Can someone please explain to me why the answer in this question is (e) and not (a)? I feel like (e) is unnecessary. Why would it have to promote only healthful products? Isn't (a) supporting the conclusion in a right way? Thanks so much for the help!

From prep test 1, section 3, question 20, in the middle it states "However, most people consistently perceive small business as a force for good in society, whereas big business is perceived as socially responsible only in times of prosperity." Does this mean that all people perceive big business as socially responsible only in times of prosperity or does it mean that most people perceive big business as socially responsible only in times of prosperity?

I’ve only taken 3 PT’s so I don’t have substantial data about my strong and weak question types for LR.

My average section is -6 timed and -2 BR.

Should I start by doing section drills? How many per day? How should I respond to these drills? (I can study around 5 hours a day)

I am new on here. I do not know where to start and how to study effectively. I want to do well on the lsat, because I did not do well on the first test that I took last year. So, I would need all the encouragement, as possible.

I go by Bernie :)

Can someone explain the difference between assumption questions and causation questions when it comes to strengthening/weakening questions? I am completely lost after the causation lessons.

Very often, you will be able to eliminate two answer choices from a Flaw Question very quickly and easily due to their obvious faults, leaving 3 possible correct ACs.

If you become stuck between these 3 ACs, a tip that I have found EXTREMELY useful is to recognize that 2 of the remaining ACs are often actually saying the exact same thing, just using different language or phrasing. If you recognize the 2 ACs that are the same, instantly eliminate both of them and circle the 3rd AC as your final answer.

Yes, ACs are always meant to be confusing and seem similar. But specifically with Flaw Questions, these answer choices are MORE than just similar, they are the completely the same. There will NEVER be a question that presents you with two matching ACs where 1 of those ACs is the correct answer. NEVER.

An example (I have only included the remaining 3 ACs):

Question: _"A group of citizens opposes developing a nearby _

Admin note: Please do not post an actual LSAT question. PT72.S3.Q11.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-3-question-11/

The argument above is flawed in that it

A) bases it conclusion mainly on a claim that an opposing argument is weak

B) illicitly infers that because each member of a set has a certain property that set itself has the property

D) illicitly infers that an attribute of a few users of the proposed trail will characterize a majority of users on the trail

If you understand the question AND understand Answer Choice B and D, you will see that they are actually saying the exact same thing: that you cannot generalize the qualities of a group from the qualities of a specific few. It's the same answer, just worded differently. Cross them both out and choose your remaining option (A)! Even if you're not positive, this is a great way of leading yourself to the right answer!

I've been over the LR CC twice now and also have tried to incorporate various suggestions I've found on the discussion forum to get better at LR and nothing works, I seem to be getting worse. In desperate need of help! I vary from -3 to -7 on LR and I really want to improve it to a maximum of -2 before my June (24th) attempt. Any clue as to what I should do?

There is a myth out there that on Strengthen questions the LSAT will always give us four definitive non-strengtheners and only one strengthener. But this problem is arguably definitive proof that the myth is false.

(B) is not the correct answer. Yet it is a necessary assumption of this argument, because if the social impact of none of the new drugs is poorly understood, then we don't have any reason for the premises to support the claim that we should be generally slowing down introduction of the new drugs to the marketplace. The clear assumption of this argument is that we don't have a good understanding of most of the new drugs on the marketplace, and (B) is a smaller assumption contained within that larger one, which makes it necessary. (Note that there is an argument that it is not necessary because the argument just has to assume that we don't have a "good" understanding of these new drugs, not that our undestanding is "poor". That view has merit, but I don't believe it is important to deal with here.)

In other problems, a necessary assumption has been a correct answer to a Strengthen question. And that makes sense, because providing a necessary assumption does, at a minimum, help the argument.

But here, although (B) is necessary, it is not correct, because (A) is better. Clearly, either not all necessary assumptions are strengtheners or some strengthen problems will require us to pick the best of multiple strengtheners.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-4-question-20/

Is it any faster/slower to approach Point at Issue Q's with JY's approach (reading first person's POV and scanning the answer choices to determine whether they agree or disagree, then doing the same for the second person's) than the usual LR one (reading both POV's and attacking the answer choices)?

I have to be missing something here. Can somebody explain to me how the answer in this question is (e) and not (c)? I just don't understand how inhaling smoke in a way that non-cigarette smokers inhale somehow puts them at an equal risk?

I believe I lost most of my points in LR and feel really confident in LG and RC. Again, I had three LR sections so hopefully the harder one was an experimental. Anyone feel they may have managed to score above 170

I am still in the process of going through these lessons so I might be ahead of myself but is there a formula for tackling most strongly support questions. I understand that the stimulus is the premise and I have to piece together statements to make an inference of the conclusion but I find myself re-reading the stimulus over and over again then staring at the screen.

Is it true that a Necessary Assumption answer choice can be an answer to a Strengthen question, but a Strengthen answer cannot be an answer to a NA question? It seems like NA denies a possible weakness and that can be consider a form of strengthening. Yes, no?

Hi team,

A quick question about JY's reasoning on this one:

One of his sub-game boards reads:

In: C/L

Out: C/L

Floaters: M/M/L

But wouldn't the contrapositive of the first rule make this untrue?

M/M --> C/C/L

not M/not M --> not C/not C/not L

So, the correct sub-game board would be:

In: C/L/M

Out: C/L/M

Floater: L

Am I missing something?

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-7-section-2-game-3/

Hi all,

I've been struggling to understand this question for quite some time.. What is clearly given in the stimulus is a one way conditional:

IF Authors blah blah... --> A work counts as being interpreted

But the right answer.. basically relies on negating the sufficient conditions given, to reach the conclusion that it can't be interpreted. So it seems to me that the question is assuming that the reverse (so biconditional) holds. I tried to justify this answer by saying that MSS inference questions aren't as strict as MBT, but I'm still a bit puzzled by the inconsistency, as in other questions, we were able to/meant to rule out wrong answers on the basis that it was a mistaken reversal.

Is it something about the wording in this stimulus that necessitates understanding of the "IF" here as a bi-conditional? I'd appreciate any insight into this question!!

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-78-section-3-question-24/

s

So I've been studying for the lsat for about a year now, and I can honestly say I've improved alot in each area from when I started. However, I took the Dec 2017 lsat and the one yesterday and still feel I didn't do well. I'm feeling hopeless and I feel like I'm watching my dreams crumble right in front of me. I'm worried to retake it again and get the same result because I know law schools look down upon too many takes. I've never worked so hard for something in my life. I've went through every prep tests and it just seems like the scores I get are not reflective of how much I studied. I blind review extensively and did every logic game 10 times each. Reading comp has always been my weak point but I've definitely made improvements. I just don't know why the progress I make when I'm studying is not showing on the actual test. If anyone has been in a similar situation and has any particular advice, I would greatly appreciate it.

I asked this question last night and received good feedback that should have been able to help me tackle these problems yet I am still struggling with them. I have even went back to watch the lessons all over again and I am still having trouble finding the correct answer. First I read the question stem and then I read the stimulus and then paraphrase the stimulus sentence by sentence so that I can understand exactly what each premise is saying. That works until I get to the answer choices. When I watch JY'S explanation one minute he says something about making a generalized concept then the next minutes he is making an assumption versus an inference to me. I have tried questioning each answer choice by asking "why" or "does the text support this" and then I end up with my answer and it is wrong. How can I continue to get better at these questions or what I am potentially doing wrong or missing?Did sometime just completely go over my head?

Attention test takers- please please send an email to lsac on how horrible our proctors were today. The talking, cellphone going off, eating wrapped candy etc. please please!!!!

Does anyone have an example of this type of Flaw as an actual LSAT question.

The flaw is something like ~The argument explicitly goes against what author stated previously. Not sure if I'm coming across clearly but if you know what I'm talking about can you direct me to an LSAT questions where this flaw is used.

What is a major premise and a sub conclusion? Also what are other terminology words that I will need to know in relation to logical reasoning questions?

Hi,

I'm studying for the July LSAT in Washington DC and wanted to see if there are any other future lawyers in the DC area that would like to start a local study group? Self-studying is great but there's always something you just can't figure out and it would be so much better to be able to just ask someone next to you without waiting for a person.

Please let me know if you would be interested and what your availability is. If there's enough interest hopefully we can get something going.

Ben

Just beginning my fool-proofing process and I'm curious to know what everyone has done/ is doing! Debating between going in order from the different games I come across (for ex: simple sequencing examples then the problem sets then sequencing w/ a twist it's examples then its problem sets etc) or jumping around wherever I feel like.

Good luck to those testing next week!

Hey friends!

Tomorrow it's my first time taking LSAT. I just printed my ticket and realized my hair is way longer than I took the photo. In the photo, I had a short bob with a bang, now it's around my shoulder and I decide to tie my hair up tomorrow. Would this be problematic? Would I be deny entrance? Since on the information sheet, it says "the uploaded photo must match your appearance on the day of the test (with or without beard).

So I'm working through the CC right now and I'm currently in the Intro to Grouping Games: In/Out Games section. So as I've been going through these games I have been fool proofing ones that give me difficulty, which is most of them actually. So what I was really wondering is if I should not move onto to another set, game etc. until I fool proof the prior games. It seems that sometimes i'll be fool proofing and do about 7 copies of a game and master it then I move onto another game in the section and I get stuck again. I'm just wondering if moving on further down in games without fully mastering games is actually hurting me. But I do have to keep moving forward is basically what I'm getting at. I can clarify what I mean as well. Any advice here would be greatly appreciated.