Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
quinnxzhang
About
- Username
- quinnxzhang
- Joined
- Visits
- 1,097
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member
Comments
-
@notwilliamwallace, In the first sentence, "the only" is modifying "materials needed", not "in order to build a desk". The expression "in order to build a desk" is an additional modifier for "materials needed". Bracket this latter modifier for a mom…
-
@dcdcdcdcdc, I'm going to echo my comment in the comments section of the video you linked. The stimulus is saying that a place has thinner air than EVERY place in a lower altitude. (D) is saying that a tree has more rings than EVERY tree that it’s o…
-
Have you planned out your schedule? I don't think it'd be too much of a stretch to create a detailed plan for your study from now until September. Mark the specific dates you'll be completing each lesson, PTing each test, etc. You don't have to rigi…
-
This is one of my absolute biggest gripes with how LSAT instructors teach students to translate "some". In a real formal logic, like classical first-order logic, "Some P's are Q's" is represented by '∃x(P(x) & Q(x))'. In LSAT terms, this would b…
-
Per the list here: http://www.lsac.org/jd/lsat/day-of-test/, "medical products" are allowed in the testing room, so I imagine caffeine pills would be fine. Even if they weren't, you could probably take them before your exam or leave them with a hall…
-
@"Cant Get Right" said: What I mean when I say luck here is that no one, not even consistent 180 scorers, can prepare themselves to a level which will remove human error from the equation. It can only be minimized. It can be greatly minimized, but …
-
@notwilliamwallace, yes those inferences are correct. Note that '(/J and or (J and /B)' is just a statement of exclusive-or, which, as noted above, is equivalent to the '(~J ↔ ' translation you originally proposed. However, again, I recommend bei…
-
@Serveded said: If so, would you say having a background in logic helped you perform to the extent you have? Would you recommend any general books on the matter? Not as much as you might think. I've TA'd both symbolic logic and mathema…
-
@dcdcdcdcdc said: How so? I applied UNTIL as negate sufficient to the stuff inside the parenthesis. TP until ES does translate to /TP --> ES... 'NOT(/TP -> ES)' is, by your admission, equivalent to 'some(/TP & /ES)'. But this is not wha…
-
@dcdcdcdcdc said: Not(Until TP can ES) NOT(/TP -> ES) [it is not the case that...] /TP some /ES (recall that some can include all, so we can plug this back in as /TP --> /ES You make a jump from 'Not(Until TP can ES)' to 'NOT(/TP -> ES…
-
@Edmond.Dantes said: So far, for someone who is scoring at 174-175 to reach the 179-180 range, the key is to keep PT and BR, no? Yes, but that's what you should be doing no matter what your score is. I don't think you should be doing …
-
I don't think the difference between a 175 and a 180 is luck alone. Certainly, luck does play a significant part on test day, but PTing consistently in the 179-180 range (which is definitely possible) vs. PTing consistently in the 174-175 range is t…
-
To modify the answer you were given, sometimes the "or" is a de facto exclusive-or. For example, if a rule tells you that Molly finished first or fifth, you can interpret that to be an exclusive-or. This is because you know that Molly couldn't have …
-
@Edmond.Dantes said: Based on your experience, were you able to miss less simply by doing more PTs, BR, and review? To be honest, I'm not really sure. I never changed my study habits -- I maintained a regular PT and drilling schedule. Over time, …
-
Depending on how you're practicing, you might not have to change anything. I mean, you'll still need to PT and drill and BR and all that stuff. I think changing your mentality can help. When I was in the low-170s range, my mentality was something l…
-
@"Cant Get Right" said: $1,000,000 to anyone who can solve one. I don’t know much math, but if you’ve got any interest in things like Fermat’s last theorem, they can be fun to read about. Reading about the drama around these things is…
-
If you're looking for some algorithms that will train your logical reasoning, then I think any of the standard sorting algorithms (insert sort, merge sort, bubble sort, etc.) would make good material. You could also look into some of the more sophis…
-
@"Cant Get Right" said: One thing I’ll say regarding the newer tests: They’ve started throwing in some weird games. Not disagreeing with anything you said, but I'm not sure how someone would go about practicing for the weird games. They seem to…
-
@"Nicole Hopkins" said: I hope this isn't based on BCS or Breaking Bad ... The thing that boggles my mind about Better Call Saul is that he gets hired as the equivalent of a 4th year associate in a NM law firm, but gets a company car, personal as…
-
@attorneysomerville said: That said... I'd like somebody to do a little more digging and come up with an actual counterexample. There are a lot of published tests out there... I did a bit more digging. PT77 S2 Q20 is a counterexample. …
-
@attorneysomerville said: That said... Quinnxzhang, what do you perceive to be the conclusion in PT9.S2.Q20? I think it is "A university should not be entitled to patent the inventions of its faculty members." Do you disagree with that? If so, what…
-
@attorneysomerville said: While it is possible to use "should" in a premise but not in the conclusion, I have yet to find example of that happening in a published LSAT question. From 2 minutes of searching, PT9 S2 Q20. @attorneysomerville said: I…
-
@"Cant Get Right" said: I can say "If I've got a glass of water, then I'm a spaceman living in orbit around Saturn." Well obviously that's nonsense and so the contrapositive would be as well. (Nonsense though they may be, they would still be logica…
-
I don't think this is an official LSAT game. Googling only turns up a test question from Kaplan. In any case, the reason B2 is always on is because of the first three rules: (1) B has more lights on than C. (2) C1 is on. (3) Exactly two buildings h…
-
Regarding (1), yes, your diagram and inferences are correct, assuming "Tim and John are not in the house" is to be interpreted as "neither Tim nor John is in the house". Regarding (2), I personally prefer to use the exclusive-or ("XOR") for these i…
-
Sections do tend to go from easy to hard, but it's usually not a straightforward linear progression. Question 1 isn't necessarily the easiest, and question 25 isn't necessarily the most difficult. I personally find that the hardest questions are usu…
-
@"mc_meatt" said: what would then "always apart, never together' rule look like? It depends on what you mean by "always apart, never together". For a standard in/out game, if you mean "M and N are never selected together", then this wouldn't be a…
-
@"mc_meatt" said: Thanks, if I add the word 'always' to that rule (M and N cannot always be selected together), would that turn this not both rule into a biconditional (always apart, never together)? It's still not a biconditional. M ~N means one…
-
Choosing the correct answer choice here depends entirely on understanding the argument in the stimulus. The argument in the stimulus is this: Economists say that financial rewards provides the strongest incentive for people to choose one job over a…
-
I have some serious qualms with how "lawgic" is generally taught on the LSAT (not just specific to 7sage), and I think this results in a lot of confusions on complicated translations. But that's beside the point here. I think the answers you receive…