I am having trouble understanding why A is the right answer.

P: Ink from Bible by Gutenberg contains titanium. Ink of another bible from 15th Century contains titanium. Ink from other printing from 15th century does not contain titanium. (from the word "another" I am thinking that Gutenberg Bible was from 15th Century)

Conclusion: This finding supports (1) B3 bible was printed by Gutenberg, (2) We cannot doubt that the Vinland Map is not from 15th century because of the presence of titanium in the ink.

In arriving the first conclusion, the author is making an assumption that only Gutenberg used ink containing titanium in 15th century.

What I don't understand it that in arriving second conclusion, I don't see that the author is making an assumption that ink containing titanium was widely used (not restricted as the answer choice A states). I am thinking that it could be that those Vinland Maps were printed by Gutenberg. In that case, the second conclusion follows well. The second conclusion is based on the premise that ink containing titanium was used in 15th century by somebody. How can we say that the author is assuming that titanium ink was widely used (not restricted) from this conclusion? The premise is talking about one Vinland Map in question and we don't know how popular that map was during that time. It could be there were only few copies made by Gutenberg, then can't we conclude that presence of titanium in the ink of Vinland Map is no longer a reason to doubt of 15th century authenticity?

Thank you for any help you can give.

Should you skip and return after finishing the whole section (finish other games first) or should you return to it after completing other questions in THAT game?

This question is a “similar reasoning question”. It says “ the higher the altitude, the thinner the air. Since Mexico City’s altitude is higher than that of Panama City, the air must be thinner in Mexico City than in Panama City.” I have looked at the right answer but I am confused as to why one of the wrong answers (a) is incorrect. It says “as one gets older one gets wiser. Since Henrietta is older than her daughter, Henrietta must be wiser than her daughter”.

This to me is an attractive wrong answer. If it was posed as “the older you get, the wiser you are...” would that have made it right?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-4-question-23/

So I’ve been spending 3-4hrs BR’ing LGs using Pacifico’s method every night after my 8-5 job on weekdays and then 3-4 hours on Saturday and Sunday as well. I’ll work on one new game and then repeat a game from the day before and a game from the week before. I’ve only taken one day off. I’ve made it to LG 25 and i’ve improved a lot.

I’ve been fighting this flu for the past few days and it’s making me a lot slower at LGs. I’m struggling on games that were a breeze for me even on my first take. I’m still getting all the q’s right and not brute forcing my way thru it, I’m just a few min slower.

Would it be better to take a few days off and come back to it? or is it better to keep going and not stop practicing?

Hi,

Just to give some background: I have a high-160s score and plan on retaking in June. LR is my weakness. On my official test, I got -10 (combined) across the two sections. I have been retaking old tests, but am thinking about how best to reduce my misses in LR.

To those who have experience making this jump: should I do untimed sections of LR and really try to internalize the reasoning in each question OR do timed 35 minute sections with blind review (though I've seen these sections already)?

I'm torn because during my official test, I ran out of time to really digest certain questions so timing is an issue, but I also attribute my inability to complete a section to a general weakness in understanding the stimuli presented.

Any help is appreciated! Thanks in advance!

JY mentions by full proofing if you didn't do the question in the proper time, to go over it several more times. whats considered the proper time for each logic game? Do i give myself an extra minute or two if its a hard logic game?

I'm practically devoting the remaining days left to get in as many lessons under my belt as possible; 12 v 24/7 if need be. Wondering if I change my Feb test date to June whether or not law schools would even consider it for F18 class. Thoughts?

Hi all,

When I drill my weaker LR question types (untimed), I almost always go -0, and on BR I usually go -1/-2 per LR section. On a timed section, however, I usually score closer to -9 per section. Also, I feel strong for the first section of the test, but wear out as the test goes along. How do I improve endurance between PT's (I don't want to waste PT's)?

What drills should I do to improve speed and endurance for LR?

So I'm in the middle of fool-proofing. The first time I do a game, I will just use a stop watch and see how long it took me, while trying to work it as fast I can. I'm getting -0 or -1 on all the games. But my first go is often 10+ minutes. I'm a bit proud that I'm getting all these games, it's an awesome feeling, before I started the CC I was so weak at games... BUT now discouraged at taking 10 minutes. Some, I've taken 14. I'd say most are 9 to 10 mins, in looking at my chart, that I took from Pacifico's LG attack strategy. Is it reasonable to expect to get faster the more I keep FPing?

PT19. S2. Q17

Hi everyone, I'm having trouble with this one. Here is how I diagrammed it.

premise1) devote to study natural process---- have leisure

premise 2) resources plentiful --- have leisure (------ note: i originally diagrammed premise 2 as the reverse of this statement but since it says "when" in premise 2 which introduces a sufficient assumption I changed it.

premise 3 + 4) early societies made complex discoveries - result of active study of natural process(/p)

I thought the answer was A) but its C. I thought it was A because when you combine premise 1 and 2 it creates a some statement between the two which I thought would be correct.

Can someone explain to me where I am going wrong.

So for necessary assumptions, the assumptions can be about the context, premise and conclusion? If the negation a statement attacks, say, the context of an argument, would this statement be a necessary assumption? Am I understanding this right??

I went through JY's courses and have a question I just can't seem to solve by myself.

JY explained that sufficient assumption questions are something like:

Premise: A

Conclusion: B

Answer: A->B

But I keep thinking that this type of question could also be a necessary assumption question.

Obviously, A->B is necessary to get to the conclusion B.

So, my question is, are these "fill the gap" kind of questions both sufficient assumption and necessary assumption questions at the same time??

Hi,

Can someone briefly explain this whole weakening question please? TY

Hi I was just wondering if someone could clear this up for me, because this confusion cost me quite a few points on in-out games, by making me hesitate

Example rules:

(1) K (----) /M

(2) K ----> /M

(1) would be a bi-conditional (always apart never together) and (2) would be a typical not-both rule.

My confusion centers around what would happen if given the premise K is out ( /K )...

The second rule would be considered irrelevant (sufficient failed), and "M" is free to float (correct me on this if I'm wrong); but would the first rule get "triggered" (meaning M would be in) because its an always apart never together bi-conditional?OR would the bi-conditional also be considered irrelevant because the sufficient condition is also getting failed in (1)? I'm hoping somebody could explain the logic behind how/what happens. I mean in the explanation videos JY usually splits the master game board if provided with a rule like (1) where K is in and M is out on one, and vice versa on the other, so you never have to really deal with the situation I've presented, since its already represented.

I guess I'm just curious lol

deleted

Hi @J.Y. Ping , I have come across a non-linear spacial game type . I need your suggestion on how to go about it. Since it is a different type of game so it must be having different way to interpret its rules . A sample of such a question is like this :

Admin edit: Removed full question. Please link to the PT instead of posting the stimulus as it is against our rules!

(Also please avoid thread titles in all caps, the admins are sensitive and don't like to be yelled at.)

Please guide me to tackle such misc questions and how to interpret the game board setup and interpret their rules.

Thanks and Regards,

"Which one of the following, if true, most justifies the above application of the principle?" - Is this Principle question or PSA?

"Which one of the following would be most useful to know in order to evaluate the argument?" - Sufficient Assumption? PSA?

These two appear on the later LSAT's and always give me pause and I'm not sure how to attack them...

This is a pretty easy question IMO, but I have a question about why (E) is wrong and the interpretation of "or".

The author of the passage provided Nicaraguan pines as an example of a forest produced in part through controlled burning. The author does not think the pines were produced by natural fires. So the most straightforward explanation for why (E) is wrong is that the author would not agree that the Nicaraguan pines "could have been created by natural fires or controlled burning" because (s)he disagrees with natural fires as the cause.

But consider this: Let's say we know that A is true, and that B is not true. Given that information, can I logically conclude that "Either A is true or B is true"? I submit that the answer is yes. Because we know that A is true, it's a true statement to say that "A is true or B is true." For example, let's say I'm a senior in college. Someone asks me what year I am. I respond, "I am either a junior or senior in college." What I said in response is logically true even though I am not a junior. Or, let's say today is Wednesday. Someone asks what day it is. I say "It's either Wednesday or Thursday." That is a true statement, even though it's not Thursday.

So returning to answer choice (E), if the author's point is that the Nicaraguan pines were produced by controlled burning, then wouldn't the author logically HAVE TO AGREE that the fires could have been created by controlled burning or natural fires? Even if they weren't created by controlled burning, they were created by natural fires. So in the same sense that "I am a junior or senior" is true even if I am only a senior, "Created by controlled burning or natural fires" must be true even if it's just controlled burning. Why is this analysis wrong?

Does it have anything to do with the "could have been created by either" aspect of the answer choice? Some might think that the answer choice is not using "or" in the exact same way as "I am a junior or senior", because whereas that statement is equivalent to asserting that "I am at least one of the following things: junior or senior", the claim that the pines "could have been created by either natural fires or controlled burning" is asserting that both parts of the OR are definitely potential explanations, rather than the idea that "at least one of these explanations is correct". Is that what explains why (E) is wrong? If so, can someone elaborate on the grammatical or contextual rules governing the meaning of "or" in this situation?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-3-passage-1-questions/

A little over a week in 7sage I took a PT and improved by 3 points. I got a 157 a new personal best! With that said, I'm still having problems with the LR questions that ask something along the lines of the flaw in this argument best resembles... or the flaw in this argument is......these question types. Any pointers?

I can't recall if further more was one of our indicator words. I am getting confused, does furthermore introduced the main conclusion and follow the main premise?

When a rule says S is a higher number than N, is that S-N or N-S? Does higher mean lower?

My brain is in that weird place where I can feel myself over thinking..

Hi,

This might be a silly question but for D... It says "A scientific model that contains many elements is not a good theory"

And, on the premise, in order to be a good scientific theory your model needs to be simple enough to contain only a few elemnents...

From what I learned... Many is some ...

Is there difference between few and some?

I missed question 4. I actually couldn’t pick an answer because they all appeared to work as I moved my l–n block around for each answer choice. I remember learning that when you have to go backwards in the chain that means those items on the other leg of the chain have no relation. So as I looked at my chain the l–n block had no relation to H, so I am missing the inference that I was supposed to pick up that indicated that nothing could be lower than H or that H had the 9 spot on lock down.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-4-section-3-game-1/

It's supposed to help with understanding topics you're unfamiliar with and just a supplement to actual studying.

I have a tedious desk job and used to play netflix in the background but now I'm trying to do something to stimulate my brain a bit. I've been listening to Radio Lab.

Or audiobook recs!

Ok so this question gave me a world of trouble. I looked up the explanation given on Manhattan and I think I get it but I need confirmation.

My main problem is that the explanation given doesn't seem to use the contrapositive (which I attempted to use) but rather 2 separate worlds for each one.

"In this world, you are either rich or poor, and you are either honest or dishonest. All poor farmers are honest. Therefore, all rich farmers are dishonest."

Now taking away the farmers part, the explanation went on to list the premises as:

R-->/P If you are rich, then you are not poor

/R-->P If you are not rich, then you are poor.

H-->/D If you are honest, then you are not dishonest.

/H-->D If you are not honest, then you are dishonest.

These don't line up as contrapositives but rather separate worlds it seems. When used with the conclusion though, you can reach AC A as the right answer.

R-->/P

/P->/H

/H-->D

R-->D

So am I on the right track? You treat the premises as separate worlds?