the LSAT writers are really awful. I can't be the only person who noticed this was question number 11. Coming across this difficult and confusing of a question would have been so demoralizing and distracting early on. If the parallel question is lower in number, is that an indicator that we ought to expect to be able to abstract the flaw without mapping it out? #help
Have been doing amazing in all other sections - Can't at all wrap my head around how it's an "obvious" hypothesis that the owner stole the diamonds. We've been taught the entire curriculum not to supply outside assumptions into the argument, and that seems to be what we did to the stimulus in-order to draw similarities to answer choice A. I can't see why it isn't D other than for the fact that the hypothesis in answer choice D is "plausible" - yet the hypothesis in D seems anything but plausible to me when there can be hundreds of other reasons why her cavities formed that way, and similarly, why it isn't plausible that the thief did in-fact just wear gloves.
Is it true that in Parallel/Analogy Qs, the correct AC will match the strength of the stimulus? For example if the conclusion in the stimulus says "must" like it does here, any answer choice that says "probably" or "likely" can be confidently eliminated on shallow dip because an argument that results in a "must" claim cannot be similar in form to an argument that results in a probabilistic claim?
Was I the only one who did not consider that Tannisch could've taken it? My thought was that the thief simply only touched the diamond, which still led to the right answer because only A matched in form at all.
I am finally getting used to reading the patterns quickly, I feel like Neo seeing into the Matrix!
8
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
46 comments
I often attack these by looking at key phrases such as "Must", "Some", etc. and do POE to narrow it down.. is that a good strategy or is it flawed?
I'm ngl I didn't understand the stimulus but I got it right out of sheer luck.
WHAT
damn this one broke my streak
Got this right and only 3 secs over. Maybe there's hope🤞
I've done this question before too!!! HELP
Can someone please share their strategy for these questions? I can't find anything that works for the life of me. #help
Missed the "not" in answer choice A) and was thrown for a loop
we are soooo backkkk
Yes, let's keep this up!
if an AC has "not", and stimulus doesnt, does it matter?
Guys i thinkkkkkk im getting it ARE WE BACK?
ngl iv been crushing these.... but just in 5x the amount of time i need to do it in lol... i get so caught up
This question was not it.....
Is it valid to see that only A had the word "MUST" which was in the stimulus? So the must was matching making it most similar?
the LSAT writers are really awful. I can't be the only person who noticed this was question number 11. Coming across this difficult and confusing of a question would have been so demoralizing and distracting early on. If the parallel question is lower in number, is that an indicator that we ought to expect to be able to abstract the flaw without mapping it out? #help
I was doing great on this section until this question. Just happened to be the one you can't discern the answer from using the shape of the argument.
Have been doing amazing in all other sections - Can't at all wrap my head around how it's an "obvious" hypothesis that the owner stole the diamonds. We've been taught the entire curriculum not to supply outside assumptions into the argument, and that seems to be what we did to the stimulus in-order to draw similarities to answer choice A. I can't see why it isn't D other than for the fact that the hypothesis in answer choice D is "plausible" - yet the hypothesis in D seems anything but plausible to me when there can be hundreds of other reasons why her cavities formed that way, and similarly, why it isn't plausible that the thief did in-fact just wear gloves.
lol i was thinking if Mr. T is the owner he wouldn't have been the thief of something from his own property
Is it true that in Parallel/Analogy Qs, the correct AC will match the strength of the stimulus? For example if the conclusion in the stimulus says "must" like it does here, any answer choice that says "probably" or "likely" can be confidently eliminated on shallow dip because an argument that results in a "must" claim cannot be similar in form to an argument that results in a probabilistic claim?
#help
What really helped me for this one was looking out for the "must have" / "must not have"
Stimulus and correct AC both discount a possible cause of their respective incidents without evidence.
Stimulus: that Mr. T stole.
AC: That cafeteria food was responsible for the illness.
Got it right, but at what cost
Was I the only one who did not consider that Tannisch could've taken it? My thought was that the thief simply only touched the diamond, which still led to the right answer because only A matched in form at all.
I am finally getting used to reading the patterns quickly, I feel like Neo seeing into the Matrix!