When I started these, I was hating them so worried about conditional logic etc. Honestly I got a drill with 5/5 on normal, and 4/5 on the hard and hardest questions. I think the trick is to notice the similarities in structure with a question.
Stimulus: A species in which mutations frequently occur will develop new evolutionary adaptations in each generation. Since species survive dramatic environmental changes only if they develop new evolutionary adaptations in each generation, a species in which mutations frequently occur will survive dramatic environmental changes.
Answer: A person who is perfectly honest will tell the truth in every situation. Since in order to be a morally upright person one must tell the truth at all times, a perfectly honest person will also be a morally upright person.
It doesn't always work this way, but notice how the concept that appeared at the end of the conclusion also appeared at the beginning of the second premise?
All known deposits of the mineral tanzanite are in Tanzania. Therefore, because Ashley collects only tanzanite stones, she is unlikely ever to collect a stone not originally from Tanzania.
D) The only frogs yet discovered on Scrag Island live in the lagoon. The diet of all the owls on Scrag Island consists entirely of frogs on the island, so the owls will probably never eat an animal that lives outside the lagoon. (right one)
C) Frogs are the only animals known to live in the lagoon on Scrag Island. The diet of the owls on Scrag Island consists of nothing but frogs from the island. Therefore, the owls are unlikely ever to eat an animal that lives outside the lagoon.
In this instance, D is right because in the stimulus the word used is ONLY which refers to ALL, whereas in C just refers to "Of the owls" instead of all, even though both refer to eating solely frogs. One uses the exact same argument strength as the stimulus.
I'm sure there's a million other ways to solve these but this one I think is pretty reliable. There's another question about cats where it requires both biting and claws, and the corresponding argument also includes two concepts. You kind of gotta think that way a bit.
I found when they organized this lesson it was tricky (but maybe good) because they started with very hard questions, but honestly I found once I did a drill with easier questions I was able to find a simpler way to solve and understand these types, so when I got to the hard ones it was easier to replicate. Only took me 4 hours.
You know what? This section wasn’t bad. Did I get a few wrong? Yes. Was it because I doubted myself during blind review? Also yes.
But I want to share one piece of advice I stumbled upon before I started studying for the LSAT — and fair warning, it might be controversial. (No harm or offense intended; this is just the mindset that’s been keeping me going ever since I got my ass handed to me by the NA and SA sections.)
If you get questions wrong both timed and untimed — that’s a skill issue. so go back, take it slow, and work on the foundation.
If you get them wrong timed but right untimed — that’s a timing issue. so you gotta drill in the techniques for AC's that pertain to each question type.
This really resonated with me. Obviously, timing is crucial on the LSAT — it's often the difference between a good score and a great one. But when you’re working through the curriculum, the key is mastering the foundation. Once you’ve got that down, everything else builds on it.
I am with you! This is not an easy journey, and i commend everyone for getting this far.
Reminder for myself for future review and maybe this will help someone else:
When reviewing the stimulus, make sure you understand its argument with what it is trying to convey and HOW it is doing it. If the question stem says it’s flawed, WHY is it flawed? Once you understand that, reading the answer choices will allow you to pick one that also contains that same flaw.
I really liked having this Q type last in the curriculum - it was good to review argument structures and argument types after going through all the LR lessons. Helped me understand what arguments I am still struggling on for other question types!
13
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!
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.
8 comments
When I started these, I was hating them so worried about conditional logic etc. Honestly I got a drill with 5/5 on normal, and 4/5 on the hard and hardest questions. I think the trick is to notice the similarities in structure with a question.
Stimulus: A species in which mutations frequently occur will develop new evolutionary adaptations in each generation. Since species survive dramatic environmental changes only if they develop new evolutionary adaptations in each generation, a species in which mutations frequently occur will survive dramatic environmental changes.
Answer: A person who is perfectly honest will tell the truth in every situation. Since in order to be a morally upright person one must tell the truth at all times, a perfectly honest person will also be a morally upright person.
It doesn't always work this way, but notice how the concept that appeared at the end of the conclusion also appeared at the beginning of the second premise?
All known deposits of the mineral tanzanite are in Tanzania. Therefore, because Ashley collects only tanzanite stones, she is unlikely ever to collect a stone not originally from Tanzania.
D) The only frogs yet discovered on Scrag Island live in the lagoon. The diet of all the owls on Scrag Island consists entirely of frogs on the island, so the owls will probably never eat an animal that lives outside the lagoon. (right one)
C) Frogs are the only animals known to live in the lagoon on Scrag Island. The diet of the owls on Scrag Island consists of nothing but frogs from the island. Therefore, the owls are unlikely ever to eat an animal that lives outside the lagoon.
In this instance, D is right because in the stimulus the word used is ONLY which refers to ALL, whereas in C just refers to "Of the owls" instead of all, even though both refer to eating solely frogs. One uses the exact same argument strength as the stimulus.
I'm sure there's a million other ways to solve these but this one I think is pretty reliable. There's another question about cats where it requires both biting and claws, and the corresponding argument also includes two concepts. You kind of gotta think that way a bit.
I found when they organized this lesson it was tricky (but maybe good) because they started with very hard questions, but honestly I found once I did a drill with easier questions I was able to find a simpler way to solve and understand these types, so when I got to the hard ones it was easier to replicate. Only took me 4 hours.
You know what? This section wasn’t bad. Did I get a few wrong? Yes. Was it because I doubted myself during blind review? Also yes.
But I want to share one piece of advice I stumbled upon before I started studying for the LSAT — and fair warning, it might be controversial. (No harm or offense intended; this is just the mindset that’s been keeping me going ever since I got my ass handed to me by the NA and SA sections.)
If you get questions wrong both timed and untimed — that’s a skill issue. so go back, take it slow, and work on the foundation.
If you get them wrong timed but right untimed — that’s a timing issue. so you gotta drill in the techniques for AC's that pertain to each question type.
This really resonated with me. Obviously, timing is crucial on the LSAT — it's often the difference between a good score and a great one. But when you’re working through the curriculum, the key is mastering the foundation. Once you’ve got that down, everything else builds on it.
I am with you! This is not an easy journey, and i commend everyone for getting this far.
Reminder for myself for future review and maybe this will help someone else:
When reviewing the stimulus, make sure you understand its argument with what it is trying to convey and HOW it is doing it. If the question stem says it’s flawed, WHY is it flawed? Once you understand that, reading the answer choices will allow you to pick one that also contains that same flaw.
I really liked having this Q type last in the curriculum - it was good to review argument structures and argument types after going through all the LR lessons. Helped me understand what arguments I am still struggling on for other question types!