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 - eslite119
« on: September 28, 2008, 02:09:52 PM »
Pithypike, that's some rigorous three month study plan. After going through your plan, I think that I should've structured my study plan a little. Basically, I just did all the PTs, read all Powerscore materials (including the recent RC Bible), and some other stuff that I probably should not have wasted my time on. Seems like mine could've been more efficient. Oh well.
Chigirl, Kaplan's Big Orange book is one of their course materials from the old days (someone correct me if I'm wrong). The book organizes the questions (LG, RC, and LR) into question types, has some old PTs on the back, and Kaplan's explanations to the questions covered in the book.
« on: September 28, 2008, 01:54:53 PM »
Is this question about bee's vision? If so, then I believe the answer is A (please double check for me if I'm correct since my answer key is messed up last time I checked).
Main point of the stimulus is that bee's vision did not develop in response to flowers' colors, but it is probably the opposite. Sorta like cause and effect, but the author believes the cause and effect is actually reversed; flowers' color developed in response to bee's behavior.
Flowers' color --caused -> Bee's Vision X
Bee's Vision --caused -> Flower's color O
Answer choice A introduces a new information indicating that other insects that have vision VERY SIMILAR to that of bee's and it does not depend on object's color (including flower, perhaps). This actually aligns with the second cause and effect diagram that I displayed above and as a result, it tends to strengthen the argument made in the stimulus. In other words, information given in answer choice A makes it less probable that the first cause and effect diagram displayed above is true.
I hope this helps at least a little.
« on: September 21, 2008, 02:32:55 AM »
Superprep LGs are pretty tough, even the linear games. Although I got everything correct, it took me more efforts to finish the section in 35 minutes. Not to brag or anything, but just wanted to confirm your statement. As Thales indicated, recent LGs are easier. If you want practice, try focusing on some earlier PTs in addition to LG Bible.
« on: September 15, 2008, 11:06:31 PM »
That's what I thought. Mine must be a typo. Thank you for confirming this.
« on: September 14, 2008, 08:50:07 PM »
I think you misunderstood the question. Question states: "Which one of the following COULD be an accurate and complete list of the students who review only Sunset?"
In other words, under certain situation (and abiding by the rules states), which one of the following can be a complete list of those who only review Sunset?
Jiang and Lopez cannot be review a same play according to rule 2.
« on: September 14, 2008, 08:02:45 PM »
1st LR section:
10) I marked that (d) was correct because I figured that had the gene change affected the flies in some other way, then that alternate effect could have in turn affected UV vision (ala create a possible alternative cause). My thought was that if the gene change DID affect the flies in some other way that was connected to eyesight, then this effect would undermine the connection the scientists made between the altered gene and lack of UV vision.
Apparently I'm completely wrong, since B is the correct answer. Help? Thanks!
Thinking about alternative effects is a bit of stretch.
Logical negation of choice D would be, "The gene change had SOME effects on the flies other than the lack of UV cells."
Personally, I don't see this statement having any effect on the argument's conclusion:
"Thus, scientists have shown that flies of this species lacking ultraviolet vision must have some damage to this gene."
Looking at choice B: "No other gene in the flies in the experiement is required for the formation of the UV cells."
Logically negate this and you get: "SOME other genes (other than the specific one mentioned in the conclusion) in the flies in the experiment is required for the formation of the UV cells."
This will actually go against the conclusion, which hinges on ONE particular gene that the scientists believe to effect the vision.
« on: September 14, 2008, 07:18:11 PM »
I'm staring at the question and I cannot explain to myself why I got this question (only question in the section) wrong.
This is an assumption question and it is about government subsidizing high-quality day care. When taking this under timed condition, I did not hesitate and chose D. Turns out I was wrong as the answer key that I have says the correct answer is B.
I just can't seem to connect the dots between choice B and the stimulus.
« on: September 14, 2008, 01:52:51 AM »
anyone know if the questions in lsat 180 are actual lsat questions?
they're not... and they're terrible.
Ah S%*T! I just met with one of my LSAT buddies and gave him my old LSAT 180 with the quote, "This book contains some of the toughest LSAT questions that's out there." I gotta warn him.
« on: September 13, 2008, 01:14:48 AM »
Hey guys, I just realized that I have to buckle down this year if I want to apply in the 2009-2010 cycle. My goal is to take the LSAT this Feb, so I can have the summer free to do a program and work on my apps (want to get them all in by late Sept. before school starts so I don't have to worry about it during the year). Got any tips on fitting LSAT prep into a busy schedule? I have a full courseload at a top 15 university, work part-time (15 hrs a week), hold a citywide leadership position, and train hard athletically everyday. I'm trying to get my scores up to 170+ from a 150. Any tips are much appreciated. thanks.
That's a pretty busy schedule. But it seems like you're preparing ahead of time, so hopefully you'll reach your goal with adequate preparation.
I currently work full-time and travel very frequently. Despite the stress I occasionally face, I try to find time to prepare for the test. I believe the key is to maintain consistency. Even if it is only one hour per day, I'd suggest you study constantly and avoid any major "gaps" in between your studies. I once had a study schedule when I studied 3-4 hours, took a break for one to two days, and studied again for another 3-4 hours. For me, this routine did not result in much improvement.
These days I study at least 2 (continuous) hours during the weekdays and take at least one timed prep test (consisting of 5 sections) during the weekends. This routine actually helped me improve in many ways.
« on: September 13, 2008, 12:54:10 AM »
I think this was one of the oldest ones. More so than contrapositive, I think you'll get some great inferences by combining the rules.
First, I'd make the symbols simple by marking "for" with "+" and "against" as "X." Second, I will just use the short hands for Republican, Moderate, and Democrat as R,M, and D, respectively.
By combining the rules, I mean the following:
Because rule 4 indicates that at least one R voted against, when you try to work out a scenario according to rule 1 you'll get the following (this is the only possibility under the rules given):
X X X X X + +
R R M M D D D
Combine rule 2 and 4 and you get the following:
X X ? ? + + +
R R M M D D D
In order for you to work out a scenario according to rule 2, it must be that all three Ds voted FOR and two Rs voted AGAINST (this is due to rule 4). Moderates can swing either ways under this scenario.
Sometimes combining the rules can help in answering some of the toughest questions. It can also generate some crucial inferences that can minimize the time you spend on games.