***
Here's a Logic Games question from the June 2003 exam.
Let's make a quick chain of phrases so we can see the argument's progression. You won't have to do this on test day. Instead, you'll recognize key "trigger" words. I'm only doing this for instruction's sake:
Successful = organized/motivated --> not successful = often not org/motiv. --> well-known = successful --> motiv = no regret
Don't get confused by the part that says, "only those who are highly successful are well-known." This does not mean all who are highly successful are well-known. It's simply that all the well-known people are successful. There could be a bunch of successful people who aren't well-known.
Let's start eliminating choices. We won't pre-phrase since several statements might have to be true based on the argument:
A) Out of scope. The argument never addresses this. It says successful = organized/motivated, but it doesn't say whether or not you can be motivated, unsuccessful, and organized.
B) Wrong for the same reason as A. We're not sure if you can be a only few of these 3 things (successful, motivated, and organized) or not.
C) Correct. Follow the logic here. Well-known = successful. Successful = motivated/organized. Motivated = no regrets. This has to be true based on the argument.
D) Out of scope. Again, we just don't know. All we know is that no self-motivated person regrets careers. We don't know whether organized or disorganized people do or don't regret them. The argument gives us no guidance on this, so it's beyond the argument's scope.
E) Again, we just don't know, so it's out of scope. What we do know about people who don't regret their career is that some of them, at least, are self-motivated, since no self-motivated person regrets their career (and there are some self-motivated people). Are those motivated people successful too? We don't know.
Remember: don't pre-phrase when there are many possible right answers, and use a chain of phrases. Also, eliminate choices that are out of scope. If the argument doesn't address them, they surely need not be true as a consequence of it.
I think I have decided that the LSAT has very little to do with I.Q. and also very little correlation with the SAT. The average LSAT for graduates of MIT is 163.5. Now this is interesting because the minimum SAT score for MIT students has got to be around 1450 or 1500. My guess is the average I.Q. at MIT is 145 and yet the average LSAT was only 163. Now I scored 167 the first time I took the LSAT (after a fair amount of practice, I might add) and I scored no where near a 1450 on my SAT nor do I think that I have a 145 I.Q.
ReplyDeleteAlso I have been seriously practicing the LSAT of late, and I am mostly convinced that I can now score in the mid-170s. There may be some minor correlation between I.Q. and LSAT but form my experience it is not a very close correlation. The LSAT tests a subset of skills required to do well on I.Q. tests. If you happen to be skilled or talented in that subset then you may score well above those who are overall more intellectually talented. I am living proof of that.
There certainly is correlation between IQ, LSAT, and SAT. Some studies have shown the correlation between IQ and SAT to be higher than .8 (meaning IQ explains nearly all of the SAT score for most people).
ReplyDeleteI'm a somewhat contrary example myself. My highest official (school administered) IQ score was 142 (Stanford-Binet) which should translate into a pre-1996 SAT score of 1350. However, I was a very unmotivated high school student with poor mathematical training and scored 1250 in my single SAT attempt.
One consideration regarding LSAT scores of MIT students is that MIT weights math SAT scores over verbal SAT scores. (You'll find many more 800 math scorers at MIT than at Harvard or Yale.) But the LSAT is heavily weighted toward the verbal component of IQ.
My verbal SAT score was 690 (+99th percentile) and on my single practice LSAT with no prep I scored at the 87th percentile of LSAT scorers which equates to about the 97-98th percentile of the general population. (I'm basing that last on the belief that Mensa accepts LSAT scores around the 87-88th percentile and limits membership to the 98th percentile of the general population.)
I don't understand this question. I looked at it as logic:
ReplyDelete1. If S (successful) -> O (organized)+ M (motivated)
2. If not O or M -> not S
3. If K (known) -> S
4. If not S -> not K
5. If M -> not R (regret)
6. If R -> not M
Based on this, the answer is A. Can someone explain why this is wrong? A isn't "out of scope" because the logic connects the three different parts.
"Based on this, the answer is A. Can someone explain why this is wrong? A isn't "out of scope" because the logic connects the three different parts."
ReplyDeleteNo A is commiting the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
It is basically saying
If S (successful) -> O (organized)+ M (motivated)
not S
Therefore not Organized and Motivated
Change the question to all big dogs are warm and furry.
A is then suggesting that there are no furry dogs that aren't big that are warm.
Clearly this can be seen as an absurd statement.
Mondo
I don't understand this question. I looked at it as logic:
1. If S (successful) -> O (organized)+ M (motivated)
2. If not O or M -> not S
3. If K (known) -> S
4. If not S -> not K
5. If M -> not R (regret)
6. If R -> not M
You guys are like a kick in the balls, because I took my first practise LSAT today and scored 154, which is only the 60th percentile... I don't know if you timed yourselves the first time, I did and had to guess the last 5 or so questions in each section because I ran out of time... Hopefully with more practise I'll get faster. I missed half the questions in the logic games section but only missed 2 questions in the reading comprehension part.
ReplyDeleteRemember that on the SAT & LSAT the percentile is not as compared with the entire population, but only the populations that take those tests. A far more select group take the LSAT than take the SAT. I always scored in the 99.9th percentile on standardized tests growing up, including the SAT. My first LSAT was 95th percentile, and I have improved to the 99.9 on practice tests over the summer(I have to wait 3 more weeks to know for certain how I did on the real thing).
ReplyDelete"Some experts say" that the new SAT does not correlate directly to IQ.