I am having trouble understanding why AC B is the correct answer and why AC C is not the correct answer. They both seem to weaken the argument to me. I can see that AC B directly cracks at the premise of how bird nesting for first timers are less successful than older birds and also less successful than they themselves are a year later. Why is AC C not expressing the same idea?

I'm on the MSS section in Logical Reasoning and so far I've just been going straight through and doing all the practice sets. However, I'm wondering if it's best to move on to a new section and then come back to the problem sets after a while to solidify the knowledge? I'm getting pretty much all of them right, and I don't want to blow through it in a day and then forget it all as soon as I move on to another section, but I don't know if the order it's designed in is the best way to go. Let me know what y'all think!

Has anyone received any information about scheduling regarding February's LSAT? It's now under 2 weeks away, I haven't gotten any correspondence from LSAC since the day I registered, wondering what other people are experiencing. Thanks!

Which PTs do you guys think the Feb Flex will be similar to?

Hi, I was threw off by this logic line as title.

My grammatical understanding is when using "not A or B", the sentence sometimes mean not A and not B.

If a sentence uses "not A or not B", then it means literally "not A or not B".

However, when seeing a sentence "unless A or B", I am not sure how to interpret such sentence.

So I wanna know which is the correct translation of the title?

(i) not A if neither P nor Q

(ii) not A if not P or not Q

Thank you for your time.

Appreciatively,

Leon

Narrowed down to AC- D, E before settling on D. Hoping to see if theres a good explanation for E and what other tactics work with similar MBT question?

Something is really bothering me about this question, but it's not integral to getting it correct. If deceit is a quality of rottenness, that means that rottenness implies deceit, not the other way around. Which means that the first part of the argument isn't valid at all.

effective politicians must be deceitful, but that doesn't mean that they must be rotten. The conditional chain only sets off if deceit --> rottenness. For example, if sweetness is a quality of fruit, that means fruit --> sweet. If something is sweet, you can't say for sure that it's fruit.

Anyway... the question stem makes it kind of seem like it's valid which I think is why this is bugging me.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-4-question-13/

Can somebody please explain to me why AC E is correct? I got the question right just based on process of elimination, but I am not convinced as to why it is particularly the correct answer.

I understood the stimulus as the observatory director starting out with a reason why some may object to the development of the megatelescope. Then proceeding to justify its worthiness by saying that had it not been for that "research," the world would have been deprived of beneficial applications from these eminent scientists.

The part I don't understand about AC E in particular is, "worthy of comparison with that of eminent scientists." What comparison?

What is the difference between AC C and E?

Both ACs look very similar in form, but is it because C says needs of the city as a whole while E just says that serves an area well? The stimulus doesn't say that Chen's plan is what the city "needs" but that it is "better for the city as a whole"

I could be missing the whole point here. When identifying the flaw, I thought it was how Ripley's plan was being attacked because of the reputation of its supporter who places its own interests even at the detriment of the city (felt kind of ad hominem-ish). In this sense, both AC C and E seem to be performing the same flaw.

Please help and thank you

Hi All - I'm looking for a paid tutor to do a few sessions with prior to the Feb 2021 LSAT. I didn't get the test score I would have like in January and feel like I'm stuck getting the same scores again and again on PTs with an equal amount of questions missed in each section more often than not.

A few hours with a LSAT expert feels needed at this point. Any recommendations you have would be greatly appreciated!

I cant even comprehend why AC-B is correct. The stim mentions nothing about medical reimbursment policy nor seriously ill patients

On a side note: I've caught that sometimes the most abstract of ACs seem to be the correct choice for these and other LR. Again purely anecdotal but wondering if others have seen the same/any tips as such

I am unsure what to do, and if you guys can give me advice I would really appreciate it!

So I am registered to write the January LSAT, which is in a few days. I wasn’t able to study enough because I work two jobs and other family responsibilities! I am scoring in the 140s and I have already applied to two good law schools in Canada (UofT and Queens) and plan to apply in the states. Should I defer the exam and write it in April and withdrawal the applications for Canada? Or should I write it and if I score that bad the day of the exam I can rewrite it again ?

Also, I am unfamiliar with the American applications but is it possible to apply in February 2021 and write the exam in March 2021 and still get in for fall 2021? I really want to start this year!

Was torn between AC-C and E. Having difficulty seeing the difference as such.

Hey Everyone! This may seem like a simple example of an "only" lawgic example, but I can't for the life of me understand why this diagrams the way it does. I was trying to diagram this sentence (which is from another resource), "I only work on Tuesdays." I used T for Tuesday and W for work. I originally diagrammed it as T->W because I thought "only" introduces a necessary condition, however, when I looked up the answer it said W->T.

Another example that is similar to this is "Sarah only dates funny guys," and I diagrammed it F->D, again thinking that only introduces necessary, when the actual diagram is D->F.

I have been looking at these for the past hour and would love some feedback/help on what I may not be seeing! Thanks

After a 10 (and a bit) month long journey full of stress, I can proudly say that I’m done with this test forever!! And I very much have 7Sage to thank. This platform is absolutely phenomenal for all test takers, and was an enormous!! help to me in my studying. I have this site to thank in part for this final score. :)

If anyone has any questions about studying advice please do not hesitate to ask. And best of luck to everyone looking to write again!! And thank you again to 7Sage :)

Hello everyone!

I just first want to say kudos to everyone who took the January test. It was my first time taking it and it was really tough, a lot tougher in my opinion than taking practice tests. I'm just curious on what some of your thoughts may be about my experience. So I received the score today and I got a 163. Honestly, it isn't a bad score and when I look up at the 7sage school predictor, I see a lot of pretty good law schools I could consider as "target". But for me personally, when I first saw my score I was really disappointed. My average score from the 85 or so practice tests that I took in preparation was around 170 and I was consistently in the 170's weeks before the test. Also, I had thought I did pretty well on the actual test despite my nerves. Nerves did get to me though -- and I knew that they would -- and this is why I'm completely lost on what I should do. The test was pretty fair and I know I was prepared and yet I received a score that was way lower than my average. So I'm thinking that if I re-take the test, it might just be the same thing all over again. And I for sure know that I don't want to put myself through all the mental stress only to get similar results. I've also recently started my first semester of senior year and everything's going pretty well so I don't want to go on a leave and postpone my graduation. I've heard (from people talking about the LSAT on YouTube and from podcasts) that people usually don't do very well on their first test. But I'm really not sure what I should do.. Does anyone have any advice?

I understand this:

A ---most---> B -----> C | Valid Inference A---most--->C

I don't understand this:

A -----> B ---most---> C | no valid inference

Why isn't A (---some---) C a valid inference?

Please Help!!! :_(

Anyone have any good advice on how to recognize assumptions better? I feel like a lot of my LR answers are wrong because I can't figure out the assumption.

Went from a 149 Diagnostic in August to scoring a 164 on the Jan Flex!

SO happy with this score after just a few months of on & off studying.

Thank you JY and 7Sage!

Racking my brains on this one. Anybody have a solid lawgic explanation?

I read recently that RC has gotten more difficult over the years. What are your thoughts? For those of you who have completed both old (PT 20-40) and new (PT 80+) RC sections, do you see a noticeable difference in RC passage/question difficulty? Are your old scores consistent with your new scores, or do you see a dip as they get more recent?

I get worried when people say I shouldn't use old tests as a gauge for how I'd do on new tests, but I'm not yet ready to burn through recent resources to find out myself, haha! (Also, if someone already asked this I would love to know where to find the thread!!)

My diagnostic was below a140, my RC was a nightmare but I did it. And you can do it. Don’t give up. Take a failure as an opportunity to get better and stronger.

Bye,7sage community.

Stimulus

I fell into a trap and selected 'D' as my answer choice. After reviewing the question again, I realized that I made an assumption when choosing 'D' as the answer choice.

A) "Businesses generally greatly underestimate the risk of future accidents". This was easy for me to glance over because I was looking for a STRONG weakener. However, the correct answer choice doesn't have to be super strong to work. This answer choice works because it demonstrates the "it will probably won't happen to us" mentality. These business may meet the sufficient condition of "values their profits" but there may be an alternative reason or an explanation for their lack of environmental safeguards. If this is true, the conclusion doesn't follow. Therefore, A is the correct answer choice.

B ) We don't know if preventing accidents are long-term or short-term, so what?

C) Business sense is NOT equal to profit. NEXT.

D) This is tricky. "Businesses treat fines that are levied against them as an ordinary business expense". If you're like me, you made an assumption if you selected this answer choice. You probably assumed that businesses wouldn't install safeguards because the cost of the fines are worked into the budget. However, this answer choice could actually strengthen the argument. If businesses meet the sufficient condition of "Values their profits", avoiding accidents could improve their bottom line. Then there's a reason to install safeguards.

E) What does this have to do with their profits???

Thanks for coming to my TED talk. Please critique or provide your reasoning.

What are your guys thoughts on prep-tests do you think its more worthwhile to do the whole prep-test or to do the Flex? And on a different note could you burn yourself out by doing too many tests in a short period of time? Would love to hear some others thoughts. Thanks in advance!