Hey everyone,

First time poster - doing some last minute studying. I'm reviewing November's test but I don't see JY's explanations for the last passage. Do you know if this is available anywhere? In particular I'm stuck on questions #23 and #26. If someone could just explain the right answers to those 2 I'd really appreciate it. I really liked D for #23; and B for #26.

Thanks and all the best!

YOOOO! I just wanted to ask a quick question about the must be true test for Necessary Assumption answer choices? could someone elaborate on that? Im confused with it. Specifically for the Rattlesnake question JY gives us in the lesson. The AC has to do with food which was never even mentioned in the premises/conclusion. How do we determine whether foreign information is relevant to the argument?

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,

Just towards the latter end of completing the CC. However, doing the later LR problems for each question type – the really difficult questions are getting to me. The problem sets in which each question is scaled 5/5 (hardest) – I seem to do 2/5 on those. When reviewing over the problems, this what I notice:

I am sure others have probably gone through these sort of slumps with these difficult LR questions and– just wanted to know what are ways/techniques folks have overcome this? Is there a full-proof method for LR LOL? Do you re-do these problem sets afterwards?

Not sure what to do – b/c these type of problem sets are getting to me. For the other LR problem sets usually get perfect or at most one wrong.

Any help is much appreciated.

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.

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.

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

Hi there!

So I finally started getting to all four a couple of weeks ago, which was really exciting for me (I'll do a write up on the 7sage forum posts that made that possible for me after Sat). What I've noticed in this last week however is, that I'm not getting to the last two or so questions (sometimes). I'm wondering if that's because of my policy of saving the comparative passage for last? There's no particular reason for it, it was something a fellow 7 sager mentioned he did because they gave him trouble and so I tried it out (though I haven't noticed the same issue in my takes). Sometimes I do it last because the comparative has fewer questions than the remaining passage (less point potential), but sometimes I just do it automatically rather than waste time thinking about it mid test, and I've almost been too afraid of losing the progress I've made to try the other way (I know, it's not something I should be afraid of and yet). Problem is, sometimes I get to the last passage with not much more than 5 min left. Maybe 6.5 or so. So I wanted to ask what you all thought. If I did the comparative passage earlier, do you think I would be able to get to more questions?

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!

Wow,

I feel like I'm posting one of these everyday. So this question has to do with a Necessary Assumption question--an old one. I've realized in the past hour or so of review that I've been doing, that I fall pretty consistently for one type of attractive wrong answer choice for NA questions. The answer that fixes the argument/is important (as it's described in the LSAT Trainer). That realization has forced me to be a bit more timid and cautious about my approach to NA questions (which I thought I was pretty set on). So here's the scenario I found myself in:

I know what the conclusion is. I know what the premises are. I understand the argument. From this, I see two problems/assumptions the argument is making:

Feeling confident...ish (remember my new found timidity) I attack the answer choices and am left with C and D. So I negate.

C- The recommendation would be satisfied by the creation of a nation formed of disconnected regions (sounds amazing)

D- The new Caronian nation will include as citizens anyone who does not speak Caronian.

uh-oh.

The negation of D is speaking to that second assumption I found. If they include these people, then Caronian speakers don't need to be in the majority (they still can be, but it is not necessary).

Where did I go wrong here?

Thanks in advance!

Admin note: added link https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-26-section-2-question-07//

Alright, this was a confusing question but I'm still a little unsure about one part of it.

It's in the CC MSS section, so you guys can go look at it. Essentially the stimulus states that light is registered in the retina when [rhodopsin] molecules change shape. These molecules can change shape without the light simply by normal molecular motion, which introduces error into the visual system.

The final part is what trips me up. It says that the amount of molecular motion is directly proportional to the temperature of the retina.

OK, so this whole thing hinges on the definition of "directly proportional". What exactly does that mean? Well it means that as X increases, then so does Y and vice versa. OK got it. From this, I can assume that as temperature increases, so does the amount of movement. And as temperature decreases, then so does movement. I mean, that's what directly proportional means, increase X increase Y, etc...

My problem here is that the stimulus does not say whether more or less movement creates error. It simply says that "movement" in general creates error. But, like I said, this begs the question as to what type of movement creates the error? Does more movement create more error? Does less movement create less error? How am I supposed to infer this? I guess one could take the step in assuming that since less movement brings us closer to the state of no movement, then it must be that less movement causes less error. And since more movement is moving away from the state of no movement, more movement is thus causing more error. Since a state of no movement would essentially mean no error.

But this just seems to imply a lot of advanced deductions that one is expected to make while under the stress of trying to comprehend this information in the first place. I guess I pretty much answered my question in thinking this all through out loud, so let me know what you guys think as well.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-3-question-19/

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

#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

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/

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.

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.

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.

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?

These questions. DAH.

I went with C for 22 and D for 27. I even got them wrong in BR. I know these questions are pretty weird, but I would love help understanding why the correct answers are correct and why the answers I chose are wrong (though mostly the former).

Thanks in advance!

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-1-passage-3-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-1-passage-3-questions/

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/

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/

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.

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

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...?