Could someone help me shed some light on why the correct answer is correct? The passage refers to "such protection", as protection for the sellers (to not have to sell to a buyer who bids extremely low), but the correct answer (E), doesn't seem to be related to that at all. A bit confused.

So I'm working on these question types and have found a pattern. When it is a Causation strengthen question, the answer choice becomes apparent very quickly to me. I am able to identify it, and explain why the rest are wrong with a decent amount of ease. Once the question stem changes to weaken however, I no longer can see the answer and missed all of them. J.Y. said in his explanation that these two types of questions are really the same when it comes down to identifying the answer choice. So what am I doing wrong?

Might be a stupid question but should I, after copying down the inferences, answer the questions or am I only writing down the inferences? TYA!

I'm not sure exactly when it opened up, but I just wanted to let all those wondering about when September's registration would open up that it's allowing registration now! Good luck, everyone!

Hey everyone, I'm just posting here to see what people might think of my decision to postpone taking the LSAT until September. My goal is to test 170. My average is in the mid 160s but the only tests I've been able to score in the 170s have been retakes. Fresh tests are all in the 160s. :( I don't want to postpone because I feel emotionally ready but I think it's the wisest thing to do. The most annoying thing is how expensive it is!! And $100 to postpone vs 180 to just sign up again. I know that's not nothing but... fricken LSAC. Anyway, what do people think? To postpone or not to postpone?

Also, this is a related question to getting out of 160s plateau. I've seen on here that top scorers get through LR with like 10 minutes to spare. That's never happened to me and I'm not sure if my goal should be to just "work faster" (a mentality that, when I adopt, just makes me rush and be careless) or if I should continue to be cautious, to utilize POE unless I'm almost 100% sure of an answer, to give myself two read throughs if I don't understand a stimulus right off the bat as opposed to immediately skipping. Is there merit to a 'slow and steady wins the race' type of approach for top scorers in LR?

Did anyone take it after they'd seen major improvements (my diagnostic was a 153) but not quite reached their max? Any thoughts on LR strategy would also be appreciated.

Good luck to those who know they're ready for June! Jealous!

I am so confused by the video explanation on this one. At 1:27 the video says that an answer choice is "totally compatible to the statement above because they have nothing to do with each other"

===> WHAT??? Compatibility is not having anything to do with a subject? I can use some guidance. Thanks.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-4-question-25/

I've noticed that some of the LGs in the most recent PTs don't fall into the strict sequencing/grouping/grouping and sequencing categories. In several places on 7sage, users note that they found games from earlier PTs helpful in practicing for these nontraditional games. Can anyone recommend specific games from specific tests to practice?

thanks!

Doing a quick review of concepts that I struggled with early on.

I remember the following rule being simple to diagram:

L is before M but after K.

K-L-M

But I also remember that there is another type of rule that is similar to the above but it involves and "or". I think it goes like this:

K is before M or after L, but not both.

M-K-L, or L-K-M?

Does anyone know what I am referring to? If so, could you link to the lesson or a game that highlights the above?

I can't remember where it came from but the difference between the two above really stumped me at some point....

I got -9 on one section and I was wondering what advice or steps anyone has to reduce that number? I am keeping the main point in mind in each passage and relating the passages to each other but I still got 9 wrong. Thank you so much in advance!

Hey 7Sagers,

I've been studying for at least a year now But for some reason I have so much trouble trying to correctly answer Assumption, Sufficient Assumption and Necessary Assumption questions. I have gone over the curriculum and been utilizing negation tests, conditional logic, etc. But I am simply not improving. Does anyone have a certain method that works for them? Or am I doomed? :/ I have been scoring 16 questions on LR sections but that would be higher if I got more Assumption questions correct. Any thoughts?

Admin edit: Please don't yell! The admins scare easily. (Caps from title removed.)

For some reason whenever I print out a Practice Test, RC and LR print out fine. The print is visible in those 2 sections. Dark and very clear. But the LG section is always very light and thinly printed. I can barely read it. Whether i print them out individually or as a whole section or the whole test. On chrome and on safari This doesn't happen whenever i print out the problem sets from the lesson, but only for the logic games from a PT. Anyone else have this problem? And how can i fix this?

Does anyone have any strategies for answering parallel reasoning/flaw questions more quickly? These questions consistently take, in my opinion, far more time than they should for me.

My method has been:

Does anyone else have any useful strategies?

The main issue for me seems to be how time consuming these questions can be. In the explanation videos, there is the luxury of answering a question in 8 or more minutes, but on the exam this amount of time is obviously not feasible.

Thanks!

I know the task for the strengthening questions is to find a question that represents the flaw in the reasoning but then Ive noticed that some of the correct answers to the questions aren't the flaws for example, one questions states, " During the 1980s, Japanese collectors were very active in the market for european art and then it says the striking pattern surely reflects a specific preference on the part of many Japanese collectors" I paraphrased it because Im not sure if Im allowed to post the whole question here. So I thought the flaw was that there could be another explanation as to why they chose the art, maybe the art was cheaper than most art. and I chose the correct answer (C) which states, " several 19th cent. impressionists painters adopted certain techniques and visual effects found in Japanese prints that are highly esteemed in Japan" but the answer choice (D) says one of the flaws " during the 1960s and 1970s, the prices of 19th cent. impressionist paintings often exceeded the prices of paintings by older european masters", So my question is that for the strengthening questions are there different tasks for each questions? Thank you in advance!

Can someone explain why B is correct for this question? I find this question confusing, mostly because the way the prompt asks for a principle that if established will prove both sides of the argument correct.

To me B justifies the rehab side of the argument quite plainly, but doesn't touch the demolish portion. We know that the demolishing plan precludes the possibility of the rehabilitating the houses, so B tells us to take the rehab path instead. Does it also justify demolishing because it makes reference to "trying the other approach if the first proves unsatisfactory"--basically, it's saying that both can happen if the first plan doesn't work?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-4-question-16/

I agree A is a better choice given the premises and conclusion, but am I crazy for thinking that an economic incentive implies that the benefit is at least equal to, possibly greater than, the cost? In the examples given by JY he states we have a "growing economic incentive" when earth housing costs go from $200 million to $400 million while moon colony costs are st $1 billion. I understand that the gap between such costs has narrowed, but can it really be said that an economic incentive even exists at this point? Until I can at least break even, why would I consider anything less an "economic incentive." Since, in this view, JY's example does not actually present an economic incentive, can it really be said to be growing?

The only way I can see out of this issue is that the stimulus tells us point blank that the increasing scarcity of housing on earth results in a growing economic incentive, so perhaps my understanding is in conflict with the stimulus.

I need some help with this question. I got the right answer but in Blind Review I changed the answer to a wrong choice. The right answer is D. I understand why that is right. The problem I have is trying to determine why A is wrong. Is it just that A doesn't pertain to the argument? I believe the premise to be "It is unrealistic to expect [upgraded training programs with increased classroom hours] to compensate for the pilots' lack of actual flying time". The conclusion is "Therefore, the airlines should rethink their training approach to reducing commercial crashes." The gap would be the relationship from "lack of actual flying time" to "commercial crashes". That gap is filled by D with C being a tempting but incorrect answer choice. I just can't elucidate why A is wrong except that it doesn't address the relationship. I guess what I am trying to say is, it seems to me that answer choice A is an assumption that the stimulus makes. I guess I am assuming when it refers to "Training programs" that could include a training program that increases the pilots actual flying time. In any case, your input would be appreciated.

Admin edit: Please review the forum rules:

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/15/forum-rules

#3: Do not post LSAT questions, any copyrighted content, or links to content that infringe on copyright. Not a good way to take the first few steps down a long road that is your legal career.

People who have done a lot of PTs often talk about the shift in language in the last 10 PTs, yet don't always know how to articulate what that shift specifically was. I think this is an example of a recent test question where the language has changed as compared to older tests (PTs 20-60).

I think the correct answer, E, requires you infer the author's perspective whereas older tests would have a more conservative interpretation of the stimulus. By saying that juries often make serious mistakes, you have to infer that the author would say making a serious mistake is an undesirable consequence.

In these LR questions where the stimulus has an opinion, it seems as though the test now tests your understanding of that opinion. That if someone is saying something would be a serious mistake, you need to be able to properly infer what that means. In this case, someone who says it would be a serious mistake then that person would also necessarily say that's an undesirable consequence.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-4-question-17/

I just noticed after months (lol years) of prep that in argument part questions, you'll get a question stem that says something to the effect of: "blah blah blah plays which one of the following roles in the argument"

Occasionally, you'll see an answer choice that says something like "it is information that the argument takes for granted"

"takes for granted" is just another way of saying "assumption." If this is the case, then surely these answer choices must always be wrong because assumptions are, by definition, unstated premises.

Has anyone else found this/contradiction of this?

Thanks.

It's always the one star question that throws me for a loop...

This was a question I circled for BR and even after thoroughly reviewing it, I chose incorrectly (D).

The question gives us and a problem and principle.

Problem: Some of the rebate coupons that were distributed had an expiration date that was incorrect--it was too early. So some customers would unfairly believe that the rebate offer had already expired when it did not.

Principle: Anyone who creates an unfair situation has an obligation to rectify any unfair result of that situation.

So I definitely was attracted to C and D here. I can kind of see why C is a correct choice, but I am having an issue eliminating D.

D says that, since the corporation cannot identify all of the customers who were adversely affected by the incorrect expiration date, the corporation should deny the rebate to everyone who applied for it.

In real life, this seems harsh and kind of a ridiculous solution. But logically, would it not rectify any unfair result? There would be no unfairness because everyone gets treated the same way. No imbalance, no advantages, etc. The reason I liked D over C was because C presents a situation in which the corporation attempts to rectify the situation, but the principle does not say that the obligation is to attempt to rectify it. The principle says that the obligation IS to rectify it. Point blank. No excuses. Which is why D, although harsh, I feel is better justified. D presents a definitively equal situation while C presents an attempt at offering a fair result to whoever they are able to identify.

Any help would be much appreciated.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-1-question-06/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-3-question-11/

When I was timing myself, this question took me almost 2 minutes because I couldn't choose the right answer choice. I think I was not understanding the first sentence correctly.

Special kinds of cotton (green or brown) only recently became commercially feasible when a long-fiber that could be spun by machine was bred

Following the translation mechanisms, I identified "when" as Group 1 (Sufficient) and wrote:

Machine --> Commercially feasible [/Commercially feasible --> /Machine]

(It seems like some commentators on this video explanation page did the same translation.)

But I think (B) (correct answer choice) says:

Hands --> /Commercially viable [Commercially viable --> /Hands]

So I was like, "uh...I don't think this MUST be true."

However, when I read carefully, I think this sentence is saying:

(My understanding) Until recently when a long-fiber that could be spun by machine was bred, special kinds of cotton (green or brown) were not commercially feasible

/Machine --> /Commercially feasible

So it's actually:

(My understanding) Special kinds of cotton (green or brown) became commercially feasible only when a long-fiber that could be spun by machine was bred

Commercially feasible --> Machine

And I think (B) (Hands (/Machine) --> /Commercially feasible) matches this.

Is my understanding correct?

Also, I'm figuring out how to shave off time, and I noticed that @"J.Y. Ping" didn't really draw a diagram in the video.

Is it better if I don't use conditional logic for a question like this in order not to get confused since it's "giving us information about something that happened in the past and its absolute" ( quoting @Sami 's words from this thread https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/11018/the-only-translation-and-or :) )? I would appreciate if someone could tell me the best way to solve this question.

I am having a hard time understanding this section of the lesson and am hoping some folks can weigh in on it. I think I'm a bit lost because there is little context on when I would be using these tools and how. Also, I am unsure exactly what to memorize. Should I be memorizing both the valid and invalid diagrams and be prepared to use them in future lessons? Also could someone explain exactly which types of questions these will be useful for? Thanks in advance. :)

So i took my first ever cold diagnostic LSAT exam on Tuesday and i scored a 140.

I just started the Kaplan Review Course this week and its 3 nights a week.

My LSAT is June 12th.

So i have 33 days to raise my score.

My goal is a 160.

Is that possible? Does anyone else have kind of similiar experience? Any study tips that really helped?

I am not pushing my exam date back. I am already registered. So its happening no matter what.

Thank you!!

Hi Everyone,

Last session was great. Thanks to everyone who showed up. We made RC fun!. : )

So last time we focused on low resolution-high resolution summary and how to read and comprehend RC passages effectively. This time, in addition to practicing this method, we are going to do one A-B passage. There is a different way to do such passages which makes these kinds of passages a piece of cake and I think it would be helpful to show and practice this method.

Since A-B passages don't start till later PT's, we would be practicing on one of the recent tests, PT 65. But I think even if some of you havn't done any of the recent PT's, it would be helpful to use one of them to understand how to do these kind of passages. There are 86 PT's to practice, using one for learning LSAT will be a good call.

If any one of you does not want to Burn PT 65, you are welcome to take it on your own. But lets Blind Review Passage 3 together.

If you do not have time to take it, that's fine as well. We will go over the passage together.

Let me know what you guys think.

P.S. Does this time work better for some of you who couldn't make it last time?

To join the meeting, just follow the link below at the meeting time. I'll see you all there (3.(/strong)

Sami's RC Tutoring- AB Passage

Sun, May 14, 2017 6:30 PM - 8:30 PM EDT

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/764143181

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States: +1 (224) 501-3412

Access Code: 764-143-181

First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: https://care.citrixonline.com/g2m/getready

I really enjoyed these sessions. Essentially, we answered questions live and rotated BRing them 1-on-1 with JY. We learned a whole lot about ways to approach question analysis and to gauge how well we really understand a question -- whether or not we answered it correctly.

My notes from these sessions are shared below. I see now that most of what I wrote for any given QT is actually applicable across the section, so I've gone ahead and reorganized my notes to reflect that. So if you are wondering why there are only few a lines under each QT but a whole lot under Best Practices, that's why : )

Best Practices

AC Strategy

-Narrowed down to 2 AC: circle key words and ID the main points to differentiate the two. Weigh them against one another again and skip/answer.

-Skipping is powerful because we usually interpret better on the second read. Don't even feel obligated to read the AC. Collect your coconuts.

-Don't latch onto AC. We may find ourselves spending 30+ seconds with a single AC just trying to make sense of it but that is stupid because it may not even make any sense to begin with. If you don't have a strong pre-phrase in your head, skim the AC ruthlessly. One of them may jump out as correct. Some may jump out as incorrect.

-Sometimes test writers place the correct answer for highly difficult questions as A or B hoping that when we read these AC, we are still processing the stimulus.

BR Strategy

-Get used to thinking in terms of Domains of Discourse. That will help you generally understand, ID flaws, and de-clutter your diagrams

-Match up corresponding ideas within analogies between the stimulus and AC. Think up additional analogies.

-Cookie Cutters are your friends. Study them so that you can identify them in whatever form they take. Test writers can dress them up in all sorts of creative ways. But if I gifted you a hockey stick, would it matter what color wrapping paper I used?

-There are also Cookie Cutter stimuli. Study these too.

-Sometimes the stimuli and the scenarios they describe or totally unrelatable. When this happens, think of your own real world substitute that matches and is easier to deal with.

Misc

-Once you start seeing the "Matrix" in LR, you won't know where you are until you attempt being 100% aggressive. Do confidence drills starting at 100% aggression (no diagramming, select what you think is right without looking at other AC, etc) and scale back accordingly. Calibrate you confidence level to your ability.

MSS

3 Major Cookie Cutter Types:

-(1) The stimulus is missing a main conclusion which the correct AC provides -- code name: "Extended MP Question"

-(2) The correct AC restates a premise (super premise) or pushes out an inference from 2 premises -- code name: "Mega MSS"

-(3) The correct AC summarizes the stimulus

SA

If you are reading carefully and your intuition is good, the stimulus probably won't flow smoothly. That is because you've detected the gap which we need to plug. Learn to enjoy that discomfort and focus on IDing exactly where that gap is.

Try to get comfortable visualizing aspects of the stimulus and AC in abstract form. If you can see ideas in terms of shapes or "things", that can simplify a purposefully convoluted and wordy stimulus. It can also help us decipher AC by IDing the structure of a given AC: "No [thing]" vs "Any [thing]. Think about what effect those conditional indicators have on their proceeding terms.

PSA

"Pseudo" is not usually that "pseudo" -- don't use the marginal wiggle room allowed on these questions to justify bad and incorrect AC.

PSA vs Principle: Understanding your task

-The QS can be easy to confuse, but the activities they require of us are completely different.

-Principle doesn't show up much, but if we understand PSA/SA, then it shouldn't trip us up because this questions all contain the same puzzle pieces it's just a matter of which one are provided and which we need to ID in the AC.

-To be honest, I still am having trouble differentiating these but I am not missing them either.

PR(F)

-Explicitly line up analogies in BR. Which ideas in the correct AC correspond with ideas from the stimulus? Do this for incorrect AC as well.

-In BR, alter wrong AC so that they would be correct. That will help strengthen your intuition for what was actually wrong. I think this exercise is also good for that thing we do where we read and AC and it sounds good about halfway through but then what we needed (and expected) to be said next wasn't -- and it's wrong because of it.

-Triage. Experiment which prioritizing AC. For example, reading the conclusions first to see if they match.

Flaw

-Learn and lean on the Cookie Cutter flaws. Not every question is Cookie Cutter, but if you know them, then when you face a misc. question, you'll be able quickly eliminate Cookie Cutter AC.

-AC will use tons of abstract language to confuse you and eat up time. Attempt to bring these AC down to the level of the stimulus. Replace the abstract language with corresponding ideas from the stimulus. This process will be much more rigorous in the BR but if you are choosing between 2 AC, deploy this method.

-Correct AC must (1) Be descriptively accurate and (2) Be the flaw

-"Fails to consider..." are almost always accurate because the avg stimulus is only like 4 sentences long. But is it the flaw?

NA

-An NA is an extremely powerful idea, though it looks and sounds weak. That is because without that assumption, the whole argument fall to bits.

Hi,

I was wondering if someone could help clarify something for me. When you see this particular question stem, "reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it presumes," do you think of trying to find an assumption or just to identify the flaw. Any suggestions for eliminating answer choices for these flaw questions that are more subtle?

Thank you!