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 - Micdiddy
« on: March 27, 2012, 02:31:05 AM »
Wow, this does seem exceptionally poorly worded. Do they use only certified LSAC questions? Because I doubt that one was ever given on the LSAT.
Also, how is Juniper trees not needed extra pruning an ASSUMPTION by the argument??? That would mean this information is necessary to believe in order for the argument to be valid, whereas the opposite is true, if the argument is valid then Juniper trees not needing extra pruning is a conclusion of the argument.
Anyway, to answer your specific question, stating "extra" pruning means they know the plants need some pruning, but they do not need more pruning during summer than in winter.
Yes, very poorly worded and this question alone would make me put down whatever book you are using and buy another one.
« on: March 21, 2012, 03:41:39 AM »
The only clue I can think of is know your poison. After a certain number of diagnostics you should be able to recognize which type of LR questions are giving you problems, as they all fall into some category that's discussed at length on forums and in prep books.
For example I have only gone through 2 1/2 tests and already know parallel reasoning gives me problems, so if I were to diagram (a strategy I have not employed at length yet) I would probably choose to diagram as soon as I recognized it was a parallel question. Beyond that, I guess my advice would be to spend that extra time. Currently I can get through LR sections with at least 3 minutes remaining, which doesn't sound like a lot but it is certainly a cushion to spend even a minute longer on two-three tougher problems.
If you have almost no time leftover then I guess that's not an option...
« on: March 21, 2012, 01:23:59 AM »
Ah, same post both here and on TLS, must be desperate for an answer!
Unfortunately I don't have one for you. I agree with the advice given on TLS, diagram when it helps you. After reading a question of the diagram seems really obvious to you and you can jot it down quickly before even looking at answer choices, do that. Then compare it to the answer choices as you read.
Likewise, if you decide not to diagram the question right away, but after reading the answer choices you are still supremely confused, skip the question and finish the section (to make sure you have time to answer the easy points), then with the time leftover diagram the tough question.
Hope that helps a bit.
« on: March 18, 2012, 03:53:34 AM »
I don't think a top 50 law school is as hard as you think, especially with a 165 lsat and a good personal statement. A top 25 school might be tough with a 3.0, but some of them are still definitely worth a shot and might favor a very strong lsat over gpa.
« on: March 16, 2012, 05:55:23 PM »
As a supplement to any test prep book you get I think purchasing LSAC's 10 actual preptests (and then the 10 NEW ones and the ones with comparative reading) is invaluable to true test preparation.
Since they are the closest thing to the actual test you can get your hands on, you can go through them as if you're taking the real test 10 times. The only problem is they do not provide reasons for the right answers, but most of the time I am able to work out where I went wrong and if I cannot I can ask for help (like I did in another topic in this forum, though people seem reluctant to respond).
« on: March 16, 2012, 05:52:01 PM »
Maybe a reproduction of the entire question would help people respond?
« on: March 16, 2012, 05:50:33 PM »
I am also studying for the June LSATs and have ordered to of testmasters Powerscore Bibles on Amazon (the ones on Games and Logical Reasoning).
I feel that a commitment to studying on my own will be sufficient to get a good LSAT score, but if I am not scoring in the mid 170's by May I will probably take a weekend course of theirs.
I will let you know how I like the books! I hear they're the best.
« on: March 15, 2012, 06:25:45 PM »
This is my first post here, and in fact I just decided I wanted to go to law school a week ago so I am still a little new to all of this. As such, I am going through my first book of practice tests (10 Actual, Official LSAT Preptests from the LSAC) and in the first section of logic problems I found one that I did not understand. Overall, I missed 4 of them and understand where I went wrong in 3, but this one I decided I need more help with.
Thanks for your time, and again as a newbie let me know if I am breaking any taboo's by posting a problem on the board or anything else. Here's the problem:
A large group of hyperactive children whose regular diets included food containing large amounts of additives was observed by researchers trained to assess the presence or absence of behavior problems. The children were then places on a low-additive diet for several weeks, after which they were observes again. Originally nearly 60 percent of the children exhibited behavior problems; after the change in diet, only 30 percent did so. On the basis of these data, it can be concluded that food additives can contribute to behavior problems in hyperactive children.
The evidence above fails to establish the conclusion because
(A) there is no evidence that the reduction in behavior problems was proportionate to the reduction in food-additive intake
(B) there is no way to know what changes would have occurred without the change of diet, since only children who change to a low-additive diet were studied
(C) exactly how many children exhibited behavior problems after the change in diet cannot be determined, since the size of the group studied is not precisely given
(D) there is no evidence that the behavior of some of the children was unaffected by additives
(E) the evidence is consistent with the claim that some children exhibit more frequent behavior problems after being on the low-additive diet than they had exhibited when first observed
Right answer: B
Ok, so when I first read the answers I didn't like any of them. I understand that A is wrong because because that's the only evidence provided, D is wrong because it's irrelevant to the question, and E is wrong because it confuses the claim. I didn't like B or C but I ended up picking C because I didn't think one would need a control group for this experiment. Wasn't picking "a large group of hyperactive children whose regular diet included food containing large amounts of additives" in the first place a solution to not having a control group? We already know what the result would be if the children's diet remains unchanged: they would be hyperactive and 60 percent would exhibit behavior problems. So what's wrong with giving them ALL the diet???
Again, I don't like C much either as it misses the point, but I had to choose an answer and theoretically if only 3 children were studied it would be a poor experiment. Should I have gotten the right answer by eliminating the obvious wrong ones, including C?
Please help with the logic of this question, thanks!