Would the contrapositive of "If all farmers were to practice organic farming, they would be unable to produce enough food for Earth's growing population" be different from the contrapositive of "If farmers were to practice organic farming, they would be unable to produce enough food for Earth's growing population?"

The only difference is the "all" right before "farmers."

Thanks!

Hi everyone. I am looking for a study buddy to do weekly PT blind review sessions. My average score is 166 currently (LG -0~2, LR -3~5, RC-4~7). Let me know if you are interested.

Prep Test 7 - Section 1- Question 15

I got this answer wrong and was unsure of my answer. Is the correct AC A right because it strengthens the premises to fill in a gap where the deer population increase after the hunting ban could still exist even without the hunting ban? Like for example, a change in the ecosystem in which a predator of deer migrates etc.

I choose B because the key words relating to accidents and public saftey. I felt skeptical about this choice because the AC was reiterating what was already in the stimulus

Can anyone offer any advice on how to more easily eliminate B and choose A when answering this question?

The "but" in the first section reveals the author's position on Midville: it is not as expensive as others perceive it to be. The following sentences provide support as to why they believe this is true.

where Can I go to see the explanation to this question ? I only see the "discuss" button but not the "explanation". I see the "explanation" for the questions that I got right.

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

I genuinely did not understand the stimulus.

Is marking up a stimulus on LR to highlight and underline the conclusion and premises considered a waste of time generally?

Question Stem: Sufficient Assumption

Stimulus: Shoe factory employs more unskilled full time workers (W) than all other businesses in town combined.

If shoe factory closes, more than half of town RESIDENTS who are W will lose jobs.

See the shift between the W that are employed at the factory in the premise, and RESIDENTS in the conclusion? Look for an idea connecting these 2 ideas: workers at the factory and residency.

A. residency, no workers

B. workers, no residency

C. workers, no residency

D. everyone employed at the factory is a resident.

E. neither

D works because without it, we have no idea where the workers come from - what if they all live OUTSIDE Centerville? Then there is no way the conclusion is true. So D closes this one gap.

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

I'm pretty confused on this question.

Here's how I thought of it:

Premise: Alicia and Peter had equal blameworthiness for the same "crime" (using another person's car w/o permission)

Conclusion: Alicia should be charged with the same punishment as Peter's.

AC C is the correct answer, but A is the answer I originally chose. After looking at explanations online, I now understand why C is correct. AC C negates the premise by establishing that Alicia and Peter actually had unequal blameworthiness, so it can't support the conclusion that Alicia should be treated the same as Peter.

However, I am still confused as to why A is wrong. The conclusion states that Alicia should have the same punishment as Peter which is automobile theft, not that Peter should have the same punishment as Alicia which is a warning. So, that must mean that both of them being charged with automobile theft is more "equal" punishment than them being both simply having a warning. Doesn't this only make sense if being charged with automobile theft is more just than getting a warning?

In other words, if A is true, then we would get a conclusion that Peter should be charged with the same punishment as Alicia. But that is the opposite of what the conclusion states. So wouldn't A need to be false?

hey!

the logical indicator 'until'

in this ex/ mary goes to the gym until brittany goes to the gym

-B -> M

would this be the correct translation?

[anything that follows until is the nec, modify the remaining of the sentence by negating-- which then becomes the suff condition?

Weakening Question

I identified 3 premises here:

Conclusion: Polls during the week leading up to an election should be banned.

Goal: Find answers that show why one of the premises isn´t true, or why we shouldn´t believe the conclusion to be true.

Answers:

A. Few people are influenced by polls in the 2 weeks leading up to elections. THIS INCLUDES 1 WEEK LEADING UP TO THE POLL!!! I completely skipped over that obvious implication originally, but see now why it makes sense.

B. Uneven - too specific. What about close elections?

C. Remove motivation actually strengthens.

D. Gains in popularity - who cares? Irrelevant.

E. Informed citizens is a stretch to unaffected citizens. Also the comparison is weak - this is ONE country, and we don´t know anything about it.

My takeaway: Don´t read over answer choices too quickly. Maybe try to visualize even abstract answers and concepts like time - in this case, picture a timelines with a dot representing election. Scribbled out right before it is the 1 week without elections. Answer A says 2 weeks right before, there is no influence. I KNEW I could be looking for an answer showing polls don´t affect citizens, so think about how a bigger line right before your election dot would overlap with the part scribbled out, and see how A is actually giving you about a strong point about the 1 week before.

.

Hello,

I'm confused on how to approach this weakening question. My understanding of the auto industry executive's argument:

The auto industry executive is rejecting the recent guidelines that are requiring the production of cars with higher fuel efficiency (C) because statistics show that cars after 1977 that were built smaller to be more fuel efficient had a higher incidence of accident related fatalities (P). As I understand it, the executive is making a poor correlation-causation argument between building cars smaller and the assumed increase of fatal accidents. I'm having trouble with how the AC's best weaken the argument.

I initially chose D, and was struggling to find a better AC during BR. I eliminated E and B right off that bat. That left A C D. I chose D because I thought if modern technology could make cars more fuel efficient WITHOUT having to alter the size of the car (the executive is linking smaller fuel efficient cars and fatalities), then it might weaken the argument. You eliminate the need for change in size, you eliminate one potential connection with accidents.

I'm struggling to see how AC C is correct. I noticed the change between big and small and left that AC at first. Can someone help explain how that is the correct AC. From my understanding, if large cars can have a better fuel efficiency from new technology based off recent guidelines, does that weaken the executive's argument that the guidelines would have to adopt previous standards that they (incorrectly?) linked with accidents and fatalities?

Can someone explain why AC C is right and E is wrong.

Option C states that "the proportion of arrests to crimes committed was not significantly higher for criminals under intensive supervision than for those under routine supervision." This statement is not an assumption on which the argument relies. Instead, it is a piece of evidence presented in the argument to support the conclusion that intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes. The argument states that the percentage of released criminals arrested while under supervision is the same for intensive supervision as for routine supervision, and cites the fact that the proportion of arrests to crimes committed was not significantly higher for criminals under intensive supervision as evidence for this claim. However, this statement does not itself form the basis for the argument's conclusion.

Option E is an assumption on which the argument relies. The argument states that the percentage of released criminals arrested while under supervision is the same for intensive supervision as for routine supervision, and concludes that intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes. However, this conclusion relies on the assumption that the number of criminals put under routine supervision was not significantly greater than the number of criminals put under intensive supervision. If the number of criminals put under routine supervision was significantly greater, it could be that the percentage of released criminals arrested while under supervision is the same simply because there are more criminals under routine supervision. In that case, it would not be accurate to conclude that intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision

#Help

Why is the answer not "A"?

I thought that since all the premises refer to misguided belief about their nutritional intake that this would be the correct choice.

How do we find out where it is taken? I registered but it never said where I go to take the exam or the format of the exam

[I am posting on behalf of a 7Sage user. Please feel free to leave your comments below. Thank you for your help!]

Quick question on the conditional statement of the logic games.

This problem is from the Grouping and Sequencing Games lesson and for the statement "either P or L or both are selected" and the explanation for it is if not P then L ( shown in photo) so what does including "both" reference? doesn't it also mean it can be both P AND L as well?

Thank you in advance!

Is there anyway to see analytics for the practice set drills I've been doing throughout the curriculum? I know there are analytics for preptests and you can see where you need to improve, but can you see this for practice sets/drills too?

LSATLab lets you see your accuracy/percentage of questions answered correctly or incorrectly, regardless of whether it was in a full preptest or just drills. Just wondering if 7sage also has that.

Hey 7Sagers,

Here's the official February 2023 LSAT Discussion Thread.

REMINDER: Under your Candidate Agreement, you may not discuss the details of any specific LSAT questions at any time. For the February 2023 LSAT, general discussion of what sections you had, or how difficult you found a given section, or speculation about which sections were scored or unscored, is prohibited until after 9pm ET, Tuesday, February 14th.

Posts that violate these rules will be taken down and may result in disciplinary action from LSAC. Let’s work together to ensure the test is fair to everyone, and not share information before everyone has taken the test.

Some examples of typical comments:

✅ The following comments are okay 🙆‍♀️

❌ The following comments are over the line 🙅‍♂️

Good luck to everyone taking the February 2023!

**Please keep all discussions of the February 2023 LSAT here!**(/red)

Anybody know of any lessons or have any advice on sets vs supersets? Feeling discouraged by PT 89. Q's 9 & 22 are mainly the ones I just want a deeper dive on.

I'm not sure that JY has covered sets vs supersets more broadly in a video but figured i'd ask if anybody knew. TIA!

I have a question about RC. When starting the RC section of the LSAT, is it a smart strategy to glance at the number of questions per passage and then dive in first with the one that offers the most points with the most questions? For example, I just did a PT and I usually just go straight through beginning with passage one then onwards. Passage one only had 5 questions, while passage four had 8 questions. To me, it would have made more sense to start with the last passage for two reasons: 1) I’m the freshest and most alert and 2) I have the opportunity to score 8 points. As it was, I ran out of time and end up having to guess on several of the last questions. Thoughts??

How do I access any LG by a certain PT??

#ADMIN HELP

I answered (C): I thought this would be right because it was the statement that was most backed up by what is in the stimulus.

The right answer is (E):I was battling between C and E, but I didn't pick E because it seemed like a statement although true, the stimulus was not supporting it directly.

Can someone explain why E is correct and why C is wrong? I feel like I am overthinking this.

Admin note: Edited title and post; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]." Also, please review the Forum rules "Do not post LSAT questions", the title format helps others reference the PT and question. Thanks!

Delete.

I am quite confused as to why 14c is wrong. I was going back and forth between A and C and i am not able to figure out how C is wrong! Pls help

Explanation video: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-2-passage-2-questions/

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