Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A Forum
-
- Posts: 559
- Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 11:18 am
Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A
I have trouble with RC but especially with those Analogy questions where they ask you the find the most analogous situation described in the passage.
How do I get better at that? You see, most of the time I would either misunderstand what the analogy would be or I wouldn't be able to find the difference between answer choices.
Help?
How do I get better at that? You see, most of the time I would either misunderstand what the analogy would be or I wouldn't be able to find the difference between answer choices.
Help?
- matt@manhattanlsat
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:58 pm
Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A
Those are tough, especially if you're still developing your proficiency with abstraction. Abstraction is the skill of being able to talk about the issue at hand without discussing any of the actual content, but rather the purpose of some information or relationship of that information to other information.
Think of Function/Role, Procedure, and ID Flaw questions in LR. All of these questions ask you to abstract from the given content into either the purpose of that information or the relationship between some information and other information.
In RC, start working on this skill with what we call the Passage Map. We're really focused on leaving the passage with a good understanding of two things - the important content and the purpose of that content in the passage. If you haven't checked out our RC Strategy Guide, you can get an in-depth discussion and practice on these skills there. The gist of it is to track the arguments being presented, the proponents of those arguments, and the evidence used to support those arguments - that's the important content. Then describe (without referring to that content) the purpose of that information - that's the passage map.
Over time, you'll get better at describing things in an abstract way. You can check your improvement with questions that ask you to describe the organization of the passage. Once you feel you've got the ability to describe abstractly, you should find it easier to describe the relationship between two pieces of information. Try using your own analogy before comparing it to the answer choices. The one you come up with might be simpler, but that should give you a good starting point. Then if more than one answer choice looks to have a similar relationship, look for any additional level of complexity (added nuance) that might distinguish the two answers from each and compare them to the original analogous relationship.
Hope that helps and good luck!
Think of Function/Role, Procedure, and ID Flaw questions in LR. All of these questions ask you to abstract from the given content into either the purpose of that information or the relationship between some information and other information.
In RC, start working on this skill with what we call the Passage Map. We're really focused on leaving the passage with a good understanding of two things - the important content and the purpose of that content in the passage. If you haven't checked out our RC Strategy Guide, you can get an in-depth discussion and practice on these skills there. The gist of it is to track the arguments being presented, the proponents of those arguments, and the evidence used to support those arguments - that's the important content. Then describe (without referring to that content) the purpose of that information - that's the passage map.
Over time, you'll get better at describing things in an abstract way. You can check your improvement with questions that ask you to describe the organization of the passage. Once you feel you've got the ability to describe abstractly, you should find it easier to describe the relationship between two pieces of information. Try using your own analogy before comparing it to the answer choices. The one you come up with might be simpler, but that should give you a good starting point. Then if more than one answer choice looks to have a similar relationship, look for any additional level of complexity (added nuance) that might distinguish the two answers from each and compare them to the original analogous relationship.
Hope that helps and good luck!
- Manhattan LSAT Noah
- Posts: 744
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:43 am
Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A
This should be available by the end of this week. Thanks for your patience.Fianna13 wrote:Is there an E-book version of the 3rd edition LG? I only found the 2nd edition e-book version on the website... and where do we put the promotion code to receive the discount ?
- BlaqBella
- Posts: 868
- Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:41 am
Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A
Matt, Noah, my question is two-fold.
I've identified two types of principle questions and want to know if I am correct in this approach:
1. Those that apply a principle (you are given a principle and you need to apply it to a scenario). I call this applied principle; and
2. Those where you have a argument and you need to support it with some general application (or principle, if you will). I call this principle support.
And my second question: how does principle support questions differ from justify/paradox questions? Or for that matter a strengthen question?? Are these not overlapping in question type identification?
I've identified two types of principle questions and want to know if I am correct in this approach:
1. Those that apply a principle (you are given a principle and you need to apply it to a scenario). I call this applied principle; and
2. Those where you have a argument and you need to support it with some general application (or principle, if you will). I call this principle support.
And my second question: how does principle support questions differ from justify/paradox questions? Or for that matter a strengthen question?? Are these not overlapping in question type identification?
- Manhattan LSAT Noah
- Posts: 744
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:43 am
Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A
Thanks for asking. I think looking for connections between types is a great undertaking. There's a tendency to focus on the differences between question types, but I think there's a lot of strength in figuring out how things are related.BlaqBella wrote:Matt, Noah, my question is two-fold.
I've identified two types of principle questions and want to know if I am correct in this approach:
1. Those that apply a principle (you are given a principle and you need to apply it to a scenario). I call this applied principle; and
2. Those where you have a argument and you need to support it with some general application (or principle, if you will). I call this principle support.
And my second question: how does principle support questions differ from justify/paradox questions? Or for that matter a strengthen question?? Are these not overlapping in question type identification?
We call what you're talking about "principle example" and "principle support." The first kind is not in the assumption family, and is a type of matching question as you are matching the principle to the phenomenon. The second type of principle questions is a proud member of the assumption family (sort of an LSAT mafia), standing alongside--as you note---strengthen questions (as well as flaw, assumption, and weaken). As with all assumption family questions, there's a gap in the argument, and the answer will address it. It's a bit related to sufficient assumption questions in that the answer can be broader than the argument.
One could argue that there are some similarities between principle support and paradox questions ("explain a result" in our language) since you have to make the stimulus "work." However there's a big difference in how we define "working" in these two question types: in the assumption family, working means to support the idea that the conclusion follows logically (is "concludable") from the given premises. In explain a result questions, we're identifying a way that two phenomena can coexist, even though they seem to be at odds.
That clear it up?
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- BlaqBella
- Posts: 868
- Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:41 am
Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A
Manhattan LSAT Noah wrote:Thanks for asking. I think looking for connections between types is a great undertaking. There's a tendency to focus on the differences between question types, but I think there's a lot of strength in figuring out how things are related.BlaqBella wrote:Matt, Noah, my question is two-fold.
I've identified two types of principle questions and want to know if I am correct in this approach:
1. Those that apply a principle (you are given a principle and you need to apply it to a scenario). I call this applied principle; and
2. Those where you have a argument and you need to support it with some general application (or principle, if you will). I call this principle support.
And my second question: how does principle support questions differ from justify/paradox questions? Or for that matter a strengthen question?? Are these not overlapping in question type identification?
We call what you're talking about "principle example" and "principle support." The first kind is not in the assumption family, and is a type of matching question as you are matching the principle to the phenomenon. The second type of principle questions is a proud member of the assumption family (sort of an LSAT mafia), standing alongside--as you note---strengthen questions (as well as flaw, assumption, and weaken). As with all assumption family questions, there's a gap in the argument, and the answer will address it. It's a bit related to sufficient assumption questions in that the answer can be broader than the argument.
One could argue that there are some similarities between principle support and paradox questions ("explain a result" in our language) since you have to make the stimulus "work." However there's a big difference in how we define "working" in these two question types: in the assumption family, working means to support the idea that the conclusion follows logically (is "concludable") from the given premises. In explain a result questions, we're identifying a way that two phenomena can coexist, even though they seem to be at odds.
That clear it up?
10000% clear as day! THANK YOU SOOO MUCH!
- BlaqBella
- Posts: 868
- Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:41 am
Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A
Noah, sorry for pestering this point, but I just have to ask:
PT63, Section 1, Q11
This question can be considered a justify the phenomena/explain a result/paradox. I do not consider this either a principle support or sufficient assumption because there is NO argument. Just a statement of facts (in this case, a decision).
But what I realize here is that we are approaching the question in the same direction as we would a question that is part of the assumption family - DOWN to UP (answer to stimulus). This is the first question type I have encountered where I take this approach but it is NOT for an argument.
In my attempt to simplify my approach to LR questions, would it be safe to say that justify the phenomena (not to be confused with justify the conclusion/sufficient assumption)/paradox/explain a result questions are in a category of their own (sort of like inference questions where we do not have an argument but we are approaching in the opposite direction (stimulus to answer)?
Thank you in advance!
PT63, Section 1, Q11
This question can be considered a justify the phenomena/explain a result/paradox. I do not consider this either a principle support or sufficient assumption because there is NO argument. Just a statement of facts (in this case, a decision).
But what I realize here is that we are approaching the question in the same direction as we would a question that is part of the assumption family - DOWN to UP (answer to stimulus). This is the first question type I have encountered where I take this approach but it is NOT for an argument.
In my attempt to simplify my approach to LR questions, would it be safe to say that justify the phenomena (not to be confused with justify the conclusion/sufficient assumption)/paradox/explain a result questions are in a category of their own (sort of like inference questions where we do not have an argument but we are approaching in the opposite direction (stimulus to answer)?
Thank you in advance!
- Manhattan LSAT Noah
- Posts: 744
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:43 am
Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A
Nice catch! That is a bit of a category-bender. Let's dig into that a bit, but more importantly for you is that an LR question that doesn't fit into one category or another is rare, and, on balance are pretty easy (or, the difficulty is not because of the question format, but because of the usual reasons any LSAT question is tough). Your natural logic skills are stronger after X months of LSAT prep, so even when the test throws in a minor curve, I'm sure you'll be able to adjust. So, don't spend too much worry on things like this; it's moving fast and accurately through the standard questions and giving up (with an educated guess) on the "impossible" ones that will give you the space you need to battle it out with the tough-but-doable questions which tip your score toward the higher end of your range.BlaqBella wrote:Noah, sorry for pestering this point, but I just have to ask:
PT63, Section 1, Q11
This question can be considered a justify the phenomena/explain a result/paradox. I do not consider this either a principle support or sufficient assumption because there is NO argument. Just a statement of facts (in this case, a decision).
But what I realize here is that we are approaching the question in the same direction as we would a question that is part of the assumption family - DOWN to UP (answer to stimulus). This is the first question type I have encountered where I take this approach but it is NOT for an argument.
In my attempt to simplify my approach to LR questions, would it be safe to say that justify the phenomena (not to be confused with justify the conclusion/sufficient assumption)/paradox/explain a result questions are in a category of their own (sort of like inference questions where we do not have an argument but we are approaching in the opposite direction (stimulus to answer)?
Thank you in advance!
Anywho, back to that question--the stem is for an assumption family question, but it's really a principle example question. Which principle matches the scenario. As for whether we can say we'll always approach these stimulus to answer or vice versa, I see what you mean in that the answer to this question makes the stimulus "work." So, fire away!
And Meyer, you suck.
-
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 6:39 pm
Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A
I just ordered the 3rd Edition Trilogy off Amazon. Is there a way someone can send me the self study guide for mlsat? Im trying to get everything prepped before my books get here on Monday!
Thanks
Thanks
- Manhattan LSAT Noah
- Posts: 744
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:43 am
Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A
Sure. I just pm'ed you details_crystal_m wrote:I just ordered the 3rd Edition Trilogy off Amazon. Is there a way someone can send me the self study guide for mlsat? Im trying to get everything prepped before my books get here on Monday!
Thanks
- arcanecircle
- Posts: 87
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 12:33 am
Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A
I was wondering where you'd stick Evaluate questions into the layout on your LR book. I might have missed it in the book since they're a very infrequent question type. Doing them I felt they were similar to the assumption-type questions and so I did them after finishing up flaws, NA/SAs, weakens/strengthens. It seems kind of similar to anticipating/identifying discrepancies in an argument, except you're looking for the AC in the form of a question.
- matt@manhattanlsat
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:58 pm
Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A
These questions are extremely rare and we haven't seen one of them on the LSAT in 15 years - the most recent one I can remember is from December 1997.arcanecircle wrote:I was wondering where you'd stick Evaluate questions into the layout on your LR book. I might have missed it in the book since they're a very infrequent question type. Doing them I felt they were similar to the assumption-type questions and so I did them after finishing up flaws, NA/SAs, weakens/strengthens. It seems kind of similar to anticipating/identifying discrepancies in an argument, except you're looking for the AC in the form of a question.
That said we would place this task in the Assumption Family. The right answer asks a question directly related to an assumption of the argument. The answer to the question asked in the correct answer would either suggest that the assumption of the argument is true (would Strengthen the argument) or not true (would Weaken the argument). It's best on these questions to evaluate the Argument and find the assumption - the question will address whether the assumption is true.
-
- Posts: 297
- Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:05 am
Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A
Geeks, I just bought the 2nd edition of the RC book and this one part is tripping me up. ON page 60, you said if a piece of text says most people prefer brand x over brand y, then you can infer
1 .most people do not prefer brand y
2. at least some people prefer brand y to brand x
my question is can you really infer those 2. for the 1st one, what if everyone still prefer brand y, its just relative to x, they prefer brand x more, but that doesn't mean they do not prefer y. and for the 2nd one, what if besides those who prefer x over y, then rest of them have no preferences between these two brands, so how can we infer the 2nd statement? Any help?
1 .most people do not prefer brand y
2. at least some people prefer brand y to brand x
my question is can you really infer those 2. for the 1st one, what if everyone still prefer brand y, its just relative to x, they prefer brand x more, but that doesn't mean they do not prefer y. and for the 2nd one, what if besides those who prefer x over y, then rest of them have no preferences between these two brands, so how can we infer the 2nd statement? Any help?
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- matt@manhattanlsat
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:58 pm
Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A
Great questions!Fianna13 wrote:my question is can you really infer those 2. for the 1st one, what if everyone still prefer brand y, its just relative to x, they prefer brand x more, but that doesn't mean they do not prefer y. and for the 2nd one, what if besides those who prefer x over y, then rest of them have no preferences between these two brands, so how can we infer the 2nd statement? Any help?
The first one is easier to address. The word "prefer" is by definition relative. So saying that "most people prefer brand Y" must be relative to brand X, given the context. And with the statement that "most people prefer brand X to brand Y," we can infer that "most people do not prefer brand Y to brand X."
To your second question. Reading Comprehension is typically a bit "fuzzier" than Logical Reasoning. We often see this in the language of the question stem. We're more likely to see questions that say, "which one of the following inferences is most supported in the passage?" As opposed to questions saying, "which one of the following can be inferred from the passage?" That gives the answer choice a little wiggle room. If the passage stated "most people prefer brand X to brand Y," while it need not be absolutely true, there is support for the claim that some people prefer brand Y to brand X. Otherwise, why wouldn't the author just say all people prefer brand X to brand Y?
But for the most part, you are absolutely right. If most X's are Y's, that does not mean that some X's are not Y's. I think you'll need to hold the LSAT to this strict logic much more so in LR than in RC. Hope that helps!
- crazyrobin
- Posts: 442
- Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:52 am
Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A
Hi Matt and Noah,
I have order both PS & Manhattan LR books, currently I have completed LRB with chapter 2,3,4 17, which are must be true/most strongly supported/CANNOT be true type of questions.
I was just wondering do you guys recommend some specific order on both books? Like do LRB first then Manhattan or vice versa. I intend to go with Manhattan after I complete LRB. Any suggestions?
BTW, I love your RC book
I have order both PS & Manhattan LR books, currently I have completed LRB with chapter 2,3,4 17, which are must be true/most strongly supported/CANNOT be true type of questions.
I was just wondering do you guys recommend some specific order on both books? Like do LRB first then Manhattan or vice versa. I intend to go with Manhattan after I complete LRB. Any suggestions?
BTW, I love your RC book
- matt@manhattanlsat
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:58 pm
Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A
Hi crazyrobin!
So glad to hear that you're finding the RC Strategy Guide helpful. I think you'll find the LR Strategy Guide just the same. We believe that the Manhattan Strategy Guides are great independent of other learning tools, so no, we do not recommend any particular order.
One thing that strikes me from your chapter descriptions is that the topics of the LR section are presented in a different order between the two books. If you intend to go through both, take them both on as collective wholes. Don't try to find the various topics in each book and work on them simultaneously.
Good luck and keep us posted on your progress!
So glad to hear that you're finding the RC Strategy Guide helpful. I think you'll find the LR Strategy Guide just the same. We believe that the Manhattan Strategy Guides are great independent of other learning tools, so no, we do not recommend any particular order.
One thing that strikes me from your chapter descriptions is that the topics of the LR section are presented in a different order between the two books. If you intend to go through both, take them both on as collective wholes. Don't try to find the various topics in each book and work on them simultaneously.
Good luck and keep us posted on your progress!
-
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:41 pm
Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A
I started with the PS books for LR and LG. After a number of PTs, I had my LG and RC sections down, but my LR would range from -0 to -5 (which is an uncomfortably large range, in my opinion). I've recently started working through the Manhattan LR book, and I absolutely find it useful. I think the PS books do a good job breaking down all the question types very specifically, while Manhattan kind of jumps more into it (question type by question type), so I do think the PS-then-Manhattan works well.crazyrobin wrote:Hi Matt and Noah,
I have order both PS & Manhattan LR books, currently I have completed LRB with chapter 2,3,4 17, which are must be true/most strongly supported/CANNOT be true type of questions.
I was just wondering do you guys recommend some specific order on both books? Like do LRB first then Manhattan or vice versa. I intend to go with Manhattan after I complete LRB. Any suggestions?
BTW, I love your RC book
Personally, I think PS provides a good introduction to all the question types and would be really annoying to read through after Manhattan, but some of the approaches Manhattan provides have already helped me (and I am but a few chapters in).
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- crazyrobin
- Posts: 442
- Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:52 am
Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A
Matt, thank you for the advice!!!! I almost fall prey on the trap of working on the two books simultaneously.matt@manhattanlsat wrote:Hi crazyrobin!
So glad to hear that you're finding the RC Strategy Guide helpful. I think you'll find the LR Strategy Guide just the same. We believe that the Manhattan Strategy Guides are great independent of other learning tools, so no, we do not recommend any particular order.
One thing that strikes me from your chapter descriptions is that the topics of the LR section are presented in a different order between the two books. If you intend to go through both, take them both on as collective wholes. Don't try to find the various topics in each book and work on them simultaneously.
Good luck and keep us posted on your progress!
Malapropism, thank you for the info. I will definitely go with PS-then-Manhattan approach.Malapropism wrote: I started with the PS books for LR and LG. After a number of PTs, I had my LG and RC sections down, but my LR would range from -0 to -5 (which is an uncomfortably large range, in my opinion). I've recently started working through the Manhattan LR book, and I absolutely find it useful. I think the PS books do a good job breaking down all the question types very specifically, while Manhattan kind of jumps more into it (question type by question type), so I do think the PS-then-Manhattan works well.
Personally, I think PS provides a good introduction to all the question types and would be really annoying to read through after Manhattan, but some of the approaches Manhattan provides have already helped me (and I am but a few chapters in).
Bravo!!!
-
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:56 pm
Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A
Hey Noah-
If I may ask a specific question...
PT 61 OCT 2010
sec4
#5
I'm still not satisfied after having read the Manhattan explanation.
I have it narrowed down to C and D. C is right and D is wrong.
The flaw with D is that one can't expect a spectator to have memorized lines of the performance. This is an assumption you'd have to make. But my problem with C is that you would have to assume the actor didn't possess a copy of the text. I guess I'm having trouble distinguishing how the assumption is bad in choice D and warranted in choice C.
Thanks so much!
If I may ask a specific question...
PT 61 OCT 2010
sec4
#5
I'm still not satisfied after having read the Manhattan explanation.
I have it narrowed down to C and D. C is right and D is wrong.
The flaw with D is that one can't expect a spectator to have memorized lines of the performance. This is an assumption you'd have to make. But my problem with C is that you would have to assume the actor didn't possess a copy of the text. I guess I'm having trouble distinguishing how the assumption is bad in choice D and warranted in choice C.
Thanks so much!
- Cobretti
- Posts: 2593
- Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:45 am
Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A
I think the problem with D is that the spectator would be unlikely to only remember one person's lines perfectly, they would likely look at the play as a whole. You could possibly assume the spectator was that actor's mom though, I suppose . But the point is that it doesn't address why only one character's lines were memorized.lawschoolplease1 wrote:Hey Noah-
If I may ask a specific question...
PT 61 OCT 2010
sec4
#5
I'm still not satisfied after having read the Manhattan explanation.
I have it narrowed down to C and D. C is right and D is wrong.
The flaw with D is that one can't expect a spectator to have memorized lines of the performance. This is an assumption you'd have to make. But my problem with C is that you would have to assume the actor didn't possess a copy of the text. I guess I'm having trouble distinguishing how the assumption is bad in choice D and warranted in choice C.
Thanks so much!
I see what you're saying with C, but you aren't making that assumption, its given to you. It doesn't say "An actor that doesn't own a copy...", but you're already under the assumption that he doesn't have a copy because that's given to you by the stem.
-
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:56 pm
Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A
wow- thanks for the quick response!mrizza wrote:I think the problem with D is that the spectator would be unlikely to only remember one person's lines perfectly, they would likely look at the play as a whole. You could possibly assume the spectator was that actor's mom though, I suppose . But the point is that it doesn't address why only one character's lines were memorized.
I see what you're saying with C, but you aren't making that assumption, its given to you. It doesn't say "An actor that doesn't own a copy...", but you're already under the assumption that he doesn't have a copy because that's given to you by the stem.
but i'm still on the fence.
With D- yea, i completely agree that it's unlikely, but with the LSATs, can you just eliminate an answer because it's unlikely? (I feel as though some questions and answers get me to say, "are you kidding me right now?!") what if the spectator had a sick memory?
with C- if you choose C, aren't you assuming that this actor didn't possess a copy? the stimulus doesn't say "an actor that doesn own a copy," but in selecting it, aren't you making that assumption?
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Cobretti
- Posts: 2593
- Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:45 am
Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A
I think your problem with this Q is that it didn't match exactly what you had preformed as your answer. Its true that it would be more supported if it said explicitly an actor that doesn't own a copy. However, an actor that doesn't own a copy is a type of actor. So it is still absolutely supported that it was produced by an actor.lawschoolplease1 wrote:wow- thanks for the quick response!mrizza wrote:I think the problem with D is that the spectator would be unlikely to only remember one person's lines perfectly, they would likely look at the play as a whole. You could possibly assume the spectator was that actor's mom though, I suppose . But the point is that it doesn't address why only one character's lines were memorized.
I see what you're saying with C, but you aren't making that assumption, its given to you. It doesn't say "An actor that doesn't own a copy...", but you're already under the assumption that he doesn't have a copy because that's given to you by the stem.
but i'm still on the fence.
With D- yea, i completely agree that it's unlikely, but with the LSATs, can you just eliminate an answer because it's unlikely? (I feel as though some questions and answers get me to say, "are you kidding me right now?!") what if the spectator had a sick memory?
with C- if you choose C, aren't you assuming that this actor didn't possess a copy? the stimulus doesn't say "an actor that doesn own a copy," but in selecting it, aren't you making that assumption?
-
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:56 pm
Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A
I see it now!mrizza wrote:I think your problem with this Q is that it didn't match exactly what you had preformed as your answer. Its true that it would be more supported if it said explicitly an actor that doesn't own a copy. However, an actor that doesn't own a copy is a type of actor. So it is still absolutely supported that it was produced by an actor.lawschoolplease1 wrote:wow- thanks for the quick response!mrizza wrote:I think the problem with D is that the spectator would be unlikely to only remember one person's lines perfectly, they would likely look at the play as a whole. You could possibly assume the spectator was that actor's mom though, I suppose . But the point is that it doesn't address why only one character's lines were memorized.
I see what you're saying with C, but you aren't making that assumption, its given to you. It doesn't say "An actor that doesn't own a copy...", but you're already under the assumption that he doesn't have a copy because that's given to you by the stem.
but i'm still on the fence.
With D- yea, i completely agree that it's unlikely, but with the LSATs, can you just eliminate an answer because it's unlikely? (I feel as though some questions and answers get me to say, "are you kidding me right now?!") what if the spectator had a sick memory?
with C- if you choose C, aren't you assuming that this actor didn't possess a copy? the stimulus doesn't say "an actor that doesn own a copy," but in selecting it, aren't you making that assumption?
an actor with or without a copy is still an actor!
in my opinion, this question is one of those fishy ones as opposes to straightforward yes/no ah-ha! questions, but i see how C is the better supported answer. thanks so much!
- Typhoon24
- Posts: 649
- Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:09 pm
Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A
Hey Matt and Noah,
First I want to say that your MLSAT guides probably have had a vital role in my improvement on the LSAT (If there's anything the test taught me, it's to never use language that is too strong when there could be other possibilities )! I used to PT around -7 a section and now it's down to -2 or -3. I have two questions:
1. Do you have any tips on how to improve speed on Matching questions? I usually don't have trouble getting these questions right, it is just that when I'm done analyzing the argument structure of the stimulus and the 5 answer choices, I'm usually already at the 2-minute mark even before I've chosen an answer.
2. Whenever I'm reading an Identify the flaw question, I always manage to pre-phrase what the flaw is before reading the answer choices. I have a good idea of the argument core and then try and word the gap in my head. My problem is this: sometimes, the correct answer mentions a different flaw then the one I had in mind or words it in a convoluted way that often confuses me and gets me to waste time. Do you have any ideas as to how to help with this situation? I know the question is vague, but it boils down to "how much and to what extent should one pre-phrase answers on identify a flaw questions to be successful on them?"
Thanks in advance.
First I want to say that your MLSAT guides probably have had a vital role in my improvement on the LSAT (If there's anything the test taught me, it's to never use language that is too strong when there could be other possibilities )! I used to PT around -7 a section and now it's down to -2 or -3. I have two questions:
1. Do you have any tips on how to improve speed on Matching questions? I usually don't have trouble getting these questions right, it is just that when I'm done analyzing the argument structure of the stimulus and the 5 answer choices, I'm usually already at the 2-minute mark even before I've chosen an answer.
2. Whenever I'm reading an Identify the flaw question, I always manage to pre-phrase what the flaw is before reading the answer choices. I have a good idea of the argument core and then try and word the gap in my head. My problem is this: sometimes, the correct answer mentions a different flaw then the one I had in mind or words it in a convoluted way that often confuses me and gets me to waste time. Do you have any ideas as to how to help with this situation? I know the question is vague, but it boils down to "how much and to what extent should one pre-phrase answers on identify a flaw questions to be successful on them?"
Thanks in advance.
- matt@manhattanlsat
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:58 pm
Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A
Hey Typhoon 24! Glad that you're getting a lot out of the strategy guides!Typhoon24 wrote:Hey Matt and Noah,
First I want to say that your MLSAT guides probably have had a vital role in my improvement on the LSAT (If there's anything the test taught me, it's to never use language that is too strong when there could be other possibilities )! I used to PT around -7 a section and now it's down to -2 or -3. I have two questions:
1. Do you have any tips on how to improve speed on Matching questions? I usually don't have trouble getting these questions right, it is just that when I'm done analyzing the argument structure of the stimulus and the 5 answer choices, I'm usually already at the 2-minute mark even before I've chosen an answer.
2. Whenever I'm reading an Identify the flaw question, I always manage to pre-phrase what the flaw is before reading the answer choices. I have a good idea of the argument core and then try and word the gap in my head. My problem is this: sometimes, the correct answer mentions a different flaw then the one I had in mind or words it in a convoluted way that often confuses me and gets me to waste time. Do you have any ideas as to how to help with this situation? I know the question is vague, but it boils down to "how much and to what extent should one pre-phrase answers on identify a flaw questions to be successful on them?"
Thanks in advance.
To your first question: To improve your timing on Matching questions check the structure the argument first. If you see something rather distinct (like a conclusion that consists of a conditional statement with an "or" in the necessary condition), you could probably use that to make some faster eliminations. Just as likely though, you'll need to get faster at the easy questions. It's a time issue. Why not pull time from easier questions and spend it on the lengthier questions (like Matching questions toward the end of the section)?
To your second question: it's always good to prephrase answers in your head. You should still remain flexible though. There's usually more than one flaw in an argument anyway - so even if you correctly describe a flaw in the argument, it may still not match the flaw described in the correct answer. What makes Flaw questions tough is reading through some very abstract way of describing something very specific in the stimulus. (ex: moral socialization is described in answer choice (D) as a "behavior" and in answer choice (E) as a "phenomenon").
Sounds like you're on the right track Typhoon24!
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login