|
LBMT
Jul 27, 2013 15:06:28 GMT -5
Post by papresqr on Jul 27, 2013 15:06:28 GMT -5
I'm back. Thank you guys for being so kind. I decided to buy the Power Score Logical Reasoning Bible. After reading some reviews, I learned it has a higher rating than Kaplan's method. I should get the book today. I'll give a review of the book tomorrow. I sit for the exams August 13-14th, so I will be doing some serious cramming. Those are my dates as well. I'll be waiting to hear your review of the book...might be cramming right along with ya!
|
|
|
LBMT
Jul 28, 2013 19:49:29 GMT -5
Post by nikster on Jul 28, 2013 19:49:29 GMT -5
I'm back. Thank you guys for being so kind. I decided to buy the Power Score Logical Reasoning Bible. After reading some reviews, I learned it has a higher rating than Kaplan's method. I should get the book today. I'll give a review of the book tomorrow. I sit for the exams August 13-14th, so I will be doing some serious cramming. Those are my dates as well. I'll be waiting to hear your review of the book...might be cramming right along with ya! I highly recommend the Power Score Logical Reasoning Bible. It gives great explanations of the formation of a question and what you should look for in a question. It also explains why answers are correct and incorrect. The book is 500 pages, so you will have to determine what you need from it and focus on those sections. Let the cramming begin!
|
|
|
LBMT
Jul 29, 2013 10:56:32 GMT -5
Post by Gaidin on Jul 29, 2013 10:56:32 GMT -5
Those are my dates as well. I'll be waiting to hear your review of the book...might be cramming right along with ya! I highly recommend the Power Score Logical Reasoning Bible. It gives great explanations of the formation of a question and what you should look for in a question. It also explains why answers are correct and incorrect. The book is 500 pages, so you will have to determine what you need from it and focus on those sections. Let the cramming begin! Just ordered it.
|
|
|
LBMT
Jul 29, 2013 11:32:37 GMT -5
Post by BagLady on Jul 29, 2013 11:32:37 GMT -5
Me, too.
|
|
|
LBMT
Jul 29, 2013 14:09:17 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by hopefalj on Jul 29, 2013 14:09:17 GMT -5
Fell for that one did you gaidan? Besides, faq's examples are way to straight forward to be real questions for OPM. Ha - "straight forward" eh? Perhaps, but I'd be interested to know what you think the right answers are and why. I think that's just as productive a prep exercise as any since there is no real prep book. Given there will almost certainly be no need for knowledge of substantive law to successfully take the LBMT, I'm not sure that it's anywhere near as helpful as taking practice logic problems. But to each their own, I suppose.
|
|
|
LBMT
Jul 29, 2013 14:20:50 GMT -5
Post by moopigsdad on Jul 29, 2013 14:20:50 GMT -5
Ha - "straight forward" eh? Perhaps, but I'd be interested to know what you think the right answers are and why. I think that's just as productive a prep exercise as any since there is no real prep book. Given there will almost certainly be no need for knowledge of substantive law to successfully take the LBMT, I'm not sure that it's anywhere near as helpful as taking practice logic problems. But to each their own, I suppose. I would agree hopefalj. It could clearly be a question like "Apple is to tree, as raspberry is to _________" with four possible answers to choose from or "What are the next three numbers in the sequence 25, 36, 49, ___, ___, and ___." with four possible answers to choose from. There are many different types of logic tests possible to be used in the LBMT.
|
|
|
LBMT
Jul 29, 2013 14:32:38 GMT -5
Post by sealaw90 on Jul 29, 2013 14:32:38 GMT -5
wow, I've only got 2 weeks until my test and will already spend enough money on travel, so no book for me. I have found dozens of free websites with sample logic questions. Here's one: www.cambridgelsat.com/resources/free-downloads/logic-games-practice/ Maybe this was posted earlier, I'm not sure. Don't forget that there are Indian, UK and Australian websites that seem to post way more free questions than our US sites. I hope that book helps you though!
|
|
|
LBMT
Jul 29, 2013 14:37:33 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by hopefalj on Jul 29, 2013 14:37:33 GMT -5
Given there will almost certainly be no need for knowledge of substantive law to successfully take the LBMT, I'm not sure that it's anywhere near as helpful as taking practice logic problems. But to each their own, I suppose. Well that's the trick. You don't need any knowledge of substantive law beyond general 1st year law school principles. I would think that would be fair game for the ALJ test, and the only way to tailor the test to practicing lawyers. Perhaps. Maybe you'll get lucky, and the test will based on the Model Penal Code.
|
|
|
LBMT
Jul 29, 2013 14:46:21 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by hopefalj on Jul 29, 2013 14:46:21 GMT -5
Take the known LBMT questions from other agencies, and there is always a certain level of substantive knowledge applicable to the job that is required to understand the test. On the FBI sample question for example, a person has to have some understanding of the term "investigator," "intelligence operation," "hypothesis," "suspects," "terrorist act," etc. Those terms sound elementary to us lawyers, but for non-law enforcement people and people who don't watch crime shows on TV, they might have a problem. "Whenever an investigator is involved in an intelligence operation, he or she is required to examine multiple hypotheses, thus avoiding the quick pursuit of only one path, which could turn out to be incorrect. In a recent terrorism case, which thus far has proved to be exceptionally complex and remains unresolved, several hypotheses were initially generated about the suspects, conspirators, motives, and implementation of the terrorist act. Most of these hypotheses have been disproved." Substantive knowledge? You could replace all the terms you listed from the FBI exam with letter variables or even nonsensical words and come up with the right answer based on logical principals. That's not substantive knowledge. If the answers were along the lines of "A) the investigator should report the disproved hypotheses to their immediate supervisor and brainstorm new possible hypotheses; B) the investigator should bring the terrorist suspect in under Section 4.214(a)(5) of the Patriot Act; etc." then that would require substantive knowledge.
|
|
|
LBMT
Jul 29, 2013 15:17:24 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by hopefalj on Jul 29, 2013 15:17:24 GMT -5
Substantive knowledge? You could replace all the terms you listed from the FBI exam with letter variables or even nonsensical words and come up with the right answer based on logical principals. That's not substantive knowledge. That's pretty much my point, that the sample questions I posted don't require actual substantive knowledge of the law, just some understanding of the vocabulary. [/quote] Then that's a pretty terrible point considering you need substantive knowledge of contract or IP law to determine what, if any, damages would apply under the girst scenario or why a court would find against Bert under your second scenario. It's not simply an issue of terminology.
|
|
|
LBMT
Jul 29, 2013 15:47:17 GMT -5
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Jul 29, 2013 15:47:17 GMT -5
This is from a practice FBI test: www.fbijobs.gov/11218.aspQuestion 3 All forensic soil examiners compare the color, texture, and composition of two or more soils to determine if they share a common origin. Suppose, for example, that the suspect in a murder claims that soil recovered from her shovel-which actually came from a grave that she dug-was from her garden. The garden will be eliminated as the source of the soil on the shovel if and only if this soil is found to be dissimilar to soil samples taken from the garden. From the information given above, it CANNOT be validly concluded that A) upon analysis and comparison, the soil samples taken from the shovel and the garden of the above-mentioned suspect will be dissimilar if the grave was not dug in the garden B) analysts who are not involved in the comparison of soil samples are not forensic soil examiners C) if, as a result of analysis and comparison, the suspect's garden is confirmed as the source of the soil on the shovel, then the soil samples taken from the garden and the shovel were found to be similar D) if an analyst is involved in the comparison of soil samples, then he or she will be classified as a forensic soil examiner E) if the soil samples taken from the shovel and the garden of the above-mentioned suspect are similar, then it can be assumed that the grave was dug in the garden **** The link above explains that D is the correct answer. I agree that D is a fallacy. But the question is misleading because it requires you believe soil analysis proves where the crime occurred. It could be, for example, that the suspect's garden was graded and planted a week before the murder by a landscaping company on the same day that it did the same for her neighbor a block away, using the same truck of soil, and the suspect dug the grave in her neighbor's garden. In that case the shovel and the garden soils will be similar, but the grave wasn't dug in the garden. That would mean A cannot follow from the text. E is similar, but at least tells you that it's making an assumption. Choice C is similar, but less problematic because it tells you that the soil was from the garden. This is how they probably want a cop to think though. Actually, the question is not misleading. With all due respect, your explanation is a classic example of "changing the hypothetical". One of the most common mistakes in pure logic problems is allowing real-world knowledge to "seep" into your analysis, like yours did with the information about a landscaping company. Of course that is true in the real world, but in the world of logic problems, you have to accept the parameters of the problem and ONLY those as absolute mathematical truths, then analyze. One of the strategies of the problem writers is to intentionally confuse you by constructing their problems "about" something you have heard of. Don't let the b*st*rds win: ignore your previously-acquired knowledge and focus on the simple logical facts to reach the right answer. (Full disclosure: I got it wrong bc I forgot one of the basic tenets set forth in the problem.)
|
|
|
LBMT
Aug 5, 2013 10:03:13 GMT -5
Post by gunner on Aug 5, 2013 10:03:13 GMT -5
This is from a practice FBI test: www.fbijobs.gov/11218.aspQuestion 3 All forensic soil examiners compare the color, texture, and composition of two or more soils to determine if they share a common origin. Suppose, for example, that the suspect in a murder claims that soil recovered from her shovel-which actually came from a grave that she dug-was from her garden. The garden will be eliminated as the source of the soil on the shovel if and only if this soil is found to be dissimilar to soil samples taken from the garden. From the information given above, it CANNOT be validly concluded that A) upon analysis and comparison, the soil samples taken from the shovel and the garden of the above-mentioned suspect will be dissimilar if the grave was not dug in the garden B) analysts who are not involved in the comparison of soil samples are not forensic soil examiners C) if, as a result of analysis and comparison, the suspect's garden is confirmed as the source of the soil on the shovel, then the soil samples taken from the garden and the shovel were found to be similar D) if an analyst is involved in the comparison of soil samples, then he or she will be classified as a forensic soil examiner E) if the soil samples taken from the shovel and the garden of the above-mentioned suspect are similar, then it can be assumed that the grave was dug in the garden **** The link above explains that D is the correct answer. I agree that D is a fallacy. But the question is misleading because it requires you believe soil analysis proves where the crime occurred. It could be, for example, that the suspect's garden was graded and planted a week before the murder by a landscaping company on the same day that it did the same for her neighbor a block away, using the same truck of soil, and the suspect dug the grave in her neighbor's garden. In that case the shovel and the garden soils will be similar, but the grave wasn't dug in the garden. That would mean A cannot follow from the text. E is similar, but at least tells you that it's making an assumption. Choice C is similar, but less problematic because it tells you that the soil was from the garden. This is how they probably want a cop to think though. Actually, the question is not misleading. With all due respect, your explanation is a classic example of "changing the hypothetical". One of the most common mistakes in pure logic problems is allowing real-world knowledge to "seep" into your analysis, like yours did with the information about a landscaping company. Of course that is true in the real world, but in the world of logic problems, you have to accept the parameters of the problem and ONLY those as absolute mathematical truths, then analyze. One of the strategies of the problem writers is to intentionally confuse you by constructing their problems "about" something you have heard of. Don't let the b*st*rds win: ignore your previously-acquired knowledge and focus on the simple logical facts to reach the right answer. (Full disclosure: I got it wrong bc I forgot one of the basic tenets set forth in the problem.) Maybe, but I think as a matter of logic it still doesn't follow. If it were a venn diagram you would have one circle for the Garden, with a small circle inside of it for the garden sample, and another circle for the Grave, with a smaller circle inside for the shovel sample. The question assumes that the only way the shovel sample will be similar is if the Grave circle is placed inside the garden circle (i.e., that the garden is the source). But it could be that the shovel circle is not in the garden circle but there is a bigger circle that contains them both. My hypo is just an illustration of the logical flaw. Here is a crappy attempt to illustrate: [! is "not", "=" means the same source] We know this: (Garden (garden sample)), (Grave (shovel sample)) if (garden sample) != (shovel sample) then (Garden) (Grave) Choice A is: if (Grave) (Garden) then (garden sample) != (shovel sample) But this ignores that (Grave) (Garden) can still be true if (Hypothetical source (Grave) (Garden) ). And if (Hypothetical source (Grave) (Garden) ) then (garden sample) = (shovel sample), because they both come from the second-level source, and A cannot be true.
|
|
|
LBMT
Aug 5, 2013 11:04:21 GMT -5
Post by moopigsdad on Aug 5, 2013 11:04:21 GMT -5
Actually, the question is not misleading. With all due respect, your explanation is a classic example of "changing the hypothetical". One of the most common mistakes in pure logic problems is allowing real-world knowledge to "seep" into your analysis, like yours did with the information about a landscaping company. Of course that is true in the real world, but in the world of logic problems, you have to accept the parameters of the problem and ONLY those as absolute mathematical truths, then analyze. One of the strategies of the problem writers is to intentionally confuse you by constructing their problems "about" something you have heard of. Don't let the b*st*rds win: ignore your previously-acquired knowledge and focus on the simple logical facts to reach the right answer. (Full disclosure: I got it wrong bc I forgot one of the basic tenets set forth in the problem.) Maybe, but I think as a matter of logic it still doesn't follow. If it were a venn diagram you would have one circle for the Garden, with a small circle inside of it for the garden sample, and another circle for the Grave, with a smaller circle inside for the shovel sample. The question assumes that the only way the shovel sample will be similar is if the Grave circle is placed inside the garden circle (i.e., that the garden is the source). But it could be that the shovel circle is not in the garden circle but there is a bigger circle that contains them both. My hypo is just an illustration of the logical flaw. Here is a crappy attempt to illustrate: [! is "not", "=" means the same source] We know this: (Garden (garden sample)), (Grave (shovel sample)) if (garden sample) != (shovel sample) then (Garden) (Grave) Choice A is: if (Grave) (Garden) then (garden sample) != (shovel sample) But this ignores that (Grave) (Garden) can still be true if (Hypothetical source (Grave) (Garden) ). And if (Hypothetical source (Grave) (Garden) ) then (garden sample) = (shovel sample), because they both come from the second-level source, and A cannot be true. While you are technically correct with your hypothetical, you are over thinking the answer. You are over-analyzing the possibilities and making assumptions. The answer D cannot be validly concluded due to a lack of information in the question regarding who can be a forensic soil examiner, hence D is the most logical and quickest answer to assume and therefore correct. Look at these more in the abstract than in the concrete. There are always possibilities that can occur on some of these questions, but one answer is more clearly visible than the others based upon the fact scenario, which is D here.
|
|
|
LBMT
Aug 5, 2013 13:30:08 GMT -5
Post by gunner on Aug 5, 2013 13:30:08 GMT -5
I absolutely agree moopigsdad. If I have to spend the kind of time it took to figure out *why* I thought A was also wrong, I'm screwed. I post more to grouse and make preemptively make myself feel better if I have a terrible score.
Full disclosure - given my simplification of the scenario above, one could turn to the "if and only if" language to preclude the possibility of the bigger hypothetical source. Of course, I would have a rejoinder to that, but I think this has gone far enough.
|
|
|
LBMT
Aug 22, 2013 21:58:59 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by JudgeRatty on Aug 22, 2013 21:58:59 GMT -5
Does anyone know, or have a reasonably hypothesis, as to how this section actually impacts your overall score, since it does not, apparently, keep you off the Register? Actually it does state we have to have a "minimum" score or will not be on the register so I respectfully disagree. I believe if you do not achieve the minimum on any of the components it will knock you out.
|
|
|
LBMT
Aug 23, 2013 7:37:08 GMT -5
Post by JudgeRatty on Aug 23, 2013 7:37:08 GMT -5
Actually it does state we have to have a "minimum" score or will not be on the register so I respectfully disagree. I believe if you do not achieve the minimum on any of the components it will knock you out. My notice says "if you do not receive the required minimum score on the WD or SI, you will not receive a final numerical rating and will not be placed on the ALJ register" but I suppose, based on the way the notice reads, the LBMT is considered part of the WD for purposes of that particular statement. Hmmm. Patiently you may be correct on this and I stand corrected! EACH component counts toward the final score as noted in the sentence after the one you quoted. You are right, only the WD and the SI (at this phase--other phases also had a "minimum" hurdle) have the "minimum" language, leaving out the LBMT. They could have put "WD/LBMT" as they did in the sentence after that one, but did not do so. The sentence that follows certainly did spell out WD and LBMT individually. So I guess the LBMT can only add to the overall score. The entire sentence has: "Final Numerical Rating: Applicants who complete all portions of the assessment process and achieve a minimum required score on both the WD and SI will be issued a final numerical rating on a scale of 1 – 100. The rating will be based on the scores assigned for the SJT/Writing Sample/Experience Assessment, WD/LBMT, and SI components of the examination with a maximum possible total score of 100, excluding veterans' preference." Thanks for pointing this out! Good catch!
|
|
|
LBMT
Aug 23, 2013 9:44:32 GMT -5
Post by robespierre on Aug 23, 2013 9:44:32 GMT -5
This is sheer speculation, but since the logic test is brand new, and is specifically exempted from the "minimum score" language (as pointed out above), it might not be weighted very heavily. Or could even be "experimental" and not weighted at all; sort of like they put an "experimental" section in the LSAT each administration, which is not scored.
|
|
wylaw
New Member
Posts: 11
|
LBMT
Aug 23, 2013 14:21:11 GMT -5
Post by wylaw on Aug 23, 2013 14:21:11 GMT -5
So based on fear and a post from Nikster, I purchased the Power Score Logical Reasoning Bible and have made my way to page 98. As I prepare to spend my weekend working my way toward page 500 I was wondering if anyone found it useful. I can't say how much I appreciate all the help and support I have found on this site! Have a great weekend and congratulations to all those who have completed their testing. I don't go to DC until September 23, and 24.
|
|
|
LBMT
Aug 23, 2013 14:30:55 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by zepplin on Aug 23, 2013 14:30:55 GMT -5
Can we stop giving tips to those who have weeks and months to study? Not trying to be a jerk but it seems unfair to those of us who went in the first rounds, as was pointed out by the testing proctors.
|
|
|
LBMT
Aug 23, 2013 14:37:25 GMT -5
Post by lildavey on Aug 23, 2013 14:37:25 GMT -5
This is sheer speculation, but since the logic test is brand new, and is specifically exempted from the "minimum score" language (as pointed out above), it might not be weighted very heavily. Or could even be "experimental" and not weighted at all; sort of like they put an "experimental" section in the LSAT each administration, which is not scored. Man I hope you are right!!!! Made my day!!! Thanks!!!
|
|