Admin edit: Please don't post full course questions! Instead, link to the question:

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/quiz-on-drawing-valid-conclusions-with-translations-4-answers

But what if I change the question into: Geniuses do not date lazy people. Vesper is smart. (skip this useless sentence) Derek is extremely attractive and lazy.

Isn't it incorrect to conclude that Vesper will not date Derek because unlike the original question, you can't automatically equate Vesper being smart as being a genius? In the original question, being genius must mean one is smart, but being smart doesn't guarantee you are genius smart.

I'm trying to flip things around and see how different conclusions can be made and so on. Feedback would be much appreciated! :)

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-2-question-17

Can someone help me to understand answer choice (B)?

I understood it to mean that the criteria of legal responsibility are different from that of moral responsibility, but Jon's explanation says that the criteria of legal responsibility include some of the stuff that moral responsibility does.

Thank you!

Who else is going to take the June 2016 LSAT? I'd love to connect with you. :)

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-49-section-2-question-21

We are told that Sugared beverages can be helpful in avoiding dehydration AND sugared beverages can delay muscle fatigue.

However, the stimulus denotes this is BEFORE one is dehydrated.Or at least that was my reading.

If you are already dehydrated, we are not told sugared beverages beverages with any level of sugar will help.

Thus for B, if you have problems that have come as a result of being dehydrated, how would taking in lightly sugared beverages be of assistance? If anything, it would seem they would make your problems worse every time for it would be drawing water from the blood to the stomach.

I might be interpreting this incorrectly.

Any and all help is greatly appreciated.

Hey, I was wondering that when we say that A causes B, do we understand it to mean that whenever A will happen B shall follow or does such a causal relationship accommodates some instances wherein A happens but then B does not follow. I had trouble with question 11 in LR Section 1 on PT 58 and I think it was because I wasn't clear on my understanding of causation.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-58-section-1-question-11

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-3-passage-2-questions

Okay, so I really debated between "C" and "D" (the former apparently being a crappy choice), and ended up selecting "C" only because the term "approving" in "D" seemed too strong and altogether inapplicable for describing the author's attitude. "C" to me seemed like a piece of the author's overall attitude, but is this in itself reason to not select "C"?

In other words, do questions regarding one's attitude inherently ask for the overall, holistic viewpoint as opposed to something the author may or may not agree with? I don't think I have ever seen a correct answer choice claiming the author has a particular viewpoint or judgement on the topic discussed when the author seems to have no such voice at all. The author points to evidence supporting the lawyers' claim, yes, but even if the author believes there to be sufficient evidence for the legitimacy of "stealing thunder," there is no indication of his approval of the use of it. By "approving," does the author believe that the use of "stealing thunder" is logical and sound? If "approving" were to take that meaning, I can completely understand why "D" is correct.

Finally, I assume "C" is wrong at least in part because of the term "anecdotal evidence," which doesn't fit at all with the speculation discussed at the end of the paragraph. My two concerns, then, lie with the use of "approving" as well as the inherent meaning of Attitude questions in general.

Thanks in advance for any responses.

Hi all,

Link to the lesson: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/traffic-accident-principle-question?ss_completed_lesson=1135

First of all, C can be eliminated because of sequence: car stolen a week before the suggested actions were published. But I had a different view, below.

I'm looking to get some clarification about why exactly answer choice C is wrong and I think it has to do with translating the scope of "voluntarily" as an adverb as being more important than the positively stated "undertake" versus "not undertake."

Any help appreciated!

Regarding answer choice C, it states that Collen voluntarily did NOT take some action (which one could argue I guess is a form of voluntary action itself), whereas the principle states that the actions are undertaken (affirmatively). The video explanation does just this, stating that Collen's failure to do something was a voluntary action, but this kind of reasoning makes the distinction between undertaking and not undertaking meaningless, if we talk about not undertaking an action in that context, that just ends equating with, oh, you made a choice NOT to do something, so you chose to do something.

Is it possible to rule out C since it is talking about an action that she did NOT undertake when the principle is talking about actions that the person DOES undertake? To me this looks like a failure of the sufficient condition, which means the rule is irrelevant.

I guess we could see the principle as having an AND statement in the sufficient condition:

undertook action AND knew consequences AND did so voluntarily, therefore responsible.

C looks like we fail the first segment of the AND, while satisfying the last two, so the conclusion doesn't follow.

Also, another way to get at this confusion might be looking at producing a contra positive of the principle because it is difficult to determine how to properly negate the original premise.

Contra positive: A person is not responsible for the consequences because NOT(know that actions they voluntarily undertake risk such consequences)

A person is not responsible for the consequences because they did not know the consequences OR did not do so voluntarily Or did NOT undertake an action.

Answer choice D seems to be getting at the idea that not doing an action is part of the negation. Colleen did not undertake the slamming of the door. We know D is wrong because it is trying to conclude she IS responsible for an action she did NOT undertake. In parallel to C, Collen voluntarily did NOT undertake the precautions, here Collen voluntarily(?) did NOT undertake the slamming of the door, just her here brother did it, whereas in answer choice C, no one did it.

The question is as follows:

Admin edit: Please do not post full questions on the discussion forums! Removed the question.

I chose (A), but it was incorrect because the actual correct answer is (B). I understand the reasoning behind why answer choice (B) is correct. However, I am concerned as to the actual fact that we are taught to consider the stimulus truth and to not question the premise, rather we ought to question the conclusions.

As this was an older LSAT - ought test takers still concern themselves with these types of questions (where the premise/speaker of said premise may be questionable)?

Hope to receive word from someone soon.

I am taking the June 2016 LSAT. I am in need of a serious study buddy. My goal is to score a 165. If you are looking for a study buddy please let me know. I can be reached ]via email (Admin edit: Email removed. Please pm for email). I am currently in New York. I hope we can encourage each other in this brutal LSAT journey! Lets beat the LSAT together!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-3-question-23

I understand the reasoning in the video, that just because X is preceded by Y, it doesn’t mean that Y is the necessary condition.

However in the other forums that I have ventured, the instructors would diagram the conditional as

Every Major War in the last 200 years -> Sharp increase in acquisition of weapons.

I understand that “every” introduces a sufficient condition, but if we accept that “is preceded by” is not a necessary condition, then could the conditional statement stated above still be valid?

Thanks!

A stimulus says "A poem is any work of art that exploits some of the musical characteristics of language." (PT27 Sect.1 Q20) I would map that statement with lawgic as follows:

Expl Musical Char of Lang & Work of Art ----> Poem

or Work of Art that Exploits Musical Char of Lang ----> Poem

Now, what if the stimulus said "A poem is a work of art that exploits some of the musical characteristics of language"?

Seems like it should be obvious, but it's not (to me anyway). Is it a bi-conditional?

If something is a poem, then it's a thing that is a work of art that exploits the musical characteristics of language. So Poem ---> WA that EMCL.

Then let's say we come across this mysterious thing that is a work of art that exploits some of the musical characteristics of language. What's that called? Is it necessarily a poem? (WA that EMCL ---> Poem?)

PS: Not sure any of this matters.

So in reviewing the lessons on weakening I came across the one about the Olympics and it made me curious about attacking the support for the Sub Conclusion versus attacking the support for the Main Conclusion from the Sub Conclusion in these types of questions. Does anyone happen to know if on the more challenging questions whether or not it is more common that the correct ACs attack one more frequently than the other? Or is there not really a pattern?

Link here: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/how-to-quickly-react-to-logic-games-question-stems-flashcards

Do the flashcards for reacting to LG question stems and identifying properties of incorrect choices apply to LR question stems as well?

Thanks!

I'm doing games from preptests that were released before LSAC changed the format of the games to allow for much more space over two pages. Is it ok to use blank pieces of 8.5x11 inch paper to do each of these games? I don't want to give myself too much space and discover later on that I've been fomenting bad habits.

In real time, I was down between B and D. I chose D because it "felt" correct.

In regards to actual reasoning, I'm assuming D's appeal to authority is illegitimate because something like smell is so subjective and appealing to an expert wouldn't make sense?

I am not certain on B.

Any help would be appreciated.

In the stimulus, it says "A field of study is genuinely autonomous discipline by virtue of its having a unique methodology"

I translated that sentence to mean that IF a field of study has a unique methodology, THEN it is genuinely autonomous discipline.

But Superprep book explanation says "all that a field of study requires to be a genuinely autonomous discipline is a unique methodology" which I translate to mean that unique methodology is a necessary condition instead of sufficient condition.

I highly doubt that the Superprep book makes any mistake, but which translation is correct?

Thank you

The correct answer here made zero sense to me.

In answer B, he says she says "Hey, recycled paper isn't necessarily lower quality. In fact, the best paper was made was made from recycled materials..."

How is that irrelevant?

Frankly, all the answer choices seemed a bit zany in this one.

I made this comment on the video 5 months ago, but I still would like to get an answer or opinion on this: So for MSS/MBT questions containing other people’s opinion and author’s opinion, we should always choose answer that states author’s opinion because that is what must be true based on stimulus…correct?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-3-question-21

This question is taken from the Group 1 Group 2 Translation exercise but I'm finding recurring instances of odd translations into conditional lawgic. For example, how come for sentences like “Bravery is essential to overcome adversity” (Translated in the video explanation as: If Overcome Adversity then Brave) “is essential” points back to “bravery” as the necessary condition but for sentences like “Beauty is always in the eyes of the beholder” (Translated as: If Beauty then In Eyes of the Beholder) “is always” doesn’t point back to “beauty” as the necessary condition?

I would think that translating any statement that says "X is necessary for Y" would be "If Y then X" because it plainly says that so I don't understand why there's an exception for "is always."

First off, my apologizes for posting twice in such a close time period, but wanted to get some advice on my personal situation.

I began studying for the June 2016 date in mid-January using the Powerscore LR & LG Bibles, which I finished a couple of weeks ago. I have skimmed through the RC Bible, but I know it's pretty much regarded as worthless, and I already have a pretty good section performance so I'm not planning on reading it fully or doing any of the exercises. My diagnostic in January was a 155, and in the first couple weeks of studying I regrettably took a couple more PTs scoring around the same; after realizing that this was a bad strategy I decided to wait until I had completed the core material before taking another PT. After finishing the LG Bible and while reading the LR Bible I took some practice LG sections to drill, which is when I discovered 7sage and found the LG video explanations. The 7sage LG video explanations helped me translate the raw skills I had learned into a mechanical game strategy. In retrospect I would have obviously rather just used the 7sage curriculum, but at this point I think it would do more harm than good. I recently took my first PT since finishing the LG & LR Bibles and scored a 166, followed by another the next day at 163, so I feel confident that I've made at least a 6-7 point improvement so far. With a little over 11 weeks till the June date and another 40 PTs to do, I feel pretty confident that my target score of 168 is within reach. I think the next few points of improvement will come from honing in my LG approach, and maintaining higher reading focus on LR & LG, which alone should yield a couple more raw points based on my review of my most recent PTs. Overall, I feel confident when approaching the test; obviously there are still many improvements to be made, but I don't have that "lost" or "hopeless" feeling with the fast approaching test date.

At this point, given my results and goal, should I just continue on my self-study method, take the remaining PTs and use BR between PTs? Or should I postpone my test date and do the 7sage curriculum?

Based on a couple of other advice threads I've read, a lot of people push delaying a test date, but a lot of those threads have been people on their 3rd attempt, or people that feel woefully unprepared for an approaching test date. So I'm curious to see if the consensus will change.

Thanks in advance!

Hi, I'm confused with these statements. They refer to some kind of flaws, but can't seem to pinpoint exactly what they are.

Does anyone know what they're called?

1. The argument assumes without warrant that a condition under which a phenomenon is said to occur is the only condition under which that phenomenon occurs (in other words, the argument assumes that one way is the only way)

2. It sets up a dichotomy between alternatives that are not known to be exclusive. (in other words, the argument assumes a limited number of possibilities when there could be more)

I am struggling very bad with time issues regarding RC.

When it takes me around 12/15 minutes per passage, I get all of them correct or miss only one.

However, when I try to speed up my pace down to 10 minutes per passage, I do terrible.

My game plan was to get down to 10 minutes, then 8 minutes, so eventually I can get through all of the passages for June.

SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME!!!!

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-2-question-18/

18. Editorialist: The positions advanced by radical environmentalists often contain hypotheses that are false and proposals that are economically infeasible. But there is a positive role to be played even by these extremists, for the social and political inertia that attends environmental issues is so stubborn that even small areas of progress can be made only if the populace fears environmental disaster, however untenable the reasons for those fears may be.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the editorialist’s argument?

(A) The little progress that has been made in improving the environment is mainly due to the fear created by radical environmentalists.

(B) Radical environmentalists, by promoting their views, stimulate progress on environmental issues.

(C) Social and political inertia is most effectively overcome by an extremely fearful populace, regardless of whether its fears are well-founded.

(D) Radical environmentalists often put forth untenable positions in order to produce the fear that is required to bring about moderate reforms.

(E) Radical environmentalists advocate positions without regard for factual support or economic feasibility.

I am debating between A and B...

Why can't A be the correct answer choice? Is it because of the word mainly? or is it because answer choice (a) is saying that fear is the sufficient condition for the little progress to be made while the stimulus is saying that fear is the necessary condition for the progress?

Also, D seemed a little bit tricky but I eliminated that since we don't really know from reading the stimulus alone that environmentalists purposely said false things to create fear.. Is this the right way of thinking?

The correct answer choice is B, by the way. Thank you in advance!

I'm wondering how folks actually organize the physical workspace for LG? How and where do you actually write on the paper? I'm kind of old and have done my current job for a couple of decades. In that context I've come to the conclusion that when I'm feeling in the weeds, it's usually reflected in my workspace. If my workspace feels dirty, I feel lost and underwater. Cleaning up the workspace is usually my first action when I have those feelings.

It seems that in the context of LG, the workspace is the page. How do people keep that page organized?

People often discourage erasures. Frequent copying of multiple game boards seems impractical. People also seem to discourage writing on master game boards.

I see the logic of these ideas, but they seem to crash up against reality fairly hard.

For example, if one is translating the rules as one goes, and then drawing inferences one is likely to end up with rules that are entirely represented on the game board and no longer need to take up physical or mental space in the rules list. One must either erase it, cross it out or leave it, none of which make for neat pages. After "crashing" rules together I often end up with a bunch of crossed out or erased rules and have a hard time recognizing which rules must still be considered. Likewise, I often end up with floaters in odd spaces, which doesn't provide clarity.

JY almost always uses his magical eraser when demonstrating because, I assume, it offers clarity. Other times there are obvious edits where the video has been paused and the rules and game boards re-written to provide clarity. That clean clarity seems to be a factor in his speed.

The LSAT allows neither erasers nor editing of the space/time continuum, so how do you folks keep your page relatively clean and organized?

Likewise, how do you handle questions wherein there are too many game boards to copy in a timely fashion. JY handles this by using his magic copy and paste feature and also his magical eraser. Again, I believe that magic is generally prohibited on the LSAT (?) and thus not an option. How do you handle conditions that are added by question stems without writing on your master boards?

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/introducing-new-drugs-strengthen-question

Looking to get a better idea of the logic on answer choice E, which is an incorrect answer choice.

I understand that A is the correct choice because reasoning from an example which is already the best case compared to alternatives strengthens the argument, given the premises.

Comment from @DumbHollywoodActor was helpful in shedding some light on E's logic:

(E) mixes up the logic. If you take the contrapositive, you can see it more clearly: “if most new drugs shouldn’t be on the market, then the new antihistamine shouldn’t be on the market.” The argument provides the necessary condition, but that doesn’t mean it gets to conclude the sufficient condition.

However, I would like to understand this statement better: The argument provides the necessary condition, but that doesn’t mean it gets to conclude the sufficient condition.

We must accept the premises and the conclusion as true for LSAT questions. I get that if we accept the premise as true, that is affirming the necessary condition of the logic in choice E. But, if we accept the conclusion as true, that also satisfies the sufficient condition of the logic.

Put simply, after reading the argument I am left with these two true pieces of information:

P: antihistamine should not be on the market (A)

C: these new drugs should not be on the market (B)

then E gives me this logic of "these new drugs should not be on the market" --> "antihistamine should not be on the market"

So, I'm left looking at that B--> A statement, and holding A and B in my hands, with no understanding of where to plug them in. If I plug B in, then I get A, but apparently that is not the correct answer.

Is it because the reasoning in this argument is inductive (that is, moving from a specific example to a general rule) and so it isn't helpful to say that "this general rule is the case" therefore "this specific examples is the case," since the argument is not applying a rule, but rather trying to support one?