Here’s our setup for Game 1 of the June 2007 LSAT, and if you don’t already have the test, you’ll find it here. Question 3 says “If the third digit of an acceptable product code is not zero, which one of the following must be true?” Just like Question 1, this question requires us to make a new diagram that incorporates the new condition (third digit can’t be 0) with all of the original conditions. The question couldn’t be easier, if we simply apply the two worlds we developed in the initial setup.
Archive for October, 2011
Short answer: You need to immediately remove “I’m a bad test taker” from your vocabulary. I don’t believe it’s true, and I know it’s counterproductive for you to keep saying it. So knock it off. Now.
Two days ago, I discussed the setup and rules for Game 1 in Section 1 of the June 2007 LSAT. (You’ll find these explanations most useful if you print yourself a copy of the test and have it handy.) And yesterday, I took a look at Question 1. Question 2 asks “Which one of the following must be true about any acceptable product code?” Unlike Question 1, Question 2 doesn’t give us any new information. So we have to answer Question 2 solely based on the initial requirements of the game. (Important: The new rule that was in play for Question 1 doesn’t apply for subsequent questions.)
Yesterday, I discussed the setup and rules for Game 1 in Section 1 of the June 2007 LSAT. It’s a fairly straightforward and very familiar game–all we’re asked to do is put five things in order. This is the type of game that you’ve simply got to master if you’re going to do well on the Logic Games. One game similar to this appears on nearly every LSAT. The rest of the games in the section will tend to be harder than this. So there’s no use in rushing through or skipping this game.
For students who are just starting out, I recommend spending your entire 35 minutes, if necessary, on this first game. The point is this: Speed, on the LSAT, comes from accuracy. You need to be able to get each of the questions on this game right with certainty. Once you can do that (no matter how long it takes) you’ll eventually be able to go faster. I’ve seen students go from the low single digits on the Logic Games (getting 3 or 4 questions correct) to scoring perfectly on the Games (23 or 24 correct). But you have to walk before you can run. So slow down, make some inferences (see yesterday’s post for my definition of “making inferences”) and answer the questions with certainty. It’s easier than you think.
Logic Games are troubling for nearly every LSAT student I’ve ever met–on the first day of class. But Games are also, by far, the most teachable section of the test. On Logical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension, improvements tend to happen slowly, incrementally… like a long uphill march. On Logic Games, improvements tend to happen all of a sudden, in jumps and spurts… like launching off a trampoline. I’ve seen a zillion students walk into my classroom getting their asses kicked by Games. And I’ve seen a zillion students walk out of my classroom scoring perfectly on the Games. (It’s by far the most commonly fucked-up section. And it is also, by an even wider margin, the most common section where perfect scores are achieved.) This is the most fun section of the test, and it’s also, in large part, where I make my money.
Every time scores come out, I get a few emails that sound something like this:
“Hi Nathan. Scores just came out, and I got a 158. Should I retake?”
The answer, as usual, is “it depends.” It depends primarily on whether that 158 is a good score, or a bad score, for you. And there are a couple other considerations as well.
Section 2 of the June 2007 LSAT wraps up with a mystery. We’re told that the French academy of art was “a major financial sponsor” of both painting and sculpture in France in the 19th century. We’re also told that the academy “discouraged innovation in the arts.” But then we’re told a puzzling fact: French sculpture during that period showed little innovation, while French painting showed a lot of innovation. Why would this be?
Section 2, #24, of the June 2007 LSAT is a hell of a lot easier than it might look. The facts are fairly straightforward: car companies use survey data and direct interaction with buyers to figure out what car consumers want, and “designer interaction with consumers is superior to survey data.” Okay, fine. The difficulty arises when we get to the question part:
“The reasoning above conforms most closely to which one of the following propositions?”
What’s that supposed to mean?
I get this question constantly, and my constant answer is “Oh my god, why on earth would I want to do THAT?”
I don’t like to diagram a question unless I absolutely have to. But when I see “if” in the first premise, and then “if and only if” in the second premise, with “The philosopher’s conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed” as the question, then I sharpen my pencil and get to diagramming. Welcome to Section 2, #23, of the June 2007 LSAT.