I ultimately chose (C) but was rather uncomfortable trying to eliminate (D). It seems to me they are conceptually similar:

(C) provides a reason to think there was no "deception" involved - Dr. Faris wasn't deceiving, he knew that improved sleep would likely result from the med.

(D) also provides a reason to think there was no "deception" involved - with other doctors prescribing this medication to patients who had trouble sleeping, Dr. Faris was less likely to be "deceiving" and more likely to be simply going along with the typical prescriptions he/she has observed from other doctors treating patients who had trouble sleeping.

I recognize (D) is more of a stretch, which is why I chose (C), but I'm rarely this uncomfortable on a LR question so early in a section, and would love any further insight on how to more confidently dispatch (D).

Thanks in advance!

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

On Q23: I almost picked C then changed it to E. (answer is C)

On 8: I have no idea.. (answer is C)

One party states that disposable diapers are a menace to the environment since they are filling up landfills etc., and people should replace disposable diapers with cloth diapers; the other party states that no, cloth diapers also carry significant amount of risks to the environment.

The two popular answer choices are B and D, and since B is correct lets talk about D. For D, it states that the anti-clother proceeds her argument with stating that cloth diapers pose far more serious threat to the environment. But where does the anti-clother says that? Maria only states that the widely adopted use of cloth diapers also post a lot of risks to the environment, but never states that it would pose a "far more serious threat." There is no comparison in the degree of threat the two type of diapers post; Maria only states her argument to say that cloth diaper also posts a lot of risk to the environment, even NO LESS risks than the disposable diapers, but she never states the cloth diaper would post FAR MORE SERIOUS THREAT.

AC B is correct because Pedro is convinced that the disposable diapers are bad for the environment and makes a good case for it: it is filling up landfills and blah blah. But he never states why we should take cloth diapers over disposable ones, and that is what Maria catches on with her counter. She states that the use of cloth diapers also pose significant risks to the environment through transportation etc., the factors that Pedro did not consider in his hasty argument that denounces disposables and promotes cloth. Therefore, B is the right answer as Maria points out the inadequacy in Pedro's support for cloth diapers.

The debate comes down to B and C.

For B, I eliminated basing on the "average population." remember, the question stem never actually mentions what is true about the average population. We only know that if 100 ppl never smoked crack, only 5 would get falsely tested positive. but in 100 crackhead, 99 would get tested positive. Do we know the average number of crackhead among society? No. That would be something like in American society, there are on average 8 crackheads among 100 people. We don't have this information. So we cannot say that the flaw is applying the stats of average member to every member of the society, since there is no mentioning of what is the average.

C catches the flaw. My first reaction was that wait a minute, if the vast majority who got positive are confirmed crackheads, what if everyone doesn't smoke crack in this perfect society? Then according to the stem, 5 in every 100 ppl who never smoked crack will get tested positive, then you have the vast majority who got tested positives are not crackheads: they all got falsely tested positive and never smoked before. Well let's increase that to let's say there are an average of 7 crackheads among 100 people. Well still, the amount of crackheads are still not the vast majority of those tested positive. From this reasoning, we then know that we need to know how much people are actually crackhead in among the general population, then we can know whether the VAST MAJORITY of the people who test positive are crackheads. Let's say we are in NYC, and we have about 60 out of 100 on average are crackheads (maybe or maybe not exaggerated). Then the argument might actually make sense according to the 100 tested 99 positive stat. Without the average proportion of crackheads, we cant draw the conclusion about how many will get accurately tested positive in a society.

Hello Everybody,

I am currently working my way through the Logic Games section. I've taken multiple symbolic logic courses in University and learned all about logical operators, such as ampersand (conjunctions), wedge (disjunction), horseshoe/arrow (conditional) and triple bar (biconditional).

I keep trying to translate the given sentences with the common logical operators used in symbolic logic, but the 7Sage program seems to only use conditionals to translate every sentence...

One example that stood out to me is: "Neither ... nor". In symbolic logic that normally translates to either (~A & ~B ) or into ~(A v B ), according to the DeMorgan's laws. However, 7Sage suggests the translation: A -> ~B C -> ~B

Can someone explain to why we aren't using the other logical operators? It is distinctly possible that I am missing something or misunderstood something, so I would appreciate any help!

Johanna

Hello everyone,

I met someone in South Korea who got 180 on the LSAT. He said he copied down four RC passages from each LSAT practice test with hand. He called it a "Dictation Exercise." He said he was able to significantly boost his LSAT score from 172 in April test to 180 in June test. Do you think copying down RC passages with hand will help? I don't think he was lying and I intend to do what he did, but I would like everyone's opinion.

Hey all. I recently completed practice test 91 on LawHub and an argument part type question's AC has me a little confused. I don't want to give spoilers away for the question... so not going to provide too much detail.

But one of the AC's is "It points up by example a contrast from which the conclusion is drawn."

Specifically "it points up" - I've never seen this used before in my life. Have you?

Is it a typo where they meant to say "it points out"?

Thank you and keep up the good work everyone!

Hi everyone! Happy Friday. On my last few practice tests I have gotten between -1 to -3 on my first LR section and then, if LR shows up a second time, my score plummets to -7/-8 on the second LR. How is this possible? Does anyone have any tips to avoid a big point drop-off between the first and second LR if it were to show up twice on test day? If it makes a difference, these tests were in the 60's. Thanks :)

I'm disagreeing with how JY did this because we can't use common sense in MBT nor make up assumptions because we think it makes sense to us. MSS is fine because it's always a 95% certainty and 5% wiggle room for some common sense.

That is invalid because what is a valid argument and what is a sound argument are two different things. In MBT we are focusing if it is valid not if it is sound but JY isn't doing that

His argument goes in the lawgic

Standard committee ---> 6 PM

General assembly ----> 7 pm

6 isn't 7

so 6 ----> /7

Which he gets

SQ ----> 6 ---> /7 ----> /General assembly

The problem is that is not a valid argument. We can't negate assumptions since we are removing alot of presumptions.

I KNOW that 6 isn't 7, but thats not the controversy. The controversy is aligning an assumption against another assumption through negation, which that's not a valid argument.

For all we know in sound arguments, 6 is 7, or 6 does not necessarily contradict 7 (or vice versa)

Why not? Because what if it lasts 5 minutes the assembly. What if the coordinators are so stupid that they do it at the same time. Not common sense but still valid.

Parallel flaw example:

Juan likes tacos

Jake likes cars

Tacos aren’t cars

Therefore Juan —> /Jake

=====================

The lawgic

Juan –> tacos

Jake —> Cars

tacos—-> /cars

Therefore Juan —> Jake

Explanation Video: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-83-section-1-question-18/

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

Had originally picked C and read this thread that was very helpful in visualizing the stimulus: https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/7343.

However, I'm still having trouble with AC B and C.

For B, I had originally read it as the concentration of O18 INCREASED (so if it was at 90L after the evaporation, then in the ice age, it was actually at 150L), rather than the concentration of O18 in the ice age ocean is just higher than that of the interglacial period.

Could someone explain why C is wrong? It seems to align with the stimulus?

#help

Hey Everyone,

As you have probably seen from the title, I am struggling HORRIBLY with the reading comp section, I always get about -15 wrong, even before I used 7Sage I never did this bad. I do well on all other sections, but can't seem to get any improvements on this on in particular.

Has there been any tips or tricks that have helped you overcome RC? I am taking the October LSAT next week and am worried that this section will ruin my score. I am losing hope for this section and filled with anxiety that I won't improve.

Any suggestions will be amazing, thank you :)

OK, HEAR ME OUT. Something that helped me go from -7/9 to -4 on RC is, and some might be against this but we get desperate sometimes, actually skipping a passage all together, specifically the comparative passage. NOW BEFORE YOU HATE ME FOR THIS, JUST SEE WHAT I HAVE TO SHARE.

I always struggled with timing on RC, and when I read faster, my accuracy went down. So what my tutor taught me is as you go through the section, read the passages slowly, take your time really understanding what the passage is saying, and don't move on to the questions until you have a good understanding. Then, do the questions as normal. When you get to the comparative passage, pick a letter and answer that letter for all the questions. Don't even read the passage or questions, just fill in the letter and move on. Go back to in-depth reading and answering for the rest of the passages.

What you might find is because you skipped a passage, you'll have about 3-6 minutes left over to go back and review the skipped comparative passage (this will fluctuate as you get more confident with RC). When you go back to the comparative, don't read the passage, but skim over the questions and see which you can answer without actually reading the whole passage. These will be questions like ones that only deal with passage A/B, ones that reference a specific area of passage A/B, or structure questions that you might be able to point out. Look at the answer you selected while skipping and see if the answer makes sense. If it doesn't, change it to one that does make more sense or simply a different one.

Normally, with selecting the same letter for all of a passage's questions, at least one is going to be right. After that, your review with your extra time should help you get one or two more right. Now, the key to this strategy is that you must work on getting all of the questions right on the other passages that you took your time on. This might sound scary, but you might surprise yourself on how much you can understand and answer when you give yourself the time. If you get all the other passage problems correct, and you get at least one right with your skipping due to all of them being the same letter, you will automatically go down to -6/7 depending on how many questions the comparative passage has. Add the questions that you might get right from your second quick review of the comparative and you can bring that down to -4/5.

I HATED RC and I never thought I could conquer it, but this strategy has allowed me to be so comfortable with it because I can slow read and really understand the passages which makes the questions a lot easier, while still using analytical skills, that are easier to master than speed reading, to squeeze out those extra points. If anyone has any questions, please reach out to me. I'd love to help a fellow RC strugglers :)

I took PT 91 on LawHub and my score dropped 4 points from what I have been scoring on the past 10 tests. Specifically my score in reading comp suffered greatly. Does anyone know why this might be the case? This scares me since I am taking the October test on the 14th.

Anyone have any suggestions to break a plateau in LR? Any tips would be greatly appreciated.

help can someone explain why this is B? It seems clear that the director did in fact infer that some others did like the movie, and its seems like he did fail to take into consideration the number of positive (i.e., 0) and negative (i.e., 10) responses received re: the movie reviews

Does anyone know why answer choice A is incorrect?

Hi, everyone,

Have trouble with this question. The correct answer choice C adds additional information ("climate fluctuations") which is not provided under the stimulus. Does it mean you can add additional information by guessing, however, this is not reliable technique? How to deal with this sort of questions?

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

Could someone map out the lawgic on this problem? I could only make sense of the question from an intuitive process and not the diagramming. #help

The video explanation was pretty terrible for this one. He really brushes over why answer choice B is correct. Can someone elaborate? Surely the profits of the lightbulb are relevant to the argument that people should change the type of lightbulbs they use, right?

Explanation Video: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-65-section-1-question-03/

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

The question stem asks: "The reasoning in the journalist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument fails to consider that..." and the correct answer, E, says the flaw is that those who donate might not be those who join the party, making the necessary 30% benchmark of support unreachable.

However, this would then SUPPORT the conclusion of the journalist, who says that an educational party is unviable in the long-run.

So, is it then possible to support a conclusion, but criticize a stimulus for failing to do the best possible job of constructing its conclusion (i.e. here we criticize the argument, but not the conclusion)? If anything, this feels like an assumption question.

Hopefully my question makes sense.

Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-1-question-24/

After reading the stimulus, I was wondering why the overall number of collisions didn't decline even after using headlights was made mandatory and I thought E explained the discrepancy. If it is true that the jurisdictions that have mandatory headlight laws have naturally low visibility, wouldn't that explain why the overall number of collisions didn't decrease?

As for answer choice C, is it suggesting that the reason the collision rate is lower for drivers that use headlights is not because of the headlights but because they are more careful drivers? I read LSAC's official explanation and am still confused about these two choices.

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

I don't feel too great about my understanding of each LR question type. Does anyone have any tips or other source of material that helped everything truly click for them? LG has been great through 7sage but it's challenging for me to stay locked in and focused during the videos for LR as he tends to either talk very fast, jumps from one thing to another, or makes a mistake and corrects himself. it all just makes the flow of retaining the information more challenging for me.

I want to begin studying for RC & was wondering if you guys thought 7sage's RC lessons were very beneficial or if I should use the Powerscore RC book that I have. RC is my worst section, so if anyone could provide me with their opinions on 7sage's RC material for the Course Curriculum that would be great. Thank you!

I am taking the November LSAT and I can't seem to get my score up on Reading Comprehension. I have improved on everything else but for some reason, Reading Comprehension is getting to me (probably the boring passages) any tips?

I just feel like I'm at a wall with LGs, I've reviewed all the material, memorized the game types/boards, but whenever I do a timed section I always seem so miss an extra 3 or 4 questions and end up at -6 or -7 instead of -2 or -3, which is what I'm usually at when I take my time. A lot of my mistakes are just misreading part of the stimulus and then making a faulty assumption off of it. Any tips for keeping a level head?