Discussions

LSAT

New post

206 posts in the last 30 days

Hi there, for those who have already gone through the process - I am going through the CC in the order it is presented. I am just going through the drills untimed for now so I can understand the material. Should I supplement the CC material for Logic Games with any other book? If so, please recommend the reading material.

Once I am done with the CC for logic games, then I should full proof games from PT1-35 - Any additional steps to take to ensure better learning? - Kindly guide.

1

The question itself is rather easy - (D) is pretty clearly something the argument is assuming, and necessarily so. Negating it makes a mockery of the argument.

However, I did spend quite a bit of time on this one, because I've always learned that "most" answers are virtually never correct on necessary assumption questions, because negating a "most" statement just takes you from 51% (or more) to 50% (or less), so negating a "most" assumption does virtually nothing to the argument. I'm hoping someone can clarify the guidance on "most" statements on necessary assumption questions. Thanks in advance!

0

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.

1

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!

0

(D) is clearly correct, but I'm having trouble articulating why (C) doesn't work. Here is my articulation:

At its core I think it comes down to a necessary vs. sufficient concept. Not like "C is sufficient but not necessary" but like this: the stimulus is saying that in order to help a patient heal, the psychotherapist MUST focus on positive change in relationships. The negation of (C) would be "there are at least some patients who will not find relief by changing their relationships." BUT the stimulus wasn't saying "if the psychotherapist focuses on positive change, the patient will be helped," it was saying "focusing on positive change is necessary in order to help." So it doesn't kill the argument to say "there are some cases where positive change didn't help a patient."

Maybe that isn't as muddled as I thought but any input would be helpful. Thanks!

0

Can somebody clarify for me the distinction between B and E for Question 20? Aren’t the two choices basically saying the same thing? The only difference being that B specifies that both are flying their respective planes. The rule states that “no plane flies without a qualified pilot aboard,” but doesn’t indicate they need to be flying the plane. Similarly, E states that Cindy is in plane 2, therefore sufficiently satisfying the rule’s requirement. So, what’s the difference here? How do you choose between the two?

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-3-section-1-game-4/

0

So I didn't have a pre-phase and felt that all the answer choices were wrong. How on earth is the correct answer supported by the stimulus? It sounds like some random reasonable statement that makes sense in a common sense sort of way, and isn't anything that needs a stimulus, let alone this one. Like I suppose if your mussels have nuclear waste in them, I wouldn't eat them but this just doesn't sound like a supported statement. It sounds more like everyday advice against eating raw chicken or rotten milk. Did anyone else feel like the same way?

I ended up picking C because its said bags of zebra mussels were "suspended" and that made me think they were floating midwater. I ended up googling photos of zebra mussels clogging pipes and apparently that's not the case. They are literally stuck to the pipes.

0

I recently posted this question on Reddit, however, I am not sure that the people who responded have enough experience with the test to get exactly what I am asking. So,

Would you guys recommend AGAINST (in questions which require that I analyze an argument)… First, quickly skimming/hunting for the conclusion, then quickly searching for the supporting premise or premises. As opposed to reading the stim from top to bottom?

I know that in order to anticipate the answer correctly all I need are these to things, the rest (background) just serves to slow me down or set me up for trap answers. Also, I am able to shave of a few seconds per question. However, I just started doing this and not sure if it’s a smart idea to make habit.

I am able to do this for most question types including;

strengthen

weaken

required and basic assumptions

SA/PSA

Flaw

Match flaw

What do you guys think? Do you already do this?

Thanks in advance 🙏🏽

0

So this is a NA question.

Both options D and E make sense to me, but E is supposed to be the correct answer.

E says "anyone to whom safety is an important factor in purchasing a car will consult an objective source of vehicle safety information before buying"

But what if the consumer believed ads and promos were objective sources of vehicle safety info? If D. was the correct answer it would make sense, because if they were aware that ads weren't objective and they only viewed those, safety probably isn't that important to them.

Maybe safety is their #1 factor but they truly believe ads and promos are objective sources of information. They could just be very unaware and ignorant and believe ads are an objective source.

Let's say health is my number one priority, and I'm drinking these shakes that contained tons of sugar and chemicals because the commercials say they guarantee fat loss. I didn't consult a nutritionist because (for arguments sake I'm just stupid) and I truly wholeheartedly believe the commercials provide an adequate source of information. You really can't say health isn't my number one priority, like you can't say safety isn't their priority. Now if I KNEW the commercials were full of lies and I still drank the shakes anyways, you could say health isn't my number one priority.

Explanation Video: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-75-section-3-question-15/

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

0

I am having problems with Author Inference questions in RC and was wondering if there was a way to practice that rather than practicing only law, humanities, art, or science passages. I find that no matter the topic, I struggle with making inferences so if there was any questions you suggest from any PTs in particular please help and let me know how to best practice this!

0

So yea, I feel silly asking such a question lol.

But what does "no" mean in it's function as a response to another person's argument?

For example, in a disagreement question:

Person 1: A, therefore B. (insert whatever you want for A and B. Make the argument valid or invalid, whatever)

Person 2: No. (rest of stimulus).

So, if I were to read all of Person 1's argument, and then only read the "No." from Person 2's argument, how should I interpret that?

Does "no" ONLY mean that B does not follow from A, in which case B could still be true, you just can't arrive @ B from ONLY A?

Does/could "no" mean that there is a simply a disagreement about context and that B actually does follow from A?

I'm only interested in the function of no within the scope of how the LSAT generally uses this word in disagreement questions.

Thanks!

0

I struggled with this question and I would like some feedback on my thought process:

The conclusion is that widespread, grassroots efforts towards new, stricter controls are unlikely at this time. We know that people generally worry about only the most obvious public health problem. We also know that ozone is very dangerous and that there is a widespread water contamination problem that most people know presents a bigger threat to their community. So here, I said to myself, for the conclusion to be valid, it is not enough to show that most people are aware that water contamination is a bigger threat, it has to tie to the previous idea of people only caring about the most obvious health problem. Accordingly, the water contamination problem must be the more obvious one. In other words, the generalization that people only care about the most obvious health problems explains why most people see water contamination was the bigger threat, and therefore, are unlikely to dedicate efforts to the other, less obvious public health problem - ozone. So I chose C, whereas the correct answer is B.

Where did I go wrong? What's the right way of thinking about this question?

0

Hey everyone,

I had a question about undermining the conclusion of an argument. Does it have to help undermine a premise that is stated because that is how the conclusion is arrived at? Or can it be an entirely new premise? For instance, if the conclusion is that increased energy consumption is bad because we are already too dependent on technology and too many kids are on their phones all the time, and one option said studies conclusively show children aren't on their phones at an unhealthy rate and that technology dependence has replaced drug dependence, would that be the right answer choice since it most directly undermines the premises of the conclusion? Versus another option that says increased energy consumption is bad because global warming is directly affected by energy consumption and our planet is on the verge of falling apart, I feel like that better undermines the conclusion if we are just looking at the conclusion alone. But if it is undermining the specific conclusion that the author came to then I guess the initial choice would be better? This might be a super dumb question I just keep spending way too much time on easy questions because I'm overthinking it.

0

I want to try some practice tests skipping a RC section to see if it would be beneficial to my overall score. I feel like I often get hung up on that one difficult passage. Are there any tricks to determine, without wasting too much time, which passage I should skip and which I should not?

0

I got down to B and C and do agree with JY that, content wise, both are correct. I see people in the comments and in multiple forums nitpicking at details to try to see why B is incorrect, but I'm just not convinced. What is it about B that makes it an inferior choice to C? I thought both were correct.

If any admin see this, you don't need to post the link to the explanation video. I already know where it is!

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-3-passage-3-questions/

0

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"

0

Hi, I would like to seek some advice!

esp if you are focusing on LR/RC without sacrificing your LG performence.

In my case,

since my LG has been a relative strength for me (-0 ~ -2, if I doing some LGs everyday),

so recently I've been mainly focus on drilling LR/RC.

But I noticed my "game-sense" (logic instinct, fast deduction, etc) became a bit rustier

and thus will bombed 1 game so ends up -4.

So what do you do to keep your LG sharp while focusing on LR/RC?

(I personally found doing drills for all three section impossible given I've a full time job; my study time (1-2 hours every workday) are mostly spend on LR/RC drills)

Many thanks in advance.

5

I get why (A) works but can someone please explain why (C) doesn’t? It seems to be extremely well-supported by P3: “Because the value of software lies in its form of expression, protection should be given only for particular applications - expressions of algorithms in an encoded form.”

HELP!!!

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# (P#) - brief description of the stimulus"

0

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.

0

Does anyone really overthink the easy questions and they will abandon common sense at times because you're so focused on finding in text evidence? I just took a PT and my score dipped by a few points from my average, but the scoring breakdown was really weird. On the level 5 difficulty questions I got 7/8 correct, on the level 4 difficulty questions I got 9/11 right, on the level 3 difficulty questions I got 10/14 right, on level 2 I got 6/9 correct. RC and LG sections have a more typical breakdown in terms of percentage right and difficulty. Thanks for your help!

  • Matt

    • 1

    Confirm action

    Are you sure?