This channel is AMAZING. I was feeling discouraged during some recent MSS drills and went looking for resources I could use to supplement my 7Sage lessons and I found it!! Thank you for thinking of us future law students in this way!
Everyone is so hyped up about the power score books. What they should be hyped up about are these free courses that teach more about logical reasoning than any book.
All these videos have been super helpful study tools. I have read a couple LSAT study books and these videos are great reviews of the stems I needed extra clarification on. thank you!!!
I wish your channel hits 1 million soon just a perfect explanation and I'm much more confident for my exams now. May God bless you it really helps keep it up!!!😊@LSAT Lab
Hi. I'm confused with the second example (causation) since I answered this using conditional logic. Wouldn't Choice D be negating the antecedent? Is there a reason why conditional logic doesn't apply here? Thanks!
That is all about language cues. Words such as if, if only when, only if, unless, etc imply conditional, while words such as due to, as a result of, as a consequence of, induces, produces, etc imply causal. You can find more comprehensive lists for those language cues in our flashcards available for free at lsatlab.com.
Can we conclude that a "cause-effect" stimuluses require a "cause-effect" answer choice? and That PIVOT words, in questions that require you to complete the stimulus, the correct answer offers the polar opposite idea of "Some people say"?
You guys have paradox in both 'assumption' and 'inference' family. Is that right or wrong? And also what's the difference between 'flaw' and 'parallel flaw', because you guys put them in different family.
There is no correct spot for Paradox family in our 3 families. It's like Australia --- it's a country and a continent. FUNCTION FAMILY (read an argument and identify its parts, characterize its evidence and reasoning patterns) ASSUMPTION FAMILY (read an argument and, after identifying its parts, think about what assumptions are being made / what objections Opposing Counsel could make / what illegal moves are being made) INFERENCE FAMILY (read statements, and then pick the most provable answer) Paradox doesn't belong in the first two families, because it isn't based on arguments. It's based on paradoxical statements. And it doesn't belong in the last family, because we're not picking the most provable answer. We're considering brand new facts, with each answer choice, and judging their impact. Matt tends to put it into Assumption family if he feels like stressing its "Which, if true, would have the most impact" aspect, or he puts it in Inference family if feels like stressing its "We are NOT reading arguments" aspect. Patrick tends to just leave it out of any of the 3 families, because it doesn't belong anywhere. Parallel Flaw is different from Flaw because of the answer choices. The answer choices on Flaw are descriptions of what was wrong with the argument we just read. The answer choices on Parallel Flaw are just brand new arguments, one of which commits a flaw similar to that committed in the stimulus. In the sense that we need to diagnose a flaw, Parallel Flaw belongs in the Assumption Family, but in the sense that we need to map over the same abstract relationships from the original argument to the correct answer, it belongs in the Function Family. And now MY question for YOU? What the heck does any of this have to do with this Most Supported video where you're asking this question? :)
Like most things, the answer depends. Factors like starting score, target score, time available to study, and resources available all make a difference. Typically students take 3-4 months on average to study for the LSAT.
Is this really all there is to the LSAT? Watch these videos and try to digest what's in them, do practice questions, correct them, then take practice tests?
haha, I don't know whether to sign off on "is this really all there is", when the process you're describing can last for 6 months - 1 yr for a lot of people. There's also an "it depends on the student" component to answering that question. For some people who are exceptionally careful and efficient readers, it might only take watching some videos for general strategy tips and then implementing them on practice questions and tests/sections. But most students find that even though they know what they should be doing on a given task, it's still very hard to do it quickly and accurately, so it takes many months of repetition (to develop the pattern recognition and automaticity that speed us up somewhat, and to develop the encyclopedic "hurt locker" of missed questions that teach us how to better align our thinking with that of the test). And students also can benefit from being taught the same concept from multiple sources, so students sometimes want to seek another set of videos or another teacher/tutor to expose themselves to other ways of seeing the test that may better click. If your question is more about "can a self-studier get away with just watching strategy videos and doing/reviewing/re-doing practice questions", in many cases yes, but in more cases no. Some of that comes down to really ambitious goal scores that don't let you just be "pretty good" at the test. A lot of people are aspiring to get a score that shows they're better at LSAT than 98% or 99% of people who take it. It's hard to be the #1 or #2 LSAT test taker in a room of 100 people, without some 'extra' training or extra cognitive gifts. Some of that comes down to making sure you can find good explanations to the practice problems you're doing (because you're more likely to ingrain the most efficient habits if you're reading explanations from people who the deeper patterns in those problems ... but there ARE good places to find free explanations). And some of that comes down to whether a student is capable on their own of having a good enough understanding of where their current weaknesses are in order to plot a course to improving them.
@@abandonallhope.1040 You want to try to figure out a problem on your own first, and then compare it to how an experienced "expert" would see the problem. When students are working on the skill of ANTICIPATING correct answers, they can hide the available answer choices from themselves until they've typed or written their own prediction. (On our site, there's a notepad window that you can use to hide the answers and type in your thoughts .... but if you're using pen and paper tests, just hide it with a flashcard or piece of paper / if you're using a computer test that doesn't have a floating notepad, then just resize a blank browser window or MS Word window so that it's a small rectangle you can slide around the screen to cover up whatever content you don't want to see yet). I like for students to check their Anticipation answer against what we've written in our explanation immediately, before they even check out answers, because once we see answers it's harder to remember which ideas are in our brains from the answers vs. from our own up front thinking. Then you do something similar when you're working on justifying your answer choice selections/rejections. You write down where you're getting support for the correct answer (in RC) or "how the correct answer works" (in LR) and you write down specific reasons you can eliminate each other answer choice. Then you compare your reasons to those in the explanations you're reading. It's not like any explanation is perfect, exhaustive, or definitive ... so you could easily be writing stuff down that's valid that doesn't show up in the explanation you're reading. But often, a professional explanation can give you a more efficient way to think about why an incorrect answer is wrong (more efficient and more "portable", more transportable to other problems). And it can often give you a clearer roadmap of how to predict such an answer (if it's the type of question that lends itself to being predicted). The goal of good review is to get yourself to the place where you feel like you could TEACH the problem. And the best way to check your understanding/retention is to revisit any problem you've struggled with 5+ days later, and see if you can remember the teaching advice for how to break down and comprehend the stimulus, as well as how to discount each wrong answer.
This channel is AMAZING. I was feeling discouraged during some recent MSS drills and went looking for resources I could use to supplement my 7Sage lessons and I found it!! Thank you for thinking of us future law students in this way!
I learn more here than when I paid over a thousand dollars for Kaplan.
Facts. My teacher gave me one of those 130 dollar Kaplan textbooks and they haven't done even half the job explaining as this guy does. Great work!
Your channel single-handedly got me a 151, taking it again with 7sage but just goes to show how great these videos are.
I am shocked to finish watching the entire video. This is so in-depth and I am soooo grateful for this!!
Priceless, comprehensive and professional approach. I call myself successful for coming across your lessons! Keep up and take care yourself!
Everyone is so hyped up about the power score books. What they should be hyped up about are these free courses that teach more about logical reasoning than any book.
All these videos have been super helpful study tools. I have read a couple LSAT study books and these videos are great reviews of the stems I needed extra clarification on. thank you!!!
I wish your channel hits 1 million soon just a perfect explanation and I'm much more confident for my exams now. May God bless you it really helps keep it up!!!😊@LSAT Lab
Thank you for this post. This was very organized and easy to follow for newer students. I really appreciate you helping others!
Thank you! Very organized and easy to follow.
This is golden. I am going to share it with my friends! Thank you so much.
I need more practice with this. Thanks so much for explaining.
In the context of this particular stimulus, does “abatement” mean reduce or completely eliminate?
these videos are SOOO helpful! Thank you!
Hi. I'm confused with the second example (causation) since I answered this using conditional logic. Wouldn't Choice D be negating the antecedent? Is there a reason why conditional logic doesn't apply here? Thanks!
Learned so much from the last two. Damn!
But by what could we tell if the link built in the stimulus is a conditional one or a causal one?
That is all about language cues. Words such as if, if only when, only if, unless, etc imply conditional, while words such as due to, as a result of, as a consequence of, induces, produces, etc imply causal. You can find more comprehensive lists for those language cues in our flashcards available for free at lsatlab.com.
Can we conclude that a "cause-effect" stimuluses require a "cause-effect" answer choice?
and
That PIVOT words, in questions that require you to complete the stimulus, the correct answer offers the polar opposite idea of "Some people say"?
Thank you so much.
Is there a video where he explains how to do translations with sentences that have eg., unless
Yes, that's the Conditional Logic lesson:
ua-cam.com/video/jeDnykOrswY/v-deo.html&lc=UgyAKaMeUnq1bpJl76J4AaABAg
You guys have paradox in both 'assumption' and 'inference' family. Is that right or wrong? And also what's the difference between 'flaw' and 'parallel flaw', because you guys put them in different family.
There is no correct spot for Paradox family in our 3 families. It's like Australia --- it's a country and a continent.
FUNCTION FAMILY (read an argument and identify its parts, characterize its evidence and reasoning patterns)
ASSUMPTION FAMILY (read an argument and, after identifying its parts, think about what assumptions are being made / what objections Opposing Counsel could make / what illegal moves are being made)
INFERENCE FAMILY (read statements, and then pick the most provable answer)
Paradox doesn't belong in the first two families, because it isn't based on arguments. It's based on paradoxical statements. And it doesn't belong in the last family, because we're not picking the most provable answer. We're considering brand new facts, with each answer choice, and judging their impact.
Matt tends to put it into Assumption family if he feels like stressing its "Which, if true, would have the most impact" aspect, or he puts it in Inference family if feels like stressing its "We are NOT reading arguments" aspect. Patrick tends to just leave it out of any of the 3 families, because it doesn't belong anywhere.
Parallel Flaw is different from Flaw because of the answer choices. The answer choices on Flaw are descriptions of what was wrong with the argument we just read. The answer choices on Parallel Flaw are just brand new arguments, one of which commits a flaw similar to that committed in the stimulus. In the sense that we need to diagnose a flaw, Parallel Flaw belongs in the Assumption Family, but in the sense that we need to map over the same abstract relationships from the original argument to the correct answer, it belongs in the Function Family.
And now MY question for YOU?
What the heck does any of this have to do with this Most Supported video where you're asking this question? :)
How many months are required for the preparation of LSAT
Like most things, the answer depends. Factors like starting score, target score, time available to study, and resources available all make a difference. Typically students take 3-4 months on average to study for the LSAT.
@@LSATLab ok.. Thanks
Matt is the goat
Does anyone else feel that in a way the LSAT is more difficult than the Bar Exam?
Is this really all there is to the LSAT? Watch these videos and try to digest what's in them, do practice questions, correct them, then take practice tests?
haha, I don't know whether to sign off on "is this really all there is", when the process you're describing can last for 6 months - 1 yr for a lot of people.
There's also an "it depends on the student" component to answering that question. For some people who are exceptionally careful and efficient readers, it might only take watching some videos for general strategy tips and then implementing them on practice questions and tests/sections.
But most students find that even though they know what they should be doing on a given task, it's still very hard to do it quickly and accurately, so it takes many months of repetition (to develop the pattern recognition and automaticity that speed us up somewhat, and to develop the encyclopedic "hurt locker" of missed questions that teach us how to better align our thinking with that of the test).
And students also can benefit from being taught the same concept from multiple sources, so students sometimes want to seek another set of videos or another teacher/tutor to expose themselves to other ways of seeing the test that may better click.
If your question is more about "can a self-studier get away with just watching strategy videos and doing/reviewing/re-doing practice questions", in many cases yes, but in more cases no.
Some of that comes down to really ambitious goal scores that don't let you just be "pretty good" at the test. A lot of people are aspiring to get a score that shows they're better at LSAT than 98% or 99% of people who take it. It's hard to be the #1 or #2 LSAT test taker in a room of 100 people, without some 'extra' training or extra cognitive gifts. Some of that comes down to making sure you can find good explanations to the practice problems you're doing (because you're more likely to ingrain the most efficient habits if you're reading explanations from people who the deeper patterns in those problems ... but there ARE good places to find free explanations). And some of that comes down to whether a student is capable on their own of having a good enough understanding of where their current weaknesses are in order to plot a course to improving them.
Is there a more productive way to reviewing questions than just watching video explanations or reading them?
@@abandonallhope.1040 You want to try to figure out a problem on your own first, and then compare it to how an experienced "expert" would see the problem. When students are working on the skill of ANTICIPATING correct answers, they can hide the available answer choices from themselves until they've typed or written their own prediction.
(On our site, there's a notepad window that you can use to hide the answers and type in your thoughts .... but if you're using pen and paper tests, just hide it with a flashcard or piece of paper / if you're using a computer test that doesn't have a floating notepad, then just resize a blank browser window or MS Word window so that it's a small rectangle you can slide around the screen to cover up whatever content you don't want to see yet).
I like for students to check their Anticipation answer against what we've written in our explanation immediately, before they even check out answers, because once we see answers it's harder to remember which ideas are in our brains from the answers vs. from our own up front thinking.
Then you do something similar when you're working on justifying your answer choice selections/rejections. You write down where you're getting support for the correct answer (in RC) or "how the correct answer works" (in LR) and you write down specific reasons you can eliminate each other answer choice.
Then you compare your reasons to those in the explanations you're reading.
It's not like any explanation is perfect, exhaustive, or definitive ... so you could easily be writing stuff down that's valid that doesn't show up in the explanation you're reading.
But often, a professional explanation can give you a more efficient way to think about why an incorrect answer is wrong (more efficient and more "portable", more transportable to other problems). And it can often give you a clearer roadmap of how to predict such an answer (if it's the type of question that lends itself to being predicted).
The goal of good review is to get yourself to the place where you feel like you could TEACH the problem. And the best way to check your understanding/retention is to revisit any problem you've struggled with 5+ days later, and see if you can remember the teaching advice for how to break down and comprehend the stimulus, as well as how to discount each wrong answer.
Your channel single-handedly got me a 151, taking it again with 7sage but just goes to show how great these videos are.