Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Cambridge LSAT

Pages: [1] 2 3
Studying for the LSAT / Free Updated LSAT Prep Tracking Spreadsheets
« on: November 12, 2012, 02:26:17 PM »
We've updated both of our prep spreadsheets to include PrepTest 67 (October 2012).

This workbook is for those of you who are working through games multiple times:
LSAT Logic Games Tracker

This one is for anyone taking recent PrepTests; it's designed to help you identify and target areas for improvement.
LSAT Test Tracking Spreadsheet

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Logic Game help?
« on: October 30, 2012, 03:07:15 PM »
The LG Bible is still relevant to recent tests, although some of the diagramming strategies (for Relative Ordering, or Pure Sequencing as they call it) are less than optimal. You should also check out the just-released 3rd edition of the Manhattan LSAT Logic Games Strategy Guide. It goes into great depth with each of the game types and is oriented towards recent games trends (equivalent rule questions, etc.).

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Formal Logic Question
« on: September 17, 2012, 03:17:36 PM »
We can't infer anything concrete about the relationship between A and C. The subsets of B that the two arrows lead to do not necessarily overlap.

On the other hand, the following would lead to an inference:
A <--- B ---> C

In this case we could infer that there would have to be some overlap between A and C, since some As are Bs, and those same As would necessarily be Cs.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: PT34 - June 2001 section IV #23 logic games
« on: August 08, 2010, 01:53:25 PM »
Here are the rules:
1) JS → KR; KS → JR (contrapositive)
2) JR → OS; OR → JS (contrapositive)
3.1) LS → NR; NS → LR (contrapositive)
3.2) LS → PR; PS → LR (contrapositive)
4) NR → OR; OS → NS (contrapositive)
5.1) PR → KS; KR → PS (contrapositive)
5.2) PR → OS; OR → PS (contrapositive)

You can break up the third and fifth rules for easier tracking. Once you chain everything up, you should end up with something like the following:

It's easiest to create the first chain and then flip and negate everything to obtain the second chain. Because LS leads to LR in both cases, we can infer that L must be assigned to Randsborough. This is not a common inference for an In/Out Grouping game. To see why N and P cannot both be at Randsborough, start from one of the two being assigned there. In the first chain, PR leads to NS, and in the second chain, NR leads to PS.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: LSAT Error!
« on: May 31, 2010, 11:25:32 AM »
The first and second rules define the time frame. The wording "are all aboard planes that are flying in the airshow" narrows the scope to the pilots and copilots flying concurrently. Therefore, none of the pilots or copilots can be on the ground within the framework of the game, nor can they switch planes, since they are in the air.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: PT-24-2-18 reconcile question
« on: May 27, 2010, 02:25:20 PM »
Choice B does not connect the conclusion to the evidence. It does provide a reason for the sixfold increase in funding, but it doesn't tell us why the funding is still inadequate. Choice E explains why a sixfold increase would still fall short of the required level of funding. If the funding ten years ago was almost nonexistent, such an increase would not likely represent a large number. The wetlands area, on the other hand, was already large ten years ago (stimulus). Thus, although the rate of funding increase is outpacing the rate of size increase, such an initial disparity between the levels explains how the level of funding could still be inadequate.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: PT 5 First Game
« on: May 26, 2010, 11:54:55 AM »
When any particular grade is given for more than one class, just stack the additional classes vertically. Since the number of classes per grade is wide open, start with one set of dashes for all the grades, and add more as needed. For example, here's the diagram for #1:

Studying for the LSAT / Re: PT-45-4-18
« on: May 12, 2010, 11:32:37 PM »

D The central administrations of large institutions are usually partially responsible for most of the details of daily operations.
E The people directly involved in implementing policies are always able to make innovative and realistic policy decisions.

Answer is A, anything wrong with D and E?

thanks a lot!

The underlined words in the two choices make them too strong for this particular question.

(D) while it is supported that central administrations are involved in the details of operation, the degree of involvement isn't delineated
(E) although decentralization permits and encourages these two things, that doesn't mean the people in charge are always able to make such decisions

Studying for the LSAT / Test Tracking Spreadsheet
« on: April 19, 2010, 06:50:16 PM »
Cambridge LSAT test tracking spreadsheet (Excel 2007)
Cambridge LSAT test tracking spreadsheet (Excel 97-2003)

The two versions don't differ in any way other than the color scheme. Shoot me a PM with any questions, glitches, and/or suggestions.

#9--Assumption question
I am stuck on B and C since when negated I think they both destroy the argument.
B--Price is never an accurate indication and C--Reputation doesn’t always indicate the quality are very similar to me (Price is always and Reputation does always)

In negating B, you have taken the polar opposite, as opposed to the logical opposite. Properly negated, it should read “Price is sometimes an accurate indication of the quality of a bottle of wine.” Since the negated form of choice B is compatible with the conclusion, it is incorrect.

#14--Must be true
D and E look similar to me too? Is E wrong because the conclusion states that the economy is bad and the answer choice says that it is implied that there is a slump in the Real Estate and Car industry?
And why is D correct?

Although the stimulus and choices contain qualifiers such as likely and probable, we can simplify. The key premise can be boiled down into the following conditional statement:
If there is a real estate slump and a car sales slump, then the economy is doing badly. (real estate slump + car sales slump → unhealthy economy)

The stimulus presents the dual occurrence as sufficient indication of a slumping economy. Choice D is basically the contrapositive of this statement. Choice E is a mistaken reversal in that it treats the unhealthy economy as the sufficient condition.

Pages: [1] 2 3