Did Poorly on June 2015 LSAT; Read all PS Bibles; Need Help

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Rochelle,

Ok, I have looked over what you sent me and have a few tips that should help you improve. Before making any comments, however, I want to take a moment to thank you for providing such excellent commentary on each problem. It really helps us when we can get details on why you had trouble with each question. So, thank you for that!

The first thing I noticed about the set of question that you provided was that these are all pretty much advanced conditional problems. They almost always feature chains of terms, and multiple sufficient or necessary components in the conditions. That means that when you see a problem that has three or more conditions in play, you need to really focus. It's not that the problems have conditional relationships that are more challenging than average, instead it's that there are just more of them, and mentally juggling more terms is naturally more challenging.

I have additional recommendations below, but knowing that compound conditionality is an area of difficulty for you gives you the chance to spend more time looking over those types of problems now. Whenever you see one on a test or in practice, make a note of it and then come back later and really break it down in detail until you are 100% comfortable with it. I want you to know it so well that if I called you up out of the blue and said, "Rochelle, explain this to me," that you would not even hesitate and you'd nail the explanation

Second, I'm glad I asked you to look at the language in these questions. You ran in to some problems with seeing conditional indicators, and one of the things is that absolute language—in almost any form—can convey a conditional relationship. So, one thing you need to consistently be able to do is recognize when conditionality is present. There were several problems where you said you didn't see indicators, so working on this area is extremely important, and it will help you improve (because if you don't realize it's there, it's impossible to work with the concept). Let's look at some examples"

• #31. You said, "I can't find the necessary indicators and I saw no sufficient indicators." But, you also knew there were absolutes here, so you are probably closer than you think to catching on to how this is working. The first indicator is a tough one, and it is the word "imperative." "Imperative" means necessary or required, so that first sentence is: "democracy survive average citizen develop etc."
  
  There's another indicator here as well, but it doesn't play a huge role in this problem. It will do so in other problems, though, so I want to address it now. That indicator is "must." If something must be done, then it is required which is the same idea as necessary. Based on some comments you made in other problems, I'm thinking that the word "must" hadn't really translated to you as a necessary indicator, and just seeing how that works will make you better immediately
  
  The thing to note with "must" is how it's used. If I say "I must eat a donut," technically that's a conditional statement (if it's me eat donut). But, that diagram is not really what I'm getting at with that statement, and so turning it into a diagram is unhelpful. On the other hand, a statement such as "For government to increase investment by citizens, the tax rate on capital gains must be decreased," is one where the conditional relationship is far more useful to understand. If we were to diagram that statement (but we don't have to, as I discuss below), it would be: Govt increase inv decrease cap gains tax rate.
  
  
  #46. In this problem, you mentioned: "ABSOLUTES; Wasn't able to build a diagram. Can't figure out the SN indicators." Before reading any further, what I want you to do with this problem is re-read it again, don't think about diagramming, and see if you can tell what they are doing here.
  
  There's two things causing problems in this one: they've created chains of statements, but they've split the conditions into different sentences, and they've conveyed the conditionality with some unusual phrasings. Look at the following section, with some of the conditional indicators italicized:
  
  "If the press were not profit‑making, who would support it? The only alternative is subsidy and, with it, outside control. It is easy to get subsidies for propaganda, but no one will subsidize honest journalism."
  
  So, that first sentence says that if you're not profit making, you need some support. The sentence as given doesn't tell you what that support is (it leaves it as a question: "Who would support it?"). The next sentence supplies what the support is (subsidies) and it's the only option, meaning that we have a relationship where if the press doesn't make a profit, then it must be subsidized (profit subsidies). Further, as the final sentence indicates, if there are subsidies, then it's not honest journalism (subsidies honest journalism). Those two diagrams can be connected into a longer chain:
  
  
  profit subsidies honest journalism
  
  
  Answer choice (D) is a contrapositive of the above chain.
  
  Outside control" is also in there, but for the sake of clarity I've dropped that term in order to highlight the reasoning behind answer choice (D). however, when something comes "with" another thing, that's again conditional: subsidy outside control. As you can see, there's a lot going on here, and it's tricky! This is why you are missing problems like this—they are hard.
  
  One more side comment: "will" is an absolute, and often is conditional. If you say, "If Nathan does not study, then he will fail," that yields the following relationship:
  
  
  StudyNathan Fail Nathan
  
  
  There are other uses of "will," though, so be careful with it.

Ok, my goal here isn't to explain each problem, but to draw out the larger elements so we can see why you are having problems with some of these. You're nailing whether an argument is present, you're properly identifying the conclusions when they are present, you are seeing the general type of language in use, and often your diagrams are correct. So, those aren't the root problems, and, being able to do all of that is a great sign for continued improvement! The problems are that sometimes you aren't seeing the language they use as conditional, and sometimes you are just getting caught up in the complex web of connections they weave. Those two factors are actually what cause these problems to be hard in the first place, and so really you are having issues exactly where you'd expect there to be problems. Don't let that discourage you! Instead, buckle down on these problems and when you are studying, break them into component pieces until you understand every single step. Then, look at what was and was not important in determining the correct answer. That will help sharpen your LSAT radar and make you a better test taker. But again, overall this is good news


Third, I want to make a general comment about diagramming. You said, "I don't know how to diagram this stimulus." Always remember that diagramming is a tool, not a necessity. You only need to diagram when you think it will help you. But, the nice thing about diagramming a lot while you are practicing is that it helps prove that you know what was said. I always tell students to diagram a lot at first just so you master it, and then as time passes you should diagram less and less because what eventually occurs is that when you encounter a conditional relationship the "picture" of the relationships will instantly springs to mind.

Ok, hopefully the comments above give you some things to think about as well as apply while you are studying. Thanks and have a great weekend!

[rochelleb180]

Dear Mr. Killoran,

I hope that you are doing well. Just to let you know, I am progressing and thank you for your previous posts regarding conditional reasoning because it has made a difference in understanding LR questions. However, I am currently having problems in two areas. The first problem is just specific to Advanced Logic Game #4, December 1991, Questions 14-19 in Game Type Questions 1-20. I got every question right except #18, but I don't understand this game at all. Can you explain it to me? I will show you my set-up below. I chose answer choice A as the correct answer but that is wrong. Additionally, in the Linear and Advanced Linear games, I am getting most of games all right but I am taking twice as long as I should to read, diagram and answer the questions. I9 minutes per game on average.
P/R, N/U, F/S
FS → F1 or 2→ S2 or 3
R←│→S
FSNUPR

__U_ U←│→R

____

_N_

Also, my second problem is a bit more complex. In Logical Reasoning Question Type Training, I got eight Weakener's wrong out of 60 problems. Questions, 24, 35,36,and 37 are really problematic. Also for Cause and Effect I got 11 out of 65 problems wrong. Questions 4, 17, 20, 24, and 35 are particularly problematic. I believe I should be stronger is these areas if I am to do well. I'm not sure how to present my thinking to you because all of these questions are arguments. Let me know and I will do what you say. You really helped me out on the Must Be True Questions.

Rochelle

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Rochelle,

Thanks for the questions! I'll take the LG part of this right now, and I've asked my colleagues to handle the LR part of your question since I'm out of town and don't have the LRTT with me.

Ok, the game you ask about really focuses on conditional rules, but the key here is realizing that a two-value system is in play for every choice. First, the pre-rule setup I use is basically the same as yours:

• 3 ___ ___ ___
  
  2 ___ ___ ___
  
  1 ___ ___ ___
  F/S N/U P/R

Now, for each of those slots, the key realization is that if one of them isn't there, the other has to be there. So, if F wasn't on the second floor, then S would have to be. This two-value situation drives a lot of inferences in the game.

Next, we have the rules. the last two rules go right into the diagram:

• 3 ___ _U_ ___
  
  2 ___ ___ ___
  
  1 ___ _N_ ___
  F/S N/U P/R

The first rule is a vertical sequence with S above F. It's active when both types are present.

The second and third rules are critical. The second rule states that U and R do not appear together. So, what does that tell us? If U is present, then R can't be. When R isn't present, what has to be present? P. So, when you have U, then P (U P). Now, start with R. when R is present, U can't be. when U isn't present, what has to be? N. So, when you have R, then you have N (R N). Right there, life gets a lot easier because you get these basic conditionals when you see certain variables.

Do the same process for the third rule and you get R F, and S P.

Looking at our diagram, on the third floor we have U, and when we have U, we know we can't have R and must have P:

• 3 ___ _U_ _P_
  
  2 ___ ___ ___
  
  1 ___ _N_ ___
  F/S N/U P/R

Ok, so there's our base diagram. From here, we keep in mind the S-F sequence, and these four basic relationships:


U P
R N
R F
S P


Let's go to #18! #18 says: "If all the new cars in the exhibition are research models, then which one of the following statements must be true?"

So, the Local condition in that stem is N R. Well, from our rule list above, we know that R F. Adding those two together, we get N R F, which reduces to N F. That's what answer choice (D) says, and so it is correct.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[Jon Denning]

Hey Rochelle,

Thanks for the questions! I see Dave has given a lot of great information here about the Games part of your last post, so hopefully that's proven helpful! I noticed you've asked about some questions in the Training Type book as well and thought I'd weigh in

First, I should note that missing 8-10 out of 60 (a rough average) is a very strong performance, equating to something like 3-4 wrong per LR section, assuming these were done under test-day-timing conditions. So nice work! If untimed, that's still very solid, but I'd encourage you to start focusing on timed exercises in the days/weeks ahead.

I see from a previous message (dated over three months ago) that you were working in the LR Training Type Volume 1 book, but without knowing if you're still working through that book or a later one it's hard for me to pull up the questions listed with confidence. Can you let me know which edition you're currently using? That way I can at least glance at the questions you missed and see if there are any consistent elements or notable features that might be a source of trouble (a pattern of sorts for you to consider moving forward).

Also, without knowing more about you as a test taker and exactly how you're approaching each of these questions—how well do you recognize argumentation and specifically identify the conclusion?; what are your strategies for weaken questions as you consider potential mistakes/errors on the author's part?; are you prephrasing for every question and if so how accurately do your predictions match the correct choice?; are you eliminating answers with confidence and generally getting down to a single contender or do you often find 2-3 answer choices attractive?; how well do you recognize causality and can you tell me how that type of reasoning works on the LSAT (assumptions made by the author, ways to weaken and strengthen it, etc)?—there's not much I can do to address specific issues here. So I'm left with more questions than answers at this point

In the meantime, and to echo Beth's earlier advice, "there's no substitute for practice" so I want to encourage you to keep working, but with a piece of advice in mind: doing question after question is only truly beneficial if you know you've got the potential to approach each question in the optimal way, and then are able to review each attempt to determine just how close to perfect your efforts were. So rather than doing 20 or 30 or 60 questions in a row and then checking your answers/work to see how it went, take these in smaller sections and check your results more frequently, noting any instance of error or even doubt and then thoroughly reviewing both the underlying concept(s) and the question at hand so that you completely eliminate any issues. Do this over and over and over until your approach for a given type/concept is consistently flawless. Quantity matters in LSAT prep, but it's far less important than quality, especially as you work towards greater self-sufficiency: identifying your own issues and resolving them directly, so that you can master this exam on your own terms and without the need for repeated outside assistance. You want to be in total control, so start small and slow and build from there!

I hope this helps somewhat and with some additional information it's possible I, or someone else, can assist further. Thanks!

Jon

[rochelleb180]

Dear Jon,

How are you? Thank you for acknowledging my questions. As you mentioned, Dave gave me great advice on the Logic Games. I seem to be doing really well with them so far. Anyway, to answer your question, I am using Logic Reasoning Question Type Training, Volume 1,(Tests 1- 20), published in 2014. I will think about your questions in order to give you a clear answer. Will post tomorrow regarding that part. I hope that you are able to see a pattern.

Rochelle

[Jon Denning]

Hey Rochelle - perfect! Thanks again!

[rochelleb180]

Dear Jon,

I decided to take the February LSAT instead of the December test. I needed more time. By the way, thank you very much for helping me with the weakener questions. Your questions helped me to nail weakeners every time. and they made me re-read the bible chapters and master weakeners. I want to be able to do that with Must Be True, Main Point, and Assumption question types. I seem to have a problem with them. With that being said, I wondered if you could give me some pointers.

Thank you in advance,

Rochelle

[David Boyle]

Dear Jon,

I decided to take the February LSAT instead of the December test. I needed more time. By the way, thank you very much for helping me with the weakener questions. Your questions helped me to nail weakeners every time. and they made me re-read the bible chapters and master weakeners. I want to be able to do that with Must Be True, Main Point, and Assumption question types. I seem to have a problem with them. With that being said, I wondered if you could give me some pointers.

Thank you in advance,

Rochelle

Hello rochelleb180,

MBT and MP questions are similar, of course, in that you have to look for what's there already. (As opposed to, say, a Strengthen or Weaken question, which may bring in new material) As the book notes, the Fact Test is crucial, in that you can always prove the right answer from the facts in the stimulus, or a reasonable combination or deduction thereof. (For example: if the stimulus says, "I love all animals", you can deduce that the person loves fish, even if the stimulus doesn't have the word "fish" in it. Or if the stimulus says, "I am busy Sunday through Tuesday. And I am busy Wednesday through Saturday", concluding that someone is busy all week may be reasonable.)
Typical traps are "could be true" or "likely to be true answers" (since they're not "must be true all the time"); exaggerated answers; new info answers; shell game (stimulus is about chickens, but answer choice is about turkeys); opposite answer (stimulus says Joe loves ice cream, answer says he does not love it at all); and reverse answers (Jill is running for President and Bob for Vice President but the answer says Bob is running for Pres, and Jill for VP).
And Main Point questions have to be accurate summaries of the whole passage and its message, not just reporting on one little point in the passage.

Assumptions...are a difficult kettle of fish, but there are ways to deal with them. It's sort of like mind-reading, in that you have to guess what the stimulus is assuming as an unstated premise.
An assumption is something necessary (unlike a good Justify answer, which is sufficient, not necessarily necessary), so that it is often a slender, minimalist answer. By contrast, a Justify answer may have additional baggage along with it, which is not necessary, just hanging around.
Supporter assumptions link up pieces of a chain (so that if A B, and the conclusion is A C, the right answer should be B C or such), and Defender assumptions are sort of like an anti-virus program, in that they swat away things that could attach the conclusion (if the stimulus says I'm going to be attacked by either Dracula or Frankenstein, and the conclusion is that I'm going to be attacked by Drac, the assumption that I won't be attacked by Frank would be helpful).
And the venerable Assumption Negation Technique, testing your chosen answer and seeing if it attacks the conclusion if negated (since your answer should prop up the conclusion...so negating the prop-up should make the conclusion collapse), is always helpful.

Those are some worthwhile pointers, I believe. Let us know if you need some more!

Hope this helps,
David

[rochelleb180]

Thanks David, I will let you know.

Rochelle

[rochelleb180]

Hello David,

I want to start by telling you thank you for your last blog on Retaking the LSAT in February. In that blog you discuss the best way to take practice tests and that is exactly where I am. I am taking the practice tests with a study buddy in the morning, reviewing the test by myself, per your recommendations and then later on in the evening, reviewing with my study buddy (gives me a chance to teach). I begin this process on Monday and we will do three tests per week. I will let you know my progress.

Also, I've taken about ten practice tests on my own and I am seeing slow steady progress, about one/ two points per test. The free practice test scoring is amazing and valuable in tracking my progress and pointing out the areas that I can improve on. Herein lies my problem. I vary from test to test on what question types that I need to improve on. I'm not worried about that because as I keep re-reading my notes daily,( it takes two hours per day) and as a result, I get better. However, what keeps showing up on the improvement section for LR every time or nearly every time are the forms Cause and Effect and Sufficient and Necessary. What I've noticed is that I score the best when those forms are not in the Logical Reasoning sections. It slows me down and I usually get them wrong. I don't know how to master those two forms. I'm very good at the form Numbers and Percentages.

Also, I'm getting much better with Assumptions but I'm having a problem with Justify question types. When I'm testing, I'm great at identifying the Justify question type, but then I blank out and I don't know what to do with the question, unlike Methods (I score real well on them). As soon as I see a Method question, I know what to do with that. If it is a straight weakener or must be true, then I get it right, but as soon as CE or SN comes into the picture, I wind up taking a long time with the question and I usually get it wrong and I only realize that it is CE or SN when I use the practice test scorer. This brings me to my point - I don't know how to master the question types and / or the forms, which was the first set of instructions that you gave me. I've read all three bibles twice (cover to cover) and I am starting a third reading. I like this stuff so I don't mind. Anyway, do you have any suggestions. Also, about once a week, for the past two weeks, I've been using the flashcards for both logical reasoning and logic games. Can you help me? Rochelle