I have come across this question while writing a practice test:

"which one of the following, if true, provides the most additional support for the argument"?

Would this question be a strongly support question? If not how would I approach this question?

the additional support part in the question is throwing me off

In PT 35.S2.Q1, answer choice B states that the passage has no definitive conclusions regarding factual accuracy, but according to JY, there were definitive conclusions raised in the passage (probably on lines 23 and 53). I was really unsure about this because when I looked at the dictionary definition of "definitive conclusion" it seems like it is a conclusion that is final and no one can really question (which I don't think we get from this passage).

Any opinions on this matter?

Thanks!

hi guys, i am confused by bi-condition and correlation, are they all the same?

I'm having a hard time understanding the correct answer choice here as it seems to directly contradict the passage, which states that the amount of domestic oil reserves considered extractable has not changed in ten years. The correct answer E would indeed explain how annual domestic consumption of this oil could have increased without new oil field discoveries, but still it seems to contradict that stated fact. Though I didn't feel D was an extremely good choice, it seemed like the only choice that could have provided a link while agreeing with the text. Could someone explain how E fits with the passage?

Hi! I know JY has mentioned games having genetic twins and that’s why we’re doing the fool proof method. I’m currently a quarter of the way through FPing and am itching to see what a “genetic twin” game might look like... can anyone help me locate them? Preferably one in PT1-35 and one outside of it...

Hi everyone, I noticed as I am drilling RC that I get 4 or more questions wrong during timed sections, but I get every question correct during BR. I know timing is an issue here because during BR, I am able to take my time reading the passage and have the freedom to go back to reference the text when needed. Does anyone have any tips on performing better during timed sections? Thanks in advance!!

I am confused about the word “generally” in the conclusion.

To Recap The argument form in Lawgic:

P1: Emotional Tendencies /(Changed)

Required Premise: Emotional Tendencies /(Changed)-> Generally /(Able to choose more wisely)

Conclusion: Generally /(Able to choose more wisely)

Answer choice E seems to bridge this quite well, (Able to choose more wisely)->Emotional Tendencies (Changed)

However, the conclusion is qualified with the word “generally,” which implies that that it holds true “in most cases.”

This, however, implies that SOME people can choose more wisely even if emotional Tendencies are NOT changed. This is precisely the negation of the conditional relationship between 'Emotional Tendencies' and 'Choosing more wisely.'

If all of the above is correct, then the sufficient assumption stipulated by answer choice E is presumably not even valid in all cases. So how can it possibly be a necessary assumption as well?

If the necessary assumption’s role is to put the argument on life support (to use JY’s phrase), then I presume the correct answer should read something like this:

“Usually, wise decisions at least in part require a change in emotional tendencies.”

Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.

Hi,

I am having a hard time seeing why B is correct and C isn't, maybe because I really struggled with the stimulus. Could someone help explain this one?

I have a question regarding the use of word "similar" or "related" in strengthen and weaken choices. For an example, if a stimulus portrays the argument that Seals from the Baltics were more susceptible to disease from pollutants than those not from the Baltics. If an answer choice option stated that: A SIMILAR animal to the seal from the Baltic Seaalso was more susceptible disease from pollutants than those that are not from the Baltic Sea.......... would that strengthen the argument? Or if an answer choice stated, a RELATED animal to the seal from the Baltic Sea also was more susceptible disease from pollutants than those that are not from the Baltic Sea... would that strengthen the argument as well?

I chose D, but I think I might have mistaken this for a strengthen question. However, I don't understand how E is correct. Why does the fact that it doesn't show that megatelescope research is worhty for comparison.... matter? I feel like this is one of the AC that JY will commonly ask "who cares/so what?"...

I've been working through the late 40s and early 50s preptests and I'm consistently missing sufficient (and pseudo-sufficient) assumption questions because the stimulus includes irrelevant content which appears to be a premise but is really there to distract.

Do you have any advice on how to spot irrelevant content in these sorts of questions? Two examples of what I'm talking about are PT52S1Q17 and J27S3Q24.

Can anyone think of examples that would make the following answer choices correct

OR have come across LSAT arguments that have a method of reasoning matching the answer choices below?

it is compatible with accepting the argument’s conclusion and with denying it

it makes a value judgement that is incompatible with a principle outlined

It distorts the opponent's argument and then attacks the distorted argument

Thanks!

Hey guys!

Is it wrong go through any type of strengthening question as a SA/PSA? (Finding the premise, identifying the conclusion, and choosing the answer choice that adds to the premise) If this is wrong, how do you determine just a strengthening question from that of a SA/PSA? Does the word "principle" in the stimulus have anything to do with it?

Hi everyone,

I finished my June 2007 prep test and am now doing the blind review, however, I am still having trouble with figuring out questions 22 and 23 in the first section. The questions are regarding the recycling centres and materials. The rules for these questions are:

Question 22 reads: "If Centre 3 recycles glass, then which of the following kinds of material must Centre 2 recycle?"

A. Glass

B. Newsprint

C. Plastic

D. Tin

E. Wood

Question 23: if C1 is the only recycling centre that recycles wood, then what could be a complete and accurate list of kinds of materials that one of the recycling centres recycles?

A. P, T

B. N, W

C. N, T

D. G, W

E. G, T

Would anyone be able to explain how to find the right answer for these questions?

Thank you in advance!

Hi everyone,

So I was stuck between C and B in this question because while I definitely can see why C is right, I wasn't able to see why B did not at least somewhat support this argument. After all, "most people" could apply to what "we" are obliged to do (as stated in the conclusion).

I feel like in previous strengthen questions I have seen before, "most people" does strengthen the argument (ie in strengthen questions where the conclusion is referring to other people besides "we"), but why doesn't it do so in this case?

Thanks!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-2-question-14/

Hello!

I am stuck on Practice Test 31 Section 3 Question 22 about endosymbiosis. I get the structure of the stimulus. The stimulus is saying that the nucleomorph was found inside the chlorarachniophyte. The nucleomorph has to be the remains of an engulfed organism's nucleus because it contains two versions of a particular gene in its DNA. I'm imagining that the chlorarachniophyte engulfed an organism, and a part of the organism gave way to the functional nucleomorph, which is now found within the chlorarachniophyte. How can answer choice E be the correct answer? E says chlorarachniophyte emerged following the endosymbiosis, but chlorarachniophyte has to already exist before then because it was part of the process of endosymbiosis. The chlorarachniophyte engulfed another organism. Also, how is answer choice C incorrect? I'm having trouble following.

Thanks!

#help

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-31-section-3-question-22/

I just went thru PT7 S4 Q13 and came across a question stem that’s says “In order for the conclusion above to be properly drawn, which one of the following assumptions would have to be made?” The question type is regarded as SA.

I originally thought it was a NA question despite the “in order for the conclusion above to be properly drawn,” because of PT56 S2 Q20. This NA question stem reads “which one of the following principles must be assumed in order for the psychologist’s conclusion to be properly drawn?”

Those two sound sooooo similar to me. I am able to tell apart NA and SA most of the time, but these two are messing my head. Any insight would be very helpful!

Anything helps. I feel incredibly slow. sometimes I read sentences twice because I feel like i missed something or because I could not focus the first time... What is going on?!

Quick question for those that have a better understanding of the 7Sage problem set generator than I do:

After I've completed any sort of problem set, I've noticed that SOME questions have a "target" indication next to them in addition to the breakdown about Round 1, Round 2 and Total under the timing column while others do not.

When it's available, how should I interpret this target time?:

Is it similar to games where, if I want to go -0 in the section then I ought to target for time?

Is it the average amount of time that other 7Sagers (perhaps in a particular score range) have spent?

Is this what J.Y. believes one ought to spend on this particular question?

It's just awesome the amount of data that you instantly have access to and I think this could be a huge value-add but just not sure how to interpret here.

Thanks!

Hi I'm almost pushing into the 170s and I'm trying to solidify my strategy for LR. Right now I read the question stem, read the stimulus and find the C, P's, and background info, then I translate the stim into my own words. After that I find the flaw and ask "What if...?" then I move into PoE looking for that pivotal wrong word that disqualifies an AC. At the end of all that I give myself a confidence score for each question.

My issue is this approach doesn't take into account the specific strategies per question type. I know you could say "just do it intuitively," I'd rather have a very concrete strategy for LR. Not remembering what to do under pressure is hard for me so this is what I've come up with and I'd love to know any feedback you have.

For labeling questions (argument part, MC): underline the conclusion, see where specifically support is flowing to and from

Argument questions: underline the conclusion in all of these, then follow specific strategy

Weaken / strengthen: no strategy!

Flaw: JY's 2 part test

NA: do MBT test and then the negation test

SA: see the structure of the argument, graph if needed

PSA: same as SA

Pmor: same as SA

MoR: understand what the author is doing, describe in my own words

Pfmor: see the flaw and get a strong understanding of what I'm looking for

point of agree/diagreement: do the chart where 1 person agrees / disagrees / no opinion

Premise set questions (MSS, MBT):

MSS: read the stim really, really well. Get a solid translation of my own of the stim, then move into ACs

MBT: if I can't do it in my head, graph

RRE: No real strategy. I generally try to find the point of tension and try to explain it, but I find these questions are just LSAC gauging how well your assumptions match their own (bit of cynicism here :D haha)

I'd love any links to good resources, recommendations, suggestions!!! Thanks in advance.

What is the primary difference between Necessary Assumption Qs and Sufficient Assumption Qs? Both are required to make the argument valid but I'm not quire sure how the answer choices differ.

Hey fellow 7Sagers,

I'm going through the CC and I have a quick question for y'all about PT21 game 4. If you look at this explanation video: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/sequencing-game-wa-twist-3-game-board-setup/?ss_completed_lesson=1115

You'll see that JY infers that H/K gotta go to the last opening on the second set-up. But why though? Why not H/K/L/M?

We could pick let’s say L for Week 3 and have MM appear on week 4 or M for week 3 and LL on week 4? I don't see what could prevent us from doing that. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Cheers,

Hi guys,

I keep getting strengthening and weakening questions wrong and I can't figure out why... does anyone have any suggestions or helpful tips that help them get through these types of problems?

Hi guys, hope you all are doing well!

I'm wondering if a strong correlation like "the more X, the less Y" could be diagrammed as a bi-conditional (e.g. "The more history a person knows, the less likely that person likes history"). Also, is "the more X, the less Y" logically equivalent to "the less Y, the more X"?

How about "As x increases, Y decreases"? Can this be diagrammed as a bi-conditional? (e.g. "As one's knowledge of history increases, one's love for history decreases")

Thanks!

P.S. I have nothing against history lol. I just happened to modify a few sentences from PT61.2.24

I have a question regarding the use of the word "all". If a sentence proceeds in this manner: Cats are happy animals. Even if the "all" is not included before cats, can I appropriately assume that ALL cats are happy animals? or is it MOST cats are happy animals? or other choices?