Hey yall! I need a parallel reasoning expert to explain to me why C is the correct answer and not E.

Thank you!

Stimulus says: Manners are necessarily social (i.e. manners require a social element). Morals are not necessarily social (i.e. morals do not require a social element). Rules of etiquette do not apply to situations with morals or manners alone.

Things I noted upon reading:

Most strongly supported?

A: You can be immoral without causing harm. (i.e. you can not be moral in a case that is not social). Yep, this fits with #3 above.

B: An immoral act is never a violation of etiquette. This could be false if the situation also involved manners, so we can´t say it is supported.

C: Morality applies only when one is alone. I think you´d only choose this if you were hella confused.

D.: It is more important... I stopped reading right there and knew this was wrong. There is no comparison being made in the stimulus.

E: A social situation will never have anything to do with morality. Clearly wrong based on #2 and #3 described above.

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

Hi there, I'm reviewed an old LR questions (PT24 S3 Q10) and this particular problem introduced subsets into the mapping. I have come across these problems in the past and never apply the subset. Anyone know if there is a core curriculum lesson or article/post on this matter that's reliable?

My issue for this particular question, is that I wrote S ->/MB while JY wrote it as /MBs. I have looked at other LSAT resource forums and they solve it in the same manner as I do.

It looks as if the 7Sage study schedule includes the prep tests in the hourly commitment. Although, without them it looks as if it is a less daunting endeavor given the number of hours needed to study is almost cut in half. I wanted to ask if the actual material is all 500+ hours or are we only truly learning in the "core curriculum" portion of the study schedule?

On the conditional indicator drill made by the student, the logical indicator "will" appear and the rule say's it indicates a necessary term.

"Will" however, is not on the "4 Translation Group Cheatsheet". It also confuses me because on the basic translation group 2 flashcards an example is "only a GPS will reveal where you are" .... the answer indicates that in lawgic it reads:

a --> GPS and /GPS --> /a.

I do realize that the LI "only" is also in that sentence, however the term "will" is now tripping me up and I do not know to include it in my Group 2 Logical Indicator or not. Please help! :)

Just got my score back after taking it a second time. The first time I took it was with the LSAT Flex during Covid. I do not remember my score but I definitely cancelled it. Anyways, I got my score back today and I scored a 135 (big yikes). Mind you, I have scored on practice tests in the high 150s so I was really surprised. I have college applications due soon. But I'm currently an immigration paralegal who works full time. I'm hoping that my 4 years of immigration law experience, GPA, personal statements, and recommendation letters from mentors and lawyers I currently work with will have some law schools overlook my score. I'm also applying to 10 schools in hope that at least ONE school will take me. My score does not define me. But also at the same time, highly contemplating to take the next test in April.

HELP!!! Any advice is highly appreciated :)

I am sitting for February 2023 shortly but when the scores release come March 1st and it’s not the score I am aiming for, I would like to take the June 2023. My question is what to do during those 14 days after taking the test because I have a studying momentum right now and don’t want to lose it in case I have to get back into studying again. Should I take the necessary 14 days off and start after the score release, if need be?

I am trying to fine tune my LR, and most advice i see is to study the questions types you struggle with, but after looking over my analytics all the LR questions I'm getting wrong are pretty evenly distributed between all question types.

My consistently wrong answers are the ones that are ranked as 4-5 level difficulty. What exactly should I do for that? Just take drill sets of hard questions over and over and over?

Could someone please explain why the answer is A not B? Thanks!

Can someone explain why E is wrong?

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

I answered this question correct the first time around, and then when completing the blind review I changed my answer and got it incorrect. This question is very tricky when reading it for the first time. I changed my answer because I could not logically conclude why the average length of stay remaining unchanged would support the authors hypothesis. I now realize that if length of stay has no correlation, then a valid reason to there being higher restaurant revenues would be that visitors are sharing passes.

A) Other tourist attraction opening- would weaken argument bc would explain the rise in restaurant revenues and not attraction

B) Making more frequent trips than in previous years- would weaken argument bc this would mean they are not sharing passes

C) Hotel and meal prices have risen- would weaken argument bc directly correlates with increased revenues not based on sharing passes

D) Average length of stay remained unchanged- would support argument bc people most likely sharing passes

E) Each pass contains a photograph- would weaken argument bc this would causes less people to share a pass

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

I chose answer choice C because being the rock being submerged in water does not prove the conclusion that is falsifying the idea that life began in the ocean and did not exist on land until half a billion years ago.

Does anyone have an explanation for why C does support the conclusion and why D would be the answer for non-supporting? Thanks!

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

I know a 150 is still an average score. But I must share my 12 point increase. I started off this LSAT journey with knowing absolutely nothing to mastering LG and doing moderate on RC and LR. I worked and studied so hard for this jump. SAT and ACT was never my strongest. but regardless of the matter thank you JY and the 7Sage community for helping me get this far.

What are peoples strategies for marking up a passage?

Do you use the different highlight colors + the underline tool for different, specific types of information?

I've just started studying RC and am trying to come up with as system for marking up passages that makes it easier to go back and find info when I'm on the questions. I am curious as to what worked for others.

As of now, all I have is that I am going to underline time indicators. (Such as: before, after, until recently, now, back then, previously, etc.)

I know some people feel like it could be a time suck, but I have such a hard time being engaged with the passages I think using the tools will make me actively think about what information falls into what category and how it all fits together. I'd love others' input on this as well.

So I'm taking the LSAT in February, and I am hopeful to at least score in the 150s there, however in order to get into the Law School I am thinking of getting into, I would have to score anything above 165ish. Is that jump possible? If so what tips or tricks do you all recommend?

"If you study, you will beat the LSAT." This is an example given here on 7sage, and it seems to work. Studying is a sufficient condition to beat the LSAT (apparently). S -> B

On another website, an example was given along the lines of: "If I put gas in my car, my car will run." And, here, putting gas in the car was said to be the necessary condition. The car needs gas to run. Gas is necessary for the car to run. CR -> G

But in that example, IF introduces the necessary condition, not the sufficient condition. What am I not understanding exactly? Does IF introduce sufficient conditions or necessary conditions? Huge thanks in advance!

An assumption I came up with was: "allowing eggs to decay makes it impossible to use them to analyze for pesticide-bird tests"

Would something along those lines be a viable answer for assumption questions?

I've been working through the curriculum for the last few weeks and I swear that the Flaw-Descriptive Questions lesson was before Principle Questions but now it's telling me that Principle is before Flaw. Is this a new change or am I going through some weird Mandela effect?

JY dismisses putting [I: V-Y-W-V] because you can't have two different game pieces in the middle two slots. Can someone help elaborate on this? I believe (A) could be correct, and I don't understand the reasoning here.

Thanks!

Evaluate question: can someone please explain why the correct answer choice is E? how did you arrive at this answer?

I'm very confused as to why the answer is B and not C. Looking back at it now, I'm trying to make justifications for why the answer should be B (EX: B says "the government would withhold" which is not as definitive as in C which says "the government would deny requests"). Is it not C because C is too broad and is not focusing on UFOs specifically? I figured its broad language was why it was the correct answer but maybe that was not the right way to go about it.

Wrong Answer (D) and Right Answer (E). I can't seem to reach the understanding on how E is relevant, e.g. doesn't contain information introduced in the passage on whether or not zebra mussels can transform hazardous waste and why they would be considered hazardous waste. I chose (D) because out of all the answers it seemed like the closest to being supported, as it mentions one of the 'redeeming qualities' of zebra mussels.

Offering help to people struggling with Logical Reasoning. Reach out.

I'm one of the 35% people that chose (B) and still am not fully convinced that (E) is better. To compare the two ACs, I'll list all potential objections/flaws they each have for them to work:

(B) says, salt is not the only dietary factors associated with high blood pressure. It takes for granted that the people in the question actually were consuming these other foods, and the intake of such foods in combination needs to be significant enough, not only to offset the effects of their high salt intake, but also to bring their blood pressure down to very low.

(E) says, some people have abnormally low blood pressure and they have heightened cravings for salt to maintain a blood pressure that's not too low. It assumes without justification that these people are in fact the people talked about in the stimulus, and their high salt intake was in fact the result of their heightened cravings.

I'll admit that (B) makes a lot of unwarranted assumptions. But the "cravings" in (E) really trips me up because I think the assumption of "heightened cravings for salt" implying "high salt intake" is the exact kind of bad assumptions that LSAT usually punishes us for making. My only justification for choosing (E) over (B) is that it makes fewer assumptions. Can someone please help me out on this one? This question is bothering me so much and I don't know what I need to do differently to avoid similar mistakes in the future. Any help is hugely appreciated!

I have been studying LG consistently for the past five months. I finished the entire LG core curriculum, foolproofing every single game along the way. I have also foolproofed about 6 LG sections. I always watch explanation videos after doing games and repeat the game until perfect. I also feel comfortable with the LG foundations - on blind review I consistently get -0 to -1. But on fresh timed LG sections, I can barely make it through two games. I am truly not sure what I'm doing wrong and find this to be extremely demoralizing. I would appreciate any advice!