Test Day Advice (Advanced) with Lewis

I think that may very well help a number of people grace to that seem good. I was a better answer than I could give My big plug by the way is when you can feel yourself slipping mentally in any respect Give yourself the space to devote easily 90 seconds or even two minutes or more To stopping even if you're on the clock in the middle of the section to breathe to focus to clear your mind Whatever you need again where I fall down is I don't know how to give really good specific advice on what to do But I do know that you shouldn't allow the anxiety loop to tell you you don't have time to address your own anxiety Because you do it's worth it if you can get if you can refocus that will the gains you get from that will easily Make up for any losses that you suffer as a result of The lost time spent on it basically, okay.

No, I'm actually fine with that. Oh, it just depends on how well you understand it.

I mean, look, I actually not, it isn't to my dismay. agree with you. I've long said the, the, some people have brains that take very naturally to math.

Some people may be in the middle and there are some people who are very adverse to that form of expression.

It's just like a language. doesn't like work for them naturally or sit well with them. If that's who you are, then you should not force yourself to convert what is.

initially a word problem, which works for you into a math problem that you hate, right? Why do you bet?

There's nothing about the symbolic representation that's essential. It is essential that you have mastery of the underlying conceptual distinctions here, like an example of what I mean in the D.Y.K.

It's important that you're tracking the difference between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition. But these can be understood and represented fully as like word-based concepts that there's no need to ever reduce those symbols.

It's possible to reduce those symbols, but you don't have to, and you don't have to in order to grasp them for purposes of this test.

So I encourage you to keep doing what you're doing, Melissa, and I'm not surprised that it's working for you, and I would encourage anyone else who feels similarly to do the same.

mean, I know for a fact, like my girlfriend, okay, she tests very well. She hates math. If she were to be taking this test, I would 1 million people.

percent be telling her just I would never ever ever even show like maybe I would show it to her once to explain something I would never think that she should be like writing out please nor would she need to but I would encourage her to always be able to tell the difference between are they saying if this thing happens it guarantees the outcome or are they saying you need this thing to get the outcome but it might not be enough to guarantee that it will happen like questions like that I would insist on right okay doubling back Melissa said oh wait Grace says I can also right now see if it's on the point here um I diagrammed it first and then stopped when I felt I could do most in my head and then I still take notes if I need to break it down because I'm not a math person yeah I think that's great too I mean I have also pointed out to the people that it's we don't need to be like one never needs to be all or nothing about these things right so um uh I don't I'm trying to find it that's what Mike make this point um

I'm personally a very bad no take. So I don't write anything. If I were taking this test, would diagram zero things.

I'm also, because I'm such a bad no taker and I'm so lazy about it and have in my whole life, I'm super good at holding really complicated things in my mind, okay?

Because another oddity of my personality that only my parents and probably my high girlfriend know about me is for some reason, I don't know why.

I just have this natural instinct if I'm holding something to not put it down like my phone. I just like don't put it down to do tasks, even if the tasks should require two hands.

I always just try to do the task with one hand, even like opening a bottle or something, just stupid things.

So I've gotten really good at doing two-handed tasks with one hand because inexplicably I just do things like this all the time, it's pretty stupid though.

Yeah, I also have max hard core pushes for people to diagramming and it's not the only service to do this.

I think it's pretty common for tutoring services to, I guess, to push people naturally.

So yeah, I've seen it hurt people before. I have. I mean, it helps a number of people. So I mean, I don't want to say I think it's, and it isn't like there's, it isn't like it's inaccurate or something.

So I don't think it would be, but I, I, I'm glad to hear that you've found a happening middle ground that works for you.

I mean, truly if I were to build my own curriculum for this test, I think I would want to build too in parallel.

would literally say at the outset, look, it's possible. to give a formal logical representation of these things that is like the way they would teach this in a formal logic course in college.

That's a little bit mathy. If that's the kind of thing that you can do that you like, then watch these six videos and I'll teach you how to represent things that way.

If however you like hate math, you don't need to understand it this way here is like a purely conceptual approach to each of these questions.

I mean, there are just more than one way one can do these things. And they end up actually tracking each other.

So it was also different. Okay. Yeah, I'm also, I'm actually genuinely a believer in looking up a variety of perspectives on things, arguably that's why our live classes are so good, right?

Like, I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna actually have the exact same approaches our videos. So if you're struggling, just seeing multiple ways of doing things is gives you like, basically gives you a higher chance of finding an approach that aligns well with your personal psychology.

You need to find that fit. If you have the opposite of that fit, if you instead are experiencing what I think you were just expressing, which is perfectly reasonable, which is the approach that was being sort of pushed on you or insisted on was one that just really didn't work well for your natural strengths, you're going to you may well end up underperforming and even regressing and it's essentially nobody's fault, but this is just why diversity experienced diversity of humans are really different from each other, you know, but there's a lot of us so you can almost always find someone else who's like you.

Okay, I'm rambling now. So let's double back. Oh, she was taking time sections, practice tests the week of the test.

It just depends on the personality. Okay, I was for sure. Um, it just depends on how it's going to Okay.

make you feel. If you know, there's a very real chance that the experience of doing a timed section or a time test, grading it, and yet don't do Kaplan, that's true.

And don't do Kristen review. If the experience of doing that and then scoring a little worse than you have been, it's going to be really discouraging to you and set you back.

If your anxiety is at that level, if your self-confidence is teetering, then you probably don't want to set yourself up for like an emotional blow that will set your confidence back in advance of the test.

Confidence is very important. On the other hand, if you have a certain degree of resilience where that's not going to, it's not going to affect you, then that's not really a consideration that you have to worry about.

And it probably is pretty bad. I mean, I wouldn't be grinding out practice tests or I wouldn't think to myself, oh, the more questions I can get done this week, the better.

That isn't really going to be what makes the biggest difference. It isn't like, oh my god, I need to grind questions at the last minute.

It's not. framing that's going to help you. It's going to always be more important to have quality of time spent rather than quantity here of questions answered in the sense that I would rather you do fewer sections and spend more time reflecting on your own process than that you find out more sections.

I think this makes sense. I've often said to people that they But it's like really important not to be like tired when you're doing this test, like that, especially, especially if you're actually doing LSAT questions.

Okay. What I'm about to say, it's a little different if the studying work you're doing is like watching a video or something like that, right, or maybe doing a daily drill.

Those are arguably tasks that require the same intense level of focus. But if you're doing solving actual LSAT problems, the level of focus required is insane.

It's like, I mean, literally part of the test is it's hard to maintain that focus for even two and a half hours.

That is literally part of the difficulty of the exam. And it's like, that's like intended, right? Yeah, sorry, I'm just trying to think.

What else? What else is I going to say about that? Should we do anything else to say about that?

Very nice. Yeah, I don't know. Anyway, I guess the only point I wanted to make about that was, yeah, if you're doing four hours and you're trying to sustain the high swivel focus around those four hours, you're going to flag towards the end.

This can be a really bad, like, confidence depressor cycle for people to, I've seen this, where it's like, actually, wait, someone in the skull.

Oh, yeah, Joseph, I had a session with Joseph, I think one of these days. Okay. And it was like, he had already studied that day.

had probably already put out for the test. We had a, you know, a significantly focused intensive session also. And then he took a full test after that, any wildly performed worst that he normally would.

And it's like, yeah, man, anyone would like, if you do work a full day, come home, it's nighttime, you've already done LSAT.

And now you're trying to do a full test. Like, it's crazy how much works you're going to do. And it's literally just because you're tired, like, um, yeah, you definitely shouldn't, uh, shouldn't like take anything away from that experience.

That's my feeling. But yeah, yes, we're just watching the video. Yeah, I think it is a really good idea as we'll set as a student of the LSAT.

I think it's a really good idea to have basically, you want to have ways of studying that are varied in terms of their level of focus as they require.

So for me, this is going to sound cringe, OK? So don't cringe at me too hard. And I realize it's a little cringe.

But yeah, yeah, I say, I love the games section when I was studying for the test, OK? And it's because I love a of games.

I've been really good at them my whole life. They come super nationally. I love them when I was a kid.

Because I was good at them and they came naturally to me. I really enjoyed. I like super enjoyed I don't know like I still play Sudoku okay like I'll just play hours of Sudoku on a flight and not get bored of it to this day so like for me and the game section was because I was really good at it it like quite literally yeah I've tried it yeah I mean it it it like genuinely how do I put this I never made a single mistake on this I have never gotten a question wrong in a game section ever in practice test or on the real test okay and I knew that so it was really relaxing for me so if I were exhausted or frustrated and I felt like I should be studying for the LSAT but I didn't have an immediate do like a tougher section or a full test I would just do a game section and I could be like oh nice you know I feel like I've accomplished something basically yeah okay Richard Thomas says speaking of games is also at max adapting to the no

I just lost my spot. Oh, adapting to the new changes to the test. Yeah, I mean, we have adapted.

So I didn't discover this at first. I'll show you guys something. See if can blow your minds here for a hot second.

We go to the website. I don't know if you've all discovered this. There's like, if you go to your profile corner, you can flip a switch to disable logic games and then it'll basically just, like, I have a disabled on my system because they're gone forever.

So like none of the games lessons show up on the lessons page. And if you go to the practice tests, they've actually been reformatted to adapt to the new format.

They haven't been re-numbered, which I think is bad. I think that someone should re-number them to match the new numberings, but it is just the new format.

So you have either a 3LR, 1RC or 2 and 2, OK? Yeah. OK, was there another question that I missed something?

Oh. Yeah. Well, Melissa, will you say aloud what you just wrote in chat because I really like that, actually?

I love that.

I had, again, on the topic to add more cringe things to say, okay, in addition to liking watch games myself, I've often said to people, as long as you hate this test, okay, you're never gonna, you know, get all the way better at it.

And that's an awful thing to say. And I realized that and it sucks, okay? But yeah, it's super important not to hate the test, truly.

It actually is really important not to hate the test.

You know what I mean? Yeah, yeah, yeah. These are the things that make people hate the test, right? If you're 100, 100%, yeah, if you're like, I don't know, like hyper aware of

You know, I don't know, like the That your life is on the line your future is on the line, right?

I mean, there are a lot of things about this test that can make people really Understandably not enjoy the process like I'm not I know I said it as crinches says I'm not crazy including that the test is really Unbelievably harsh.

It's so unforgiving It's so it's so inhuman if you're like a little tired at the end of a long day or just having an off They are a little distracted.

It doesn't give you the grace of saying. It's okay, buddy I know you we've been working together for the last three months You know, I can cut you a little slack It just immediately gives you the feedback of know you're worse You suck here's a number that represents how bad you are, right?

And it's like that that sense people have this feeling too like they're like the test is trying to grab them by the shirt collar and say Here's a I'm gonna sum up your entire worth is

human with one number. Here it is. Boom. Slap on the face. And it feels like so kind of unfair and like dehumanizing and like whatever.

There are a lot of reasons why if especially if you interpret the test that way, it's a miserable experience.

But that's arguably the wrong way to interpret the test. It isn't something after work as a human. You would be right to object to that if that's how you took it.

But that probably isn't the right way to understand what it's trying to do or say. In any event if that is what it's trying to do, it's wrong and it shouldn't.

Right. Right. So you shouldn't like so you certainly shouldn't let it I guess is what I'm trying to say.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. don't think so. Oh, Joseph is a question. Okay, Joe, great question. This is about there's a document on our website called 33 common LSAT flaws.

Has anyone else discovered this document? Because I actually love this document. think it's great. I actually point this out to students all the time.

I would argue that this is the single best resource we have in our curriculum. Okay, so in the errors and reasoning, I'm piggybacking off of your question here, Joe, to just have a little soapbox moment because I really love this document.

I think it's a great call out. So in the errors and reasoning lesson beneath the actual video, there is something called 33 common LSAT flaws.

And admittedly, it's got a little icon next to it like a. Yeah, it's in one of the sections. Yeah, it's in errors and reasoning.

It's in that lesson. Yeah, exactly. Thank you. It's got a little microphone icon next to it that makes it seem like it's like a podcast or something.

And if you open it, I think there actually is literally like a podcast at the top. I, despite how positive I was just being about about that thing.

I actually don't know anything about the the podcast. I've never like listened to it. So I don't I don't know how good it is.

It might very well be very good. I don't know, but I'm just not sure. But, but what I am sure about is this the document underneath, which is actually quite long.

So the way the document works is basically it essentially walks you through a whole bunch of I don't know the right way to call them sort of fallacies and other sort of violations of principles of deductive logic that an argument can make.

And it catarizes and the groups done by families. And it sort of explains each one and then also illustrates each one by by way of, I think, one or two.

two examples not drawn from the LSAT, and then a series of examples of real LSAT questions that were sort of fundamentally solved by correctly diagnosing the flaw that's being named, okay?

And the document looks massive. is very hard to navigate, just like Joe suggested. Okay, great, so then perfect, that's good to know.

So apparently the audio that I never actually listened to is just pairing with it and walking through it. So then I recommend that too, I think the content here is really good.

Yeah, anyway, basically the number one defect I've often called out about the document is just literally that it's hard to navigate the document itself.

So I guess there are different ways we could think about trying to address that, but yeah, I don't know, I mean that the...

The short answer, I sometimes recommend to students, I actually don't know how good this is, I should ask one of my students whether this is actually helpful or not.

Okay, I don't know, depending on what my people say if they actually like this, I think it seems good, so I'm going to keep recommending it to people.

I basically typically recommend that that that they basically call the word document of their own, where they just literally make an outline of the names of the families of the fallacies and then the names of the specific families and group them so that you can more easily glance at the thing Examples can be really helpful for that, and the text can be really helpful for that, but I would just refer back to the original document for this.

Now, you asked a concrete question, which was, is there like a PDF version of it? Not that I know of, but it would make sense to want one.

So I would consider reaching out to like our tech support people and seeing what they can do. They might actually have that.

just have no idea. And if they do, let me know because that would be great. Oh, it's a standalone purchase.

Well, if you've already, if you already have access to the curriculum, then I think it's conceivable that they could, that you could have access to that, but, oh, well, actually, the more I think about it, no, you're, you're probably right.

It's probably, actually, it's probably not likely. It's probably not likely to give it, I guess. Yeah, I'm not 100% sure.

I'm trying to think about it, but yeah, I'm not totally sure, actually. Yeah, not possible. You might be right about not, because I don't want you to have permanent access.

That's right. Yeah, that's fair. It is a subscription model. Yeah. Okay. I have no idea if the L site waiver would be relevant, but I, you know, Melissa's got a good instinct here, which is you should always ask.

Okay. Sorry.

Yeah, maybe I actually don't know. That's possible though. It's a, it's a good thought at the very least worth investigating.

Yeah. Okay. What else is there to say? Is there anything else to say? I'm not sure. Well, technically it's 205, but I think I'm going to stay for at least another 10 minutes.

Oh, we never got to your actual subject question, Melissa. Should we do that?

yeah. It's not a little L R here. Okay. Let's do one second to hold this up. As you have here mentioned, let's see.

Okay. What is the 38 in parentheses at the start of how you wrote this?

Oh, that's amazing.

That's a sad question. need to know. Okay. I was literally about to try to Google that myself. Steve doesn't work for me.

OK, so I know I really do wish they adopted the new number and system on our website. That is my only complaint.

So I have one Q15, let me see. Yeah, yeah, mystery stories often feature a brilliant detective. Is that it?

OK, I will show you my I got the answers. OK, is this the right question?

OK, so let's all just take a second to read this. I need a second to read this. don't think I recognize this question yet, and we can go from there.

OK, You Okay, so There's like a little odd here the question is ultimately a must be true, right? But then they have this thus Which may seem like they were trying to make an argument, but I admit as far as an argument goes, this is an incredibly bad

at argument. I mean, I have no idea how this is supposed to have followed from what was set above.

So the fact that they're not asking me to actually read this as an argument is helpful. I wasn't even sure how to go about beginning to nitpick, it seems so out of what field as a deduction.

So instead, I can just see this as another parameter, another premise, another claim. Okay, so then the things we know are that mystery stories often feature a really detective with adult companion, the clues for a present in the story that both the detective and the adult companion are responding to the same clues that the detective uses those clues to get the answer right and the adult companion uses the same clues and gets the answer wrong, right?

What else? What else do we know?

Okay, good. and actually we know we know more than just that, because we're allowed to take that whole final thing for grammar.

what do we know? We know the purpose within the narrative of writing it like this, right? The author's strategy of doing this, or actually, hold on, wait, wait, I misread this, do we know the authors, do we know the authors' intentions when they did this or do we just know it's effect.

Let's see. It looks like it's just a statement of effect, actually. Doing this gives readers a chance to solve the mystery while also diverting them.

So we know two consequences of this trend. One is that it actually diverts readers' attention from the correct solution, but the other is that it buys time for the reader to take a shot at.

Okay, now those last few things might seem like they're actually across purposes. Are you trying to help readers solve it?

you trying to trick them? Well, I mean, I guess they can be reconciled. not strictly consistent, right? You want to give them time, but you want to also-

You've already answered your own question, but then rejected it by stipulation I can't even answer the question if I'm not

Just a look at the question being asked, how could I know this?

I mean, thus indicates that the person speaking thinks this follows from what was above. I wasted a good amount of time on this, trying to anticipate what the hell is supposed to be the flan, this argument, starting with so bad it as 15 flaws.

That was my first reaction, probably not unlike you. But then as soon as I read this, I realized, oh, God, I don't have to keep worrying about this.

Yeah, well, so really what's going be more precise, OK? All these distinctions are in conclusion than premises are a little fishy.

The only thing that really matters is whether for any one of these claims, are you supposed to take it for granted as given, like a rule, i.e.

premise? Or are you supposed to be thinking critically about this claim as to evaluate whether it has been adequately established by

earlier claims. Okay, now ordinarily, that's what it means when you identify the conclusion of an argument. Oh, this is the conclusion.

Above it was the support. Now the question is, was this adequately supported by the president? But when they ask this question, they're telling you, you're not supposed to worry about any one of these claims and how well supported it is, you're only supposed to worry about how well supported the answer choice they're looking at is by everything up here.

So if everything up here is supposed to be supporting the answer choice, then I don't have to worry about the interrelationships between these claims.

Does this really follow from what was above it? If so, why? I don't know, but I don't have to care.

Did that make a little bit more sense? Yes. Okay. that case, I actually have nothing else of interest to say.

Fortunately. Oh, we should probably solve this shouldn't. Oh, there's only a chat. Okay, so now we have Joseph was originally leaning towards C and now thinking D.

Well, let's go one by one. Hey, most mystery stories featured for a broge detective who solves the mystery presented in the story.

Do they ever say that he solves the mystery? They tell us that he did the detective deduces the correct solution.

Most mystery sources often does most and often align seems reasonable. I'm going to be honest. A is not a terrible answer.

I would not get rid of A. It's not a perfect fit, but they just have most wrongly supported. How do you guys feel about A?

I'm not saying I think it is a I can't tell yet, but. I feel like it could be. Am I crazy?

All right, let's read on the mystery readers often solve the mystery in a story simply by spotting mistakes in the reasoning that the tech is still containing.

Well, this is, if anything, the opposite of what they were indicating down here. I mean, they said that the two things we were told about, the effects this has on the reader are, one, it buys time for us, that has nothing to do with what said in B, two, it actually diverts us from the correct solution.

B is acting like it is the way we find the correct solution. So this is definitely not supported by the passage.

That's a terrible answer. Most just means more than half. I don't know what the often means, but often sounds like it means it could mean more than half the time.

I admit to you, I wasn't sure either. You heard me ask about that. I said most often, is that a misalignment?

But I don't think so. It seems pretty reasonable. I'm not 100%. But we'll all know whether not A is the answer, based on whether there's another good answer, okay?

So we don't have to freak out about it, but I'm not getting rid of it, whereas B was a no-no.

I mean, this is literally, if anything, it's disagreeing with what they said down here. Now, C, some mystery stories give readers enough clues to infer the direct solution.

Interesting. That's a very weak claim, so that's a pretty safe kind of answer to pick on these questions. There must be at least one mystery story that gave the readers enough clues to get the correct solution.

Well, they say that the clues presented in the story are successfully used by the brilliant detective to deduce the correct solution.

It doesn't actually fall from that, though, that the reader would be able to do it, because the detective being a character could in some sense be cheating, I guess.

They say here, though, that including this guy gives readers a chance to solve the mystery. C is looking like a pretty good answer too.

I mean, if there were no mystery stories that gave enough clues for any reader to be able to infer the correct solution, then this would be a really strange remark, wouldn't it?

I don't actually have a chance to solve the mystery. And it doesn't help to include this dull guy buying time for me or something.

I wonder if say he has a chance to succeed. That literally means he can succeed, right? It doesn't say they ever actually get to the solution, neither did C.

If C just said they had enough clues present that they could have inferred the correct solution. This C never says the reader actually does it.

I have 99 problems, but else that can fly in one. Okay.

I'm like. Oh, you're back. haven't been like it was you, but I didn't want to make exceptions. What's up?

Good to see you.

Nice. Okay. Sorry. You run a lot here and I have it ready. Okay. Okay. Looking good. Okay. Cost from minus 5 to eight.

Wait. Cost from minus 5 to eight. That's a. Oh. Right. How do I read that for since?

That's a big range, but I guess we've been doing a lot of testing. Okay.

Oh, yeah I can't go back.

We were in the middle of solving a problem What are we talking about right now?

not really to that at all. Okay, so we're literally in the middle of reading the answers then.

So you're good, you're good, you're totally fine. Okay, I thought you gonna bring it back around, but I realized that something weren't okay, you're fine.

So hold on. So I was liking C. I don't see how you could possibly say that you have given readers a chance to solve the mystery if there aren't enough clues present for any reader to infer the correct solution.

So this, it feels like if I were to negate C, that would require me to contradict this statement. So I'm thinking C is a pretty good answer here.

Which means I'm kind of falling away from A. I'll talk about why A is probably wrong in a second, but let's read on.

The actions of the brilliant detective in a mystery rarely divert readers from the act. Well, now that's just reading, that's just reading the arrow backwards here.

They just said that the companion does divert readers. deduces the correct solution. Is it possible to deduce the correct solution without actually solving the mystery?

I don't know. I had read those as the same thing. Yeah, I'm not sure. I mean, I'm having a really hard time articulating why A is wrong, but my instinct tells me to pick C.

And I'm seeing support for C in chat, so let's do it. Yeah, okay, so it was C, and this was a nasty, nasty question.

Why is A wrong? Huh, apparently often doesn't mean most. I mean, let's Google that.

Okay, well, barely you were all right to. Don't worry about that. I mean, I worried about it too. You did hear me say that aloud.

That felt kind of stupid, but at least according to this Power Score Forum, according to Dave over here, whoever that is, helped me as part of the Power Score staff, that's a good sign.

This was from 2011 now, so apparently, neither many nor often mean most. Now, I actually would have known that many doesn't mean most, which now makes me feel stupid.

I should have said, yeah, often it's like many and that's not most. Well, regardless, the real beautiful takeaway here is if there's an answer choice on a must be true that says some, it's probably right.

Okay, it's so easy to prove a song by accident. Okay, some is such an easy claim to prove. Okay, we got to the end of Oh, Mary asked a question just among the ones of what I was saying.

I wouldn't necessarily be wary of most, it's all relative. I'm wary of most, if there's a some. Most the stronger than so.

Basically, the weaker the answer choice, the safer it is typically and the stronger the worst. So, a most looks good next to an all, but bad next to a sum, okay?

I definitely wouldn't think there's something special about most that makes it bad. Most isn't inherently, like if all the other answers were like all claims, were conditional claims, then most would be the weakest answer choice, and I would then gravitate towards it for that reason.

Again, all these things are just one-size-fits-all rules. You need to first and foremost be addressing the actual promise. But, in general, the weaker, logically speaking, weaker the claim, the more likely it is to have been established fully.

The stronger the claim, the harder it is to establish, right? Okay, I have now stayed over quite a bit extra, and I would generally have to go soon, but I did say I would address your question, so let me double back here.

Yeah, and I could be here for me just to tell you, so essentially, it's like, oh, no, no, no, no,

Equivalent logically is having enough Material to solve I I think it's that's equivocal I think it's a reasonable question to ask and I think because that is an obvious That's why they use the language of most strongly supported rather than strict logical deduction or must be true That's my guess because it isn't I could imagine reasonable minds differing on that question Okay, a reasonable thing for you to ask for sure I mean, I was kind of actually leaning on common sense here.

So I was thinking if someone says I gave him a chance And then you found out that it was literally impossible for that person to succeed You would say no, you didn't give him a check.

He didn't actually have a chance then Right, so to put the point another way Like it's almost like the catch you ever read catch 22.

It's like the idea of a catch 22 Right. Okay. I'll give you like it's like if you were messing with like your kid or something else like a dad Or like maybe they're like eight or something and you're like holding like I don't know

This a bad example, I don't know, whatever. So let's think of a better one, like bureaucracy being or something, right?

If the bureaucracy has some rule that says like, okay, imagine a bunch of people are running a race. And then the rules initially say, there's two people, they're about to run a race.

And the rules say, participant one is not allowed to run the race. Okay, participant two wins by people. And then you go, okay, okay, We're changing the rules, we're gonna give you a chance.

The rules now allow you to run in the race, but then right before the race starts, you send your like thugs down to the section and they just like break the knees of the guy.

they're like, go ahead, the rules say you can run, go run the race now. Did you really give them a chance?

Like, I think it's supposed to be like that. giving someone a chance implies that there is some possibility of success for them, right?

Otherwise you didn't give them a chance. I think that's the thought. So it isn't necessarily matter of ecological force, but it does look like the following conditional statement is probably true.

If you gave someone a chance, then it was possible. possible for them to succeed. That's why they're saying it's not a strict logical deduction.

That is a further assumption, but it's a very reasonable assumption, almost definition. Yeah, so most supportive means we have to look for things.

I wouldn't have considered A seriously at all as an answer if they had said must be true. Because it was too even this subtle distinction between solving the mystery and using the clues to deduce the solution, that would have been enough to make me worry if it said must be true.

But when it says most strongly supported, it gives us a little bit of space. Okay, now I'm going all the way back to what you said.

Let me read what you wrote here. So you've been ranging. R.C. killed you one time. All right, I'll just let you talk.

So there's usually.

Yeah well once you get too deep into that process it gets really hard because the overthinking thing is deadly.

There's only one way to really improve when you're already at the level you're at because there's not much room for improvement anyway and that is to type specifically review every wrong answer you have.

The whole blind review sort of notion that a lot of people obviously really strongly wrong way to plug in these discussions for good reason by the way right that the whole idea of that

The value of those goes up substantially the stronger you are at the test, okay? So someone who's in the 140s should not be taking full-time tests and blind reviewing them really.

Like, I mean, maybe there can be some way to integrate blind review, but that person needs to pick up a large number of fundamental skills before they have, like, a solid and a framework for even thinking about the past.

Like, looking back at a question and thinking, what did I do wrong, and if the answer is actually like six things, that's kind of unhelpful, but in your case, it'll never be that.

So what you need to do, you may already be doing this, but what I would say is you need to 100% make sure you know exactly what it is that for every question you get wrong, because there aren't going be that many of them per test.

It doesn't have to be what you did wrong. need to be able to explain with absolute precision what was about the wrong answer that made it wrong in the eyes of the test, okay?

I was doing that in front of you on the question we just did. I wasn't ready to move on from that until I felt certain that I knew why A was wrong.

And that was even despite the fact that I knew with almost absolute certainty that C was the right answer.

I was never gonna get that question wrong. I didn't get that question wrong. But even then it bothered me that I couldn't say precisely what was wrong with A.

And I kept expecting if I just reread it and think about it again, all now I'll be able to say what's wrong with A.

And it honestly, it wasn't happening, right? I kept looking back at it and going, No, actually, I think this is a pretty decent answer.

So that bothered me. Okay. And I didn't want to move on until I had sort of pushed past that.

Yeah, but now I appreciate it. Ah, know. Okay. Thanks, everyone, for coming. Thanks for all the participation. I'm really sorry about that awkward 20 minutes.

time. I appreciate all of you for sticking around those of you who did. This ended up being a great session in the end, so thanks for all the messages and chat and the questions.

I got a run to another meeting now, but cheers everybody.