Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 191 Webinars
- 10 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 112 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 31 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 641 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
PT84 BR Sessions with J.Y. - LR Sections Only
J.Y. Ping
Administrator Instructor
Hey 7Sagers, I'm leading BR calls for PT 84 (June 2018 LSAT).
There will be four sessions total. Two for S2.LR and two for S3.LR.
All sessions will start at 7:30p and end at 9:30p ET.
What happens in these sessions?
I'll ask students to state which questions were circled for BR. We'll work through the questions the group nominates. I generally try to ask students questions to elicit the right response. Please wear headphones and try to be in a quiet place.
How should I prepare?
Take PT 84 and have the questions you'd like to BR ready. The first thing I'll ask everyone is which questions they'd like to BR.
Next Session
[none]
7:30p - 9:30p ET
Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/270891637
You can also dial in using your phone.
United States: +1 (646) 749-3131
Access Code: 270-891-637
Joining from a video-conferencing room or system?
Dial: 67.217.95.2##270891637
Cisco devices: 270891637@67.217.95.2
First GoToMeeting? Let's do a quick system check: https://link.gotomeeting.com/system-check
Future Sessions
[none]
Obtaining PT 84
If you have an Ultimate+ account, you will be able to view and print PT 84 under the Syllabus. If you are enrolled in Starter, Premium, or Ultimate, you can also purchase PT 84 as an add-on to your existing course here.
Past Sessions
7/16 Monday - Section 2 - LR
7/17 Tuesday - Section 2 - LR
7/18 Wednesday - Section 3 - LR
7/19 Thursday - Section 3 - LR
Comments
THANK YOU JY! I am looking forward to it!
YASSSS!
Can't wait!
It's fitting that the first of these is on my birthday! Thanks for setting these up.
So tempted... Must resist urge and fight the dark side.
dumb question: if you can't make a session can you re-watch it?
Wish I could join, but tough time for the west coast, I'll still be working.
Looking forward to having video explanations down the line!
These sessions won’t be recorded.
*gasp!
Mr. Ping and crew: thank you for making PT 84 available in such a timely fashion! I really appreciate it.
PT 84 is the June 2018 test, correct?
Thanks for this!
Is there a general sense of when the full explanations for this test will become available?
@NotMyName yes.
@tuc28290 I believe sometime around August.
@keets993 Thank you!
Thank you JY !!!! And thank you @keets993 for letting me know.
Does anyone know if J.Y. is aiming to cover all of Section 2 on Monday, or will it likely only be half of Section 2, with the other half being covered on Tuesday? I'm wondering if I should plan on calling in either Monday or Tuesday for Section 2 AND either Wednesday or Thursday for Section 3, or if I should plan on being available for each of those nights if I'm looking to do a deep dive for each question of these two sections.
@180degrees We won't get through everything in one section in two hours. On the second day of the section, I'll try to prioritize the questions we did NOT cover on the previous day.
Got it, J.Y. Thanks for clarifying!
Hey J.Y. thanks for doing this, to clarify should I BR this section myself first before tonight's session to have familiarity with the questions that will be reviewed (took the PT yesterday) or is it best to BR for fresh the first time together ?
@Gustavus Hey, sorry, just saw this now. You can BR yourself first or with us first, either way's fine. Just make sure that you've got the questions you'd like to go over ready.
What is the audio pin?
Hi @nvakhshoury,
Is this what you are looking for?
@akistotle Thanks! I wonder if @nvakhshoury might have been asking for the audio pin to unmute from a phone. That I don't have access to now.
Tomorrow, if you're calling in from a phone and you'd like to unmute, I'll announce what the pin is.
I was wondering the same thing. I called in, but could only listen. Giving out the pin ahead of time would be very helpful, thanks! And yesterday's BR was great! I will miss tonight, but resume Wednesday and Thursday
Thank you JY for taking the time to offer this Blind Review call! You and this 7-Sage Community are full of so much insight and wisdom!
I've been calling in via phone, and it has been immensely helpful, mainly for highlighting general good practices and habits in approaching each question, and particularly for active reading strategies. Below are some highlights from the call, in addition to a few links to relevant 7-Sage webinars and the CC on referential phrasing. Feel free to correct/clarify anything here as this is simply what I personally found helpful. Perhaps it can be helpful to others...
---PT 84 Blind Review Session with JY - General Notes and Highlights---
84.2.5 — PSA — “In a Risky Surgical Procedure…” — A good general principle for SA and PSA questions to remember: There’s no such thing as “too strong” when evaluating answer choices, as long as it establishes a bridge between the point of the argument and the support for that point.
84.2.7 — PSA — “Geothermal Power Plants…” — Super important to realize going into this question that it is a PSA. This is a great example of the importance of reading the question stem carefully and knowing exactly what you are being asked to do.
84.2.9 — WKN — “The Menu at Jason’s Restaurant…” — The key here is to lock on to the point of the argument and stay focused on this as you evaluate the answer choices. Keep coming back to the question, “Is this relevant to Yu’s argument?”
84.2.10 — MISC/MSS — Bird “Song Overlapping” — This question is similar to that of 84.2.23 (the T-Rex question), in echoing an important skill of distinguishing between calling into question the sufficiency of the evidence, as opposed to directly challenging the conclusion being made. That is, the conclusion of the study is unconvincing, not because it is wrong, but because the methodology of the study is not sufficient to lead to a convincing conclusion.
84.2.13 — STR/EXCEPT - “Flying Dinosaurs” - Visualization is key to these early evolution questions (and so many others). Coordinate all your different senses while reading. Build a picture in your mind. Let your pencil be your guide, where you move the tip across every word you read. Use subvocalization (moving your lips silently) as you read to help you stay engaged.
84.2.17 — FLAW — “People Who Recently Recovered from Colds” — This is a causation/correlation question that should go super-fast. Consider, “confidence drills” for speed. Also see the webinar, Timing and Levels of Certainty:
https://7sage.com/webinar/timing-and-levels-of-certainty/
84.2.18 - MC (Complete the Argument) — “The Golden Rule” — A good strategy here is to put the stimulus in real-life terms via analogies to make the stimulus more tangible.
84.2.20 — MBT — “A Philosophical Paradox…” — Parsing out referential phrasing helps to gain clarity. Get in the habit of circling the referential phrasing and point it back to its referent. See Core Curriculum:
https://7sage.com/lesson/referential-phrases-general/
84.2.21 — NA — “A Chimp Who Displays Feelings of Affection…” — What’s most important here, is to stop and pause as you read. Build a picture as you progress through the stimulus. When given an analogy, pause and anticipate what the analogy is going to be, so you have a touchstone to sort out what you are given. See, Active Reading Strategies webinar:
https://7sage.com/webinar/active-reading/
84.2.23 — A/P — “The Immense size of the T-Rex” — The phrase, “overly hasty” refers to going too far with the evidence (or premises). So, the author here is not directly calling into question the conclusion, but rather focusing on the evidence as not sufficient to make that conclusion. (See Bird “Song Overlapping” question 84.2.10)
Review:
—Read the question stem carefully to be clear on exactly what you are being asked to do.
— Identify the conclusion and the support for that conclusion.
—Always identify referential phrasing and point it back to its referent.
—Anticipate (pre-phrase) analogies when given.
—Build a mental picture as you read. Subvocalize (move your lips silently).
—Run your pencil along the text as you read.
—If you’re unclear on what you’re reading, give the question one more pass.
If still unclear, skip and move on...
Thank you again, and I look forward to 84.3. Peace...
wow you're the best! Thank you so much @LoveisJustice
Audio PIN
https://support.logmeininc.com/gotomeeting/help/what-is-the-audio-pin-g2m050051
For me, the PIN is 292 # but I'm not sure if it's different for each caller.
@LoveisJustice THE best ! this was so helpful ! thank you
@LoveisJustice What a great idea. Thank you!
I'm leaving notes here from last night's BR call.
84.3.6
Strengthen
Pretty hard question.
Premises tell us that Shooter Island’s waters are exceptionally still and that there are lots of juvenile birds gathered around its waters. There aren’t very many juvenile birds in waters in neighboring islands. We are not told WHY the juveniles are gathering in Shooter Island's still waters. It could be for any number of reasons. The conclusion hypothesizes that it’s because they're using it as a nursery. Okay, that makes sense I guess baby birds like still waters. They’re probably using it as a nursery and that’s why there are so many juvenile birds there.
If you thought that, then you likely overlooked (C). (C) tells us that whenever possible, waterbirds use still water as nurseries. We think… don’t we already know that? Nope, we don’t. This is a really powerful assumption that if established, would do wonders for the argument.
(C) tells us waterbird’s preference is to use still waters for nurseries whenever it’s possible. The premise in the stimulus tells us that there are in fact an overabundance of juveniles in still waters. You put the two statements together and now we’re pretty sure that they’re actually there because they’re using it as a nursery and not for some other reason. Our argument is made much better.
(D) is an attractive trap. It says that the waters around the other islands are MUCH rougher. This seems like new information but not really. We already knew from the premises that Shooter Island water is EXCEPTIONALLY still. Not just kind of still. It’s exceptionally still. So even if the neighboring waters are a little bit rough, they’re MUCH rougher than exceptionally still.
But let’s just say that the waters in the neighboring islands are truly objectively rough. Okay, we still don’t know why juvenile birds are gathering in still waters/Shooter Island. Is it as the conclusion hypothesizes that it’s because this is their nursery? Maybe. Or maybe it’s for some other reason. That means the argument was as strong/weak as it ever was. We didn’t do our job of strengthening the argument.
84.3.19
Weaken
Henry says that electric engines (cars) pollute less than combustion engines. Therefore, switching from regular cars to electric cars would reduce urban pollution.
This isn't a terrible argument. Car engines are a major contribution to pollution. But, Henry hasn't given an exhaustive (hehe) account of the situation. What if the production of electric engines is way more polluting than the production combustion engines? Sure using electric engines is less pollution but you gotta make them in the first place and that could tip the scales.
Umit doesn't go there, though he could have. He brings up another consideration that Henry overlooked. He reminds us that electric engines run on batteries that need charging. Charging all those batteries places greater demand on power plants which then will generate more pollution as a result.
Okay, yeah, that's a good point Umit! You did a good weakening on Henry's argument by pointing out something Henry overlooked (i.e. assumed wasn't an issue). Henry, batteries don't power themselves okay? You gotta charge them you dodo!
Alright, so now we have to do another 180 and weaken Umit's argument. Umit assumed that the extra pollution generated by the power plants is relevant. Did you also assume that it's relevant? Careful. (A) gives us a reason to think that it's not relevant. If it's true that power plants are not near major cities, then does their pollution even matter? Henry was only concerned about urban pollution after all, not pollution in the entire country or on the whole planet. (A) may as well have told us that these power plants are on Mars.
(B) is an attractive trap. It says that the additional units of pollution from the power plants would be "offset" by the decreased units of pollution from the electric engine cars. Okay, "offset" by how much? Entirely offset? Or just somewhat offset? We're not sure. So it could be on a range anywhere from entirely offset to just somewhat offset. But anywhere on that range is bad for Henry. Even if it's entirely offset, then that just means switching to electric cars is no better than not switching in the first place. Henry actually needs switching to electric cars to be better for urban pollution. Not just neutral.
What (B) needed to say is that the additional units of pollution from the power plants are only a tiny fraction of the total decreased units of pollution from the electric engine cars. In other words, power plants are generating +1 unit of pollution but electric cars are saving -10 units of pollution. We're netting -9 units of pollution. That would help Henry and hurt Umit. But that's not what (B) says.
84.3.21
Evaluate
Finance minister tells us that The World Bank runs a list for the Top Countries to Do Business in the World. They look at two things to determine your rankings. LSAT score no just kidding. They look at how easy it is for a hypothetical business to (1) file taxes and (2) comply with regulations. Ease of (1) plus ease of (2) gives you a good rating. If either or both are difficult, then that hurts your rating. The finance minister then tells us that they just made it a lot easier for small-medium sized businesses in their country to file taxes, i.e., to do (1). Okay, so next year their rankings will improve, right? Well maybe.
Here, probably many of you saw the issue with the rankings having two components. The arguments assumes that (2) didn't get any harder. So if we can show that (2) (complying with regulations) either got easier or stayed the same, then that's good for the minister's argument. But if (2) got harder, then it might have more than offset the gains made in (1) and that would be bad for the argument. So if that's what you had in mind, and you went down into the answer, you should have come up empty handed. No answers said that. (C) doesn't say that. (C) asks if (1) is more difficult than (2). What? We don't care about that! Answer that question either way and it doesn't matter. What we actually care about is if (2)-last-year was more difficult than (2)-this-year. It's the across-time-comparison of (2) to itself that we care about. Not the snapshot-in-time-comparison of (2) to (1).
Anyway, all of that is to hide another gaping hole in the argument. We kind of just assumed that because this person is the finance minister, they'd be talking only about relevant businesses, so we probably didn't even pay attention to when they said (1) was made easier for small-medium sized businesses. We probably just assumed that those are the kinds of businesses that the World Bank would take as their hypothetical businesses. But we don't actually know that. What kinds of businesses will the World Bank actually look at when they're assessing the ease of (1) and (2)? We better hope for the Finance Minister's sake that they'll be looking at small-medium sized businesses! That's what (D) gives us.
84.3.24
Flaw/Descriptive Weakening
Let's say that someone's very obese. That's bad for their overall health. There are now a number of proposals on the table to help them lose weight. Consider proposal 1 which I won't reveal yet but trust me, it definitely helps them lose weight. Are you willing to accept that therefore it'll be good for their overall health?
Well you shouldn't. Because you know what proposal 1 is? Crystal meth. It'll help with the obesity by suppressing appetite and speeding up metabolism. Plus you'll have no money left to buy food. But it'll also increase chances of you dead. So no. It's not gonna be good for overall health.
There's the analogy for the politician's argument. The proposal 1 is the regulation proposals. The obesity is the large trade deficit. The overall health is the overall economy.
Just because the proposed regulations would cut down the trade deficit doesn't mean that it would be good for the overall economy. The regulations could have other effects that would be bad for the overall economy. For example, the regulation is to impose a tariff on soybeans. Okay, so we import fewer soybeans and indeed our trade deficit decreases. But maybe everyone in the country only eats soybeans and now soybeans are so expensive that 10% of the population just starves. That's not good for the economy! That's what (D) says. No, not really but you know what I mean. Soybeans!
(E) is saying that this argument commits a whole to part flaw. The conclusion descriptor is true enough. It does conclude that "every/each regulation will help the economy" but no where did the argument say that the entire set of regulations as a whole would help the economy. Who's even thinking about enacting the entire set of regulations? I don't know.
(B) is just descriptively inaccurate. The politician does not assume (take for granted) that reducing the trade deficit is the only way of improving the economy, just that it's one way. If you said "excuse me, but here's some Martian technology from 100 years in the future, that'll help boost your economy" the politician will just be like "cool, thanks buddy!"