Group Blind Review via Skype- Saturday 4/25 7 PM (EST) - PT 56

emli1000

If you're interested in joining please PM me or @nicole.hopkins your Skype name so we can add you to the call

It runs pretty smooth. All you have to do is take PT 56 and BR before the Group BR (do not check answers). During the Skype call we go through all four sections and we also go more in depth if there is not consensus or if anyone wants to for any reason.

nicole.hopkins

Very nice invitation @emli1000 !

I also wanted to add:

1) if you don't get a chance to BR before the group BR, that's fine. I've literally finished a PT minutes before joining the call and while I do feel I benefit more if I get a chance to BR on my own before group, anyone can benefit from our discussion!

2) If you won't be able to take the test or just want to listen in on the call, that's great too! It's up to you whether you want to "contaminate" an exam in this way, but we certainly won't turn anyone away for any reason. All are welcome.

emli1000

Don't forget to send us your Skype names if you would like to join.

amanda_kw

I'm so ready for this. I've changed an appropriate number of questions during BR.

nicole.hopkins

@amanda_kw HAHA ... !!!

Jengibre

So sad I'm going to miss this..."See" you guys next Saturday for PT 58?

amanda_kw

@Jengibre Oh no! Will you be there Monday for 57? I'm going to be MIA for a week starting next Saturday. So if that's the case...until May then.

nicole.hopkins

Yes *fist bump* @Jengibre and it'll be amazing

LoraxMan

Guys, very interesting post from JY on section 2, Question 20, PT 56. I dont think we discussed this during our BR last night, but 20 is actually a necessary assumption question, which very clearly knocks out response C. Partially wanted to out this out there b/c I remember making an argument about why C was right thinking that 20 was a SA assumption, but when we classify as NA it makes so much more sense!

http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-56-section-2-question-20/

amanda_kw

@LoraxMan I'm a lot more confused than I was before - but I will go over this question a few more times to figure it out. Thanks for bringing that up!

blah170blah

Urgh, I get this question wrong every single time.

Two main things stick out:
1) Subject shift. (C) takes about all of psychotherapy, (E) is talking about psychotherapists, which is what we need.
2) Modality. If we use the negation test, (C) says it's OK to provide psychotherapy in a context where there's a small chance that it will led to not high quality help. But the stimulus tells us that entertaining a broad audience is incompatible with high-quality help. Because the "incompatible" tells us that there's a BIG, almost 100% chance, the help will not be high quality, we need something like (E). If we negate (E), we'd get that it's OK for psychotherapists to do things when something is pretty guaranteed it won't end in high-quality help. That destroys the argument.

LoraxMan

@amanda_kw What I was thinkin was that if the question was a sufficient assumption question I think that C could probably work as the answer (aside from the subject shift pointed out), but we don't need a sufficient condition, we just need a necessary condition that allows the argument to obtain, which E does. C is too broad/too strong of an argument, whereas E is "efficient" and provides just what is necessary for the argument to hold. Makes me think of the rattlesnake question, where we need to go for the necessary argument rather than an argument that is sufficient.

amanda_kw

@LoraxMan alright that makes sense. Yes, C is definitely too strong - not something that is actually talked about in the argument either. For me - the main issue I saw was the difference between context and manner. But I see now how the context would strengthen - seal the argument, whereas the manner is necessary. So my logic still holds - glad to know why C is wrong though.