Posted on January 21, 2013 by Anthony Ritz
A few months ago I wrote some words about qualifiers. These little words — words like “some,” “many,” “most,” “few,” “maybe,” and “probably” — somehow manage to be both often-critical and often-overlooked on standardized tests like the LSAT, the GMAT, and the GRE. I discussed spotting these words and went on to point out the existence and importance of hierarchies among the various qualifiers.
There’s one more twist, though, that we have yet to address…
Read More
Be the first to comment »
Tags: Formal Logic, GMAT, GRE, Logical Reasoning, LSAT, Qualifiers
Posted on October 22, 2012 by Anthony Ritz
Here’s an easy way to pick up an extra point or two on your LSAT score (or 10 or 20 on your GMAT score): When you’re reading logical reading questions, pay close attention to the qualifiers attached to the statements they make.
Simple little words like “some,” “many,” “most,” “few,” “all,” “maybe,” “probably,” “often,” “usually,” and so forth may seem interchangeable and are easily overlooked, but in fact any qualifier can critically change the meaning of a statement in which it appears. Furthermore, because the test writers know that these little words are so often overlooked, qualifiers are a favorite trick to lead unwary test-takers astray.
Read More
Be the first to comment »
Tags: GMAT, GRE, Logical Reasoning, LSAT, Qualifiers
Posted on October 10, 2012 by Anthony Ritz
Today’s question comes from the GMAT. It’s Critical Reasoning Practice Question #7 in The Official Guide for GMAT Verbal Review, 2nd Edition (page 118).
A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune-system activity tend to score much lower on tests of mental health than do people with normal or high immune-system activity. The researcher concluded from this experiment that the immune system protects against mental illness as well as against physical disease.
The researcher’s conclusion depends on which of the following assumptions?
Read More
Be the first to comment »
Tags: Assumption (Necessary), Correlation versus Causation, GMAT, GRE, Logical Reasoning, LSAT, Question Analysis
Posted on August 6, 2012 by Anthony Ritz
Last time, on Formal Logic:
* We learned that formal logic is an important part of the LSAT.
* Arguments were broken down into propositions, which were shorthanded by capital letters and manipulated using operators.
* Finally, negation and arrow diagrams burst onto the scene, leading to a shocking revelation: A→B says nothing about what happens in the “not A” case!
But what other arrow diagram is equivalent to A→B? How can arrow diagrams be combined? Will we ever finally see an LSAT question example? Does Anthony have his umbrella?
These questions and more will be answered… tonight.
Read More
Be the first to comment »
Tags: Analytical Reasoning, Formal Logic, Logical Reasoning, LSAT
Posted on July 30, 2012 by Anthony Ritz
The facts are the least important part of the LSAT.
It’s one of my favorite refrains, because it challenges students to rethink their approaches to the test and create real change in their results. And sure, it’s a slight exaggeration — the facts do matter, at least in some ways — but it’s more true than you might think. A successful approach to the LSAT starts with consideration of logical structure and runs through qualifiers, connecting words, and question types before ever arriving at the sort of fact-based considerations by which too many test takers live and die.
Read More
1 Comment »
Tags: Analytical Reasoning, Formal Logic, Logical Reasoning, LSAT
Posted on July 9, 2012 by Anthony Ritz
Well, this weekend in my private tutoring ended up being all about correlation/causation issues, and I feel like sharing, so here you go:
The issue of correlation versus causation shows up on the LSAT, the GMAT, and the GRE, among other standardized tests. It’s a good idea to start by trying to understand correlation and causation generally. We’ll look at specific examples/applications and a full question analysis towards the end.
Read More
Be the first to comment »
Tags: Correlation versus Causation, GMAT, GRE, Logical Reasoning, LSAT
Posted on June 23, 2012 by Anthony Ritz
As previously noted, one regular feature of this blog will be the “question of the week.” I intend to choose from among reader suggestions one question from the LSAT (or GMAT, or GRE, or SAT, or ACT) and to do a full analysis of the strategies needed to answer that question correctly. I will address why the right answer is right, why the wrong answers are wrong (where applicable), what mistakes students must be careful to avoid, and so forth.
Read More
Be the first to comment »
Tags: Inference, Logical Reasoning, LSAT, Question Analysis