Hey, what's the focus for Monday's session? Will we be reviewing LR from PT 30? If so, which section will you be focusing on? Are there specific questions we should review for the 17th?
@"vanessa fisher" said: @"Cant Get Right"
Sorry if this is a dumb question. I'm new to trying these study groups.
Can anyone just join in or is there a registration?
No, you don't need to register. You can join the meeting from your computer by clicking the GoToMeeting link or dial in using your phone at 7:30pm EDT on Monday.
Oldies But Goodies - PT 30
Monday, July 17, 7:30 PM EDT
Sorry! just trying to understand. Do we complete an old full practice test timed, lets say PT31, and then we go over the answers together, like a blind review?
@"evonne-alkhatib" said:
Sorry! just trying to understand. Do we complete an old full practice test timed, lets say PT31, and then we go over the answers together, like a blind review?
The PT they will be going over is listed on the first post. In this case, PT31.
Hey guys, I just updated the title and body of the post to hopefully make it more immediately clear to everyone exactly what this is and what they need to do beforehand. For all the regulars out there, it will be the same format as before, so just keep doing what you've been doing. See you guys tomorrow!
Nice, in order to join please click the GoToMeeting link on the first page of this thread at the time of the meeting (7:30 p.m. EST). You might want to try clicking it now so that you can download any necessary internet browser plugins to make sure you are ready for 7:30.
Well, something came up and I have an important errand to run tonight. Caved and did 33 by myself with great results, will be glad to join next week though!
Hey, had a follow up question in PM that I thought was a really great question, so wanted to post my reply here as well for anyone who may be interested.
Answer choice B is attempting to exploit what I more broadly call the problem of knowledge (Knowledge is just a common incarnation of a much larger set of words that logically abstract the subject.) Here, it's "want" rather than "know" but the principle is always the same and frequently interchangeable.
So an argument that would express the flaw B is talking about would look something like this:
Congleton hired really terrible artists.
The hiring of really terrible artists would ensure the project would fail.
Therefore Congleton wanted the project to fail.
Do you see how "want" is problematic here? What if Congleton is just really incompetent? We know in this argument that Congleton took action which will result in the failure of the project, but how can we draw a conclusion about their motives? We see this a lot and we can use this example to plug in a lot of different applications: knowledge, belief, expectation, etc:
Therefore Congleton knew the project would fail
Therefore Congleton believed the project would fail
Therefore Congleton expected the project to fail.
Answer choice B (assumes Fail ---> Congleton wanted it to fail) bridges the gap between the consequences of the actual argument and what Congleton wanted, thus accounting for the abstraction.
So any time you see one of these words pop up, be aware of the nature of the abstraction. I can almost promise you the writers will be exploiting it.
PT 35 is as far as I'm taking it, but will restart. Taking the next few weeks off as I prepare for the Sept Test and will restart probably first week of October.
@"Cant Get Right" said:
PT 35 is as far as I'm taking it, but will restart. Taking the next few weeks off as I prepare for the Sept Test and will restart probably first week of October.
That's exactly what I was hoping for Awesome-ness
I would say good luck with your Sept take, but I can honestly say I don't think I've ever known anyone as ready to humiliate this test as you are right now!
Comments
I hope it's 27 because I started 27 today...
Hey, just updated! 27 on the 19th, see you then!
@JustDoIt You started PT 27 or turned 27? Congrats either way!
@"Daniel.Sieradzki" haha i started PT 27. Hope to see you and @"Cant Get Right" Monday!
How do you join this? And, what if you don't have access to PT 27? Do I have to buy it to participate? Thanks!
Here's how:
I need a few minutes. Will be there soon!
Hey everyone, just in case anyone missed it, we'll be taking this Monday off for the holiday. See y'all next week!
Damnit! I keep trying to make these but I never get home in time
Hop on when you get home: We kept going for like another hour at least after your post!
Jeez! Thank you, Josh. I gotta set a timer to remind myself next week! I gotta get back on my grind...
@"Cant Get Right"
Sorry if this is a dumb question. I'm new to trying these study groups.
Can anyone just join in or is there a registration?
Also, do we submit questions ahead of time?
Thanks!
@JustDoIt
@"Cant Get Right" @"Daniel.Sieradzki"
Hey, what's the focus for Monday's session? Will we be reviewing LR from PT 30? If so, which section will you be focusing on? Are there specific questions we should review for the 17th?
No, you don't need to register. You can join the meeting from your computer by clicking the GoToMeeting link or dial in using your phone at 7:30pm EDT on Monday.
Maybe you should download the GoToMeeting app beforehand
No, I think you can just ask during the meeting!
@akistotle
Thanks!
Do you do the full PT ahead of time?
You can do it as a full timed PT, but you can also use this PT as a drill and ask questions only about the questions you did.
Sorry! just trying to understand. Do we complete an old full practice test timed, lets say PT31, and then we go over the answers together, like a blind review?
The PT they will be going over is listed on the first post. In this case, PT31.
Hey guys, I just updated the title and body of the post to hopefully make it more immediately clear to everyone exactly what this is and what they need to do beforehand. For all the regulars out there, it will be the same format as before, so just keep doing what you've been doing. See you guys tomorrow!
@"Cant Get Right" Thank you!
Hi There! Really interested in joining in today, how do I participate? I have the PT section done.
Hi @SD_SaraE,
Nice, in order to join please click the GoToMeeting link on the first page of this thread at the time of the meeting (7:30 p.m. EST). You might want to try clicking it now so that you can download any necessary internet browser plugins to make sure you are ready for 7:30.
Have a great session!
Thank you! Looking forward to this.
I'm going to join in as well if I make it home on time
We'll be glad to have y'all. @amedley88 , if you're a little late, it's no problem. Join when you can!
Thanks! I'm actually excited to talk to you, I have read so many of your posts over the past nine months haha
I assume it would be both sections of LR from the PT since there was no specific section stated.. is that correct?
That's correct @nishanik15 . We may not get to everything, but will try to hit the highlights from both.
Well, something came up and I have an important errand to run tonight. Caved and did 33 by myself with great results, will be glad to join next week though!
Having some issues launching gotomeeting, but on the way!
Hey, had a follow up question in PM that I thought was a really great question, so wanted to post my reply here as well for anyone who may be interested.
From PT 33.1.22. https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-1-question-22/
Answer choice B is attempting to exploit what I more broadly call the problem of knowledge (Knowledge is just a common incarnation of a much larger set of words that logically abstract the subject.) Here, it's "want" rather than "know" but the principle is always the same and frequently interchangeable.
So an argument that would express the flaw B is talking about would look something like this:
Congleton hired really terrible artists.
The hiring of really terrible artists would ensure the project would fail.
Therefore Congleton wanted the project to fail.
Do you see how "want" is problematic here? What if Congleton is just really incompetent? We know in this argument that Congleton took action which will result in the failure of the project, but how can we draw a conclusion about their motives? We see this a lot and we can use this example to plug in a lot of different applications: knowledge, belief, expectation, etc:
Therefore Congleton knew the project would fail
Therefore Congleton believed the project would fail
Therefore Congleton expected the project to fail.
Answer choice B (assumes Fail ---> Congleton wanted it to fail) bridges the gap between the consequences of the actual argument and what Congleton wanted, thus accounting for the abstraction.
So any time you see one of these words pop up, be aware of the nature of the abstraction. I can almost promise you the writers will be exploiting it.
Today @ 7:30 EST.
Is the next meeting today?
yes
Hey @"Cant Get Right" are these sessions going to continue past PT35 or will they restart eventually at PT1?
PT 35 is as far as I'm taking it, but will restart. Taking the next few weeks off as I prepare for the Sept Test and will restart probably first week of October.
That's exactly what I was hoping for Awesome-ness
I would say good luck with your Sept take, but I can honestly say I don't think I've ever known anyone as ready to humiliate this test as you are right now!