|
LBMT
Jul 13, 2013 8:04:49 GMT -5
Post by funkyodar on Jul 13, 2013 8:04:49 GMT -5
Earl stared blankly at the row of weedeaters in the garden department of his local megamart. A helpful "associate" approached, pointed at one particular weedeater and said, "This is a good one and it is light enough for your wife to use."
Earl looked confusingly at the sales clerk and finally asked, "Well, now, how is it you know I gotta wife?"
"Logic," replied the clerk.
"What's Logic?" asked a dumbfounded Earl.
"Well, let me demonstrate." said the clerk. "You are here to buy a weedeater, logic tells me that must mean you have lawn care to do and that means you have a lawn. Logic tells me if you have a lawn, you have a house. Logic further tells me if you have a house, you are probably married."
"Wow," said Earl, "That is pretty darn cool. Ok, I will take that one." He then paid for his purchase and went to his truck where his friend Billy Bob was waiting.
"Took you long enough." said Billy Bob, "Why did you pick that one?"
"Logic." replied Earl.
"What's logic?" asked Billy Bob.
"Let me show you", replied Earl, "You have a yard to mow, Billy Bob?"
"No." replied Billy Bob
"Well" said Earl, "you're gay."
THANK YOU FOLKS, TIP YOUR WAITRESSES...
Ok, so I see the WD thread and the SI thread, but nothing on the LBMT. In all honesty, this is the test that has me most nervous. The SI, while undoubtedly a mystery, is in all reality something you can't prepare for beyond our experience in arguing cases, conferencing with attorneys and explaining our plans to clients. The WD is just more writing, albeit timed, that shouldn't freak out anyone who writes appallate briefs, motions and ALJ decisions for a living.
The LBMT, though. All new. No experienced veteran applicants to give us advice. No inside information. From its description in the announcement and golden ticket email it sounds similar to the SJT except there should be one answer that's right and the other possibilities are wrong (what a strange concept, a right and wrong answer instead of some that are more right than others). I like to think of myself as a logical person, though my wife would disagree.
Anyone with any well reasoned SWAGs on what we may see on this test? As I recall, many many moons ago when I and a young Zeus took the LSAT exam to get into law school there was a Logical Reasoning portion of that exam. Seem to remember buying some Princeton Review or Kaplan or Law School for Dummies practice books with tests and tips. Think those would be of any preparation use?
|
|
|
LBMT
Jul 13, 2013 8:16:21 GMT -5
Post by aljseeker on Jul 13, 2013 8:16:21 GMT -5
Hilarious! I too am of the mindset that this "new and improved ( ) hiring process is not the least bit logical and does nothing to get the right people for the job. Otherwise, how do you explain why some applicants with outstanding credentials did not make it to the next step?
|
|
|
LBMT
Jul 13, 2013 8:56:32 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by hopefalj on Jul 13, 2013 8:56:32 GMT -5
You can find examples of OPM logic tests online for other positions with other agencies. I thought someone posted a link to them a few months ago. I'm thinking of buying an LSAT book to work on during lunch to get my mind going in that direction again.
|
|
|
LBMT
Jul 13, 2013 9:37:23 GMT -5
Post by BagLady on Jul 13, 2013 9:37:23 GMT -5
I certainly don't think it'll hurt to review LSAT logic games. It'd be worth it just to get back to being able to quickly chart out the problems and be reminded of the traps. That was my favorite part of the LSAT prep, but it was a long, long time ago.
|
|
|
LBMT
Jul 23, 2013 11:08:56 GMT -5
Post by Gaidin on Jul 23, 2013 11:08:56 GMT -5
I found LBMT prep stuff for the FBI and the Air Marshalls yesterday. The Air Marshall stuff wasn't bad at all. The FBI tests made me want to curl in a ball and cry. I don't think they are impossible but its been so long since I did anything like that it was pain. Today in my searching I found this web site with some helpful practice LSAT questions that were free. The LSAT questions were in between the Air MArshall and the FBI. So hopefully I can get my brain in gear and get ready for the FBI questions. www.cambridgelsat.com/resources/free-downloads/logic-games-practice/
|
|
|
LBMT
Jul 23, 2013 11:48:31 GMT -5
Post by crab on Jul 23, 2013 11:48:31 GMT -5
Dang, funky, I would have said Billy Bob was single so clearly I need to find a practice book! Gaidin, I'm so with you on that one - I looked at the FBI test and briefly panicked before going catatonic ... I haven't stopped sucking my thumb yet ... let's hope the questions are more LSAT-like than that!
|
|
|
LBMT
Jul 23, 2013 16:01:21 GMT -5
Post by Gaidin on Jul 23, 2013 16:01:21 GMT -5
It adds another psychometricaly (sp) valid mechanism to rate people. I can't imagine why Air Marshall's or FBI agents would be subjected to them either. However, it is a test format that lets them see how well people do under test conditions and probably allows them to give a bigger range of test scores.
|
|
|
LBMT
Jul 23, 2013 20:18:13 GMT -5
Post by hopefalj on Jul 23, 2013 20:18:13 GMT -5
I found LBMT prep stuff for the FBI and the Air Marshalls yesterday. The Air Marshall stuff wasn't bad at all. The FBI tests made me want to curl in a ball and cry. I don't think they are impossible but its been so long since I did anything like that it was pain. Today in my searching I found this web site with some helpful practice LSAT questions that were free. The LSAT questions were in between the Air MArshall and the FBI. So hopefully I can get my brain in gear and get ready for the FBI questions. www.cambridgelsat.com/resources/free-downloads/logic-games-practice/Thanks, gaidan! I was actually thinking the Logical Reasoning portion of the LSAT might be the better way to prepare for the LBMT. They seem to be similar to what you see in the government agency tests, but logic games will help, too. I'm going through the FBI logic questions right now. I'd much rather have the Border Patrol or Air Marshal questions, but it will be what it will be.
|
|
|
LBMT
Jul 23, 2013 21:49:29 GMT -5
Post by JudgeRatty on Jul 23, 2013 21:49:29 GMT -5
The logic based test is a strange addition. They should get a good summary from the the SJT, the background, WD and SI. Not sure what this logic test adds--we can all attest to whether there was a correlation between their LSAT score and law school performance (although I can't remember what my score was). What does this test add? In any large process like this, there has to be a way to eliminate people and to get the numbers to a reasonable level. Just like law school, the LSAT was one method to do just that. Cases involve a myriad of facts and situations that an ALJ must wade through on a timetable. They have to ultimately make a clear concise decision. Logic based test answers have several good answers but only one "best" answer. So I think there is some correlation to decision making ability that an ALJ must possess. I don't think there is a perfect way to figure out who will be a good ALJ through the various testing, but at least this is an objective way that they can score quickly. Some people don't do well on this kind of testing but may be an excellent ALJ if given the opportunity. Same with law school and the LSAT....but they have to come up with something. Nothing is perfect. I think the one thing this LBMT "adds" to the new process is that it is an "objective" testing format that is less likely to have successful challenges. Same with the SJT. The more multiple choice type right and wrong answer testing they add, the easier for them to defend the final scores. Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
LBMT
Jul 26, 2013 10:10:39 GMT -5
Post by nikster on Jul 26, 2013 10:10:39 GMT -5
This is my first post. I prefer to lurk than comment. *lol* Nevertheless, I want to share this link because this site and the people who comment on it are amazing. I hope this is information is helpful.
*place where the link use to be* I removed the link due to copyright. I found the link online by searching google for "kaplan approach to logical reasoning." I found the kaplan material to be helpful.
Thanks, Westernalj.
|
|
|
LBMT
Jul 26, 2013 10:35:32 GMT -5
Post by westernalj on Jul 26, 2013 10:35:32 GMT -5
Um, there is a copyright notice at the beginning of that document.
|
|
|
LBMT
Jul 26, 2013 12:14:10 GMT -5
Post by nikster on Jul 26, 2013 12:14:10 GMT -5
I don't understand the copyright issue. If you are talking about this link to the Kaplan approach: www.kaptest.com/assets/pdfs/LSAT_Logical_Reasoning_sample.pdfThere is no copyright problem by posting the link here. The copyright is owned by Kaplan and the document is posted on Kaplan site, so it is okay to link to Kaplan site for the document. But maybe it was a different link you were referring to? That was the link I was talking about. After Westernalj made his comment, I removed the link out of caution. I think I will probably go back to lurking (in ninja mode ) and stop commenting. *lol* Thanks for your comment, aljfaq.
|
|
|
LBMT
Jul 26, 2013 12:27:07 GMT -5
Post by westernalj on Jul 26, 2013 12:27:07 GMT -5
Please don't let this dissuade you from posting nikster. I didn't notice that this came from a public link that Kaplan provided. I only looked at the document.
|
|
|
LBMT
Jul 26, 2013 12:53:26 GMT -5
Post by crab on Jul 26, 2013 12:53:26 GMT -5
Yeah, don't stop posting Nikster! Thanks for the link and welcome to the light!
|
|
|
LBMT
Jul 26, 2013 13:24:52 GMT -5
Post by gunner on Jul 26, 2013 13:24:52 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.
|
|
|
LBMT
Jul 26, 2013 13:59:03 GMT -5
Post by Gaidin on Jul 26, 2013 13:59:03 GMT -5
I don't understand the copyright issue. If you are talking about this link to the Kaplan approach: www.kaptest.com/assets/pdfs/LSAT_Logical_Reasoning_sample.pdfThere is no copyright problem by posting the link here. The copyright is owned by Kaplan and the document is posted on Kaplan site, so it is okay to link to Kaplan site for the document. But maybe it was a different link you were referring to? That was the link I was talking about. After Westernalj made his comment, I removed the link out of caution. I think I will probably go back to lurking (in ninja mode ) and stop commenting. *lol* Thanks for your comment, aljfaq. If you're going to continue being helpful I think you should stay out here in the sunlight
|
|
|
LBMT
Jul 26, 2013 14:01:58 GMT -5
Post by Gaidin on Jul 26, 2013 14:01:58 GMT -5
Yep.
|
|
|
LBMT
Jul 26, 2013 21:31:59 GMT -5
Post by Gaidin on Jul 26, 2013 21:31:59 GMT -5
ALJ LBMT prep book question 1: ABC Shipping Corporation ("ABC") entered into a contract obligating it to ship 900 crates of auto parts from Los Angeles and deliver them to XYZ Auto Company's ("XYZ")factory in Manila within 75 days from the effective date of the contract. Under the contract, ABC would be paid $10,000 up front, and $10,000 upon completion of delivery of the crates to XYZ in Manila. During transport, rain water leaked into half of the crates causing $10,000 in rust damage to the auto parts. All of the crates were delivered 60 days after the effective date of the contract. ABC never received a second $10,000 payment. Which one of the following is a reasonable conclusion from the facts above: (a) ABC has suffered damages resulting from non-performance of obligations under the contract. (b) XYZ has suffered damages resulting from non-performance of obligations under the contract. (c) If the contract did not obligate ABC to protect the crates from damage during shipment, XYZ owes ABC $10,000. (d) If XYZ saved $10,000 as a result of delivery two weeks before the deadline, XYZ owes ABC $10,000. (e) ABC has not suffered damages. ALJ LBMT prep book? ?
|
|
|
LBMT
Jul 27, 2013 5:40:07 GMT -5
Post by moopigsdad on Jul 27, 2013 5:40:07 GMT -5
ALJ LBMT prep book question 1: ABC Shipping Corporation ("ABC") entered into a contract obligating it to ship 900 crates of auto parts from Los Angeles and deliver them to XYZ Auto Company's ("XYZ")factory in Manila within 75 days from the effective date of the contract. Under the contract, ABC would be paid $10,000 up front, and $10,000 upon completion of delivery of the crates to XYZ in Manila. During transport, rain water leaked into half of the crates causing $10,000 in rust damage to the auto parts. All of the crates were delivered 60 days after the effective date of the contract. ABC never received a second $10,000 payment. Which one of the following is a reasonable conclusion from the facts above: (a) ABC has suffered damages resulting from non-performance of obligations under the contract. (b) XYZ has suffered damages resulting from non-performance of obligations under the contract. (c) If the contract did not obligate ABC to protect the crates from damage during shipment, XYZ owes ABC $10,000. (d) If XYZ saved $10,000 as a result of delivery two weeks before the deadline, XYZ owes ABC $10,000. (e) ABC has not suffered damages. ALJ LBMT prep book? ? Fell for that one did you gaidan? Besides, faq's examples are way to straight forward to be real questions for OPM.
|
|
|
LBMT
Jul 27, 2013 13:37:08 GMT -5
Post by nikster on Jul 27, 2013 13:37:08 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.
|
|