Can anyone help explain this question? I used The Trainer for my LR prep, since I only found 7Sage a few weeks ago. On Mike Kim's website, it has this listed as a Strengthen question, but I cannot for the life of me figure this out. I have tried the Manhattan Prep forums but they list it as a Justify question and I have no idea what that means b/c MK doesn't use that category.

For the principle, I got:

Should criticize ---> no serious harm to person criticized + one does so in the expectation of benefitting someone other than oneself

contrapositive:

serious harm to person criticized OR does so in the expectation of benefitting oneself ---> Should NOT criticize

halp

Thanks in advance :)

I have finally (after being wishy washy about committing) decided to take the LSAT. I would really like to take the December 2015 LSAT. However, as it is now almost October 1st, that only leaves me 2 months to prepare. Is this a totally crazy idea? After stumbling across the 7Sage prep courses, I feel more confident that if I buckle down and follow the course, I can do well. I am just unsure if this is totally unrealistic. Any input is appreciated!

And I'm giving the side-eye back.

I'm not big on astrology, but with all of the hype about celestial happenings this summer (read: multiple supermoons mania), I came across that we're in Mercury Retrograde until October 9th. After falling down the stairs [sober] last week and then contracting one of the nastiest colds I've ever had this week, all I can say is "cheers" to October 3rd. If I ever take the LSAT again (hopefully never again), then I'll make sure to avoid Mercury Retrograde. Unless of course Mercury is trying to tell me that I shouldn't go to law school, ever.

Has anyone taken the LSAT on Dayquil before? Haaaaaa

I am planning on doing one more PT this week before Saturday. Should I choose one in the 70s? Thanks in Advance!!!

Eye of the Tiger? I will Survive?

Nah... BURN IT DOWN!

JY’s explanation was very helpful, but there’s one part of the question that’s been bugging me.

We’re told in the premise that people who would be “adversely affected were [the bill] to become law are very influential.”

Answer choices (B) includes “any bill that is opposed by influential people” and (C) has “those who oppose it are not very influential.” I understand and accept JY's explanations for why these are wrong and why (E) is correct, but I think there might be something else wrong with those answer choices.

A lot of the explanations I see for why B & C are wrong still seem to accept that it is the influential people who oppose the bill. However, can we really make the assumption that the influential people who would be adversely affected by the bill would oppose it?

It definitely seems like an unstated assumption in the first part of the argument, but is it really valid to say that they would oppose it (and that’s why the bill won’t be passed)?

It’s possible I’m not really understanding what “adversely affected” means. However, isn’t it possible be adversely affected by a bill, but still support it? (for example, wealthy individuals might support higher taxes for the rich, even though that adversely affects them).

It’s one the assumptions that jumped out at me when I did my BR and partly how I was able to get rid of (B) and (C). But I’ve read explanations from different sources and they all seem to accept the assumption that the influential people being adversely affected are the ones opposing the bill.

Thanks!

Hi All!

I am looking for a list that puts together all the grouping games.

Grouping games are a weakness of mine!

A few days back, I read a post here that had a list of some in/out games.

Now I am looking for a similar grouping list.

Can anyone help?

Thanks!

In terms of necessary and sufficient conditions for the LSAT, I'm wondering what the difference is between "All because..." and "Only because...". For example: "All because the nail fell out, the war was lost" vs. "Only because the nail fell out, the war was lost." Or, the example could be, say, "All because of you, the war was lost" vs. "Only because of you, the war was lost", etc.

My confusion is that "All" introduces a sufficient condition, whereas "Only" introduces a necessary condition. But, the sentences seem to have the same meaning. What's the difference between "All" and "Only" in the examples above? Is the use of the word "All" just simply wrong when applying it to only one person (or thing), and such an example would never be found on a LSAT (even if people say "All because of you..." in everyday, real life)?

Also, I am confused by the word "because" in the above examples. I know "because" introduces a premise (which I think of a premise as being akin to a sufficient condition, or at least as an antecedent), but does "because" introduce necessary or sufficient conditions, as well?

Thanks!

Michael

I was stuck between B and C and finally chose C because I thought "suggest that a particular approach be taken by the proponents of the assertion" from B didn't match the passage.

But the answer is B and I can't still find why C is wrong. It seems every words from C are match for the passage.

Why is C wrong and can B is an answer?

And which part of the passage is compatible with "suggest that a particular approach be taken by the proponents of the assertion" from B?

OK, this is another one that I just can't wrap my head around the correct answer choice relative to an incorrect answer choice. This is getting beyond frustrating ugh. Here is my breakdown:

This is a weaken question.

There is evidence that cave people polished their flints to a degree beyond what was necessary for hunting. Therefore, these people possessed an aesthetic sense.

What I am looking for: I think this makes the false dichotomy flaw. The argument assumes that the flints were either used for hunting or for aesthetic reasons. We want an answer choice that addresses this. I also looked up aesthetic during BR, in case my personal definition is incorrect. It means concerned with beauty or the appreciation of beauty.

Answer A: This does nothing to the argument since it doesn't address whether the flints were used for aesthetic reasons.

Answer B: This does nothing to the argument because we don't know if cave paintings provide evidence or not of an aesthetic sense. We just don't have any information about cave paintings to know if they are relevant to the argument.

Answer C: This is what I chose during the exam and during BR. I don't really see how the use of the word "display" allows you to eliminate this answer choice. Can't things be on display that are not used for aesthetic purposes? Especially for religion? Religious display seems like a worship use, not an aesthetic use. What also makes this attractive to me is that this is providing evidence that the highly polished flints (the ones we care about) were used for something other than hunting as well.

Answer D: This answer is the correct answer, but I run into the same problems as C. It is similar to C because it suggests that the flints were used for things other than hunting. However, I didn't choose it for two independent reasons. First, this answer choice is talking about flints in general, but we really want to know about the highly polished flints. If this answer choice had added "highly polished" as the first two words, then I think this answer choice becomes apparent.

The second reason (and I used this reason during BR) I eliminated it is the conclusion doesn't actually say that the highly polished flints were USED for aesthetic purposes. The conclusion is just that these early humans had an aesthetic sense. Specifically, this answer choice states that the flints were used for chores. Common chores are cleaning, taking out the garbage, etc. Are these not at least partly aesthetic enhancers? Do these not partly concern themselves with the beauty of the home? I think in this instance, D could strengthen the argument. For this possibility, I eliminated it and chose C.

Answer E: So what if we don't understand the benefits of their aesthetic sense.

I still don't understand why D is wrong.

Is it ("a band signed with a major label ~~"part from the stimulus) the phenomenon to support the main conclusion?

What's the difference between D and E?

Can anyone explain why D is wrong and E is an answer?

Thanks in advance!

Hi, I understand why the answer choice (D) is correct, but I have a question on (B).

The stimulus states that since "faculty salaries constitute a small part of the university's expenditure," the administration's explanation is not believable.

So I thought even though faculty salaries constitute a small part of expenditure, if they "significantly" increased after the tuition increase, the faculty's explanation can make sense, so this can be weakening argument.

To counter this weakening argument, I thought (B) can be suggested that increase in faculty salaries is only 5% which is lower than general increase in tuition. This is why I thought (B) can be strengthening argument which can fight back against possible weakening argument.

Probably I thought too complicated in this low number question (supposed to be not this tricky).

But could you explain further why (D) is better answer choice than (B)?

I chose C, but the answer is B.

I can't still find out what the difference between B and C.

Why is C wrong and B an answer?

Can someone explain me?

Thanks!

I watched JY's video on this one (http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-45-section-4-question-06/), but I don't understand his reasoning for eliminating answer choice C. During the exam, I couldn't distinguish between C and E. I know that E is a necessary assumption, but how is C not as well? If the beauty of the river crossing must not be preserved, then doesn't this completely wreck the argument? Why would the extra cost of the cable bridge be justified if the beauty of the crossing must not be preserved?

Hello All!

Quick question for those who know:

How in the world do you Blind Review reading comprehension??

1. I do the memory method, however at this point, i am taking practice tests, and i have no clue on how to Blind Review, or Review in general, the reading comprehension section

2. If anyone can, PLEASE give me some detailed insight.

-After taking your PT and Blind Reviewing the LR section (and of course, doing the fool-proof method on Logic Games that you did not breeze right through), how do you Review/Blind Review the RC passages? How do you better yourself? How can you increase the amount of control you have over the passage?

-After taking your PT and Reviewing/Blind Reviewing all other sections, (and of course, putting the memory method ASIDE, since its physically impossible to do the memory method after you've already taken the PT), how can you increase the level of comprehension you have within the passage? I.E. - some passages i am able to completely master after reading them untimed, and for others i will literally sit there for a good 20-30 minutes still saying "DFJDHVDKJFDNFFDFFD??????"

THANKS ALL!! and for everyone else taking the 10/3 LSAT, GOOD LUCK!

Hi All,

I've been studying for almost a year now on and off with a full time job and have finally reached the mid - high 160s. The past 10+ PTs (60s) I've been scoring around 165 - I am STILL having trouble finishing the last passage on RC (mainly guessing after reading) and miss at least 2-3 questions on LR (NA, PSA, and FLAW). BR is consistently in the 170s.

For the Oct LSAT, Should I be drilling LR / RC before completing the last 4 PTs (68-71)? Or just go straight in to the exams and BR? I wish there was more time. I am a splitter and really need the 170. I'm really losing hope after plateauing and not being able to finish all the questions in time.

Looking for some feedback on anyone who has been / or is in the same situation. I've booked off work until the exam so I'm hoping to squeeze as many points out of the last 2 weeks of prep that I can.

Thanks,

Mike

I understand that this is probably a dumb question but I keep having difficulties with flaw questions that have answers that "confuse necessary and sufficient conditions."

This is what I understand so far:

If I eat an apple, I will be healthy.

So eating an apple is a sufficient condition to being healthy since I can be healthy through other ways as well. It doesn't have to necessarily be by eating an apple.

I just know that if I eat an apple, I will definitely be healthy. To reiterate, being healthy doesn't necessarily have to do anything with eating an apple.

So if I say:

1. if I eat an apple, I will be healthy

2. I am healthy

3. I ate an apple

Is that confusing necessary for sufficient? Which flaw is this?

Can I have an example of both types of confusions (confusing necessary for sufficient / sufficient for necessary)?

Thank you!

I tend to miss these "fill in the blank" miscellaneous questions. I tend to categorize them as MSS or MP questions. Since that isn't really working (easily this question type is my lowest % according to the analytics) does anyone have any ideas about how to tackle these? The curriculum just had some listed questions, but no lesson about them.

For this question, during the timed exam and during BR, I thought all of the choices were equally awful (except for A, which was even more awful), so I pretty much randomly chose between B-E. Can someone justify B and eliminate the other answers? B seems pretty bad to me. It states that Stay in Power--->Victorious party must address the disagreements. However, the passage says they ignore their disagreements and that they come forward after victory. But, the passage (to me) doesn't imply that unaddressed disagreements trigger an overthrow. Sure, the passage starts by stating that the factions differ as much in ideology as the dominant party, but it doesn't create a sufficiency arrow for overthrowing that party (I think). Idk, this question had me spinning my wheels on the exam, and now I am spinning my wheels on it during BR.

Under the influence of today's computer-oriented culture, publishing for children has taken on a flashy new look that emphasizes illustrations and graphic design; the resulting lack of substance leads to books that are short-lived items covering mainly trendy subjects. The changes also include more humorous content, simplification of difficult material, and a narrower focus on specific topics.

Q. Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?

A. The inclusion of humorous material and a narrower focus detract from the substance of a children's book.

B. The substance of a children's book is important to its longevity.

C. Children of the conputer generation cannot concentrate on long, unbroken sections of prose.

D. Children judge books primarily on the basis of graphic design.

E. The lack of substance of a children's book is unlikely to be important to its popularity.

I chose E and the right answer is B.

I cannot figure out why B is the right answer..

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

PT29 S4 Q03

The kind of question this is: Most Strongly supported Question

Paraphrased question: PE should teach people to pursue healthy active lifestyle when they are older, but the focus on competitive sports in most schools discourages less competitive students to turn away from sports. Having learned to think of themselves as unathletic, they do not exercise enough to stay healthy.

What I am looking for: Something that has to do with PE and how it needs to change or upgrade.

Answer A: Yes, this backs up the passage. Non-competitive sports would deal with the less competitive students in helping them to see sports in positive way.

Answer B: No, the passage does not talk about how competition turns most students away from sports. It talks specifically about less competitive students and their motivation to continue with sports to stay healthy and how they see themselves.

Answer C: No, passage does not talk about the habits and talents of people and how motivated they are to exercise regularly.

Answer D: No, this might be true, but the passage focuses on less competitive students and how to encourage them to exercise.

Answer E: No, the passage is about encouraging less competitive students to exercise, and not about teaching them about the dangers sedentary lifestyles. They may or may not already know the dangers; we don’t have that information. They are discouraged to exercise because they are less competitive students pushed into competitive sports, and not because they don’t know about the dangers of a sedentary lifestyle.

Regarding *PT28 S3 Q04*

The question reads: "Each of the following is supported by the information above except:"

Can someone explain why "A" is the right answer. It sounds like the passage/"information above" supports this answer choice by saying "Raising the humidity of a room protects... computers from damage cause by excessively dry air." Based on that information, it seems like the passage is saying that "Humidity can be bad for computers." But, that is not supposed to be the case. I wrongly chose "C" because I thought passage does not say how dry air feels compared to humid air of the same temperature. I did not see a comparison made.

Let me know :)

Hey Guys,

So i just finished ten Pts. I have some data with me to see where I'm making mistakes. Just wanted to know what is the most efficient way of drilling on the weak parts ( Amount of questions, difficulty level etc). Appreciate any advice as I'm about to start practicing again soon.

Cheers,

Nat

Hi Folks!

I am starting to get in my 'test day mode', including meditation, changing my sleep cycle and exercising.

I took PT 74 yesterday, went (-10), with the curve, not a bad score. But, not my best. What bothered me, is

I went (-5) in RC.

I knew I struggled in the RC section, and that carried over into my LR section. I couldn't shake the negative thoughts in my mind that kept repeating "I know I didn't do great in RC." That mindset, then carried over into my LR, because I struggled a bit in the beginning of LR, until I pulled it together.

So, my question is:

How do you Sagers, move on from each section in the exam? How do you truly forget/ignore previous sections - so that

you start the new section with a clear focus? How do you remove lingering negative thoughts as you transition from one section to the next.

Just a quick shout out and thank you to @c.janson35 who has given me some great advice on this already, and answered some PT questions I have had!

So I recently purchased the 180 watch and have been using it for PTs as I expect to use it for the upcoming October test.

Today, I found out that the screw part on the reset button is missing, and I can't seem to locate it anywhere (must have fallen off somewhere).

Would I be able to bring a small piece of sharp element to push the reset button? If so, what would be the most ideal way to do this? If not, any suggestions on what I should do?

I'm assuming it's a little too late to turn to customers service, this being among their busiest seasons I'm sure.

Researcher: We have found that some cases of high blood pressure can be treated effectively with medicine. Since it is generally accepted that any illness caused by stress is treatable only by the reduction of stress, some cases of high blood pressure must not be caused by stress.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the researcher's argument?

D) Some conditions that are treated effectively by medicines are not also treatable through the reduction of stress.

E) Medicine used to treat high blood pressure does not itself reduce stress.

The negation of D seems to me to be "All conditions that are effectively treated by medicines are also treatable through the reduction of stress." While the negation of E is that "Medicine used to treat high blood pressure does itself reduce stress."

In my mind, both of these seem to break the logic of the argument. I understand that E is correct because, having diagrammed it, I understand that a some statement will not suffice and that I need a conditional statement to bridge the gap between the premises and the conclusion. However, the negation test did not allow me to eliminate D, but it is supposedly infallible in determining the correct answer. I am a bit concerned that both D and E seem for me to break the argument. How is it that D does not do that? Or if it does, how do I know to trust the negation test? Is it that the negation of D says that medicine and stress reduction are both separately effective and that E says that the medicine is effective because it reduces the stress? Is the negation of D even applicable, since it would contradict the premise that states that an illness caused by stress can only be treated by a reduction of stress? Thanks