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 - Barnum

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 33
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LSAT Tutors in North Jersey area
« on: February 25, 2008, 11:12:48 AM »
also you can try carolyn nelon at

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Quick formal logic question
« on: February 06, 2008, 03:05:48 PM »
I hate to throw it out there, but I think it is both.

If I say few people truly understand Einstein's theories.

Then what I am saying is that some people do understand, but frankly most people don't.  Giving you two valid ideas from that statement.

In the OP's example, the double negative created by "few fail"  would then set up both ideas that some don't, but most do.  This is why it ultimately worked for you when you set up the problem.

Also, in the same vane would be rare(ly) and seldom.  These indicate that there are instances of occurrences (some), but it would be fair to say that these instances happen less then 50% of the time (most not)

All that said, this is used when "few" is used as opposed to "a few" which simply seems to indicate "some"

Studying for the LSAT / Re: I need advice on LR diagramming strategy.
« on: February 06, 2008, 02:57:50 PM »
I think one of the things not being discussed is in logical reasoning, it is often imperative to separate the premises from the conclusion of the argument.  Thus the advantage of not linking is that you are more likely to see a jump.

Let's say the argument gives you A --> B.  B --> C.  Therefore, A --> D 

and the question asks what is the assumption.  The answer would be C --> D.

If you don't make a point to separate your evidence from your conclusion, this may be harder to see.  This is why it will sometimes be better to list out the pieces separately on logical reasoning first and then connect them later.

I think this is also a good idea on games.  List them separately, write their contrapostives, but then create a chain if possible.  Having the chain created before you dive into the questions can be terribly helpful and really speed you up for a logic game.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Prep Test 33 - Games Setups - any advice??
« on: January 18, 2008, 02:54:14 PM »
For the bird game try this link

I'll have to get back to you on rubies/saphires becuase I have to get ready for work.  Probably by the time I get back someone else will have explained it though.  If not, I will get you a detailed explanation.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Either or answer choices in games
« on: January 17, 2008, 07:18:49 PM »
There is no problem with the question.  The question asks where MUST S be performed.  Since it can be 4th or 7th, then only A could be the correct answer.

C is wrong because S does not HAVE to go in third or fourth (if afterall it could go in 7th) 

Studying for the LSAT / Re: How to draw out this rule in a game?
« on: January 17, 2008, 07:15:26 PM »
Ultimately it means that G is before both J and L or it's after both J and L.  I personally would just draw out both.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Grouping Game Conditional Reasoning Question
« on: January 11, 2008, 11:14:21 PM »

For the birds in the forest game and general stuff about linking conditionals with grouping games you should check this out.  Bernie did a bang up job on putting this together for people to read.

Do you find this technique to be usable in most grouping games?  Pure grouping games are usually the hardest for me, but I have never used chains like this. 

Actually it works really well for quite a few games.  Anytime there are multiple conditional rules, I find it is a good idea to link them together like this.  Some other good games to try this on are the doctors at two clinics and the photograph game from 2004.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: why are manhole covers round?
« on: November 20, 2007, 08:51:37 AM »
Also easier to put back into place.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: can most be 100? or max 99?
« on: November 19, 2007, 12:29:33 AM »
right, but the answer choice is saying that at least 1 person therefore doesn't have that attribute. isn't it?

The use of "rarely" rather than "never" seems to indicate that at least sometimes, though not often, artistic talent and political insight are found together.  In other words, some artists are in fact at least as insightful as some reasonably educated person.

I agree with EarlCat that the "rarely" is where the idea of "some are not" is coming from.  In fact, I believe that there are a few times where the LSAT has used some words or expressions that carry multiple pieces of information in terms of formal logic. 

For example, a few words that could indicate that some do while simultanously indicating most don't

- "Few" (when used in the idea of, "few people truly understand economics"  This would indicate that at least some do, but at the same time imply that most people don't.  This is not to be confused with the idea of "a few"

- "Rarely"  as we just saw means that it happens sometimes, but it also wouldn't be considered rare if it did happen most of the time.

- "seldom" should also mean the same as rarely.  If something only happens seldomly, then it must happen once in a while, but does not happen most of the time.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: What's the Max Point Jump?
« on: November 05, 2007, 10:46:01 PM »
I've seen 42. No that is not a joke. I am quite seriours. Her first diag was a 124 and her final diag was a 166. Granted she studied for about two years to get those 42 points.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 33