Modern Quill

30-Day LSAT Blog - Day 04 Posted: 12 May 2009 10:43 PM PDT Today I picked up where I left off yesterday: by trying to evaluate my errors on Tests #9 and #11. To re-quote Steve Schwartz, this is learning how to see through the Matrix. At this point, there are some lines of code I just can’t decipher. The only way I can describe it is as a strange young woman named Elle Sack approaching you with a red apple and a green apple. She then says, “One of these is real, and the other is an illusion. Tell me which one without eating them.” There are going to be some problems in Arguments where I’m going to narrow it down to two answers, scratch my head real hard, and not be able to figure out the difference. I’d like to offer, as an example, Problem 14, Section 4, Test #39: The mathematics of the scientific theory known as “complexity” describes those phenomena that are not quite stable and not quite chaotic. For example, the mathematics of complexity can be used to describe sand dunes: although sand dunes generally retain their shape, the addition of a tiny amount of sand can cause a sandslide. Certain scientists have concluded that there is good evidence that complexity is correct. After entering complexity-based mathematical models of real-world phenomena in computers, they found that the computerized mathematical models evolve much like the real-world phenomena actually evolve. Which of the following principles, if valid, most justifies the scientists’ conclusions? A. If computerized models based on a theory behave like their real world counterparts behave, then that theory is probably correct. B. If a scientific theory is correct, then computerized mathematical models based on that theory behave like they’re real-world counterparts. Sweet Baby Ray’s! I was able to eliminate C, D, and E. Now, in retrospect, I can see the difference quite plain. But when I know I have 1 minute 20 seconds to crack the freaking Da Vinci Code, I lose my nerve, and my abilities to see the wires behind the problem. I will probably spend Day 5 on Arguments, trying my best to see the wires. I need to make sure that I’m going for consistency, not just breadth. After tomorrow, I will aim to move to a different field, possibly Games, which is still a very weak field for me. However, after four days of focusing on Arguments, I took Test #39 as a diagnostic. I bumped up to 72% on Arguments . . . not too shabby for just a little bit of work on spotting the wires. I scored a 161 . . . and I am much more comfortable calling a 161 my starting point than a 157. However, I dropped down to 82% on Reading, which isn’t that great. Fans of Test #39 will remember the Canadian Internet copyright passage, which really slapped me around. My resolution for the next few days: don’t obsess over the score. Focus on skill sets. For the record, the “Credited Response” to the problem above is A. I don’t have a good explanation as to why that is. If I had to guess, I would say 1. The language in B, “If a scientific theory is correct” is too extreme for the passage, which says, “Scientists have concluded that there is good evidence.” Choice A merely says, “probably correct.” Also, the scientists were using data to verify a theory; choice B presumes the theory that has data thrown at it. But still . . . seriously, Elle Sack?

30-Day LSAT Blog - Day 03 Posted: 12 May 2009 09:21 PM PDT Today my main initiative was to go through my old practice tests and see where my errors were in the Arguments section. Back on Practice Test #9, I discovered that I was batting .500 on the Arguments . . . which makes it very difficult to score above a 160. So I cozied up with Rachael ≈link≈ and drove to the Manchester City Library (link to their Wordpress site). I Love the Carpenter Library out of principle, because it’s this beautiful post-Victorian pre-Art Deco compromise. Unfortunately, I learned a valuable tidbit: I’m not allowed to study in the library. I thought that an uncomfortable wooden desk and chair would be the best place, but it’s crucial to study where there aren’t any distractions . . . and every single book in a library is a distraction to me. Honestly, I should have seen this coming. Saint Michael’s College has a gorgeous library with several great study locales, but the books have always been distracting. I usually study in a Res Hall lounge or my room. So, in two hours I managed to go through one-and-a-half Argument sections from Test #11. I took it slow, worked through each as The Princeton Review recommends, and tried to see where the traps were. Often, I failed. But given unlimited time, I was cranking out about 77%. I’ll take a 22% improvement any day. That was about it for the day. I hadn’t seen Rachael since school ended, which is a long time when you go to school together, so we went out to get a banana split. Then dinner. I called it quits after that.

You are subscribed to email updates from ⁂ Asterism To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Inbox too full? Subscribe to the feed version of ⁂ Asterism in a feed reader.
If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: ⁂ Asterism, c/o Google, 20 W Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610