Hey @"Tina Cho"
I'm gonna pull a classic QED and ramble on for days.
I like your expression "big picture questions." Elsewhere, you asked about disagreement problems, which I would put in that class as well. I don't exactly know a process for tho…
You can't tell out of context, but there are three ways it could go with those words. It's a quantifier, it's a modal operator or it jess don't matter.
Here's one where it's a quantifier.
"The UPS man usually comes on Thursday. It's usually Todd, …
I suck at LG (-5/-7 per section) but I suck less than I did at first, so I feel like I've learned something. One prob I have is that I'll forget to apply some rule, even if there are only 3-4 simple rules, when I don't dutifully check them at every …
If you take note of the distribution of content in the passage (e.g. background first, then comparative stances, then author's appraisal...), you can figure out where to look by guessing what information would be sufficient to entail each answer cho…
@"Stevie C" That's eerily similar to my situation. Diag 164, sucking wind in LG, can't consistently do 170+, done about 10ish PTs. I started briefly last year but quickly aborted when my friend paused her prep. Just picked up again, and we're planni…
It's none of my business, but it would be interesting to see where everyone's PTing now who's aiming at 17X in Feb. What was your diagnostic and what's your weakness?
I've had some embarrassing slips myself. Just gotta pay attention. I find it also helps to ask what LSAC is testing for in each question. Im concerned if my answer choice doesn't fit a classic mold.
Oh, well that's good to hear. 'Much less worried, then. Maybe the prob is just in the psychology and tactics of test-taking. I have def missed a lot of questions I shouldn't have. Just curious, what score range are you aimin' at?
I think the harder RC passages successfully test your ability to quickly absorb the subtleties of written English. And I don't think you can dramatically change your performance in that task within a month. I also don't think tactics around question…
Re: motivation
Here's a friendly kick in the butt. If you're rational and you're not motivated enough to work toward these things you call your goals, then they aren't really your goals. Either you're actually irrational or your true goals are clos…
I bombed LG on my diagnostic. It was slaughter. Maybe it's different for you, but I solve most problems by just waiting for the answer to pop in my head. It's a fine approach for RC and LR where the information you need to consider is more integrate…
I've only done a handful of PTs but I'm noticing they tend to have an easier and a harder LR section. Schematizing seems more useful in the latter. Sometimes I'll do it, sometimes not. Prob an average of 1 time per section. The formal aspect is less…
Hey @coconutsberries, lots of good advice here. As always, I'm here to jump in and insist on reading some challenging outside material, the goal being to make reading comprehension more automatic. You may not have time for that, of course. If your d…
I say that because the answers to a large majority of the questions in RC and LR are obvious if you understand them. I also bombed LG, missed like 12-15, so I can relate to that.
I expected your reaction, and I think it comes from a simplistic idea…
It's plain to me that, above all, the LSAT tests literacy. I'm nobody, but I think a diagnostic under 160 belies some reading comp issues. I would devote some time to reading hard material.
Good luck!
Nice! Well done making sense of that garble. It could have been clearer.
I hope you're having fun with logic. I never miss a chance, however impertinent, to encourage someone's interest in it. You'd be surprised how much discovery and active resea…
Seems like folks have trouble when they think about logic in terms of rules instead of meaning.
Yes, there's a rule saying
/(P or Q) = (/P and /Q).
But it's no use trying to remember all the rules. If you think of the logical meaning of a statem…
I think once you understand causal inference in science, you'll nail everything related to causation on the LSAT. It should only take you a week to read and absorb Nagel and Cohen's Introduction to Logic and the Scientific Method, which covers causa…
Be aware of the difference between contraries and contradictories, and subcontraries for that matter.
P and Q are contraries if they can't both be true but can both be false (e.g. 'X is right' and 'X is wrong').
P and Q are contradictories if they…
I'm just a rando, but I want to agree with the folks who've pointed out the importance of your background. Everyone has to study the test, but people come to it with more and less conditioning in the requisite tasks.
I speculate a lot, but I'm pre…
There are different ways to schematize that, just depends on which features are relevant to the context. Looks like it's probably confusing because the consequent could be interpreted as a proposition in a modal context, i.e. P->◇Q.
The conditio…
You're right, Hollywood. Noted. And thanks. I MEAN THANKS.
edit:
Sometimes the negation technique will unlock the AC; sometimes considering whether it's truly the bare necessary will help; sometimes considering "what'd BETTER be true—or this argume…