal17 @amatthews304 @"Human Becoming" @Hamaseh_S @adultish_gambino @dazedandconfused @danny_d5 @pasu1223 @alyssamcc0593 @LCMama2017 @chisal17 @estouten25 @ChaimtheGreat @rochelleb180 @ecarr_12 @Christina-5 @cynnnnnn @demiiisodaaa @jimmyrivera201 @baileybd2929 @chicaryss @Sadaf529 @saberati @"Mia Fairweather" @"Idil.Beshir" @djdjjdjd @"chang.richard.94" @LauraC829 @yuanyuan1205 @"marino.zach" @zoemichaelabrown @MarieChloe @beezmoof @"paulmv.benthem" @benhancock68 @"Do the right way" @"Creative Username" @Jernstedt @Rtwrtw8 @yuanyuan1205 @Jane1990 @Raleigh_

twssmith

Help requested from the regular attendees?
This is my scheduled weekend off - gotta take breaks! Please help support anyone with questions in this post, See you on Tuesday
Thanks!!!

bobjon1293

Hey everyone, I'm taking a break from PTs to further drill some weaknesses. I hope to join you all again ASAP.

BinghamtonDave

I’m drilling some fundamentals this week along with RC drilling. I will rejoin the group for pt 79 next week. Have a great session!

twssmith

@ya_he_ja_z1 & @BinghamtonDave Happy Drilling & see you soon!!

This PT has a number of Questions that I have mentioned in the past - let me know if you decide to take it in the future

beezmoof

I'm unfortunately not in the best space right now to attend the call. If things change, you'll see me! Have fun everyone.

twssmith

@beezmoof If there is anything we can do to help with your space, please let us know

beezmoof

@twssmith I appreciate your kindness

ChaimtheGreat

Have a great call everyone see you next week!

twssmith

Great call everyone and learn so much from our discussions

@Jane1990 your insight on "Fails to Consider" is a new concept for me of evaluating that type of AC that is very exciting to implement - Thank you!!

twssmith

@Daniel.Sieradzki

Words cannot express how thankful we all are for your continued support for the BR calls and believing in the interactive PT BR experience to prepare for the LSAT.

Truly special and greatly appreciated that you take the time to not only join the calls to share your knowledge but most importantly to share your enthusiasm to keep us all motivated to make the most of our prep to believe that we can continue to make significant gains in our understanding and build confidence to reach beyond our score goals

Hamaseh_S

I was still struggling on S 2 Q 24 so I broke it down ... this is the tears/hormones/stress flaw question.

Here is my basic outline:
Studies found that A contain many of the same B that are produced during C. Hence, A removes B. Therefore A must reduce C.

We discussed that there was a jump to a causal relationship in the conclusion, but I actually thinks it makes 2 causal jumps (remove and reduce are both consequential verbs).

p: A - B correlate, B - C correlate
p: A cause B
c: A cause C ................ my question is how did we get to this conclusion**

So there is the mega obvious flaw which is the random jump from correlation to causation from the first premise to the second and the first premise to the conclusion (Described in AC E).

** More notably, I'm interested in the inference it makes. In the first premise the common denominator between A and C is B. In the second premise it infers a causation relationship between A and B. And in the conclusion it makes another inference between A and C. To illustrate this - in the conditional world, if I saw:

p: A --> B

c: A --> C

I would say the missing premise is B --> C and here is the resulting valid argument:

p: A --> B --> C

c: A --> C

This doesn't apply to causation but it's almost like the author conflates the two modes of reasoning (correlation/causation and conditionality)!

In this argument it's something like
p: A cause B
c: A cause C
unstated premise: B cause C

^^^ I know this is so wrong that it's cringe but how else did the argument reach it's conclusion??

Curious to know what you guys think of this analysis?? @Daniel.Sieradzki @twssmith @teamteamvicster @necessarynaomi especially @Jane1990 after doing this your explanations of the other answer choices make sooo much more sense haha I was lost !

PS SOS im going down a rabbit hole...

Jane1990

@Hamaseh_S

Hi Ham! I think you nailed it - totally not cringe. I think other people can give better explanation, but here it goes.

According to Mike Kim's LSAT Trainer, causation can never be proven by correlation. It could be strengthened by correlation, but never be proven. Causation can be proven only by causation.

With that said, I think you are absolutely right in that the missing piece to prove the main conclusion here is another causation that links the premises, although I don't think I have yet seen this actually happen in LSAT (causation provided as the premise to prove another causation in the conclusion).

What I don't know now is (I don't have the stimulus in front of me at work) whether the sub-conclusion (Hence, ....) also makes a jump from correlation to causation. According to @Daniel.Sieradzki, there can be more than one flaw in a stimulus, so it could be that the stimulus is making two correlation-causation errors in both the sub-conclusion and main conclusion.

Great job on your analysis!