Hi all! What is your thought process/explanation as to why A is wrong?

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

Hi, I noticed that I am unable to see the difficulty level on the logic games I had done on PT. Is there a way I can figure out the difficulty levels?

I watched the first dozen lessons on reading comprehension and already I've improved. I would typically miss 3-4 questions in a batch of 7-8, and now I'm only missing 1/8, albeit, the most difficult question of the passage. So far, I'm very impressed with the lessons on here. Super helpful!

So I have an LSAT date for June 9th. I studied for a month prior to this on my own but ofc I am not ready. I signed up for this 2 days ago and I realize how I am getting improved and I love it. Should I cancel the test and study ton and take in October? I know I am not going to be ready but I was thinking since the year cycle is ending might as well go and see what it feels like, and then I will have three more options again since the cycle reopens in July, but I know I will not be ready for it. So cancel or not? If I do it today, I will get partial refund at least.

Here was my original notes:

this argument feels wrong ... like... it tells us that land life began NOT 0.5 billion years ago but probably like 1.2 billion years ago (implying this) due to some rocks with carbon 14... and these carbon 14 CAN be made from plants taking stuff from the atmosphere blah blah, which obviously implies (plants are living things presumably on land, unless answer choices talk about some underwater plant taking atmosphere??) there was life on land 1.2 billion years ago.

Find the choice that does NOT strengthen.

(a) finding fossils that are dated more than 0.5billion years old does help the conclusion that land did somehow begin 0.5 billion years ago.

(b) has a statement about how it was extremely difficult for life to begin in olden time oceans... This seems to strengthen, because our conclusion is trying to REFUTE the fact of life beginning in the ocean. However, just because life would be difficult back in the ancient days, doesn't mean it can't/wouldn't happen?... I don't see how this would strengthen the premise which states, namely: "oh my gosh, we found these rocks with carbon 14, and we know carbon 14 can be from plants, and these plants were 1.2 billion whatever, therefore land existed during that time"

But then again, I can't ELIMINATE this answer choice YET. I will read on, and if the remaining options, suck I'll pick this.

(c) basically tells us that this rock had the possibility that 1) it had contact with water and 2) that it also had parts that did NOT have water

I initially thought this was weird. Like why would this matter? But then if you think about it... the premises never talked about the origin of the carbon 14 of rocks. We just know that its there. The carbon could have came from like fish or something in the water. The premise only talked about plants, but it doesn't eliminate the chance of other things. So this statement strengthens.

(d) the answer choice says that the carbon 14 on rocks came not from plants but from soil and stuff. This directly supports my above point.

(e) if uranium testing shows that the rocks are ACTUALLY 1.2 billion and not some ERRONEOUS number then we are good.

Upon reviewing... reading my explanation for (d) is funny because its the SHORTEST most COP-OUT explanation known in existence.

Like now, I'm re-reading, and I feel stupid . If these carbon 14 thingies didn't come from plants (a living thing) but came from soil (obviously not living)... wouldn't it weaken my argument? Because this would show that rocks with carbon didn't come from living things, but from a non-living thing.

I think what happened was I said "like my above point" (pointing at the fish and stuff), but somehow was totally engrossed in the origins of the carbon 14 as opposed to whether the "origins" had any LIFE in them.

I just bought this course today.

The question I have, therefore, is... JY tells us that we use blind review to improve and ensure you don't make the same mistakes in the future.

I'm just confused about what exactly I'm supposed to be taking away from this analysis. It feels like I just merely "misread" or "focused on the wrong detail"

These ^ feel like stuff that I can't just "take away" and apply to other problems?

Hello all. This is from the trees game in prep test B. When applying the rules for embedded conditionals from the core curriculum, I come up with the following:

/Y → (L↔/O) = /Y and L ↔/O This could also be read as: /Y and O ↔/L

Contrapositive: O↔/L or Y Is this correct? It doesn't seem to make sense in the context of the game.

However, in the explanation of the game, the contrapositive is treated as a forever together biconditional

(L ↔ O) → Y or (/L↔/O) → Y

What am I missing here?

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

I just finished going through my main point and most strongly supported lessons, and still feel like I dont have a complete grasp on either of them, and that while I understand how to eventually get to the answer, I am not consistent with it and struggle BIG TIME with timing.

I am getting a bit discouraged as I feel it should make sense before I move on..

I was wondering if I should have it all figured out by now after completing these units and not move on until they make sense? Or if they are just a preview of information, and as I continue to progress through the lessons, they will make more sense with time?

Thank you so much for any help in advance!

PT5 S1 Q09

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

What is the difference in process & identification between these two question types? I feel like in parallel method you identify the flaw as a means of finding its match - so i dont really see how they are different. Can someone help me understand?

I know that sufficient assumption questions essentially have a formula you can go by in order to reach the answer. Are there any other questions that I should approach in the same way? Sufficient assumption questions do seem easily approachable/easily mastered by using a formula so I wanted to ask if there are any other question types like this!

Hi is someone able to walk me through this LR question? In general, I struggle with sufficient assumption (SA) and pseudo-SA questions (even though I know JY calls them freebies), so I would love to have general tips for getting these right as well as the one pertaining to PTB S4 Q4 (the one that talks about political self-determination). Thank you so so so much in advance!

Can someone please explain why C is right? What is the type of theft? #help

I am struggling to understand how this answer is supported by the stimulus. To run through my thoughts:

A: irrelevant, there is nothing about clams in the passage

B: irrelevant, we are not discussing the mussels spreading to the Mississippi or the effects on the pear industry

C: we don't have any information about removing the mussels from the areas they clog

D: This is the one I picked though I went back and forth between D and E. I picked D because it seemed to be the most related to the stimulus. The stimulus talks about how the mussels clog the intake pipes at the beginning and then transitions to talking about how bags of mussels suspended in discharge streams help clean water. I assumed without proof that the algae would just clog intake pipes as well.

E: This one seems like a logical conclusion, but I didn't think there was enough direct support in the stimulus to justify this conclusion. It seems like quite a jump to me to assume that the mussels will need to be discarded as hazardous waste.

Any advice or help on making the assumptions that need to be made in MSS problems? #help

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question" Also, please do not post the entire question and answer choices for the LSAC question, this is copyrighted content and is against the Forum Rules

Potatoes -> has solanine (poisonous in large quantities) -most-> solanine in the skin.

Domestic potatoes -> has small quantities (so not poisonous)

Wild potatoes -> poisonous level of solanine (must be in large number).

So peeled wild potatoes =safe= unpeeled domestic tomatoes

What to warrant that the wild potatoes fall within this MOST group where the solanine stays in the skin?

A. So the amount of solanine in the skin of wild potatoes is more than the skin of domesticated potatoes. So peeling the skin of wild potatoes wouldn’t make it safer to eat than domesticated potatoes? Not at least as safe as

B. So removing this means removing the poisonous part.

C. So the peeled wild potato has the same amount of solanine as an unpeeled domesticated potato. Yes, as safe as.

D. Why does this matter.

E. Size doesn’t matter, its the quantity of solanine.

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

For the past 10 months I've been studying part time for the LSAT. Out of all the sections, RC has consistently given me the most trouble and has been the most difficult section for me to improve on. From my diagnostic test to now, I've only been able to manage going from -15 to -10 (sometimes -8/-9 on a good day). I'm at a loss and I'm not sure what else I can do to improve. This section has been holding me back big time and is part of the reason why score fluctuates so greatly. If anyone has any tips on how I can improve, study, and review this section better, please let me know. I think my biggest issue is not having a strategy when going into RC and immediately feeling intimated/nervous about completing the section. Any advice or words of encouragement would be appreciated.

Why is the answer to this question C and not B?

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

Hi Friends!

I'm wondering when I should use the lawgic notation vs when not to use it.. sometimes it's less challenging for me to rely on intuition + general understanding than to draw the relationships.. and the thing is that often times by the time I figure out that I need to use lawgic - it's already too late and I need to pass over to the next question..

any thoughts??

Thanks!!

I don't get how (a) can strengthen the argument. It says "several species of shellfish and seabirds in the North Sea waters.." but how can being in the North Sea help the conclusion? Isn't it also possible that those shellfish and seabirds died because of the distemper virus, not the pollution?

Hi, so I've been having trouble building a consistent timing strategy for the RC section. Sometimes, I think I'm taking too long on certain passages but after I blind review I see that I am like 3 minutes faster than the suggested time. A lot of times I could have taken longer to have a higher accuracy rate, but I didn't, unfortunately. How do I know on which passages to slow down on? I use my intuition most of the time. I find that I'm just as accurate on blind review as on the actual drill or test practice but I want to get better and finish the section on time. I hope this makes sense. I just want to improve my accuracy rate as much as possible with a good timing strategy. I would appreciate any advice.

Can someone help me find the conclusion in this passage? Its prep test B section 4 question 25.

Can anyone explain their reasoning for PT 3 Section 4 Question 20 - will never understand it for the life of me.

Hi, is there a way to choose logic games that you specifically want to improve your speed on without having to take the whole preptest again? I know there are drills for different types of logic games, but I want to choose specific logic games that I want to redo and improve my speed on. Is there a way I can do that with the drill format?

Why is B the right answer for a strengthen if the reverse could also be true: what if those who can copy angles can copy curves just means the other comes first. Isn't the key to the argument the idea that one is before? #help

Is the August 2023 LSAT going to be different, I heard online that they are changing the LG section in 2023. Wondering if that was real or not and if there is going to be any change to the August LSAT.

Can someone explain why the correct answer choice is C for PT 9, Section 4, Question 20?