For the available LSAT questions is there a way to post them and discuss? I clicked discuss but I do not think it allowed me to share the question.

Why is the Answer B? What rules out C? Thanks

Help

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

I understand why the answer is A, however I do not understand why it cannot also be D. I know there is only one answer I am just unsure why D is definitively wrong. Thanks #HELP

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

I think I understand what the premises are saying, but I don't understand where the author of this stimulus even got his conclusion. If we have luggages that don't contain explosives and only one percent give false positives (alarm goes off even though there aren't any actual bombs), then how can we conclude that 99/100 alerts=actual bomb threats? Shouldn't the proper conclusion be that there aren't any actual bomb threats in this scenario even if the alarm does go off because the luggages don't have bombs in them? I've always felt there was something wrong with the conclusion, but I just cannot put my finger on what is the actual problem and the abstract nature of E isn't helping.

Edit: Is the conclusion wrong because we don't actually know the proportion of hypothetical luggages that do contain bombs? For example, if we have 1000 luggages and none have bombs, then the conclusion would make no sense since there would be 10 false positives where the alarm goes off, but literally 0 have bombs instead of the 99% accuracy the conclusion is suggesting. I still don't understand which group is being substituted for which though.

I am working through drilling RC sections and PT11 S3 Q15 has me stumped.

The question asks for the assumption which the argument relies on, which means that the assumption shouldn't be stated.

I narrowed the choices down to (A) and (C).

I ultimately chose (A) because I found (C) explicitly stated in the passage (See lines 6-10 + 15-18, line 6-10 states that the only way for species growth in the manner that occurred in the deep sea mud is for there to not have been significant changes in climate, and then starting at line 15 he states that the amazon didn't have significant changes in climate. )

I don't see how a question can ask for an assumption the argument relies on, which I read as a Necessary Assumption then have the answer be a premise stated, not assumed.

Can someone help me bridge the gap here? I am clearly missing something.

#Help

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-11-section-3-passage-3-questions/

I think I get it? Non-individuals can buy cars too but what if answer choice e had stated that the proportion of individuals and non-individuals (i.e., corporations etc) purchasing cars were about the same (50/50) Would that make answer choice e incorrect or just less strong of a weakener? And why? Couldn't a small sliver of the population still drive up the average price of whatever commodity the stimulus chooses to bring up, whether it be cars or cheese?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-26-section-3-question-24/

Hello! I have been studying since January using 7sage and took the June LSAT and received a 162 (162-168 range on PT's). I have not studied since, and am currently enrolled for the August but thinking of pushing back to October. I finally realized and recognized that I need to pay for outside help to reach my goal score of 168-170 after having anxiety about reaching out for help. I would love to discuss a strategy with a tutor and set out a schedule for the next few months, so please message me if you want a new student! (looking for 1/2x a week).

(Side note, not sure this is the best way to get a tutor off of 7sage, but everyone on JY's podcast seemed to do it this way so thought I would give it a shot. 7sage should build in "looking for tutor" as one of the posting categories!)

Thanks everyone and happy studying!

Does anyone notice that on newer PTs, there have been more instances of themselves comparing answer choices in LR and asking which is the better one? (Especially with strengthen/weaken questions.) This is just something I've noticed myself doing more often on the newer PTs, whereas in the older ones, once in a while there might be a question that makes me do that, but most of the time the wrong answers have a very definitive reason as to why they're wrong.

Would love to know if this is actually a trend with how the LSAT is changing.

Need help on this easy one. Stuck between C and E. Do not know why this is considered an easy one haha

Thanks 7Sage.

Hey guys - Does anyone have any general tips for Inference (author's perspective) or any inference on RC? It seems to be my weakest point and really wanted some tips on this.

So this particular question has about 8 years worth of comments and about as much time's worth of confusion regarding why D weakens the argument because it seems to be attacking a premise, namely the one stating that these painters have to eat sea animals on the way from Norway to these caves. My question is just how is D not just going after the premise of the argument? I thought we weren't supposed to do that but the vid explanation just accepts D as is.

The only observation I could make is that the premise isn't stating that the cave painters actually did eat animals, but that if they did make the journey from Norway to these islands, then they did have to eat sea animals. But even this principle or conditional is still a premise, so I'm still stuck. And the way the stimulus is written seems to confirm that the painters did make this journey.

As for the argument, I thought the stimulus was concluding that the rock paintings couldn't be a reflection of the painters' current diets because they didn't have sea animals (at last, none that were "unambiguously depicted") and they had to eat sea animals during the journey from N to those islands and my goal was to find answer choices that provided possible scenarios where the paintings did reflect current diets even if they didn't have sea animals on them.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-1-question-20/

what is the best practice in between PTs? for example, I am planning on taking 2 tests per week till the august test but I work full time so i don’t have the capability of doing BR in one day (takes me around 2 days to do BR). If I’m just taking tests (and not scoring where I want) + doing BR in between is it enough? Should I try one test a week and drill the second half of the week? Any suggestion would be great! Thank you

My expected flaw for this question was : what if CEO are not representative of top management? Top management can include (CFO, VP, director etc...)

I found many of the answer choices are quite attractive. I was between D and E... I chose E because it match my prephrase. Two questions in short: Why is E wrong and why is D right?

I am not satisfied with the answer Manhattan forum provides, the reason they said this is not a unrepresentative sample is "I will not give you a standard poll or survey and expect you personally to decide that based on your subjective opinion of what constitutes a representative sample that the poll or survey is flawed"....

So polls can never be unrepresentative??

As my question for D: "CEO's claims are reflected in actual practice", how did they go from the popular belief is unfounded to presuming CEO's claims are reflected in actual practice??

Can someone explain why C isn't right

We know that she had to work hard on finding these docs because of how exceptional it is. So why can't we say it's scant

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

How is E correct? It appears to be supporting the conclusion not weakening it. My understanding of the argument's Conclusion is that it's telling environmentalists to relax because nature is going to adjust itself to the rising levels of the atmosphere.

E (if I'm understanding correctly) states that the Earth's natural adjustment process, which happens over the course of a million years, allows for the atmosphere to successfully cope with large short term variances in the carbon level.

How is this weakening? I leaned toward C initially because if carbon was just one piece of the atmospheric "blanket", then nature fixing just carbon wouldn't be enough to prevent the environment from getting dangerously hot.

I was wondering if there is any statistic or if anyone can speak from personal experience regarding the number of questions wrong a high scorer gets in regard to logical reasoning. I understand that it can depend from person to person and that you can make up for a low logical reasoning score by getting less mistakes in the other sections. However, in average I believe that there is a certain range of logical reasoning mistakes that high scorers make!

Thank you!

I didn't think there was a good answer...

Why is D correct? and what kind of flaw is this?

"Faden presumes, without providing justification, that the evidence for a claim has not been undermined unless that evidence has been proven false"

but I thought we are not allow to go after the truth of premise?

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

What is your strategy for determining when and when not to translate into logic while answering a Sufficient Assumption question?

Do you prefer to read the stimulus through and then translate to logic? Or do you prefer to translate into logic as you read through the stimulus?

The former is easier for me but it takes up too much time compared to the latter, which makes me loose my understanding of the stimulus.

I need a more time efficient method to deploy for this q-stem category.

Any suggestions, tips or practice habits/methods would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks]!!

#HELP

Could anyone explain this to me? I'm a little lost. Thanks!

Why does C weaken the argument if the low-income individuals aren't taxpayers? Isn't the city councilor's proposal to raise bus fares only meant to help taxpayers?

Edit: Answer choice C says "all" councilors believe that low-income people should be able to take advantage of buses. Since it says "all" of them believe that, does that mean the portion of councilors who think city taxes should be used to primarily benefit taxpayers believe that as well? Is that why C weakens?

And I thought the argument made sense at first because it looked as if it would force commuters, or non-taxpayers, to pay their fare share instead of having them continue to rely on the tax-payer funded bus fares, but the more I read it, the less the city councilor's proposal makes sense. How would raising bus fares for everyone in the city help taxpayers? Wouldn't that mean taxpayers would end up having to pay more? Was the city councillor who proposed this measure thinking that only commuters, or non-taxpayers, would have to pay for the increase in bus fares?

Hello folks,

I have a question about improving my LG score. I consistently get around -1 on my BR for logic games but somehow I always get 3-5 questions wrong on the actual test. Getting a good BR score does not seem to be translating into a better actual score. Does anyone have any tips for this?

Thank you!

In arguments, we're supposed to take premises as facts and question the conclusions. But intermediate conclusions are both used as premises (to support the main conclusion) and as conclusions in and of themselves (albeit subsidiary ones).

So how would you treat them if you were trying to evaluate the validity of an argument? Is is acceptable to attack or challenge a sub-conclusion? Assume we have a weaken question-- would we ever see an instance of a correct answer attacking the causality of a sub-conclusion?

Help. I'm kind of having a hard time distinguishing the difference between two question types' question stems. To me, they seem to have the same question stem except PSA question stems has word "justify?" and Principle questions don't have it? Am I right to use this approach? If not, how do you guys differentiate those two? Thank you so much in adnvace!

I am looking for what books are a good resource for improving RC. Already read the LSAT Trainer and the Bible and they helped but am looking for more improvement and timing.

hi all! i'm struggling with overconfidence errors in RC – my range for timed RC goes from -3 to -6, and during BR, i usually only manage to catch half of the errors. today i took preptest 71, got 5 wrong in timed RC, and didn't catch any of them in BR, so i'm a bit concerned.

most of my mistakes stem from falling into trap ACs, while the others seem to be coming from, oddly enough, some level of underconfidence (?) i.e. i look at an answer, think "no way that's it," and pick another answer after overanalyzing, only to find out my initial guess was right. in any case, i finish RC with around 2-3 minutes to spare, so i think i'm having some serious issues with accuracy. i've tried using the remaining time to come back to flagged questions and review the stimulus again, but i still get them wrong. that, or the questions i get wrong aren't ones i flagged.

any advice on how to study would be appreciated; for what it's worth, i'm taking the august test. thanks so much!

edit: forgot to mention i write out VIEWSTAMP for each passage on scratchpaper, if that's helpful.