Hi,

I do not understand the answer and why it is correct. Can you please break AC sentence down completely?

Black Birds Nesting

I identified the question stem

(Weaken) the argument-->(Identify premise, conclusion, context if any)

This tells me that I need to destroy the support, lessen the support, attack the support that makes the conclusion true.

After reading the passage, I understood the causal relationship that is being purported.

Phenomenon Thing (1)Birds nesting for the first time, are less successful than (comparative statement) ("bigger stronger")older birds+(1yr olds)1st time ("smaller+weaker").

(This) (RF) (⬆︎ Phenomenon) can not be a mere matter of size and strength(meaning they cant attribute this⬆︎ success to just size and strength it must be something else... ) because Black birds are fully grown when they are leave the nest.

success≠(size + strength) (Author ruling out size and strength as reason for success)

Demands an explanation ( Blackbird Nesting Successful because _______________

Hypothesis They benefit by their nesting experience.

So black bird nesting experience (age?) is why they're successful.

Now I need to know why it is probably not their nesting experience, perhaps... ➔ (Alternate Cause/hypothesis/competing explanation/conclusion).

A. We know theyre successful, we don't know why... not interested in other birds +

B. Answer that was left, but dont understand it

C. 2nd time is more succ than first (Obvi) +

D. Author ruled out size and strength - in premise, not alt explanation to why success +

E. Honestly, proportion of All birds, is a rabbit hole, a dark one. ?

So B says per my limited breakdown.

The capacity (maximum amount?) of blackbirds to lay viable eggs increases (after this sentence is where I am at a wall) Berlin Wall

with each successive (same as successful?) trial (what?) during the 1st few years of reproduction (does this mean breeding, nesting, birth)?

Please Help

#Help.

Admin note: edited title

Hey 7sagers,

I am right now in the midst of doing practice LG sections from PT36 and up. I am timing up, meaning I trying to feel out how many minutes I am behind/ahead in LG sections. The LG commentary videos are very helpful. So far, these are my observations:

Before I start doing my timed LG sections (PTs 52 & above) – I really wanted to iron out my approach to this section that I can implement in my current phase. This is usually what I try to do:

1- Get the first game in the section done immediately, regardless of what it is.

2- Thereafter, scan the other games and look for the first question in each of them to see if a game board description is given in the ACs (example: sequencing games will have all the elements in a row in the AC). Based upon my game comfortability, I will choose the next game

3- If I see a MISC game type (which I am having difficulty in deciphering), I try my best to skip it and come back to it at the end.

I am not sure if this above approach of mine is a good idea. Just wanted to ask other 7sagers what’s their approach when doing LG? How do you think I can improve mine? How did you improve on the timing of the LG section?

Thanks for all your advice in advance. 😊

Did PT85 before my last take on Sunday

missed 1 on RC; 0 on LG; 13 combined in LR; no LR love for me even though I did every single PT and BRed them except 86 (guess my brain is not wired for this)

well gonna BR this test and do LR sections from 86

good luck to everyone who is taking the Jan test!

I eliminated all of the answer choices. I'm not sure how the author does not question the ethical basis of an economic situation. The moral that the author suggests in the stimulus is that a country cannot live for long without foreign trade. However, we are told that the U.S. has found most of it's raw materials and customers within the country and has suffered consequences from not participating in more foreign trade. Wouldn't this suggest that the author is questioning the ethical basis of the economic situation (not a lot of foreign trade) in the U.S.?

Admin note: edited title

I don’t think I understand the fundamental argument here... Initially I hesitantly chose A (the correct answer) thinking - the professor disputes the crater causing the extinction, this is irrelevant. However, during my review, I switched to E thinking he is arguing that, in spite of the common belief, because the rocks are normal polarity, the impact happened after the Mesozoic era when earth’s polarity was flipped. Therefore, the size of impact leads people astray, the rocks were caused by, melted, and recrystallized soon after the impact, but the mass extinction didn’t happen shortly after the impact, but rather much earlier.

This is the wrong answer, so I’m trying to determine where my thinking went wrong.... Thanks!

Admin note: Deleted. Please review the forum rules:

4. Do not post LSAT questions, any copyrighted content, or links to content that infringe on copyright.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-2-question-19/

Hey everyone, for my last week before the LSAT I just want to tune up on games to ensure a -0. Would like 4-5 prep tests with solid and challenging game sets that I could do before the actual on saturday. Any suggestions?

Does anyone have any advice for approaching “attitude” questions? They often seem highly subjective and trip me up, while other have clear right or wrong answers.

Ex: June 1997 - RC Q. 13

Which of the following most accurately describes the author’s attitude toward proposals to introduce personal stories into legal discourse?

A. Strongly Opposed

B. Somewhat Skeptical

C. Ambivalent

D. Strongly supportive

E. Unreservedly optimistic

While a - c were obviously false since the narrative spoke positively about personal stories in legal discourse, how do I distinguish between D and E?

I chose E because the author stated “narrative might play a crucial, positive role...” (a very optimistic statement) but never directly comes out in support of a proposal to make the change. Tips are appreciated!

What do people think the odds are that the LSAT writers put a weird, old-school logic game on the test this Saturday? Something in the vein of a mapping or pattern type game. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say one shows up though, of course, I hope to be wrong.

Does "Many" = "Some" or "More than one" ?

7sage says "many" = "some." Thus, "many" can include "one."

But other resources have said "many" means 2 or more. Thus, "many" would NOT include "one."

So does "many" include one or not?

I think this is important because for PT 76.4.12, (I think that) whether answer choice A is right or wrong depends on what definition of "many" you have.

IF we assume that "many" includes "one," and that the negation of "many" is "none," then the way LSAC uses "many" in answer choice A of PT 76.4.12 is INCONSISTENT. In this context, it assumes "many" is "two or more." This is HUGE, because if you assume "many" equals "one," it changes Answer choice A from a WRONG answer choice to a RIGHT answer choice.

So LSAC seems to be inconsistent with how it uses "many."

Any suggestions or advice appreciated. thank you.

I've been going through MP questions to make sure that I am able to flesh out the main point/conclusion of different texts. I remember at some point JY says that often for harder questions, the LSAT's will try to trick you by throwing in a "Thus," or some indicator word around those lines at the end of a paragraph to throw you off. But, I've found recently that I've gotten a couple of questions wrong because when it came to the wire I choose the choice that was not the final sentence, but turned out to be the final sentence. For example I'm currently on LSAT 44 - Section 2 - Question 16, and was tricked because I ignored the "Hence," at the end. While I read the comments and understand the explanations for why B (what I choose) was wrong and E (the correct answer) was right, I was wondering if anyone has some general advice/steps to take when looking at a stimulus to figure out whether a last sentence with a conclusion indicator is right or wrong.

I'm having trouble figuring out why A is a wrong answer choice.

If we apply the negation test to AC A, it will say -- "All of the scents that have a tendency to reduce susceptibility to illness do NOT do so by reducing stress."

Wouldn't "All of the scents" also include lavender, meaning lavender does not reduce susceptibility to illness by reducing stress? Wouldn't this wreck the argument?

Any advice or suggestions appreciated. Thank you.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-76-section-4-question-12/

#help

Question 10: How do we know that "additives" was ever the cause of behavioral problems in the first place? Researchers being "trained to assess the presence or absence of behavioral problems" does not mean whatever behavioral problems are there are caused by additives. I feel like the question omits declaring the cause of the behavioral problems is in-facts additives. Grrrrr.

Admin note: edited title

Can someone explain to me how answer B is the correct one? The sentence the question is asking concerns how cooking has impacted biological evolution; B is about domesticated animals and has nothing to do with cooking?

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-84-section-1-passage-4-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-84-section-1-passage-4-questions/

Hi there!

So I'm still trying to answer this question and could use some help! Lots of different sources, including 7sager and the Trainer, suggest I find the flaw in the argument if I can, before considering answer choices. The question I've never been able to answer is this: Why? What does a correct answer choice in an NA question do to that flaw? With SA questions, the correct answer choice makes the flaw disappear. But with an NA, I don't have an answer. Any help would be amazing! I'm taking the Jan Lsat next week and I'm trying to tie up loose ends.

So I've done many logical games and fool proofed them by watching the explanation videos. Everything gets so much easier when doing it the second time after watching how it's done. I overall understand a majority of logical games, however, I am still struggling with finishing all of them on time. I end up spending 8-9 minutes on average on each game, so I can never get around completing all four games.

Any last minute suggestions that could help me improve on this section for next week?

I did the November lsat and got -5 on the LG section. I'm looking to improve my score by 4-5 points, so an increase in this section will definitely help.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-57-section-2-question-15/

The answer to this question is A. I understand why the other answer choices are wrong, but I have a hard time accepting A because David literally concedes Carla's premises... I don't think he can then be considered to be ignoring any part of her answer. That doesn't make any sense to me. If someone can help me out, I'd appreciate it!

Admin note: edited title

Does anyone have any tips for MSS?

Everything I've read through just doesn't seem to click and I keep getting these type of questions wrong :( I'm aware that they are similar to MBT but with a lower degree of certainty needed.

Ok, so I just got done doing the CC on MBT questions and had a few questions...

The AC can be derived from any conditional from within the stimulus, correct?

Would it be wise to ignore any signs of argumentation in these and strictly diagram them?

Is conditional logic alone sufficient for solving all of these problems?

I think the games below are beneficial for those finding themselves making "silly" mistakes when reading split game boards. Those mistakes are probably less "silly" and more indicative of a mechanical/procedural weakness you have - actually that was just the case for me. I don't want to paint with a broad stroke. Either way, I thought these were good games to do in a fool-proof kind of way to get splitting quickly and accurately down pat.

I'm having a hard time understanding why answer choice D) in Question 13 is wrong even though I have watched the video multiple times already. I was left with C) and D) timed.

Initially I thought "large geographical areas" in D) was fine b/c of line 18 to 20. But is it wrong because centers of style are dispersed OVER large areas as opposed to being large areas themselves?

Also the passage says the characteristics patterns are subtly different that few people outside of the area can distinguish Nuna masks from Ko masks around line 45. But D) says they are VERY DIFFICULT for outside observers to distinguish. Just because few can distinguish, doesn't mean it is VERY difficult for others. Had it said "not easy for others," would it have been better?

--Is this line of thinking acceptable...?

The question asks what the word "succession" in line 57 refers to. I read back over the part and thought that it referred to the action of "clearing followed by regular burning" and picked A. However it is C and I don't really understand why?

Admin note: edited title

Hey fam,

So I've been going over logic games, realizing that I've been having trouble doing new grouping games/grouping games I've never seen under timed conditions (as in, under the 7sage suggested time). This post is one part general advice request (please help, I honestly don't know what I'm doing wrong, and I haven't picked up on anything in my recordings aside from the fact that I'm not making inferences quickly enough), one part specific advice request.

Specific questions: I've been taking note of not both rules with logic. It's a hold over from in/out games and I also find it helpful for some games (Like PT18 game 1). But then there are other games (like PT26 game 3) that I am sure would be easier if I noted the many not both laws as blocks. My questions is, how do I choose between the two? Rule of thumb says, choose one and be consistent, right? Part of me is tempted to just go with whatever works. But in that case, how do I know which notation to pick when I'm setting up the game?

I know that some people are thinking, "just keep drilling, you'll figure it out." But I could really use some help seeing some patterns.

Please and thank you

These questions consistently take me three minutes to do when they're in the 4 or 5 stars difficulty. Takes me a minute to read and diagram the stimulus and then another two to read or diagram the answer choices, and I still get them wrong sometimes because of rushing. Do you guys have any advice on how you tackle these questions quickly? Thanks =)

Please offer your help with this question! Apologies for a long post.

We know that snowy land reflects MORE sunlight.

That means snowy land absorbs LESS sunlight. We dont know what effect this ABSORPTION has on earths overall temperature (although I think it is logically implied that absorbing light means absorbing heat so C doesnt add anything new!)

C) explains what the effect of absorbing sunlight has on overall temperature of the earth. Absorbing heat actually warms up the atmosphere.

So when the earth gets more snowy lands+iced ocean surface, which means there will be more sunlight reflected and less sunlight absorbed, the earth temperature will likely decline.

Again, I don't see how C strengthens because I thought more reflection logically implies less absorption. And less absorption means less heat absorbed. So C isnt saying anything new… Of course absorbed heat would warm up the atmosphere?!

Could someone also explain D? It is very tough to eliminate it.

I chose D) because it seemed to work as a defender Strengthener. There may be other factors such as volcanic eruptions that override the temperature change brought by having more snowy surfaces. If that is the case, and the sunlight absorbed plays a minority role in determining the overall temperature of the earth's atmosphere, the conclusion would be weakened. D effectively blocks this possibility by saying that the atmosphere derives most of its heat from sunlight.

Thank you!!

Hi everyone. I have always thought NA questions are like inference questions in that their right answer will be true if the conclusion is true. And I thought the SA question types are the ones that the correct answer will bridge the broken conditional chains.

But over and over, from JY and others, I hear the comment that goes 'answer choice X is correct because it fills the gap between the premise and the conclusion" in the NA question expls..

Okay. So I guess that NA are sort of like SA, but NA right answers are minimum requirement while SA right answers are 100% air tight reason?

I have always thought NA are similar to inference. But now I'm just confused.... Is there a simple way to clearly distinguish NA from SA? HELP!