Can someone explain why the correct answer to this question is B? I'm completely stumped on this, as D seems like the right answer to me.

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

Just a recommendation, I think it would be great if you can create random problem sets using sets of PT's. For example, using PT 1-35, all of its LR questions, to randomly throw at you. After answering the question the correct answer as well as the solution is presented. Very much how the LSAT Demon works, I think its a useful design for casual practice.

Does anyone have the link to extend course that is expiring just before the September LSAT. I can't seem to find it, thanks!

I want to start with Q27 first. I have read the reasoning behind why (D) is incorrect, and somehow agree, but I absolutely dont see why (E) is correct.

The author doesn't state history is impaired by universal patterns, atleast nowhere where he doesnt use the word "Perhaps".

Here are the following places where he atleast mentions his views against univervsal patterns in the last paragraph.

"But perhaps this discomfort is no bad thing...relinquish the vain hope for inevitability and hence restore us to the contemplation of historical contingency...all of which can serve as stimuli to serious thought.

"Perhaps what is needed is a historical perspective...the particular and unrepeatable details of historical events."

The only phrase that i can find that sort of supports (E) is that the author uses "vain hope", but the following part of the sentence doesn't talk about unversal patterns at all...

Can someone please enlighten me about which part of the passage allows us to assume (E)? Or does "Perhaps" indicate a sense of strong agreement instead of being aware of a possibility?

For Q22, I chose (C), and I later understood that the first part of the sentence "Though seductive in their logic and coherence" makes it incorrect. However, doesnt (E) also rely on the word "perhaps" to indicate a sense of strong agreement?

Thankyou so much who anyone that can help. This is really confusing

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q#(P#) - [brief description of stimulus]" Also best to post one question per discussion at a time!

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-82-section-3-passage-4-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-82-section-3-passage-4-questions/

I have a question. If you are given a statement like the below:

Most dogs are cute.

Does this by inference mean that some dogs are not cute? As in there is at least a some relationship between dogs and cute. Say there are 100 dogs. 99 are cute. What about the remaining 1? Is it common sensical to assume it is not cute, or are we not allowed to make such an inference.

Just a quick question

If assumptions are premises the author left out then does that mean that I am trying to find that assumption in the answer stem?

I am just having a hard time with these so if anyone has any hints or suggestions that would be awesome.

#help

This is the main point question from the Gilman Passage

Can some one please explain why (A) is incorrect? I was stuck between A and D, but chose A because D does not say ANYTHING about there being two different theories, which was basically what the whole first paragraph was about. I get that the word usage of "central doctrine" in (A) is a bit weird, but is this really the reason why A is incorrect? I would also like to know if its normal for the Main Point question to just leave out a whole paragraph? Thanks so much

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

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-83-section-2-passage-4-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-83-section-2-passage-4-questions/

This game is kind of driving me crazy. I am looking at the first rule which states the following:

"the team must work for atleast one months at a headquarters between any two months working at different mines"

So my interpretation is that that Headquarters must come in between Krona and Grayson mines. My interpretations then contradicts the correct answer which is B as 'H' is coming between two Gs

how is that correct answer? please help.

thanks!

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

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-86-section-2-game-3/

So when I do lg I find myself double checking my work constantlyyy to make sure I haven’t made a mistake or written something down wrong which obviously can be a good thing but I’m wondering if doing this too much might actually be wasting a lot of my time? Anybody who’s great at logic games have any tips on how to get so confident with games that you’re not doubting yourself, or any tips on how to get a good flow going ?

If Larry drives to work in the morning, he will hit traffic. Therefore:

A If Larry hits traffic, it must be morning.

B If Larry drives to work in the afternoon, he will not hit traffic.

C If Larry doesn't hit traffic, it must not be morning.

D If Larry drives to work in the afternoon, he will hit traffic.

E None of the above.

I would like to understand the answer.

l

.

Guys, so for N.A we have the flip test for the answer to see if the assumption is necessary or not. Is there something like that for the Sufficient Assumption questions?

Thanks xx

Hello Everyone,

I wanted to know that if

A -> B + C (with the + being "and")

Then the Contra would be /B or /C -> /A

And in another situation

A

B

/D ====> /A or /B?

Thank you!

Hey guys, does anyone have any suggestions on recognizing when an argument is causal when it does not include key words like "responsible for", "resulted in", or straight up "caused"?

I'm seeing question 22 on on Section 2 in PT 73 being identified as causal, and I totally missed it. Wanted to see if anyone has a good way to break these things down. Thanks!

Hello 7Sage Community((/p)

My LSAT journey has been and long rough road. I took the December 2017 LSAT and scored 155. I stopped studying for awhile and discovered 7Sage. I started the core curriculum and 7Sage helped open my eyes to how to correctly study for the LSAT. I started studying again mid-April 2019 while working full-time. I have been able to increase my PT score to 164. I signed up for the November 2019 test, but I am a splitter student (my gpa is 3.0) and I am considering rescheduling my test to February 2020. This would mean 4 years between completing my undergrad and entering law school. I am torn about taking the November test or cutting my hours as a server and subsequently taking the February 2020 test. Any thoughts?

I have seen a few questions in which NA is actually an SA or a weaker form of SA ( --> in SA to -- most --> in NA, otherwise the same). I understand that NA and SA has different logical relationship with a valid argument (Any SA -> VA -> All NAs), and that NA does not require as strong / absolute a claim as often seen in SA.

In what cases can NA / SA become equivalent then? Is there a definite logical relationship between SA / NA? I.e., SA -> NA, where NA includes SA? Thank you!

A certain experimental fungicide causes no harm to

garden plants, though only if it is diluted at least to

ten parts water to one part fungicide.Moreover, this

fungicide is known to be so effective against powdery

mildew that it has the capacity to eliminate it

completely from rose plants. Thus this fungicide, as

long as it is sufficiently diluted, provides a means of

eliminating powdery mildew from rose plants that

involves no risk of harming the plants.

Which one of the following is an assumption on

which the argument depends?

(A) There is not an alternative method, besides

application of this fungicide, for eliminating

powdery mildew from rose plants without

harming the plants.

(B) When the fungicide is sufficiently diluted, it

does not present any risk of harm to people,

animals, or beneficial insects.

(C) Powdery mildew is the only fungal infection

that affects rose plants.

(D) If a fungicide is to be effective against powdery

mildew on rose plants, it must eliminate the

powdery mildew completely.

(E) The effectiveness of the fungicide does not

depend on its being more concentrated than

one part in ten parts of water

I picked A but the ans is E- WHY??

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-39-section-2-question-17/

In the question above, JY says negates b (If the Japanese drive on the left side of the road, then they are not inclined to buy cars with left side steering wheels) to the following:

If the Japanese drive on the left side of the road then they are inclined...

But I thought If a then b negate is a some b, which means shouldnt the negation by There exists some Japanese people who drive on the left side of the road but are still inclined to buy cars with left-side steering wheels.

Since that means there are still Japanese drivers who choose to buy cars with right-side steering wheels, how does this make the argument fall apart? Maybe there are enough people who would still choose right side steering wheels which would then boost the sales enough to correct the trade balance?

I understand all other answers suck, this is the best out of the 5 ACs, but still trying to grasp the correct AC better.

So after looking at several of my tests - I feel line referencing questions are just a pain in the ass lol.

I am not sure if I am approaching them right: do I have to focus on the line reference specifically in the paragraph? Or to the overall passage? Or to its relation with the passage MP? Or all of this LOL?

I usually try to connect it back to MP but on my BR still getting these wrong.

Any help would be awesome.... thanks :)

Is it true that the right answer choice needs to address both the premise and conclusion. I was told this by my previous instructor and ive been really struggling with these NA questions. im trying to negate but still doesnt work. Im always down to 2 ans choices and pick the wrong one.

I had a dinner with a law student who got a 178 on the lsat. He talked to me about how he prepared for it and I’m curious if these points resonate with other top scorers as well and share them with others. He studied by himself and said that he always tried to figure out the solutions once he finished the test without going online, he also told me to not worry about the LR question types, just focus on conclusion, premise and evidence. He also did all the preptests, 3 times each. He also read books with topics he was unfamiliar with. He broke down so unfortunate truths in which familiarity/expertise helped him in reading comp as well as how good you are at math helped with LG. Just curious of these tips/insights helped some of you as well. I know everyone is different im their approaches but there has to be some common insights right? For those scoring in low 160 what was that one habit that helped you get to 170s......??.

So I’m going through practice sections of LR and I’m missing a fair amount of questions, however, when I’m torn between two answers I’ll underline the one I don’t pick. On my last full section, there were 5 questions I would’ve gotten right if I had just picked the answer I underlined. Does anyone have any recommendations to stop making that mistake?

yhe right answer is E and i picked B. I dont get at all why E is right because isnt that going against our whole conclusion which is that what the Marine Biologists are saying (lobsters eat one another is in response to hunger when they are together) is Wrong?

E is then saying that any food that they got wasnt enough to kill their hunger ( and therefore the ate eachother)

What am i missing?????

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

I know this is definitely a 5-star question. But a few things that I keep getting stuck on are the following:

Does will encourage imply causation? My thought is no b/c if I encourage some1 to eat a chocolate cookie does not mean I caused them to do so.

How do we grasp a phenomenon when doing LR stimuluses? Like I could not at all iron out the two phenomenons that the ACs were playing on in this question? How can I improve on that?

Thanks

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

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-3-question-23/