• About WordPress
    • WordPress.org
    • Documentation
    • Support
    • Feedback
  • Log In
The LSAT Trainer Academy Navigation
  • Return to Main Site
  • Sample Chapters
  • LSAT Prep Tools
  • Return to Main Site
  • Sample Chapters
  • LSAT Prep Tools
Profile picture of dannypearlberg

@dannypearlberg

Log in
Active 5 years, 8 months ago
  • Activity
  • Profile
  • Groups 0
  • Forums
  • Personal
  • Mentions
  • Favorites
  • Groups
  • Profile picture of dannypearlberg

    dannypearlberg replied to the topic Logic Games in the forum Ask Dan Oakes 5 years, 8 months ago

    It isn’t placing L and O in the same shift- this question is testing your understanding of could/complete discussed on page 384. So: G, L, M, and O can each work on the first shift with H, they just can’t all do so at the same time.

    Log in
  • Profile picture of dannypearlberg

    dannypearlberg replied to the topic PrepTest 56, Section 2, Question 8 in the forum Expert Help 5 years, 9 months ago

    (A) is bad because “most” can mean just over 50%- it doesn’t weaken the argument at all to know that just over 50% of the boulders haven’t been moved more than 100 miles, because that means that just under 50% HAVE been moved more than 100 miles.

    (D) does weaken the argument a bit- if there ARE no geological sources of volcanic rock north of this boulder, it seems likely that there WERE…Read More

    Log in
  • Profile picture of dannypearlberg

    dannypearlberg replied to the topic Pt 61 game 1 question 5 in the forum Expert Help 5 years, 9 months ago

    I think that splitting this game into different worlds is worth the time (there’s only 3, right?), but the game is also very doable without splitting into worlds. So, even if you don’t split this game into worlds, I wouldn’t skip #5 in real time: We can cross off (A) given the work in #3 (there’s a scenario there where it’s just L and G in the car), then work through (B) and (C) to show…Read More

    Log in
  • Profile picture of dannypearlberg

    dannypearlberg replied to the topic Preptest 65 Section -4 #13 in the forum General Discussion 5 years, 9 months ago

    Exactly πŸ™‚

    Log in
  • Profile picture of dannypearlberg

    dannypearlberg replied to the topic Preptest 65 Section -4 #13 in the forum General Discussion 5 years, 9 months ago

    Conditional language (“if”, “unless”…) and matching terms are definitely good , but not perfect, indicators. I guess my main focus is always on figuring out why the author thinks they have presented a good argument, and then poking a hole (or holes) in their argument. If there aren’t any good indicators that conditional reasoning is involved, and I’m able to point out something wrong…Read More

    Log in
  • Profile picture of dannypearlberg

    dannypearlberg replied to the topic Preptest 65 Section -4 #13 in the forum General Discussion 5 years, 9 months ago

    I definitely don’t approach any of the question types thinking that it is likely to involve conditional reasoning. Which questions from 64 did you get burned on?

    Log in
  • Profile picture of dannypearlberg

    dannypearlberg replied to the topic Preptest 65 Section -4 #13 in the forum General Discussion 5 years, 9 months ago

    Yeah, I don’t think understanding conditional reasoning is important on this question. Focusing on the conditional reasoning doesn’t really have anything to do with the question type- it’s just a matter of when it’s required to understand what’s going on in the stimulus.

    Think about the negation of E: Qualified teachers could be persuaded to relocate in significant numbers to the…Read More

    Log in
  • Profile picture of dannypearlberg

    dannypearlberg replied to the topic Elimination skills on LR in the forum Expert Help 5 years, 9 months ago

    Here are a few thoughts to start with:

    (1) If you see the gap but can’t really articulate it, I would encourage you to spend a bit more time working on being able to articulate it- the extra time spent up front figuring out the stimulus really pays off when going through the answer choices. Out of the question types that you listed, I think sufficient assumption questions are probably…Read More

    Log in
  • Profile picture of dannypearlberg

    dannypearlberg replied to the topic PT 33, Game 2 in the forum Expert Help 5 years, 9 months ago

    If H-> not G works the same way as my hypothetical example above of if J->not S. So, if not J->S means that J and S can’t both be out, but they could both be in. If H->not G means that H and G can’t both be in, but they could both be out.

    Log in
  • Profile picture of dannypearlberg

    dannypearlberg replied to the topic PT 33, Game 2 in the forum Expert Help 5 years, 9 months ago

    Awesome addition Dan πŸ™‚

    Log in
  • Profile picture of dannypearlberg

    dannypearlberg replied to the topic PT 33, Game 2 in the forum Expert Help 5 years, 9 months ago

    This is definitely an important type of rule to understand: not J -> S means that you can’t have both J and S out, because when J is out then S is in, and when S is out then J is in. However, just because you can’t have both J and S out, this doesn’t preclude J and S both being IN. Given the rule and its contrapositive, if J is in then S could be either in or out. Likewise, if S is in…Read More

    Log in
  • Profile picture of dannypearlberg

    dannypearlberg replied to the topic PT 61 Section 2 #11 in the forum Expert Help 5 years, 9 months ago

    Yeah I think so, as long as you’re precise with respect to what the effect is- namely, the progression in the increase of time it takes to leave the parking space.

    Log in
  • Profile picture of dannypearlberg

    dannypearlberg replied to the topic PT 61 Section 2 #11 in the forum Expert Help 5 years, 9 months ago

    Our task here is to provide an alternative explanation for the differences in the time it takes to leave a parking space- it takes longer to leave if another car is waiting for the spot than if no one is waiting for the spot, and it takes longer to leave if the car waiting for the spot is honking impatiently rather than waiting quietly.

    The main problem with (B) is that it discusses the…Read More

    Log in
  • Profile picture of dannypearlberg

    dannypearlberg replied to the topic p. 37: LR Question #2 re: vulnerability in statistician's statement in the forum Ask Mike Kim 5 years, 9 months ago

    “However, if this were the only rule followed, then whenever one were presented with any kind of evidence, one would have to either reject some of one’s beliefs or else leave one’s beliefs unchanged.”
    Let’s say I have a million beliefs. According to the statisticians, I shouldn’t add to or subtract from that set of one million beliefs (that’s part of what it means when they say “never…Read More

    Log in
  • Profile picture of dannypearlberg

    dannypearlberg replied to the topic PT56 S2 Q24 in the forum Ask Mike Kim 5 years, 10 months ago

    I think that one of the reasons why this question is kind of tricky is because it can be hard at first to see what’s wrong with the argument- but it’s a strengthen question, so we know that the argument is indeed flawed. I’ll set up the reasoning structure first and then explain what’s wrong.

    Conclusion: The number of early Byzantine documents sealed with lead seals must have been much…Read More

    Log in
  • Profile picture of dannypearlberg

    dannypearlberg replied to the topic pt 57 section 3 game 3 in the forum Expert Help 5 years, 10 months ago

    Yeah, I don’t think this is a good game to split into multiple scenarios (as it was done on 7sage), and I don’t think I’d ever split a game into 6(!) scenarios. In general, a good rule of thumb when thinking about splitting a game into multiple scenarios is that you shouldn’t bother splitting if it’s going to result in more than 4 scenarios. So, besides the U/V “inference” (very…Read More

    Log in
  • Profile picture of dannypearlberg

    dannypearlberg replied to the topic Further Inference in the forum General Discussion 5 years, 10 months ago

    Definitely worthwhile to notate inferences about where elements cannot go πŸ™‚

    Log in
  • Profile picture of dannypearlberg

    dannypearlberg replied to the topic Further Inference in the forum General Discussion 5 years, 10 months ago

    ooops, sorry, didn’t see that Mike already provided an excellent explanation πŸ™‚

    Log in
  • Profile picture of dannypearlberg

    dannypearlberg replied to the topic Further Inference in the forum General Discussion 5 years, 10 months ago

    You are correct to infer that R cannot be in the first position πŸ™‚ If there were only three total candidates [P, O, R], and P must come before both O and R, then yes P would have to go first, with O going either second or third and R going either second or third.

    However, there are six total candidates, so while P could go first, it doesn’t have to. Since there are two candidates that…Read More

    Log in
  • Profile picture of dannypearlberg

    dannypearlberg replied to the topic LR 32.4.25 Extroversion, or sociability, is not biologically determined in the forum Expert Help 6 years, 1 month ago

    When Helena claims that extroversion is not biologically determined, I think this is most naturally interpreted as meaning that biology is not theΒ onlyΒ influence on whether or not one grows up to be extroverted, as her evidence for the claim is that non-biological factors seem to have an effect on whether or not one grows up to be extroverted. Jay, however, interprets Helena as claiming t…Read More

    Log in
  • Load More