We're looking for the NA.

P1: When a driver is talking on her cell, the person on the other end of the call can't see if her driving conditions become difficult.

P2: If the driver is instead talking to a passenger, the passenger is usually quiet or can help by warning about any difficulties.

Therefore, talking on a cell while driving is more dangerous than talking to a passenger.

What absolutely HAS to be true?

E ) Talking on a cell is no more dangerous than talking to a passenger who continues to talk during difficult driving situations. This is certainly not our NA since our conclusion is about talking on a cell being MORE dangerous, especially because the continuing to talk could be the passenger providing helpful warnings.

D ) If a passenger's helpful warnings are just as likely to distract the driver, this actually weakens our argument.

C ) Don't give a hoot what the drivers believe.

B ) Of course driving is less dangerous if the driver isn't talking to anyone, but that's not what we're comparing.

A ) For this argument to hold up, we have to assume that speaking to a driver during a difficult driving situation increases the danger (ie, risk of accident), the one exception being (unless) the person she's speaking to is providing helpful warnings. Bingo. I overlooked this AC at first because it's asking us to infer that since the person on the other end of the call can't see the difficult driving situation, they are going to keep talking. But I guess that's a small enough and fair enough inference.

Hi guys,

I have been studying seriously since the beginning of September but I just don't seem to be improving very much. My diagnostic score was a 162 (pt43). Since then, these are my scores:

2007: 163

73: 158

39: 165

25: 163

78: 165

53: 165

75: 164

My weakest section is logic games. In LR in the latest tests I have been getting between 2-4 wrong. and RC is 2-4 wrong too. Should I just keep doing games as JZ suggests? I know it is a decent score but with my diagnostic I had pretentiously hoped I would see quick improvements. I am taking the Nov LSAT.

Thank you!!

I have no idea why the answer is E. I chose C. Can someone please explain why E is right?

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-88-section-2-question-21/

Can anyone explain this question for me? Have no idea why the right answer is right and how it weakens argument. Thanks

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Does anyone else thing AP questions are getting harder? I chose D for this because it reads more like a clarification - or even a necessary assumption - than direct support for the conditional conclusion. #help

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Hey all,

I did some analysis for the first passage of PT88. Here is the link to it: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RQOfouoAh5m5pReXF3E4u-Ibmi803v5OEcXsTWnxexA/edit?usp=sharing

Hopefully someone finds this useful before JY's videos come out! Let me know what you think or if you have any questions on my reasoning!

What are the parts of this argument?

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

I know it’s probably been discussed before, but what should I expect on test day? I’ve taken the LSAT before as the paper format. I would expect same registration process blah blah blah, but during the test as it is digital, I’m sure we’ll have scratch paper for the logic games section, but what about the others? Any advice would be much appreciated and thank you in advance.

I wonder whether can we make an inference of A←s→C from A‑m→B‑m→C? (reference: PT62 section 2 Q19)

For sure, it would be an invalid argument if an inference of A‑m→C is made.

Neither the lessons from The Valid Argument Forms nor the from The Invalid Argument Forms include this inference.

Seems ok to me.

Feeling a headache today, which is reminding me to send positive vibes and wish calming, clear thoughts to everyone. Let's remember to lighten the study load this week, breathe, slow down and stay confident. We are superstars, and we're going to knock it out of the park!

Powerscore says 1 way to weaken a casual conclusion is to show that “Although effect occurs, the cause did not occur.”

This is bc (According to powerscore Lr bible) the effect is always produced by the same cause.

But in PT 88.4.24, AC A seems to show no cause but effect, which seems to fit into powerscore’s definition of weakening causality. Is AC A wrong because of “sometimes”, which makes that AC too weak?

For me, AC A seems to mean in cases without traumatic experience, medical condition causes cortisol change.

Given that the original conclusion is traumatic event causes cortisol change, would AC A fall into the no cause, but effect category? Would it be right if the word “sometimes” was removed from AC A

Thanks

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

I got this question wrong because I misidentified the conclusion. I thought the last sentence was the conclusion and the second sentence was a premise(which didn’t seem that relevant at the time). Both sentences are conditional.

My question is in these questions, how can I tell what is the main conclusion? I was not super familiar with the topic(microbes/methane) and I had trouble identifying the main conclusion, so I just poorly assumed the last sentence was the main conclusion. But how could have I had known that the 2nd sentence was the main conclusion and not the last, given that both sentences were conditional statements and it was not super obvious or intuitive (and it was hard using the “because” test of “because P, then C” since it was difficult to determine what was P and C due to the obscure stimulus topic on microbes/methane?

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

I am registered for the November exam and hoping to apply for the 2020 cycle. I have been studying on and off since mid-June, seriously studying since August. I took a diagnostics originally and score 136. The last PT I took a few weeks ago, I got a 150. Would like to be in the 160s but I'm now thinking that might not be possible given the short timeframe. Should I push my exam date to January or just wait a full cycle? Is taking the January exam too late to apply?

So I am scheduled to finish the CC this Friday. Haven't taken a full PT since the diagnostic but, should this be enough time with PTs etc to be prepared for the Nov exam/?

Thank you!

So I just printed out the ticket for the test next Monday and was checking test location on google map. However, the weird thing is that the hotel name (which is the test center) does not match the address provided on the ticket! It says “fiesta Henderson hotel,” which seem to locate in Henderson rather than Las Vegas. The address on the ticket is “3510E Tropicana ave, Las Vegas, NV, 89119,” and google map shows no hotel at all in that address. I’m so freaked out!! The test is only one week away and I need to fly to Las Vegas to take it. Should I contact the hotel or LSAC? How fast will LSAC respond? Should I write an email or just call them?

Anything, based on 7Sage's difficulty measure, between level 1-3 I do with ease, I can spot the conclusion, the support, and prephrase an answer almost verbatim. Not quite the same mastery with level 4's, but I can still spot the flaw easily and prephrase a good answer. These level 5 problems are a completely different story. Sometimes I have difficulty even spotting the conclusion, I cannot spot the flaw, and definitely not prephrase a good answer. It is like everything falls apart with these questions, and sometimes when I think I got it down, I am stunned to find out what the right answer actually was. I do these problems with maybe 20-40% accuracy, 20% on a bad day and 40% on a good day. I would like some advice on how to get better at these tough LR problems. Any help appreciated.

I struggled with figuring this out when I first started doing logic games so I hope it helps. If it's a grouping game where we are told each element within one category of elements must be played "at least x amount" (or some equivalent statement, and generally it will be 'at least once') it can be made into a chart. This is because with 'at least' there is no limit on how many times each individual game piece can reappear, making them not unique.

I do well on most logic games and have also improved in Logical Reasoning. However, I have seen little to no improvement in RC and am unsure of how to accomplish any sense of improvement. Can you please suggest ways in which I can attempt to improve?

I especially encounter this problem when I run into difficult passages which I cannot decipher in the section but also in passages which I think I understand the content but end up having multiple wrong answers in.

I'm seeing a lot of LR questions worded with statements like "more likely" or "less likely."

e.g. people with university degrees are more likely to have dogs than cats

Can I interpret this sentence as university degree (positively CORR) dogs? Is there a better way to understand more likely/less likely sentences? Thanks in advance!

Hey guys, could someone help me understand why (e) is the correct answer? I seem to be able to produce at least one possible world in which everyone has flower arrangements with at least one use of lilies in it (U gets the LL block), and in which there are two people with the HR block (U and Z). As far as I can tell, I've got the antecedent setup/questions mostly right. It's just this last question that flummoxes me.

Thank you so much! Sorry for violating any norms here: I just signed up for the course and haven't yet got a sense of the norms yet!

Admin. note: slightly edited discussion title to fit formatting guidelines: "PT#.S#.Q# (G#) - brief description"

Hi everyone,

I had been practicing with the LSAT official books (50s, 60s, 70s) and I recently purchased the 80s via 7sage. I noticed that in the 80s, there's a bit of a shift with the LR. I can't quite describe the changes, but I feel like there is an increased of "debatable" questions/questions that push you to make assumptions in ways that earlier tests didn't... for example, in PT 83 section 1 #18 (LR):

If the standards committee has a quorum, then the assembly will begin today at 6:00. If the awards committee has a quorum, then the assembly will begin today at 7:00. (MBT)

In the explanation, it says that we should "safely assume" that if the assembly starts at 6 then it does not start at 7 and vice versa, however, I feel like this prompt doesn't necessarily show any indication that both things couldn't happen. I made the correct assumption based on the answer options and the wording "will begin today" (something can only "begin" once), but the greater point is, it seems like the newer LSATs include more subtleties and newer patterns like this question.... am I crazy or am I on to something?

If I'm not crazy, then for those who have scored 165+, I'm curious how you adapted to these changes.

I had been scoring in the high 160s, low 170s for the earlier PTs, but my score dropped to low 160s on both the real LSAT and on 80s PTs. I have 2 more fresh 80s that I haven't taken yet, and I'm struggling to figure out how to prepare leading up to the November test. I'd love to hear others' experiences on adapting to subtle changes in LR.

Thanks!

Even though conditional logic seemed easy when I went through the CC, it continues to trip me up on harder questions, so I'm reviewing some basics:

To have a valid conditional statement, the SOME or MOST statement must come first followed by the ALL statement. (You can't conclude ANYTHING if the ALL statement comes before a SOME or MOST statement.) So A some B->C, therefore A some C is valid. Also A most B->C, therefore A most C is valid.

In a valid argument, the conclusion must be true. Basic valid argument examples include affirming the sufficient (A->B, A, therefore B ) ; denying the necessary (A->B, /B, therefore /A); transitive property (A->B->C, therefore A->C).

Other valid arguments show us instances where one thing (A) arrows out to two other things and there's therefore overlap between those two other things:

If A->B and A->C, then B some C.

If A->B and A some C, then B some C.

If A->B and A most C, then B some C.

If A most B and A most C, then B some C.

Invalid arguments mean the conclusion doesn't have to be true. Examples include affirming the necessary (A->B, B, therefore A); denying the sufficient (A->B, /A, therefore /B), and putting the ALL statement before the MOST or SOME statement (A->B some C, therefore A some C OR A->B most C, therefore A most C).

Other invalid arguments show us that we can't conclude anything from 2 some SOME statements:

A some B some C, therefore A some C (transitive property does NOT apply to SOME statements)

A most B most C, therefore A most C (transitive property does NOT apply to MOST statements)

A some B, A some C, therefore B some C.

You cannot take a contrapositive of a SOME or MOST statement.

Quantifiers have specific meanings on the LSAT that are often counterintuitive. Some is the trickiest one because it means at least one, but could be limited to one, and could go up to all. Be suspicious 😒 of ACs that use any variation of some, such as sometimes and somewhat. Always ask, “just one??” Many sucks too because is the same as some; it is not MOST. Few means some are, most are not. In most cases, we're talking about 3 or 4, but we can think of the range as up to 50 because more than that is MOST.

Not sure whats going on... Usually when I do LG from super recent tests like 80s and 70s i get -2 max. When I do games from older tests I can usually get the games right in under time and all right. Recently just did 63 and 65, the games definitley arent hard. I went -5 and -6 which I dont think i have done since I finished the CC. Is this a horrible sign or emergency? Im freaked out

Walked away from the September LSAT with a 166. My GPA for my best three years is a 3.86 and a 3.92 for my best two years. Planning on going to school in Ontario. Should I write again in October?

My last 15 PTs have all been over 170.

Hi there,

Is there a suggested list of games to foolproof by game type?

I know JY did it for in/out games here: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-4-game-2/

Does something similar exist for the other game types?

#help