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"

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"

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!

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!

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?

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.

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?

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/

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"

Could someone please explain why C is wrong and D is correct ? I had a really hard time with this passage, and also passages 2 and 4 from this section. I thought this was a pretty hard RC section generally

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

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.

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"

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.

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!

Hi Everyone,

I was wondering if it's still worth it to redo the miscellaneous games in the logic game section? I'm not sure if they still test it much.

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!

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

Hi all,

I'm looking for someone or a mini-group of folks to full proof LG with me.

I take my test in November, but I am going to do some LG full proofing before then, and I think it would be a good idea not to go it alone. SO what I was thinking is having someone to help with accountability and staying on track. We could email each other at the beginning of the week and commit to full-proofing say Games 1-10 this week, and then check in at the end of the week to make sure we did. We'd repeat this cycle until we feel like we've reached our goal/are prepared to take the test.

Anyone up for this. I find the repetition of full proofing difficult, but it would be easier knowing someone is doing the same thing as me. Let me know if you're interested!

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 :)

Hello! While taking PT's I started creating a question stem chart. I would always get so nervous to get a question incorrect, due to being unsure what "type of question" it was referring to... I am an overthinker lol. I don't know about anyone else, but drilling questions is cool and all buttttttttttt I got soooo use to KNOWING what question I was doing when drilling the same type of question over and over. Hope this helps! I don't know if it shows every question type... I've been taking the most recent PT's so I've been building it as I go

What's your least favorite question type? What approach do you take? What's your favorite?

Mine is main conclusion (3(/p)

However, my least favorite is PSA Vs. SA... Anyone care to explain these two to me :) What approach do you use to answer the question?

If I made an error, please tell me.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/105zPPw0Wpllf9bc3T9VyNAxNjiQKHDV-urFsMkTy_CI/edit

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"

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.

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.