How do you dissect a Stimulus?
For example, with the Conclusion Identification Method, Problem #2 on Page 146 in the Logical Reasoning Bible, the last sentence was dissected in such a way that I just can’t see. It wasn’t broken up into halves, there were no commas or Indicator words to separate anything, there was no indication of what words to keep, which ones to overlook, which ones to alter, or which ones to not use at all.
How do you determine which words to use, which words not to use, and which words to alter? This test is hard enough, I can’t believe they do things like this to make it even harder.
I chose E. I turned "Indeed, I would...is reprehensible," into the Conclusion by saying, To conclude, "I would not disagree...reprehensible."
Chapter #5 - MP - CIM - Problem #2 - Hogan's Actions
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
Thanks for the question! This is a perfect example of what makes the test challenging, and so the first point to accept is that yes, they do indeed make it difficult like this, and they do it on purpose. The broad reason is that law contracts aren't always clear, and so the skill set required to excel in law school demands interpretative skills. Hence, LSAC feels justified in including sentences like this.
So let's see what happens inside this last sentence, which is stated as follows: "But in asking you to concur with me that Hogan’s actions not be wholly condemned I emphasize again that Hogan mistakenly believed Winters to be the robber who had been terrorizing west-side apartment buildings for the past several months." That is a mouthful There are different ways to handle this, one of which is supplying the commas that are missing:
When you do that, it becomes easier to break down each part of the sentence into something manageable. Let's start with the second half:
Note how the test makers draw you into going down an alley way with phrases like "the robber who had been terrorizing west-side apartment buildings for the past several months." The italicized section is just additional information about the robber, and not something you need to worry about a whole lot. Just knowing we are talking about the robber is enough!
Ok, so what about the other part?
Add that all up and you get: "Hey, I want you to agree with me hat what Hogan did wasn't all bad, because Hogan thought Winters was the robber, but he was wrong about that." When seen all together, that matches (C) relatively closely.
By the way, the author agrees with (E), so you were right on that count. the problem was that (E) doesn't represent the Main Point. So, a tricky answer answer since it's gets you part of the way to where you need to be.
Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!
PowerScore Test Preparation
Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/DaveKilloran
My LSAT Articles: http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/author/dave-killoran
Thanks, that makes a lot more sense. But, when it comes to the Conclusion Identification Method™ I find that, a lot of times, by using Premise Indicators and Conclusion Indicators that either one can be applied to multiple sentences equally so that there is no distinction and hence the Conclusion I choose can be a Premise and the Premise I choose can be a Conclusion. I hope you understand what I mean.
3 posts • Page 1 of 1