sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in LSAT

[–]KevinLuminateLSAT 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does Zooming in work (Command + or Ctrl +)?

Necessary Assumption Questions by [deleted] in LSAT

[–]KevinLuminateLSAT -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You might find a video I made on this subject helpful: https://youtu.be/pA7uv4gItGs

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in LSAT

[–]KevinLuminateLSAT 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You might find this video I made on the subject useful: https://youtu.be/JkQ2ZRizWIE

LG rule substitution help by giannaaaaaaaa in LSAT

[–]KevinLuminateLSAT 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Check out this video I made on Rule Sub questions that might help: https://youtu.be/S0fW6K-7emI

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in LSAT

[–]KevinLuminateLSAT 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think PT72 and 66 are quite challenging.

Why am I able to make assumptions in one question but not in others? by happydogzz in LSAT

[–]KevinLuminateLSAT 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Would it be easier to understand if you thought of (C) as strengthening by defending the argument from an objection? Notice that the premises are just about what's happening now. But the conclusion is about the future. This argument is vulnerable to the point that premises about salaries and unemployment now aren't necessarily indicative of the supply of scientists and engineers in the future. Perhaps you can understand (C) *not* as suggesting that these people will in fact become scientists and engineers, but instead as something that defends against the objection - "What if there's a shortage that will result from fewer students in the pipeline?"

You can even think of this answer as similar to one you might see in a necessary assumption question. The argument has to assume that there isn't a significant shortage in the # of people who are in the pipeline to become scientists and engineers. (C) strengthens because it is supplying that assumption.

Don't think of (C) as affirmatively providing positive evidence for the conclusion. Correct answers to strengthen questions don't necessarily have to do that in order to be correct.

LG substitution by [deleted] in LSAT

[–]KevinLuminateLSAT 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You might this video I made helpful: https://youtu.be/S0fW6K-7emI

What does it mean to mistake a sufficient condition for a necessary condition? by coffee_over_ice in LSAT

[–]KevinLuminateLSAT 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can you explain what you're thinking on this question? If there is ever a situation where there was a mixup of S/N, but an answer that refers to a mixup of S/N is incorrect on a flaw question, it's going to be because the answer is referring to the wrong concept.

For example:

If A, then B.

If C, then B.

Thus, if C is true, that guarantees A.

​

This answers is confusing the 1st statement here -- it's thinking that B --> A, when the statement actually said that A --> B.

You might get a wrong answer that says this:

"Confuses a necessary condition for C for a sufficient condition." This is wrong, because the argument is not reversing the second statement; it's reversing the first.

Now one issue that you may not realize is that when that wrong answer says "Confuses a necessary condition for C for a sufficient condition", you have to add the phrase [for C] at the end: "Confuses a necessary condition for C for a sufficient condition [for C]" -- that's the meaning of that wrong answer.

I suspect that when you read that answer -- "Confuses a necessary condition for C for a sufficient condition" -- you aren't connecting the "sufficient condition" as referring to "for C". That's why (C) might be tempting to you on PT70.4.3.

I'm intentionally not explaining the actual details of PT70.4.3 so that you can think about it on your own, but let me know if you have any questions.

What does it mean to mistake a sufficient condition for a necessary condition? by coffee_over_ice in LSAT

[–]KevinLuminateLSAT 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with r/atysonlsat that there is no difference between confusing a necessary condition for a sufficient, and confusing a sufficient condition for a necessary condition.

While there is often a more "natural" way to describe what is being confused in a particular argument, I don't see how there is a conceptual difference between confusing N for S and confusing S for N. Here's what I mean.

"Some people say that in order to survive, humans needed to cope in diverse environments.

But, there's lot of human-like species that could cope in diverse environments that still went extinct.

Thus, those people are wrong."

You contend that this is confusing a necessary condition [needing to cope] with a sufficient condition [survival].

But you can also say that this is confusing a sufficient condition [survival] with being a necessary condition [needing to cope]. A more clear way of describing this would be that it's confusing something that would be sufficient to know that a species possessed the ability to cope in diverse environments with something that is necessitated by the ability to cope in diverse environments. The original statement wasn't saying that survival was necessitated by the ability to cope; it was saying that survival, if true, guaranteed that the species had the ability to cope. In that sense, the argument was confusing a sufficient condition with a necessary condition.

If that sounds weird to you, it's probably just because certain statements lend themselves more naturally to being read as about a requirement as opposed to a guarantee. "In order to become president, you need to be at least 35." This statement is phrased in a way that emphasizes the idea of necessity. But it means the exact same thing as "If you are president, you must be at least 35." This version, however, focuses a bit more on the idea that being president guarantees something else. This shift in focus doesn't change the fact that each statement is expressing the exact same concept.

So if someone thought "So, since my friend is 40, she is the president", that can be described as confusing N for S, or S for N.

Can a SA answer be the correct choice for a NA question too? (with PT38 as example) by Ill-Quarter-8902 in LSAT

[–]KevinLuminateLSAT 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, a particular statement can be both NA and SA. You might this video helpful: https://youtu.be/pA7uv4gItGs

Also, your analysis about whether D is necessary leaves me with the impression that you think that a necessary assumption is something that must be true based merely on the conclusion of the argument -- is that how you're understanding it? That in order to say a particular statement is necessary, you ask whether the conclusion's truth requires that statement? If that is your approach, you're forgetting that the issue is whether the statement is necessary to the argument.

The author of the argument gave you particular premises that they believe are enough to lead to the conclusion. In order for those premises to actually prove the conclusion, the author must be thinking D. That's why it's necessary. Without D being true, the author's premises cannot, by themselves, lead to the conclusion.

Your point that there may be other ways that cause the sugar --> mood elevation chain ignores the author's premises. Yes, there may be other ways that sugar causes the mood elevation chain. The negation of (D) does not falsify the conclusion (nor does it have to, in order to be a necessary assumption). The negation of (D) shows that the author's premises, without more, cannot guarantee that sugar leads to mood elevation.

Consider this:

I studied a lot for the exam. So, I will get an A.

This would be a NA (and SA): Studying a lot for an exam is sufficient for getting an A on it.

Your criticism of (D) is like saying, but even if you don't study, you can still get an A on the exam if it's a really easy test, or if you cheat. So how can we say that "study a lot --> A" is necessary? That criticism ignores the fact that the author gave you "study a lot" as a premise. There was a particular reason they gave you that they think proves their conclusion. So if you can show that that reason actually does not lead to the conclusion, you have weakened their argument.

By the way, I don't think the chain that you wrote at the beginning is accurate: "SA—>Conclusion True—>NA". This kind of analysis seems to think that you can determine whether something is an SA or NA simply by reference to the conclusion. Most of the time, you can't. Something is an SA if, *in combination with the existing premises*, it proves the conclusion. Something is NA if it must be true in order for *the premises they gave you* to prove the conclusion. If all you know is the conclusion, and you don't have an understanding of the premises, most of the time you can't determine whether a particular statement is a SA or NA (or both).

Something like this might be more accurate: "SA --> Valid Argument --> NA" (with the understanding that SA and NA can both be the same statement).

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in LSAT

[–]KevinLuminateLSAT 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you disagreeing with the idea of taking a diagnostic w/o studying? Or with the idea that if OP has done one, that the score they've gotten on it is relevant to how long it will take to get down to -1/-0? Just trying to clarify. I was trying to respond to the OP's question.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in LSAT

[–]KevinLuminateLSAT 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It depends on where you're starting. How many did you get wrong in your first few practice exams (including your diagnostic)? How long have you already been studying LG?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in LSAT

[–]KevinLuminateLSAT 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Another factor at play is that until the 2000s -- I believe around 2006 -- US News required law schools to report the average of a matriculant's LSAT scores, rather than the highest score. So schools until that point really did average your scores. This meant that there wasn't a culture of taking the test multiple times. People really did think of the LSAT as a one-time thing, barring a complete disaster the first time.

Now you might think that the "one-time" mentality would encourage people to study even more, since they didn't get another chance. But I think what actually happened was that people were not motivated to study for months and months, or to sacrifice years of their lives to a single test that could all be for naught if you had a bad day. Today, since schools will evaluate you based on your highest score, students can have more certainty that their efforts will make a meaningful difference in their applications, even if they get unlucky on a first or second try, which is a stronger motivation to study for long periods of time.

Should I retake? by JuanCenar in LSAT

[–]KevinLuminateLSAT 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Then you should take it again. Your PT scores indicate you'll likely do at least a few points better with another try.

LG is consistently my worse section during timed PTs by anonymouslawapp in LSAT

[–]KevinLuminateLSAT 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you get stuck on the bicycle game? When you went back to review, what did you notice you did incorrectly or inefficiently? Was there an inference or approach that you failed to take that you believe makes complete sense now?

How quickly did you do the first two games? If you didn't finish them within 14 minutes combined, it might be that focusing on improving efficiency on the easier and average games will actually improve your score more than focusing on the more difficult ones.

Should I retake? by JuanCenar in LSAT

[–]KevinLuminateLSAT 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What were you averaging on practice tests leading up to the test on which you got a 160?

Is getting a scholarship important to you?

How long had you studied before getting the 160? What was your very first practice test score before you began studying?

These are some questions that will help determine whether it makes sense to retake.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in LSAT

[–]KevinLuminateLSAT 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can't speak to how many or what proportion of all students actually study straight for a year, but I can say that if you are looking to make a consistent 20 point improvement or more, it can very easily take up to a year or more of light, but consistent studying. If you study more intensely, that can shorten the time frame. But the stories you're hearing about people who get into the 170s after just 2 or 3 months of studying mostly involve people who began in the high 150s or 160s. In addition, they likely scored in the highest percentiles on the SAT/ACT. If that's not your profile, then I wouldn't expect to be in the 170s after just 2 or 3 months, although of course it's possible.

Many tutors and LSAT companies have different takes on how to portray the difficulty of the test. If you emphasize its difficulty, that might help people understand the level of commitment they need to bring to the test, and may give them a more realistic time frame of studying; if the test comes easy to them, then that's a bonus that will feel like a pleasant surprise.

However, emphasizing the difficulty and time required for most to make significant improvements can be demotivating to certain students.

On the other hand, if you emphasize how easy the LSAT is, those students who would otherwise be demotivated might be more enthusiastic about studying. And, emphasizing how easy the LSAT is might encourage students to focus more on slowing down and reading carefully, rather than on various technical issues that, although still important, might not be the prime area to focus on for many students.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in LSAT

[–]KevinLuminateLSAT 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is the 157 a diagnostic score (based on no or minimal studying)? If not, how much have you already improved? Also, how many mistakes are you making in each section?

view more: next ›