The negation of poor is not poor. The question assumes that you are either rich or else poor. What about the middle class?

Hi,

I understand that answer choice D is correct, but I have been struggling for quite a bit on eliminating answer choice B. Can anyone explain why this is incorrect?

When I was doing this question, I noticed two errors in reasoning, notably: 1) concluding a "must" causation from what people believed, and 2) that evidence of "historians" were being used to lead to a conclusion of a matter of natural science (or physiology).

Answer choice B seems pretty much right on the spot with the second. B reads: it cites the evidence of historians of popular culture (that people had a widespread belief on yawning was common in many parts of the world in the past) in direct support of a claim (that someone else yawning must be the most irresistible cause) that lies outside their area of expertise.

I took it to be true that discerning the physiological causation mechanisms of yawning is indeed outside the area of history. What may have gone wrong? Thanks!

I'm a bit bummed -- scored 2 points higher than where I was averaging my first few practice tests and 6 points under my average across my most recent 20 (in fact, the lowest of those by far). While it's a good score, after spending 3 months studying full time and $1000 on the course and study materials, a 2 point increase makes me nauseous to say the least. A big part of my score was RC, missed 7 right off the bat.

With my GPA, I don't have a shot at T-14 schools, so now I'm weighing my options. I could retake in September, but I feel like I've expended my study options. I used the Ultimate 7Sage pack, did most drills, completed the Core Curriculum, and did all of the PTs. I could study by retaking practice tests, but I worry it would not be very useful to do so, especially because I went over the questions I missed over and over again. I realize this score was a fluke compared to my trends, but I am not sure how I can keep my average up through September without new questions to work from.

Is it worth retaking? Part of me feels like it'll just be a waste of time and effort. Advice appreciated!

In levels of validity are the question types the same ?

So after 12 hours of going through my PT, BRing and reviewing each question i have located my weakness: seeing and diagramming logical chains in LR. I am getting tripped up with SA and Parallels . How did you guys get past seeing all the fluff and just seeing the logical structure? I cant seem to separate whats important for the logic? I know all the indicators and the theory behind parsing out sentences from JY. Anything specifically that helped you?

Hi all, I am currently going through the CC, specifically the weakening questions. I have found that in many of these questions, identifying the conclusion seems pretty straightforward (thus, therefore), and even at the end of the paragraph. However, I keep thinking of MP and MSS questions, where conclusion indicators at the end are often traps for a sub-conclusion. What are your experiences with conclusion indicator traps? Do they typically just apply to MSS and MP, or should I continue to look for them, even in weakening and other LR questions?

Does anyone have an educated guess as to what the curve possibly could be?

I took PT 66 RC a week ago and got -16. Without BRing for it I retook it just now and ended up with -13. Not much difference! I had to skip the last passage AGAIN and got stuck between 2 answer choices in 10 questions. The ACs were much harder to eliminate and I felt I was in a foreign land of RC. I felt so lost and confused throughout the proces. I wanted to test whether it was a major burnout or RC got significantly harder for me and unfortunately it was the latter. In PT 62 I had a similar experience with -16. I scored -7 (PT65), -5(PT64), -9 (PT63) but WTH went wrong with those two...? I'm wondering if anyone had a similar experience... I am scared of taking PT 67 to experience another FALL. Really hoping this RC was harder for a lot of people. Any advice on how to BR this PT RIGHT would be much appreciated. HELP ME.

In my drills (20's to 30's), I score -3/-4 for easier sections and -1/-2 for harder sections. What does this mean and has this happened to any of you? How do I overcome this?

Sharing this in hopes that it might be useful to some:

In an effort to feel more comfortable with "mathy" questions (involving proportions, percentages, averages...), I searched the discussion forum for a list of such questions and it seems that only @dannyshaw had looked for something similar.

I quickly realized that there were lots of them, at least 4-5 questions in each PT. I found them by searching "proportions", "percent", or "average" in my digital PTs. Does anyone have any suggestions of what other keywords to search? I can also come up with "number", "incidence", and "prevalence", but those don't seem to come up as frequently.

Has anyone else drilled these types of questions? Is it more useful to read something like How to Lie with Statistics than drill?

These are several "mathy" questions I found just in PTs 1 and 2.

PT01.S3.Q11 - proportion

PT01.S3.Q21 - proportion

PT01.S3.Q12 - average

PT01.S4.Q04 - percent

PT02.S2.Q04 - average

PT02.S2.Q14 - average

PT02.S2.Q16-17 - percent

PT02.S4.Q05 - proportion

PT02.S4.Q15 - percent

Cheers!

So i see that some LR Qs will say if .A. it is likely that .B.

Is this conditional?

JY talks about how these are freebies but i am really struggling with them. And i dont think its an issue in my understanding of logic

Hey! Can someone please help me with this one I'm really not sure why A is the right answer. It's funny when I took this test I got this question right (circled it because wasn't sure) but now not clear why it's right. Thanks so much!

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-1-question-17/

Hi, I BR-ed this question, read the explanations from various websites and sources, and this question is still not making much sense to me.

The correct choice D has "probably" in it, which when negated is "not likely." Doesn't "not likely" still leave room for the support in the stimulus to stand? I know that it weakens the support, but is merely weakening it the same as being "necessary?"

If the AC had the word "some" instead of "probably," I would have chosen D in a heartbeat.

If negating the assumption still renders the support possible, I am wondering what makes it "necessary."

How is this AC different from, for example,

Stimulus: Kofi is a cat. Therefore, she is happy.

Here, an assumption "all cats are happy" would be an SA, but not a NA, because even if we were to negate "all cats are happy," we are left with "some cats are happy," which still makes the support plausible.

Here's my guess at the difference, but please critique me:

15 is directly targeting the author's interpretation (the conditional statement directly applies to the author's interpretation in this case)

However, in the above cat example, we wouldn't know if the particular cat "Kofi" would belong to the "some cats" group and therefore the effect of the negated assumption is unclear & doesn't weaken?

If that is the case, if answer choice D were to be worded as "Behaviors common to people of widely disparate culture probably have genetic predisposition to those behaviors" also be necessary? why or why not?

I would really appreciate any advice!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-2-question-15/

Hey everyone! Hope your LSAT studies are going well.

I am currently in the process of fool-proof drilling logic games (on PT 15), and usually set a timer upwards. Yet, I realize that I tend to go way over time for many of the games.

My question is should I start timing myself downwards using the suggested time as a limit. Or would it be better to keep timing myself upwards to see my natural pace.

Thank you.

Sorry if you were responding.

In the Question Bank and in the LR Drill Sets (https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/lr-drills-preptest-01-to-09/ ), PT8.S4.Q21. is categorized as a Sufficient Assumption question.

But the question stem says "For the claim that.... to be properly drawn on the basis of the evidence cited, which one of the following must be assumed?" so I think this is a Necessary Assumption question. Also, the correct answer (A) is an assumption that is necessary (not sufficient). If this were a SA question, (E) would be correct since it shows a sufficient assumption.

Can everyone confirm that this is mislabeled as a Sufficient Assumption?

Hi all,

I have been diagramming with all practice q but soon will begin PT. On my first LSAT I didn't diagram a single question(yes I bombed) but mostly due to nerves and space.

My current diagram takes a pg per q and I'm trying to get better but does anyone have any advice or techniques?

Hi All,

So I made flashcards for Logical Indicators and Argument Part Indicators and used the Leitner system; but the argument forms aren't all named so I'm not sure how to make them into flashcards or generally memorize them other than stare at them a bunch. Has anyone had any success with memorizing these?

Does anyone have an attack strategy for these questions? I get bogged down every single time. So irritating!

Hey, y'all! I'm having a tough time negating some AC for NA. For AC A and B they don't seem to be negated the same.

A. None of the mercury introduced into the body can be eliminated.

Negated: some of the mercury introduced into the body can be eliminated.

B. Some people in Beethoven's time did not ingest mercury.

Negated: all people in Beethoven's time ingested mercury.

Why was there no "not" included in A but "not" was removed from B when negated? I know you can add the phrase, "it is not the case" before the AC instead of trying to negate certain words but that doesn't work for me. For some reason it doesn't make sense to me.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-3-question-16/

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/

Just found this gem:

https://classic.7sage.com/the-7-stages-of-waiting-for-your-lsat-score/

Hi guys! I wanted some insight into why A qualifies as a right answer for this question.

The argument is saying that the manager should be blamed/is responsible for the project's delay because he was aware that the contractor often runs late and should have planned for this possibility.

The designated correct answer, "a principle that underlies the argument," is that a manager should take foreseeable problems into account when deciding things.

While I recognize the logic that makes this answer correct, I take issue with its specific language. Saying that a manager "should take foreseeable obstacles into account" does not necessitate that /a manager should in fact be blamed if they do not take such obstacles into account,/ which is the logic piece that would plug the hole. Specifically, the word "should" cannot be reasonably assumed to mean "must, otherwise blame/responsibility is accrued," and it fails to accomplish that on multiple fronts.

Should is an opinion word and does not guarantee certainty of execution, or lack of execution. Furthermore, even if one was to equate "should" with some form of "must," "must" alone would exclude the possibility of an event not happening, making it impossible to address the implications of it not happening.

Is there a LSAT-specific reading of "should" that alters the meaning of the question?

If not, why would it be incorrect to read "should" as "ought to"/"would benefit from," thus making "ought to take foreseeable problems into account" insufficient as a principle that justifies the manager being /blamed/ for not taking them into account?

Thanks for the read :) I really appreciate any thoughts you all may have!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-1-question-19/

Hello! I live in Portland OR and am looking for motivated study buddies who would be interested to study for the LSAT during the weekends. Please feel free to comment or inbox me if you're interested. Best of luck!