I couldn't shake the thought off my mind that the conclusion is "matters pertaining to conservation of topsoil have been ignored for long". The given answer is E, which is a suggestion and I don't see how that's the conclusion. #help

I don't understand how D weakens the argument .Can someone please explain?

Hey all!

I've been working really hard on LR and am seeing a lot of improvement so far, however one area that I am still having a lot of difficulty with is in flaw questions...

I have been practicing with the two step test when I can't identify the flaw, but for whatever reason I find it very easy to gaslight my own reasoning with these wrong answer choices, than in comparison to other question types' wrong answer choices.

Any advice on being able to find the right answer even when you don't spot the flaw would be much appreciated!

Can someone please confirm if they were able to use mechanical pencils and lined paper? Or must I have blank paper and wooden pencils?

Delete

Can someone explain to me why Answer choice D is the best choice for PT 91 Logical Reasoning Question 17? Is it because Answer choice D is only meeting one objective whereas the answer choices are meeting more than one objective? Thank you.

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

Can someone explain to me why answer choice C is correct and answer A is incorrect for PT 91 LR Question 5.

Thank you for your time.

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

So, I chose B at first and then changed to C for BR. Now I know why B and C both cannot be the correct answer for this question.

B talks about dominant class which we don't know anything about.

C talks about social class which its different from noble class in the premise.

The correct answer for this question was A...

(A) To say that feudalism by definition requires the existence of a nobility is to employ a definition that distorts history.

I understand the answer until "is to employ a definition that distorts history"... How does it distorts history..?

Can somebody explain why A is a correct answer?

Thank you!

Admin note: edited title

Hi everyone, wondering if i could get your help with Q23 "According to rational-choice theory, popular support"...

Would someone be able to help in explaining why D is wrong and A is right? I thought since D has "is never a complex phenomenon" while the stim conc says "simple", it's wrong, in which case I can't similarly justify A ... Thank you!

Hi,

I am trying to balance my study for all three sections. Also I am noticing my RC score drop if I've not reading intensively for days. But since I've full-time job so I am figuring out what would be a good way to maintain my reading also balancing other sections and my work.

so do you do a full timed section everyday? or just one untimed passage with a deep dive review? or actually just reading books/magazine of your interest for few hours?

Thank you vey much for sharing!

Low key felt good about the test.. not sure if that’s a good sign or bad sign LOL!

I'm frustrated that B was the correct answer

Reasoning:

We have to create an assumption that if something makes an appearance, then it strongly helps

That's like saying if I live in miami, and cancer goes down then my psychic power claims are strengthened

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

Explanation Video: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-89-section-4-question-10/

Help!!! RC is by far my WORST section. I am consistently missing -12/13 on each practice section I complete. While I am reading, I try to ask myself what each paragraph is about. Once I'm done reading and it's time to go to the questions, I realize that nothing I have read has stuck with me, forcing me to go back to the passage multiple times. I, then, consistently get multiple questions wrong based on the fact that I don't have great RC reading strategies and can't visualize or condense the information I have read into the important things I should know before going to the questions. Does anyone else have any tips on how to focus more on understanding the passage before even getting to the questions and still being in the time limit? I also have decided I'm probably going to end up skipping one passage as a whole on the exam, so I'm thinking I'll have roughly ~12 minutes on each of the other 3 passages. Any help would be soooo greatly appreciated!

#help

What exactly does general principle mean? I see it constantly throughout the logical reasoning answer choices. Very rarely is it included in the actual right answer, but I would love to have a better understanding of the term and what would constitute a general principle, so that I can eliminate the answer choices more quickly. I have a basic understanding, but I feel like it is an ambiguous phrase for me at this point, therefore, when I see in the answer choices, I have to take unnecessary time to rule it out.

Is there a worksheet that tells us what group the logical indicators are in?

Hi guys,

I'm really having a difficult time seeing why B would not be the right answer. B seems to be describing that it is for the government's own sake to respect the rights of citizens, which is exactly what the Policy Advisor is saying in the first sentence. Am I misunderstanding something here?

Any thoughts would be appreciated, thanks!

Admin note: edited title

Why is B not the correct answer? How can D be justified?

After reviewing answer choice E, I can see how it strongly weakens the argument, but I'm a little confused why answer choice C couldn't be a correct choice as well. If the number of people competing for the elected position isn't more when the pay is high vs when the pay is lower, isn't that enough to prove that these people are not doing it for the purposes of money?

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Hello comrades in misery! My name is Joey and I've been studying for the LSAT for over a year now. I've managed to score consistently in the mid-160's, but haven't been able to get close enough to 170 to feel comfortable going into the exam in a few weeks.

Brief rundown of my skill progression: I legitimately could not do logic games, timed or untimed, to save my life until a few months ago. I studied for most of 2020 and quickly realized LR and RC were my strong suits; I was always -2 or -3 on LR and -1 or -2 on RC. The games, however, were impossible (-10 to -15). Toward the end of 2020 I decided to completely take a break from studying for 4 months. Upon returning to studying, I became near perfect in Logic Games! Finally, I thought, that elusive 170+ was in reach... but that was not the case. In the time I took off from studying and the extra time upon returning devoted to LG, my LR skills significantly atrophied. I've been scoring consistently -4 to -8 on both LR sections of PTs for the last month and a half, and its been the most soul-crushing experience trying to figure out why what appeared to be a natural aptitude for me (and certainly is; I'm a bookworm and political theory major who gets unusually excited by a well-crafted sentence) has become the main thing stopping me from getting to where I need to be.

SO, AT MY ROPE'S END, I'M CALLING UPON THE COMMUNITY HERE FOR HELP. IF ANY 170+ SCORERS (OR EVEN VERY HIGH 160'S) WITH A PARTICULAR STRENGTH IN LR IS WILLING AND ABLE TO OFFER TWO TO THREE HOURS A WEEK BEFORE THE NOVEMBER TEST TO HELP A GUY OUT, I AM WILLING TO COMPENSATE YOU FOR YOUR TIME (WE CAN DISCUSS WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE PRIVATELY)

Being a lawyer is an ambition of mine for intellectual reasons, but also for personal and familial ones. A little help- even to see how one of you thinks, how you approach specific question types- just might be the key to helping me get where I need to be to realize my goals. As a quick remedy, if anybody has any FLAW question strategies, drop 'em in the comments!

Much love to you all (and sorry for the long note),

Joey R.

The rule is "Either P is an ingredient or Y is an ingredient, but not both." It's easy enough to see that both of them cannot be in, but does this rule mandate that AT LEAST one of them is in? If so, can you also point me to the lecture in the core curriculum where this is explained?

Thanks so much

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-89-section-1-game-2/

I selected E. I thought the people's confidence was important. If the other scientists knew that the people's confidence in professor smith was low, they didn't have to worry about needing to discredit it because no one would believe him. Please help me understand why this is not the correct choice and why C (present evidence to find truth) is.

Can anyone explain why this is C? thank you for the help!

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

Hey,

So i got stuck between AC A and C, I cannot seem to understand the way A weakens the argument? and I do not see how C does not weaken the argument.

If anyone has any ideas I'd appreciate it

Thanks

So this was a very interesting question. We are asked to identify the necessary assumption in the argument of the citizens group. Citizen group argues that the mayor have more than the town's economic interest in mind. Why? the citizens give the answer that the mayor didn't go with what they think is the BETTER option: building a park. Comparing to the highway, the citizens believe that the park will attract TWICE as much business.

What is the problem here? Well, how do we know that just because the mayor didn't go with what the citizens think as the best option, he's in bed with the highway construction company? There might be other concerns that the mayor considers other than just maxing out the business that plainsville can attract, such as pollution brought by making a business park by cutting down trees, land shortages, etc.. These can definitely make the highway more attractive to the mayor than the business park, leading the mayor to think the best option for the economy is the highway. More importantly, the mayor can just simply be unaware of the idea of the business park. He simply did not consider that option, and when the citizen group roasts him for it, he's like damn you're right let's build a park. The citizen group, therefore, has to assume that the mayor has considered the park, knows about its advantages over the highway, and think it is economically more ideal to build a park than to build a highway to make the conclusion that the mayor is interested in more than pure economic gain for the city.

The necessary assumption therefore should be something like: the mayor recognizes that the park is a better option for the economy and can attract more business. Exactly what answer B catches. The mayor has to accept that the park is economically a superior option to the highway. If he doesn't, he can genuinely think that the highway helps the most, with all other things considered (beyond the scope of this question.)

Let's talk about other answers:

A: This doesn't help. Simply beyond what we need to consider here. The citizen group doesn't have to assume that there is already a highway to argue that the mayor is acting sketchy. I don't even see what this answer choice is trying to do. Saying that the highway is important and we don't have it yet so we need one?

C: We don't need this. The highway not having other benefits does not affect the argument of the citizen group, and the OTHER benefits of the highway is not in the debate between citizens and the mayor. There can well be other benefits from the highway, and the park can still be twice as more beneficial.

D : No idea what tax revenue and approval have to do with the question.

E: I chose this one, thinking hey if the only way to help the economy is to build the park, and the mayor is not building the park, he must have something to hide, right? No. If this question is a strengthening question, this AC could work, but it is not required. The citizens do agree that the highway is bringing SOME economic benefits, implied by the statement that the park can bring twice as much business. Therefore, the citizens don't think that the ONLY way to help with the economy is to build a new park. They don't have to think this to be the case to reach the conclusion that the mayor has other interest in mind. Keep in mind: the citizen's argument is not that the mayor is not helping the economy at all but that he has other interests. This answer choice is too extreme for it to be necessary.

What the title says. I've been studying for the LSAT for a while now, and frankly LR is the only section that seems to utterly piss me off. I can do analytical reasoning and reading comprehension just fine (the only time I get mad on those is when the highlighter feature is being overly-sensitive, but I've learned how it works) but when I do the games, I flat out want to scream and throw things when things stop making sense.

I'm not really someone who deals with anxiety on the LSAT as I often hear others have. For me, it's frustration and anger. I took the August LSAT and I nearly blew a gasket in the middle of the logic games sections.

I think I need to study more, get the fundamentals down more, and overall just expose myself to more difficult problems with a cool mindset. This is really holding me back. I was going to take a practice test today but decided against it so I could focus more on the games in a casual setting without the timer.

Any advice? This test is a challenge of our patience, too, as you all know. Thanks.