This LSAT Diary is from blog reader Jason, who writes in with some half-finished, LSAT-style questions he's made up.If you want to be in LSAT Diaries, please email me at LSATUnplugged@gmail.com. (You can be in LSAT Diaries whether you've taken the exam already or not.)
Jason's LSAT Diary:
RC is still a bit of a hit or miss, for me. I can consistently score -0 on RC and then I'll have a rough passages that I find the most boring and subsequently confusing and I'll miss 2 or 3 questions in a row. So, I would lose a few points based on a very rough literary set of questions. My best case RC is -0, my worst is -4. -4 is WAY to much to lose on the real test. So, I need to confine that to no more than 2 missed questions. If I get a games section written for me, I am pull it off in -1 to -3. A great LR section I can ace. 1 tough LR section I usually go -2. So, I'm looking anywhere from -4 to -11 -- a big variation! Basically anywhere from 176 to 169. I think the median score is in the 173 range right now. I'll know more more in a few weeks after the additional drills.
When I took the LSAT before, I doubt I missed a single question on the experimental RC section. I am sure my answers fit lock-and-key. Then, I missed 3 questions on the actual RC. I lost focus in the games. I performed nowhere near my 170 practice range. So I signed up to retake -- once again preparing for game day. I'm going over all questions that I've previously missed on the first attempt. I'm going to redo all the games in Grouped By Type (4g per day, each day until the test) and I'm doing each of the newest exams - 1 test every other day.
Games are the most dangerous -- not the technique necessarily, but the speed. I felt this recent test really less emphasized the setup and up-front inference and focused more on on the need to use brute-force inferences on the fly. The games seem less "definable" and much more hybrid than in PT 1-40. PT 54 - present really demonstrate a next-gen type of game, in my opinion.
Anyway, here's my running, stream of consciousness of fun LSAT-style questions that I've made up --- They aren't yet finished, but I think you can see where I am going with it:
"An agonist is a substance that initiates a physiological response when combined with a receptor. Agonists increase the level of receptor activation, antagonists reduce it. An antagonist is a substance that interferes with or inhibits the physiological action of another. An acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (often abbreviated AChEI) or anti-choliterase is a chemical that inhibits the cholinesterase enzyme from breaking down acetylcholine, increasing both the level and duration of action of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. Acetylcholine receptor agonists and antagonists can either have an effect directly on the receptors or exert their effects indirectly, e.g., by affecting the enzyme acetylcholinesterase, which degrades the receptor ligand.
If all of the above are true, which of the following can be properly inferred? (Still need to write some awesome, tough answer choices questions here.)
***
----This is one of my favorites -- the LSAT-makers like aviation but this is an entirely new level of difficulty:
Pilot's Association Rep:
Many people believe that, as flight technology becomes increasingly automated, that human pilots will soon be entirely replaced by automated control systems. But, the cost of labor required to produce human pilots -- typically free -- is much less than even the cheapest factory workers that build autopilot devices.
Cost-Saving Opponent:
But, of course, the cost of the direct labor required to produce said device is not the only cost valuable in comparing the costs to become "flight ready." For example, a human requires 20+ years of health, maintenance and education support costs before they are "flight ready." The cost of the flight instruction alone can approach a cost in the millions of dollars.
But, humans have the ability to make ethical decions -- whereas computers do not. Therefore, autopilot devices are not ethical.
Pilot:
Well, autopilots are superior because they make decisions based on objective criteria -- therefore, autopilots are not hampered by ethical considerations. Additionally, to adequately consider the costs of producing a human pilot, you would have to compare the costs required to allow the parents to achieve a fertile age and condition as well as all parents precedent to the pilot.
Opponent:
Nonsense, if you suggest that the cost of a particular human pilot is the sum of their direct ancestors, then you would similarly have to consider the cost of an autopilot device as the cost of all computers precedent to it's construction. UNIVAC alone, adjusted for inflation in today's dollars, is in the billions of dollars.
Pilot:
Well, just because computers built today are built upon technology inherent within UNIVAC, does not mean that they are direct descendants of UNIVAC.
Oppoment:
I wholeheartedly disagree with your dismissal of UNIVAC. Besides, the US Army built UNIVAC and the US Army has a positive history of building technology. Therefore, flight technology built by the US Army will be superior.
Pilot:
True, that logically follows if any technology built by the US Army will be superior, but the US Army also trains humans. Besides, you are missing the point.
What is the major point at issue between the Pilot and Opponent?
How do these arguments proceed? Do either and/or both utilize logical flaws through the course of the discussion?
I need to work on these questions -- but it's a lot of fun to build your own questions -- understanding them at that level -- and then taking a test form.
Photo by bobaubuchon
No comments:
Post a Comment