Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Kaplan's explanations for correct answers (and incorrect ones) is just horrible  (Read 1023 times)

Matthew_24_24

  • Guest
After reading Kaplan's explanations, I really feel that they do not have a firm grasp on what LSAC looks for in a correct answer and what makes the other answer choices wrong.   I was just perusing their explanations of 1999 exams. 

They rarely explain the best 2nd choice answers, dismissing them as if they were asinine (lumping them together with the really bad answers). 

Example: June 1999 section 4 VC  Question 16:  A, B, C, and D.  All four choices "faster rates" are utterly distinct from the context of the conclusion of line 28.  So they are wrong, period.

It also says essentially "just like up a sentence from the conclusion, and there is your answer, almost word for word.  Can't be anymore simple."  The PROBLEM is a) is also included (half of it is at least) in the sentence above...it is a complex sentence.  Their ability to just ignore tricky 2nd answers like they are utterly out of context is laughable.  Their advice is: "ummm, get the right answer...if you dont you didnt follow our methods" type approach (yes there are more examples, im just too lazy to detail them)

Sigh, its so sad.

Matt

londongirl

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
    • View Profile
I agree! Where do people get good explanations from?

mukhia

  • Guest
Ebay!!!  And other LSDers.

I have some from a different company.  PM your email if you want them - nto sure how good they are because I just received them.

Matthew_24_24

  • Guest
I'm fortunate that for the LR and VC I feel I have a really good understanding of what makes an answer right and what makes it wrong (even between 1st and 2nd choices).  I think the key is that my explanations seem to be consistent for the question type (now i just have to start listening to myself more often).

For example:

VERBAL COMPREHENSION

Was getting 1-4 wrong.  If i was getting a question wrong, it was either a:

a) main point question
b) according to the passage question

The beauty here is that for these I was NEARLY always down to 2 answer choices, and i was simply choosing the wrong one.  After a bit of macro-analysis of 10-12 verbal comp sections...i finally noticed something

According to the passage questions:  To my amazement, I would have two answers and one would answer had supporting information coming directly from the passage and the other would be a very, obviously intuitive inference from the passage.  The inferences that caught me most were almost always "likely to be true" and came from personal knowledge of the world. I know i had read in "Master the LSAT" that in an according to the passage question the answer must come directly from the passage...but that point is now so salient in my mind I have often moved towards answers I was REALLY uncomfortable with instead of what intuitively felt to be right.  All because the uncomfy answers were directly from the passage.  Works like a charm, but it is nerve-wracking.

b) Main Point questions

Yes yes, I still get these suckers wrong...because I often have had trouble differentiating between the answer and the 2nd choice answer. 

Master the LSATs method: Read the first sentence and the last sentence of every paragraph. 

My Method: Get down to two answers, and read in this order:

a) the thesis statement (last sentence of the first paragraph)
b) the last sentence of the concluding paragraph

Whichever of the two answers best paraphrases these once you are down to TWO is ALWAYS right.  For me at least, there is always one main point question (usually the law passage) that seems to give me some difficulty, this method of referencing these two specific sentences has really fixed this problem. 

I'm really good at the rest of the VC sections...inferring general ideas from the passage is usually a lot easier because i often 'get the gist' of what i read.  Details suck but this has helped plenty.  Hopefully this post will make these two types of questions more salient in the minds of those who read it.

Matt

Trancer

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Conan the Republican!!!
    • View Profile
i have a couple of different companies if you need, message me as well...
Its not the size of the army that counts, its the fury of the onslaught.
Seton Hall, August 05

mukhia

  • Guest
i have a couple of different companies if you need, message me as well...

Always trying to one up me.... ;)

Trancer

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Conan the Republican!!!
    • View Profile
well since i cant get on top i might as well try to get ahead... for all of you who dont know Mukhia likes to be ontop.
Its not the size of the army that counts, its the fury of the onslaught.
Seton Hall, August 05

absy

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3838
    • View Profile
Not that they're for everyone, but I found the Kaplan  explanations helpful.  I ended up with a good understanding of what LSAC was looking for.

Matthew_24_24

  • Guest
You scored 179...it doesnt sound like you needed to reference their explanations very often lol! 

For the rest of us mortals...heheh j/k

Matt

absy

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3838
    • View Profile
I didn't start out with that score.  Taking the tests and reviewing answers and explanations got me there.

I won't say that Kaplan is the best, or even better than some other methods (I never checked out the other courses, so I have no idea).  But I feel like I should defend them because they helped me get where I wanted.