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!

Passage: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-43-section-1-passage-4-passage/

Question: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-43-section-1-passage-4-questions/

Hey guys I have a question about #28. I thought it's not the degree of ownership that varies, it's the degree of use that varies, and depending on if it passes the mark as significant use or not, the institution either "asserts a claim to faculty's intellectual product" (line 41-42) or presumably not assert a claim if it's deemed not significant use. How can we say the degree of ownership varies? The passage never said how much of a claim depends on how much use, if significant use, the more of a claim. It only says asserts a claim if X, then it's reasonable to assume, if not X then not assert a claim. Either assert or not assert, not varying degrees of how much they assert a claim..

How can E be correct then?

This question took me a lot of time but i still dont get why A is the answer because in A arent we affirming the consequent which is a conditional logic error ( if x then y - all poor then honest ; if y then x - all honest if poor )???

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

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.

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??

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!

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.

Good morning 7sagers,

I would like to purchase a copy of Ellen Cassidy's "The Loophole in LSAT Logical Reasoning" and it seems to be unavailable on all of the platforms I would look for it: Amazon, e-Bay, Barnes and Noble, HalfPrice Books, Thriftbooks...

If anyone has a copy they would be willing to part with, preferably not all marked up, I would be willing to buy it from you. I can Venmo you for the book and for shipping today.

Thanks--

Kat

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]"

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?

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/

I started studying for the LSAT in May with about 7 wrong on per LR section, and 10 wrong on RC, and 7 for LG. My scores became consistent in the lower 160s since late June. Now I'm in the mid160s, with RC and LG visibly improving, but LR unchanged (5-7 wrong per section). I finished 7Sage CC in August, and really liked the courses. But it seems that my LR skills haven't improved at all? I'm shocked to learn that, but I only have about 4 weeks left for my first LSAT. I'm considering postponing the test, because I don't think I can hit the 170s within the next month...

I have looked through earlier posts on similar issue, but haven't seen a similar situation. Any advice, experience and good tips would be much appreciated! Should I go back to the LR CC? Should I look for a tutor, etc..?

(I have read the LSAT trainer, Manhattan prep LR, but haven't done any drilling for LR. I always have 2-3 wrong per section due to mis-reading: simply pressed for time, trying to read faster.)

Hey everyone,

Just needed some advice on this: diagramming the MBT & SA questions. I feel on a time section this is a huge time sink for me but I usually get the question right most of the time. However, I know it is not recommended to do as a test strategy. How do you untrain yourself from diagramming? Or how do you develop not diagram? I feel it will save me like 2-4 mins on a test...

Any advice would be most appreciated .... thanks!

What im struggling with is picking the answer- when i pick my answer im like 100% its correct and then i find out im wrong. Im picking the ans with with the most relevance and still getting it wrong! WHAT DO I DO?

eg: Pt3 sec 2

PT3 Sec 4

Like i just dont understand why these are the ans, when the ans i have picked are relevant to the passage

Hi 7Sagers,

Can anyone help me understand why (E) is not the correct AC for this question?

Here's the breakdown of the stimulus and my understanding of each AC:

P1: Without info that could only have come from someone present at the secret meeting between the finance minister and the leader of the opposition party, the news story that forced the finance minister to resign could not have been written

P2: No one witnessed the meeting except the minister’s aide.

Conclusion: It is clear that the FM was brought down not by any of his powerful political enemies but by his own trusted aide.

Flaw: The minister’s aide is one of the many, not the only sources of information. It could have been the opposition party members who got in touch with the leader of the opposition party who attended the meeting. You can't definitely conclude that it's the FM's trusted aide that brought down the FM.

(A) drawing a conclusion on the basis of evidence that provides equally strong support for a competing conclusion. ⇒ Correct. It can equally support the opposite conclusion: No one but the minister’s trusted aide witnessed the meeting. Therefore, it is clear the FM was brought down by his powerful political enemies.

(B) assuming without warrant that if one thing cannot occur (=FM brought down) without another thing’s already having occurred (=the minister’s aide leaking info), then the earlier thing cannot occur without bringing about the later thing. ⇒ Not the right flaw. doesn’t work for this argument which does not care about the temporal order / chronology of the two events.

(C) confusing evidence that a given outcome on one occasion was brought about in a certain way with evidence that the same outcome on a different occasion was brought in that way. ⇒ Not descriptively accurate. There are no two occasions presented where the evidence can be used for the same outcome but in different occasions.

(D) basing its conclusion on evidence that is almost entirely irrelevant to the point at issue. ⇒ P1 and P2 are relevant to the point at issue (FM being brought down).

(E) treating evidence that a given action (=the trusted aide witnessing the secret meeting) contributed to bringing about a certain effect (FM being brought down) as though that evidence established that the given action by itself was sufficient to bring about that effect.

I was divided between (A), the right AC, and (E) and went with (E).

I'm not sure if I've understood the vague / complex sentence structure of (E) correctly. I must be missing out on sth or misinterpreting the argument structure. . . please share how you tackled this question!

Thank you :)

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

Any tips on how to make your test day the same as review? I always find that the silly mistakes I make on a PT come to me so easily in review.

Guidance on how to make sure that doesn't happen in three weeks?

Hey guys!

So I took the LSAT in June 2019 and scored a 165. I took it again in July to see if I could go any higher, but I scored a 165 again. Would it look worse for me to keep it or to cancel the score? Appreciate any advice. Thanks!

So, JY says that we need to use timed BR when doing a section of LR, but what if i'm still going thru the CC and haven't gotten to the point of PTs yet? do i still time myself while doing the cluster of such as weakening questions? #help

I am trying to apply to Cardozo law for next year, and it is not updated or something is not working right.

It is only giving me the option of applying for 2021 and it says applications are coming soon, instead of for 2020.

Anyone else having this problem?

How are y'all dealing.... need some support right now.

just wondering if for the digital exams we'll be allowed scratch paper/ anything to write on/with? i can't imagine going through logic games and not being able to write/draw out the solutions. someone please tell me this will be afforded to us lol

Which section, of the graded sections, was the “toughest” one during the test?

Now that we're officially switching over to digital, how are y'all foolproofing LG? By printing out a bunch of games like before, or by using the digital simulator and scratch paper? Any tips?

Hi everyone,

I took the July LSAT and got a 157. Although I started studying 6 months before that, I didn't start doing full tests until about 2 months before and so I didn't see much improvement at all. I expected something around this score because I was getting between 155-165 on PT.

My dilemma is whether or not I should cancel my score. I am going away for 4 months from Sep-Dec and would only be able to take the LSAT again in January. If I cancel, I'm concerned that it would look bad as the January test is the latest for the 2020 cycle. I'm applying to most of the Ontario schools as well as Dalhousie and UBC. If I keep my score, I feel like I might stand a chance with a 157, though I will retake for sure. When I retake, I expect that my score will be between 160-165.

Any advice would be appreciated!

Hey everyone! I've been struggling with Principle Questions. When I come to do the questions I honeslty have no idea what to look for? I do understand Sufficient Assumption questions (trying to bridge the gap between Premise and Conclusion). I even understood the lesson JY has on Principle Questions but when I try to do the problem sets I have no clue how to answer the questions.

Can someone maybe break down a question in the comments and try to explain it?

Thanks!