Hi,

So I got this question wrong because D looked wrong to me (D was actually the right answer).

The stimulus is saying that reduced speed limits do not protect the environment because it makes it so that cars spend more time spewing exhaust on the road.

To me, this meant that the author was assuming that if you spend more time on the road driving slowly, you will spew more exhaust (or the same) than if you were driving faster

In order for this to be true, time has to play a big factor in the amount of exhaust spewed; but is it the most important (which is the meaning of "primary")? And what if it only determines a big part of the emission spewed but not the "total" emission? I feel like the argument would still stand

This is why “total emission” and “primarily” seem like logical jumps for me

Can anyone show me the flaw in my reasoning that makes D correct?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-4-question-14/

So I've been working on really getting good at recognizing all the potential numerical distributions in certain logic games and I wanna know how some of you are going about dealing with them. When exactly is the best time to go about figuring out all of the potential distributions? Or better, how do you know when finding out the distributions will actually prove as beneficial and not a waste of time? Does anyone think it is never a waste of time to do them every time possible (if you're really good at logic games)? Powescore says it's a critical tool which I agree with but how consistent are you supposed to be with using this "critical tool".

Hi,

The answer here was D. However, I thought D here was wrong because the stimulus never explicitly mentioned anything about "total" emissions-- it just said that the cars spend more time spewing emissions. Can anyone explain to me why D is right?

Any #help would be appreciated!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-4-question-14/

Does anyone know if the CC has a list or if there's a lesson on this? Thanks!

I've been doing a lot of RC sections lately as it's one area I'm trying to improve at. My scores have definitely gone from an average of -10 to -8, to about a -2 to -5. Normally I'm at about a -4. However, I've been doing older RC passes - 20's and 30's, because I've been wanting to save the newer ones. I've become concerned upon reading that RC passages are generally easier the older they are (some people have said significantly so) compared with the newest preptests. Is it even worth doing the older ones? How much harder are the newer ones?

I purchased the 7 sage curriculum along with the LSAC prep test bundle so that I could view the questions and answers. Neither the link from 7 sage, nor the email link sent by LSAC will let me “activate” my profile. I can’t reach anyone from LSAC, so I’ve been unable to fully utilize my purchase for over a week now. Any advice?

Why are the target times (LG) under the video explanations often different from the target time listed in the "timing" column in the results panel? It seems like the latter are almost always a little longer. I have been going off the ones under the videos, but it is very difficult. Which do you reference?

Thanks

Hey guys just wanted to impart some wisdom. Sufficient Assumptions questions are easy if you follow this 4 step process.

1.Identify Conclusion/Understand it

Identify Premise/Understand it

Isolate the Conclusion(Important)

Anticipate a Trigger that would force the the conclusion to happen

Instead of thinking about SA questions like you need to fill in the blank. Think of them like a handgun. All you need to do is pull the trigger. All SA is a pull of the Trigger/or a push of the roller coaster button. Once you start to think like this they become so easy.

DM me with any questions if this helped

Does anybody have any tips for how to determine when to use conditional statements or rely on intuition to answer sufficient assumption questions? Or should we always be mapping out the stimulus using lawgic? I’m having trouble using this method efficiently, and would appreciate any advice you might have! Thank you in advance!

Hey everyone! Curious as to what your thoughts on the following question:

Do ALL necessary assumptions strengthen an argument? (NA -> Strengthen)

Obviously, necessary assumption prevent your argument from collapsing but does this strengthen an argument per se? To use J.Y.'s example - I play basketball, therefore, I am the best Basketball player in the world - for all intents and purposes there are an infinite amount of necessary assumptions (I am alive, I have two hands and two feet, I can dribble, I actually inhabit THIS world, etc.) does patching up one of those holes necessarily strengthen the argument?

I understand that to qualify as strengthening the additional support can be VERY subtle does precluding the death of the argument so to speak necessarily entail additional support?

Interesting to contemplate but if you believe that all necessary assumptions questions strengthen an argument then contra-positively you must accept that if something doesn't strengthen the argument then it cannot be a necessary assumption (/Strengthen -> /NA)

However, I feel as if there are plenty of statements that do not strengthen but are still necessary (/Strengthen (-S-) NA). To fall back on J.Y's example, I inhabit this world; I feel as if this does not strengthen the argument per se but obviously certainly necessary.

What prompted this post was [SPOILER ALERT FOR PT75] question number fifteen on the first logical reasoning section; the answer choice is practically a necessary assumption.

What are your thoughts?

Lately I have been having a lot of trouble with "must be true" questions. Can anyone explain why C was the correct answer choice for this question, and not D?

Thank you!

I'm taking flex in a few days, and I've been drilling LR timed sections. I don't know what's going on but my 2nd LR is always always better than my 1st. I'm talking like from -8 to -1 flutuation on the same test. Am I overthinking 1st LR and just more relaxed on the 2nd, what's going on? Anyone else have suggestions, thank you.

ANY tips on how to summarize a stimulus in a quick way?

I find that for logical reasoning questions after about question 15 and above - the stimulus' gets harder.

It becomes hard for me to pinpoint what I just read...

Does anyone have any suggestions?

I've practiced a lot on pinpointing what the conclusion and premise is, but how would i quickly summarize what i just read so i can move on and tackle the question?

thanks in advance

I'm trying to improve my flaw questions and I can't remember ever coming across a "circular reasoning" flaw. Has anyone came across one?

I see this book by powerscore recommended all over the place as an essential supplement for LG.

Does anyone have any experience using this book in addition to J.Y.’s videos on 7sage?

I picked up the book and am about 150 pages in but I feel as though much of it is stuff I already know. Is using this book redundant?

The questions I miss on LG are almost never the hard questions or even sub questions. I average -0 to -3, but when I miss questions, they are almost always due to a careless mistake. For instance I am checking 82.2.1, a very easy "140" MBT inference question that I missed. I could slap myself for missing this, but this is typical of the kind of mistake I'll make.

This is the most frustrating thing ever. I know I feel a little nervous doing timed sections and I can rush, where I read too quickly and work too fast. Even since grade school making careless errors in math has always been my downfall.

Please for the love of god someone offer good advice on how to stop making careless errors in LG? This doesn't happen nearly as much in LR and RC.

Hi,

So I got this question wrong because I chose D, and I thought that D was right because, from lines 1-7, I thought that it was heavily implying (if not outright asserting) that researchers previously emphasized that gonadal hormones' effect on behavior because they believed that it was the only thing that affected behavior. I thought this because of line 7 ("it has now become clear, however, that other hormones...") which implies that it wasn't clear before that other hormones could affect behavior.

Thus, I chose D because I thought that the new research was essentially correcting the old incorrect belief that only gonadal hormones affected behavior. However, JY seems to ignore this possibility and states that this "undue emphasis" does not count as a misconception. Nevertheless, when I look at dictionary examples of how to use the word "misconception", the examples seem to align with my understanding (https://www.yourdictionary.com/misconception) of misconception = "we incorrectly thought that X happened only because of Y."

Along these lines, I thought that "refuting" this misconception was a perfectly valid description of the passage because the new research showing that other hormones affect behavior is technically "proving wrong" the notion that only gonadal hormones affect behavior.

Gosh, can anybody show me where I went wrong here?

Easy to get down to D & E.

The final decision is just that complaints happen when they are rising and that is different than when they're at their highest?

And furthermore that margins are at their greatest when prices drop. Meaning there is lag in the price drop to consumers?

Hey guys! I am really struggling to see the connection between diagramming lawgic and how to actually use it for LR.. any advise?

Hello guys please when solving an LR problem is it okay to ignore the context and read the argument only to be a little fast, since we just need premise and conclusion.

Thank you

Hey Everyone!

Just curious about how you all are using (if at all) the Section Difficulty meter for Logical Reasoning?

I'm drilling LR sections in-between practice tests and there is obviously some fluctuation from section to section; part of that is being only 3 months into my studies (completed CC ~month ago) so there is naturally some variability in my scores. But the other components are of course luck and difficulty.

Anyways, I'm trying to track my progress and it obviously is not going to be linear but I'm curious to what extent, if any, I can assess my progress with the section difficulty meter. For example, is a -2 in a 1star section more or less equal to a -4 in a 4star section; conversely, is a -5 in a 2star section much worse than a -5 in a 4star section?

Does anyone alternatively try to gauge the difficulty by looking at the curve of the test? (obvious drawback here is that it's including potentially a very difficult LG or RC section)?

Maybe the 'right' answer here is to not be too focused on the score (minus whatever) and be instead focused on BR performance and understanding lol but to the extent that a (perhaps over-)emphasis on the raw score is somewhat inevitable, what are your thoughts?

Hi everyone,

I am confused about how long I should be waiting between doing a game and then repeating that same game. In the foolproof method video, JY seems to imply that you do the game back to back, over and over in the same sitting/day.

Do you prefer to do the same game multiple times in one day or wait 24+ hours before repeating the game?

Thanks!

Hi all, I need your advice on how to better focus and concentrate while I'm studying and taking PTs. I have the CC down, I understand the material, and my timing is good for the most part (I'm able to look at every question in the 35 minutes). However, I have trouble focusing while I'm reading RC passages and LR stimuli and I find myself having to reread because I wasn't paying attention. I have no idea how to make myself concentrate better on the task at hand. Any suggestions are much appreciated!

When it comes to a hard question on LR, do you actually just leave it blank and move on, or do you take an educated guess and flag it? if you do leave it blank, how do you decide when to skip? After reading through a certain amount of times or simply just feeling confused after reading the stimulus.

Side note: does anyone know if you can actually flag questions on the real LSAT? Or is that just a feature of the we have on 7sage

Thanks in advance!

Hi! I have a question about flaw and weaken type Qs on LR.

So, if i remember correctly, JY said in one of his lessons that the arguments for flaw type questions might have several unstated assumptions but it doesn't necessarily mean that all those assumptions could be classified as flaws.

Besides the common flaws that he listed for us in his lesson (ex. red herring fallacy, opinion vs fact etc.), how can we decide which assumptions count or does not count as flaws?

This also lead me to question the difference between weakening and flaw type Qs: could the assumptions that do not count as flaws in flaw questions be used to weaken such arguments should they be used in weaken type questions?

I know this all sounds kind of confusing but any opinion on this would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you!