This is a Must be false question.

I have a difficult time making two different diagrams about the conditions.

[ Chelas and Stelma are required to leave their respective stations immediately to pursue any prisoner who attempts to escape from their sector. Furthermore, unless they are pursuing such a prisoner, Chelas and Stelma are forbiddened to leave their stations until their replacements have arrived. ]

My thought is 1. pursue any prisoner who attempts to escape -> C and S leave their sectors

2. ~forbbidened to leave stations until their replacements have arrived -> pursue prisoner

Can you help me to make right diagrams?

I am very confused as to what the flaw in the argument is. Could someone explain?

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

I don't understand why the answer choice is not A?

I am saying this because there are some terms that I dont know what the question means. Like am I supposed to know what a generalization, alternative explanation, or evidence is? Could someone please explain this. There was this one question in the AP lesson that talked about Crime and Media coverage. I chose A for the answer because the explanation was supporting the conclusion. However the actual answer was E which was an "Alternative Explanation" What does that mean?

I was stuck between answer choices B and C. I eventually settled down for B but I'm still struggling to figure out why B is the more optimal answer compared to C. The question makes the assumption that the study is representative of the entire population of the United States, and fails to account for any discrepancies between the study subjects and the American population, thus making C an attractive answer.

(1) Most profitable investment: The rate of inflation EXCEEDS the rate of return by a given percentage (say, x%). That is, in real terms, the investment generates a loss; the inflation rate overcompensates whatever profit is being made here. According to the stimulus, this means that the VALUE of this investment declines by the same percentage (x%) at least. Value thus is presented as a function of profit.

(2) Any other investment – that is, any investment that is LESS profitable than the one described in case #1: The value of this investment declines by MORE than x% – that is, the differential between the inflation rate and the rate of return must be even greater than in case #1. Inflation overcompensates the rate of returns even more than in the first case.

Answer choice (C) suggests: The second investment (any investment that is not the most profitable one) is LESS profitable than the most profitable one. If VALUE is a function of PROFIT, and if VALUE in the second case declines more than in the first case, then the second case cannot describe the maximally profitable investment described in case #1.

I’m not sure I’m getting either the economics or the logic behind this right, but it seems to me that a lot of the information presented in the passage is redundant. To conclude what answer choice (C) says ("Case #2 does not describe the most profitable investment"), we only would have needed to know (1) that case #1 is the most profitable investment, and (2) that case #2 can be distinguished from that investment. Is this right / is there a more efficient way to solve this, especially under timed conditions?

Can someone help me understand why E is the answer to this? I understand why B (my answer is wrong), but I don't understand why E is correct.

Should I be going by the target time JY says in the video or the target time under the game (for LG)? Thanks, let me know!

Is the idea that this is a one premise argument where answer choice (A) just contraposes to the desired conclusion? That is, are we to assume that "All rich farmers are dishonest" and "Every honest farmer is poor" are logically equivalent, and that "Every honest farmer is poor" thus serves as a sufficient assumption for "All rich farmers are dishonest?"

Why is (E) the right answer choice here, as opposed to (B)?

Stabilizers: Cheap, preserve consistency, but bad for flavor

Low temperatures: Expensive, preserve consistency, better for flavor

(B) suggests: To save money, we should omit the very low temperatures; just use stabilizers to preserve consistency and don't worry about the flavor

Is the idea that the stimulus just remains neutral on flavor, contrary to what (B) suggests?

The stimulus certainly seems to entail the suggestion that cost considerations would encourage ice cream producers to accept higher temperatures, but the stimulus does not also seem to entail an unequivocal recommendation concerning stabilizer use: Contrary to what (B) suggests, ice cream producers might not use very low temperatures (thus reducing costs) AND also not use stabilizers, thus sacrificing consistency for the sake of flavor.

I assume this must be it: The cost considerations mentioned in the stimulus certainly incentivize higher temperatures, but the stimulus does not also entail an unequivocal recommendation concerning stabilizer use. (B) thus does not follow, unlike (E).

I found many Level 5 questions from PT 1-35 not only difficult but annoyingly silly. Also, looks like many do not even have an explanation video on this forum?

For some reason, I am having a lot of trouble for weakening questions in LR. For me, it is just intuitively hard to wrap my head around and go through the steps of finding unwarranted assumptions and harping on that rather than the argument itself. Therefore, I can get them right if I spend a lot of time on them, but end up half-assing answers when I am timed... Any tips to get over this issue?

Can someone explain the percents/proportion relationship that makes B the right answer? I am having a hard time understanding it. #help

Hi, everyone. I was wondering if anyone has tips on how to shave time off for grouping games with unrestricted or undefined variables, ie the bird game that you see under the lessons on grouping. I'm especially interested on how to cut back on time made during the initial setup with inferences. Thanks!

For whatever reason, logical reasoning sections are the bane of my existence in terms of LSAT prep. Dare I say, I sometimes actually enjoy working through logic games and reading comprehension sections? Perhaps. Depending on the passage and game, they seem to make me feel excited, interested, with a sense of fun. I don't feel like i'm doing work and my perception of time slows down. On the other hand, LR feels like a horrid chore that makes me feel sad, mundane, and sick to my stomach. Any tips?

Incredibly excited after getting the results back from my February 2023 test. Lots of curveballs, but everything I learned through 7Sage after these past 4-5 months of study really came through for me. Much love, and peace out :)

Originally -7. After BR, -6.

HOWEVER, questions I flagged for review that I originally marked right, were wrong after BR. What does this mean? Should I trust my gut?

My LG scores are consistently weaker than my LR and RC scores, and LG improvement is, at this point, all I need to reach my goal score of 170+.

However, I have now taken all of the games (save for those sets that are in my few remaining ‘clean’ PTs), and am worried about diminishing returns on my LG drilling. It bears mentioning, however, that I do not score perfectly on any games that I re-do.

My plan is to try the ‘foolproof method’ of re-doing games until they’re perfect, but I still thought I would reach out if people have additional advice. What other strategies have people in my position (or a similar position) taken? Anyone have thoughts on taking games I’ve already seen with less than the recommended time, or even doing ‘unofficial’ games (i.e., those not from a PrepTest)?

Thanks in advance!

How does the correct answer choice interact with the comparison to pharmaceutical drugs? If anything I would think this answer supports the position of the critic #help

For the correct answer choice, why does it matter if the trees used are or old or new since the answer is talking about the harm caused by the products they will be turned into? This is the reason I did not choose it #help

I can understand why (B) is correct - but not sure why (C) is wrong. I think I'm not understanding (C) correctly. What does it mean to "indicate the falsehood of the implications" of a hypothesis? Doesn't the author do so in the stimulus, by showing that predicting an invention according to the hypothesis necessarily entails inventing it (the implications), which would be self-contradictory? Is (C) wrong because self-contradiction ≠ falsehood? I'd really appreciate it if someone could give me an example of (C) since I'm not exactly sure I understand JY's example either.

Thanks in advance!

This was not a fun flaw question.

At its absolute most basic, the stimulus says:

Conclusion: Not X.

Premise: If we BELIEVED X -> Y.

The assumption here is subtle: Since not Y, not X.

But why on Earth would we make that jump based on the single premise we are given? Also, notice we are drawing a conclusion based on what would be true if we BELIEVED otherwise, not if the case it WERE otherwise.

Answers:

A. A true belief (X) can have bad consequences (maybe, not Y). In other words, the author is failing to consider the possibility that X -> not Y. If this is true, the argument doesn´t work.

B. The author establishes one claim to not be true, but where is the other???

C. Irrelevant, there are no motives mentioned.

D. No implication that the most negative outcome must occur.

E. There is no group of individuals being compared to another.

I had mapped it as:

/RDW - /Alleviate

- IEI -> RTV

w/ the contra, i sort of see why B is correct:

[ Nat. Responsibility -> /RTV -> /IEI -> RDW ]

Does that make sense?

But why wouldn't E be correct? Is it that the idea of alleviating conditions of injustice are not the same thing as creating conditions of economic justice?

So far I’ve been working down the syllabus starting with the foundations, then LR, which I am currently on, followed by LG, and lastly RC.

I’ve been using the drill feature for MC/MP questions, but I’m not sure if I should be doing a lot of these drills directly after the lesson, as i’ve been doing, or if it would be better if I held off on the drills until I start taking timed PTs , so I could then have clean questions to practice with after identifying my weaknesses.

I got 4 out of 5 right in this drill but got this particular questions drastically wrong. I selected B and on blind review selected C. I never felt E was correct during the drill or blind review. I do not know what I am not seeing on this particular question. I do not understand why C is incorrect. If 40% in the first group reported awaking paralyzed with a strange presence in the room, wouldn't it be correct to say 60% had not? Or is C wrong, because it only mentioned "strange presence" and excluded "paralyzed" as part of the answer? #help