So for this tricky SA question ...

I was looking for a statement that would say “D”

A and D ——> M

Not M ——-> Not A or Not D

Conclusion: Not M --> Not A

Would a way to conclude Not A is if we have D?

Would this be logically sound?

Can another right AC be just D? Why did they decide to go with A -> D?

Any explanation would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Admin note: edited title and added link

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-71-section-3-question-11/

Hello,

Here is my reasoning for question 18 in section 4 for prep test 62. Since this is a sufficient assumption question, I want to be able to find a “connector” that would assure the conclusion from the premises, or evidence given.

Argument Analysis:

Premises:

• We can’t reach E.T aliens via spaceship

• If we can talk with the E.T aliens, then they need to be as smart as we are (most likely so they can understand what we are saying to them).

Conclusion:

• If there are E.T aliens, we won’t be able to know this unless they are as smart as we are.

Prephrase:

Initially, I was trying to look for something along the lines of connecting being able to communicate with the E.T aliens that are as smart as we are. For instance, maybe we don’t have the technology to transmit messages to them or perhaps they want their identity to remain hidden for all of eternity. However, looking more closely to the set up of this argument I found another primary issue. The issue is that we are only given two options for determining if they exist. Well, couldn’t there be other ways? For example, (this is purely made up) maybe we could get into a teleportation machine and teleport ourselves to their planet or we could build a massive slingshot to sling ourselves to their planet. My gist is that we have to get to the idea that it is necessary that the aliens be as smart as we are in order to determine if any actually do exist in the entire galaxy.

Answer Choices:

A. No. This doesn’t work because the person never rules this out.

B. I don’t believe that this guarantees anything. Maybe we could send them a signal and if they accept it, then we know there is life. A conversation isn’t necessary to prove that there is life.

C. No not need, the author never suggests that we need both options to determine if they exist.

D. Yes, because this AC rules out all other choices and substantiates the necessary condition in the conclusion.

E. This is slightly a premise booster and slightly a reversal of one of the premises mentioned in the stimulus.

Problem: My major problem with this question is that answer choice B is very compelling for me and I am afraid that I would select it during a timed test.

It would be great if I could have further feedback on why B is wrong or what we need to do for this particular type of SA question.

Admin note: edited title and added link: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-4-question-18/

Sharing this because while eliminating AC E, I was forced to question the difference between causation and sufficiency as well as the danger of using Lawgic as shorthand when you're not actually dealing with conditional statements.

Most Strongly Supported

Argument Summary:

Premise 1: Media rarely cover local politics thoroughly.

Premise 2: Local politics is usually conducted secretly.

Major premise: Local politicians tend to be isolated from their electorates as a result of each of these factors.

Conclusion: Chance of a particular act of resident participation receiving official response is lower, discouraging resident participation.

Prephrase:

Not really sure where they are going with this. MSS questions are difficult to prephrase for anyway.

Answer Choices:

A- Nah. Invalid reversal. We don’t know what is sufficient to bring about a likelihood of official response. Eliminate.

B- A -> B therefore /A ->/B. Invalid. Eliminate.

C- Most important??? Eliminate.

D- The current state of media coverage contributes to the isolation. Improving this coverage would reduce that contributor but would not necessarily cause any change. Correct!

E- Isolated -> Reduced chance of official response -> discourages participation. /C -> Less A. Hm. I think the issue here is with the word “causation”. “Imply” and “Cause” are not synonymous and if you contrapose a conditional statement, I don’t believe we can just switch the direction of causation. “If I am disrespectful to my parents, that discourages them to let me go out on friday nights. But if they were encouraged to let me go out on friday nights, does that cause me to be less disrespectful of them?” We are dealing with terms like "influence" and "discourage". I use Lawgic as a shorthand to deal with these ideas, but that doesn't make them conditional statements and so we definitely can't assume causation. Eliminate.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-2-question-22/

I marked (A) and eliminated (C), which is the correct answer, without hesitation. My reasoning was that if certain types of trees are less effectively pollinated, then honey production will decrease. At the same time, (A) seemed compelling to me because if the honeybees native to Brazil and those native to the United States are different, it's possible that the bees native to the U.S. might off the bat be superior to the Africanized honeybees. But I do realize that even if (A) were granted as true, whether they're superior or inferior to the Africanized honeybees is not determined and, while it could potentially weaken the argument, as stated, it doesn't necessarily do so.

Looking back, knowing the right answer, I can see how this is an assumption I made on my own since it's possible that the "certain types of ornamental trees" might not even contribute to the honey production to begin with, but I'm still not sure that I would come back to this question in the future and approach it this way.

Are there any additional and/or complementary reasons for why (C) is the best answer?

Admin note: edited title

Hi everyone!

I just took the November Lsat, and although we haven't received our scores yet, I am strongly considering taking the Jan Lsat. I have registered for it alreay because I am sure I can increase my score from wherever it is right now, and I would like to guarantee a spot in law school for Fall 2019.

So while preparing for my November Lsat, I noticed that my strongest area is LG. However, i'm never able to finish all 4 games. I have a strong grasp of most rules, but is there a way I can get around to completing all 4 games on time? I'm not sure how i can do this, i've been practicing and practicing and practicing. (I've been studying on and off for the Lsat since April, and wrote my first lsat in September)

Another area I'm looking to improve on is LR. I have gone through the CC and understand all the concepts, i have even read the powerscore book, however I can't seem to improve when I do the actual questions (i always get approx. -8 to -11). There aren't any specific questions i get wrong, it's different kind every time, a mix of everything. So i'm not sure if I'm doing something wrong or missing something because i can't seem to get better at LR. Any tips?

My RC is alright, i haven't focused too much on this sections because it's the hardest to improve for me. So i've put all of my efforts on my improving on LG and LR.

My PT have been in the low 150s and I'm still waiting on my November Lsat score.

I'm aiming to get a score of 155-160 for the january lsat.

Hello,

I have several questions for those who score close to -0 on Logic Games.

Do you usually have time left over at the end of the section? How much time do you have left and how do you make use of that time?

Do you ever skip questions or games and how do you decide to make that decision?

How much time do you spend on the first two games? Is it recommended to get them done in less than 13 minutes so that I have at least 22 minutes for the last two games? I know that sometimes Game 2 can be really time consuming, but since usually game 1 can be done quickly, I am wondering if you have a max. time limit for games 1 and 2, even given the circumstances that game 2 is difficult.

I ask this question because I usually find myself at 15min at the end of game 2 and I often run out of time by the time I am at game 4.

Thank you so much for reading this.

Hey everyone,

I recently came across an LSAT stimulus that gave me loads of trouble when I was taking a PT under time. To ingrain the lesson from that stimulus I drew a parallel argument for it. But I want to make sure that I did it correctly. So I am posting the stimulus I made for you. Let me know which one of the answers you think is correct.

Cats walk very light-footed when compared to other species. While dogs do not chase humans because humans do not get scared of dogs, cats get scared of dogs and need to go unnoticed by dogs to not get chased and thereby end up stuck in trees. Scientists therefore hypothesize that the cats light-footedness, which clearly makes them slower, evolved as a means of going unnoticed by dogs.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the hypothesis?

A. No human is as light-footed as cats.

B. Being chased by dogs is not the most common cause of death for cats.

C. Many other types of animals have light-footedness similar to that of cats.

D. Cats are much faster than other heavier animals.

E. Dogs that chase cats also chase other species of animals.

Hello 7sage!

I am new to the blind review process and a little bit confused about writing out explanations. Does anyone have any drafts of what they wrote for one of their PT's specifically for LR sections that was helpful to them?

Additionally, I am trying to break the 160 mark by March or June depending. My past PT's have been somewhat inconsistent. 149 diagnostic, 152, 153, 157, 150... I took a few weeks off after the 150 because I felt discouraged, but I'm back now! :)

I took the Kaplan online course and feel like I have an okay grasp on the the core concepts of LR and RC. I've also started the fool proof method for LG and purchased 7Sage LSAT starter course. But I'm wondering, should I go through the 7sage CC meticulously again, or can I just watch videos on concepts I feel weak in and skip around?

Will it give me an edge that Kaplan couldn't? Or should I just head straight into weekly PTs and Blind Review? I can only give about 15 hours/week to studying because of work and school, so I want to be as efficient as possible!

Thank you!

So I understand and see how valid arguments relate to LSAT questions, but can someone explain how I would apply invalid arguments into LSAT questions. What type of question would invalid arguments be useful for, I understand they are important to know, but how can I apply them.

Hey all,

I am taking the lsat again in January. I’m in my last semester of college and have already applied. I’m having difficulty carving out time each day to study. How much time should I be spending each day on the exam? I’ll have more free time once school is over but have a lot of anxiety about the test when I am not studying for it.

Thanks!

Hello. I have been having some trouble with actually solidifying my understanding of the meaning of Sufficient Conditions and Necessary Conditions as I found the information provided in the core curriculum in regard to the topic to be a bit vague. I seem to always get confused and lack confidence when I have to deal with a conditional relationship in an argument because I just take the Premises of the argument to mean the Sufficient Condition and the Conclusion of the argument to mean the Necessary Condition. If someone can please clarify it for me or correct my understanding of this it would be much appreciated.

Also I have been having some difficulty with knowing when exactly to diagram Lawgic. Are we only supposed to diagram when we see words from Group 1-4 of the Sufficient and Necessary Condition indicators?

General Structure of Conditional Statements: Sufficient Condition --> Necessary Condition

Sufficient Condition

Necessary Condition

Good Afternoon, Everyone

I am trying to understand the incorrect answer choices for this Question. What would answer choice b look like in an argument.

Admin note: edited title

SO prep test 36 game 1 his my arch enemy! I figured out most of it after coming back to it a few weeks later, but this is where I am stuck. No T - K, so I understand I must have one or the other, But how do I still Have the option of having both? So no T or T, I still can have K....What is the rule here that I keep missing that I need to tattoo on my hand?

Hi all-

I'm in the middle of full-proofing, and sometimes I come across a game that's categorized as "MISC" and they always give me a really hard time. How have you all approached these type of games? Do they get easier as I finish full-proofing? (I'm only on section 5 of 35)

Thanks.

is "except" also "negate sufficient," just like "unless"?

Thanks!

hey all

so there are some LR and RC questions where there are some "common sense" assumptions the LSAT expects us to make.

On the other hand, there are other "assumptions" that the LSAT uses to bait us into trap answer choices.

How can we distinguish between these two different kinds of assumptions? Any advice or suggestions would be appreciated.

An example on the top of my head would be .... a trap bait assumption is "exercise" = "more arthritis." According to the LSAT, that's a BAD assumption ( PT 69.1.5)

Another "common sense" assumption that was associated with the right answer choice was that "firms/companies want to make money."

Thanks!

#Help The LR section has really left me baffled. My average score per LR section was -2 while I was PTing through PT50s and PT60s. But in the series of 70s, it has drastically dropped to -5. I do notice some differences when I do more recent PTs but I can't figure out what. I've approximately a month and a half. How do you guys think I can get back on track?

Any advice or tips would be appreciated.

Thanks!

Has anyone heard of a test site being cancelled the night before the test? I was scheduled to take the test in Fair Lawn and received and email the night before stating it was cancelled. How does LSAC correct this issue? I want to be able to take the test twice (November and January) before having to submit applications for the 2019 Fall enrollment. Thanks in advance for any help or input.

So, I was doing Game 4 of PT 61 in which

Q.19 asks J's position cannot be which one of these?

Answer choices:

A.2

B.3

C.5

Q.20 asks If J is in 3, which of these could be true?

Using Q.20 can we safely assume that J can in fact fit in 3 and then use that to eliminate answer choice B?

Just recently started the curriculum and planning on taking LSAT next year January latest March was wondering if anyone has same test date goals and wanted to coordinate some study sessions together.

Somebody is probably also in this boat. I took the November test and feel pretty ok that I got a goal score. But who knows? I want to register for the January test to secure a good testing site (live in NYC...:some are dreadful), but I don’t want to burn 150$ if I drop out because I got a plenty good enough score for my goals. (Also, LSAC isn’t offering a 100% refund for November test takers like they have in the past)). So here’s the question: anyone have experience with a good testing center closing on them? I called LSAC today and they said the testing center I want (Queens College) has 300 seats left. I’m guessing that enrollment is going to skyrocket the day scores come out. Anybody else monitoring January testing centers?

Besides us all taking the November 2018 together, the one other thing we have in common is our disdain for that bloody mining game. But, for some reason, it felt like deja-vu (which doesn't mean I found it easy or anything; quite the contrary). Anyone remember PT60 -- Game 3? The only logic game I can compare the mining one to is this one about dirt vs. mulch loads. Just thought I'd share in case anyone wanted to inflict further torture on themselves. Also, if anyone knows of similar games from the PTs, please let it be known. I have nothing to do post-exam and feel impelled to do practice questions... for fun... (what's happened to me?).

Should I start off by completing all logic games from PT 1-35 in order? Or should I start by going through all sequencing games with the goal of seeking mastery before moving on to grouping or advanced linear? Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

please delete this discussion, thank you

hi all!

first off congrats on all those who sat for the Nov test and completed it in one piece! I feel somewhat accomplished in doing that alone, it being my first official administration. But I am also trying to be somewhat realistic with myself, knowing that I am almost 100% sure that I want to sit for the Jan test and take a shot at getting a higher score!

I had been studying since June before taking the Nov test, so obviously completed all 7sage CC and taken PTs 40-50, so now what?

trying to take into consideration my known weaknesses that I feel in myself, and use those to try and construct a new study plan, I wanted to reach out and see if anyone else in the same/similar situation as myself, have any advice. mainly what you have done in the past or what you will be doing until the Jan test? I'm thinking of more timed sections instead of full PTs to start out & focus more on getting a few extra points from RC (since personally I did not spend much time at all learning RC strategies to begin with), along with getting a constant LR section that I am confident with. what about you?

thanks so much in advance for taking the time to help a girl out :)