LSAT Strategy Dreams

I'm dreaming LSAT questions now, which I take to mean I've studied about as much as is healthy. The dreams are not anxious, exactly; they're strategic. In one dream, the LSAT was sort of metaphorically transformed into a great mtn. bike ride—lots of hills and valleys, rough terrain, screaming downhills, gut-busting climbs, the whole deal. At one point in that dream I had to get off my bike and scout ahead for the right line through a tricky stretch of rocks and sand. The LSAT will be the same: choose the right "line" and you'll sail through; take a wrong turn (with your strategies or confidence), and you could end up on your ass.

In another dream, I just kept this verse from Billy Bragg's song, "A Lover Sings" (from Back to Basics):

There is no real substitute for a ball struck squarely and firmly, But you're the kind of girl who wants to open up the bottle of pop too early in the journey. Our love went flat, just like that.

How could this verse possibly apply to the LSAT? Well, obviously you have to take the test with confidence—strike the ball squarely and firmly. And for me, when it comes to logic games (or what the LSAT calls the "analytical" section), I make the most mistakes when I try to move too quickly and rush through the game. In other words, I always want to open up the bottle of logic game pop too early in the journey, which makes my answers go flat, just like that.

Ok. Maybe I'll keep my crazy LSAT strategy dreams to myself from now on.

Posted 08:16 AM | law school

NaNoWriMo

It's back... almost. November is National Novel Writing Month, which means NaNoWriMo is just around the corner. Want to write a novel in a month? (A "novel" is considered complete at 50,000 words, for purposes of NaNoWriMo.) It's grrrreat fun! I only made it to 30,000 words or so last year, but it was the most fun I'd had with words in a long time—and that's saying something, really, considering all the reading and writing I do. Besides, would you rather:

1. Listen to a pompous windbag tell you not to write a novel? or....


2. Listen to a quirky writer tell you that anyone can write a novel?

Choice 2 please. And why wait? Sign up now! You weren't planning anything for November, anyway, were you?

Posted 03:36 PM | Comments (2) | ai books

Logic Games II

I was quickly schooled in the appropriate method for solving the problem below. For many of you, this was an easy game; and you're right—it is easy, as long as you read it right. I sometimes wonder if I have dyslexia when it comes to things like this. But then, I know I don't. What happens is I psych myself out, read the setup quickly, and almost automatically jump to the conclusion that it's way too hard. That means when I take a second look, I've already blocked out the possibility that this game might be relatively easy. In other words, I make these things much harder than they need to be. Still, some of them I just can't figure out. If you're into games, here's a doozy:

------
Each of exactly six doctors—Juarez, Kudrow, Longtree, Nance, Onawa, and Palermo—is at exactly one of two clinics: Souderton or Randsborough. The ffollowing conditions must be satisfied:

• Kudrow is at Randsborough if Juarez is at Souderton.
• Onawa is at Souderton if Juarez is at Randsborough.
• If Longtree is at Souderton, then both Nance and Palermo are at Randsborough.
• If Nance is at Randsborough, then so is Onawa.
• If Palermo is at Randsborough, then both Kudrow and Onawa are at Souderton.

1: Which one of the following could be a complete and accurate list of the doctors thatt are at Souderton?
a) Jaurez, Kudrow, Onawa
b) Juarez, Nance, Onawa, Palermo
c) Kudrow, Longtree, Onawa
d) Nance, Onawa
e) Nance, Palermo

2: If Palermo is at Randsborough, then which one of the following must be true?
a) Juarez is at Randsborough.
b) Kudrow is at Randsborough.
c) Longtree is at Souderton.
d) Nance is at Randsborough.
e) Onawa is at Randsborough.

3: What is the minimum number of doctors that could be at Souderton?
a) zero
b) one
c) two
d) three
e) four

4: If Nance and Onawa are at different clinics, which one of the following must be true?
a) Juarez is at Souderton
b) Kudrow is at Souderton.
c) Palermo is at Randsborough
d) Four doctors are at Randsborough

5: If Kudrow is at Souderton, then which one of the following must be true?
a) Juarez is at Souderton
b) Nance is at Souderton
c) Onawa is at Randsborough
d) Palermo is at Souderton
e) Palermo is at Randsborough

Posted 07:55 AM | Comments (1) | law school

LSAT Fun? Help!

Ok. The LSAT is now officially less than a week away and I'm still basically clueless when it comes to logic games. I'm great with reading comprehension, and my logical reasoning score is... well, ok. But then it comes to logic games, my brain shuts down. I look at them and it's like the page starts swimming and I get tense and my heart beats faster and I know I'm going into the preliminary stages of complete meltdown. This is not good.
Here's an example of the kind of thing that turns my brain to mush:

-----
A five-week education course consists of exactly five lectures with a different lecture given each week. No lecture is given more than once. Each lecture is delivered by a different speaker. The following conditions are true about the speakers and their lectures:

• Each speaker lectures ona philosopher in whom he or she specializes.


• No two speakers lecture on the same philosopher.


• The first week's speaker specializes in Kant, Locke, and Mill, and no other philosophers.


• The second week's speaker specializes in Kant, Locke, Mill, and Nietzsche, and no other philosophers.


• The fird week's and fourth week's speakers each specialize in Mill and Neitzsche, and no other philosophers.


• The fifth week's speaker specializes in Neitzsche, Ockham, and Plato, and no other philosophers.

-----

The questions are largely irrelevant because the hard part is the setup, which, if you do it right, will give you all the answers. But the questions are typically along the lines of: "Which is the maximum possible number of different schedules for the five lectures in which those philosphers who are discussed are discussed in alphabetical order?"

Doesn't that sound like fun? But the real point is: How would you do this? Any tips? Hints? Great tricks that got you through LSAT logic games? Bring them on!

Posted 08:49 AM | Comments (2) | law school