For this question: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-2-question-02/

Why can’t B be correct? The stimulus just says toxic levels, then collapse, suggesting toxic levels are what caused the collapse, but it could just be a coincidence. Something else unrelated to the toxic levels is the cause of collapse (aka would have collapsed sooner or later even without use of irrigation). And so if we expose this gap, can’t we say well if it’s not the irrigation that caused the collapse how can we say irrigation would cause collapse in modern society?

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

For causation logic, I know for strengthen questions, there are a few ways to strength an argument

But does "No Cause, No effect" also strengthen?

And similarly for weaken question,

does "no cause, effect happens" -- weaken? Couldn't there be another cause that is accounting for that effect, while also still allowing for the original cause to still cause the effect?

For example, Doing bicep curls causes you to grow muscle.

Would an answer explanation of "He didn't do bicep curls but still grew muscle" weaken that argument? I would think not, because there are other ways you can grow muscle, like doing pushups, etc.

Any clarification or explanation on such causation logic and ways to strengthen/weaken causation would be appreciate.d Thank you!

weaken: a cause b

a there b not there

b there a not there

Strengthen: a cause b

a there b there

b not there a not there

a not there b not there

Do you guys agree with the above? Are there other ways to strengthen/weaken?

Noah Centineo: It matters not what you’ve done, but what you do with what you’ve done for others.

Hi Everyone, so I have been studying for quite a while now (7/8 months). And I have gotten my scores to about, LG: -1 to -3, LR: around -8 to -11 collectively. But my RC is so inconsistent it ranges anywhere from -12 to -6, it's definitely my weakest section. I am currently PTing in the 161-163 range and my goal score is 165/166. I usually end up guessing on a couple questions because of timing issues (1 to 2 LR Q's, 1 to 2 LG Q's, and 2 to 4 RC Q's).

With all things considering, delaying is not an option for me. I would really appreciate if anyone has any tips or advice to see a final push in the last two weeks? Anything would help, I am feeling a bit discouraged as I have been stagnant in the low 160s for the last 3 to 4 weeks. I really appreciate any input, thanks.

What are the parts of this argument?

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

I flagged this one but on blind review stuck with my answer of B...I can understand why the correct answer is A, but still don't see why B CAN'T be right? Has anyone got their arms around this one?

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

How early do you need to arrive at the testing centre for the 12:30pm writing on November 25th? Like is an hour too early or not enough?

Hi everyone! So JY in his LG videos does the general questions first but how can we do that in digital now? Do you all recommend skipping ahead in questions one by one for each game and seeing what are the general questions and answer them first?

Thank you!

Hi, I am having trouble understanding why (B) MBT. I understand why the other answer choices are bad. But I have no idea why (B) is the correct answer. It seems to me that (B) CBT -- not MBT.

My diagram is as follows:

Old Precept: Inviting & Functional --> unobtrusive

New Precept: Inviting & Functional --> /unobtrusive

Modern Architects --> Strong Personality --> /Functional

So going by the new precept, I do not see how it logically follows that Modern Architects --> Strong Personality --> /unobtrusive.

Admin note: edited title

I have been studying LSAT for 7-8 months, although had just recently joined 7sage and realized how much I have progressed in Logic reasoning. I am now more structured and can breakdown LR question pretty well. However when it comes to answer choices, I tend to pick the most tempting answer choice for the 1st round! I am most of time able to pick the correct answer during blind review. e.g. I would miss 6-8 in one section in 1st try, and miss only 2-3 during BR.

Can anyone offer comments on how I can close this gap? Thank you in advance!

I was watching JY's explanation of Game 4 regarding the recycling centers, and I have a question. Is it true that not all of the materials have to be recycled by at least one of the plants? I ask this because that must be the reason I got question 22 wrong. If N is the right answer (B), then that means that none of the centers recycles wood. Can someone let me know if that is true? If so, I made a bad assumption in the beginning of the game. Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-4-question-20/

Could someone please explain why answer A is correct. I can get there by process of elimination as I understand fully why the other answers are incorrect. But I'd really like to understand the reasoning between A so I can say I have a "full understanding" of this question. It would be helpful if someone could give an example using numbers.

How’d it go for everyone? Personally, I was annoyed by the paper test after all of the digital prep I’ve done. I had two LG sections and I’m praying that the art gallery was experimental.

This article is really hard... Does anyone attempt it?

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

I listened to JY's BR call on this question ( https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/21699 ).

I don't get why he was so dismissive of answer choice C -- I would say it weakens the argument. An alternative explanation as to why the artist's face showed up in the painting (other than him painting it himself) serves to weaken the argument that painter of the painting has been determined. And that's what C provides -- his face may be there because the actual painter used him as a live model. I mean, he's an artist, completely reasonable that he would be in the milieu of artists in the area, and was asked by a friend to pose as a live model.

I agree that D more strongly weakens, but disagree with (what seemed to be) JY's position that C doesn't weaken at all.

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

LR Question Referring To: PT#J07 S#3 Q#17 (Exercising muscles in one back...)

Hey all! Hope all is well, I just have a question about how to properly analyze conditionals in Premises, Sub-Conclusions, and Conclusions? Right now I noticed that my understanding has been pretty lacking and I am not sure if I am steering myself in the right direction or not. If someone could perhaps correct my reasoning or approach that would be very much appreciated.

Premises

Proper Alignment ----> Muscles Opposite Sides Pull Equally

Sub Conclusion

Maintaining a Healthy Back ----> Balanced Muscle Development

Conclusion

Maintaining a Healthy Back ---> Exercise Muscles on Opposite Sides Equally

So upon reading @Sami wonderful explanation here (https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/9561/pt-june-2007-s3-q17-when-excercising-the-muscles) I saw that she identified a gap between the PA and MHB. While I was pouring over the relationship between the two I, perhaps falsely assumed, that Maintaining a Healthy Back ---> Proper Alignment because after considering the Negation of it being Maintaining a Healthy Back and /Proper Alignment I reasoned that Proper Alignment was a Necessary component for Maintaining a Healthy Back...

...and while I am writing this I feel like I am making assumption upon assumption :X because right this very second I am considering whether there are varying degrees of Proper Alignment, what the hell is even this Proper Alignment, what defines Proper Alignment, would 1% of a Improper Alignment be prevent ones back from being thrown into the category of Proper Alignment?! Anyways,

because should /Proper Alignment be the case it seems hard pressed for me to say that one could claim that they are Maintaining a Healthy Back. So upon reasoning or screwing myself over I saw that because Maintaining a Healthy Back ---> Proper Alignment I could connect up the Conditional in the Premises to the Sub Conclusion to get

Premises

Conclusion

So from the Premises I inferred that Muscles Opposite Sides Pull Equally and Balanced Muscle Development because they were both now connected to Maintaining a Healthy Back. So I guess with that I just equated the two ideas (I am honestly not even sure if you can do that...) and just went off looking for something that would connect either Muscles Opposite Sides Pull Equally or Balanced Muscle Development to Exercise Muscles on Opposite Sides Equally because it seemed to be the only gap remaining.

So then I read @Sami explanation again and under her explanation for Answer Choice: A she says...

" we know that there is a relationship between balanced muscle developed and proper alignment of back, but does the stimulus say that having a balanced muscle development is sufficient/enough to guarantee the proper back alignment? No, its says its needed but does not guarantee that it would lead to a proper back alignment. Other things can also despite having a balanced muscle development could lead someone not to have the proper alignment of back."

And now I am even more lost because I fail to see how the Stimulus says that Balanced Muscle Development is Necessary for Proper Alignment. It seems like all the Premises is doing is just explaining with the conditional (Proper Alignment ----> Muscles Opposite Sides Pull Equally) why the conditional in the Sub Conclusion is the case being (Maintaining a Healthy Back ----> Balanced Muscle Development). If we take what is contained in the Premises to be true and only question the support then wouldn't the already established connection Sami mentioned, Proper Alignment --> Balanced Muscle Development, already connect the Premises to the Sub-Conclusion because it would just be...

Premises

Maintaining a Healthy Back ---> Proper Alignment ----> Muscles Opposite Sides Pull Equally

Conclusion

Maintaining a Healthy Back ---> Exercise Muscles on Opposite Sides Equally

because if we accept the Premises as true cant we chain up the other conditions associated with it which would basically mean that the first gap mentioned by Sami being between Proper Alignment and Maintaining a Healthy Back is essentially nonexistent?

My apologies for the long post I am just concerned with how I feel like I arrived at the correct answer with some fucking bizarre reasoning that I cant even fully comprehend. Any help or clarification would be very much appreciated! Thanks again. I need a damn drink.

Does anyone know how I could get the answers for the "More Reading Comprehension" question sets? Do you have to complete all 10 before you can check the answers?

what should I be doing in the last week/ final days before the test??

I don't want to burn myself out, but I do want to keep making progress.

! or 2 PTs? or is that too many??

Hello! So I’m doing the Premium course and I just completed the weakening and strengthen question types. I got the majority of questions wrong during the explanation portion where there’s a sample question and JY goes through it. Usually I pause the video, try to answer it, then look to see why I got it right or why I got it wrong. The problem is on these W/S questions I got the majority of all of them wrong.

My question is, should I start to do the timed questions at the end of the chapter to complete the portion or should I go over it all over again from the beginning or should I try to use a different method to attack these question types? I keep trying to use this Goku method where you don’t attack the premise or conclusion and you try to focus on the support but I feel like that method is arbitrary and ambiguous because the support can imply many different options. Or should I just give up since I have been studying for 6 months now (Khan Academy and powerscore) and should find a new career choice... lol I’m kidding.

Thanks!

Hi everyone! I am one month from test day and I'm struggling with LR on PTs. I am solid on all of the theory and CC. Every time I do an untimed section I get almost everything right (-1 to -2). However, during my PTs, every time I hit an LR section I start to miss questions. I usually finish the section on time, but I am still seeing -6 to -7 wrong on each LR section. Does anyone have advice?? I've been studying for a very long time and have seen almost all LR questions.

Hey everyone, just have a general quesiton regarding the fool proof method of logic games. Should I be also answering the quesitons when i fool proof games or just stick with set-up, inferences etc? I seem to find that by repeated game 5 or above the answers just seem to be too easy because i have basically memorized them at that point. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks everyone!

Hey guys,

I need a lot more practice on necessary assumption. I wen through all the video but still doesn't feel comfortable :/ where do you guys go to find more questions to practice?

Im trying to look for answers to the LR questions from PT 9. Before the digital change, you could enter it manually or find them. Now, its forcing me to take the test digital first

I'm trying to begin the LG foolproofing, and I've seen a bunch of mentions about the LG Bundle. I know it has been taken down, but I have access to the PT's so was thinking of making a custom set to replicate the questions.

However, are there any specific questions / PT's that come later that you all think would be well-worth adding to the first 35 PTs to foolproof? Or should this suffice for now.

Thanks so much!