http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-2-question-07/

I'm a little confused by this one...

Could anyone explain why Answer Choice B is correct?

So I've seen A LOT of improvement on most of the question types. When I get to specific questions, I know exactly how to approach them and what to look for. I also can gage trap answer choices pretty well. However, It's like I'm completely blind on strength and weaken questions. Any advice on how to approach them? I've gone through the lessons a few times, but it hasn't helped much. These should be easy! You're just trying to strength and weaken, but some reason I can't do it!

I tried to understand why C is an answer and B is wrong. But I still don't find out why.

I know the conclusion of the stimulus is this practice greatly increases the health risk~part.

When I looked C only, it made me think it attacked "this practice" part, not greatly increases the health risk to U.S consumers.

But for weaken and strengthen questions, we should attack/strengthen a "conclusion" as far as I know.

So I thought I should attack this practice greatly increases the health risk to U.S consumers which is the conclusion and tried to find out another possibility or sth (e.g "NOT increases the health risk to US consumer") even if

what the premises said. So that's why I chose B.

So I'm really confused how C is an answer, but B cannot be. Why C should be an answer and B is not?

And I really wonder how I can distinguish between which case I should attack the whole conclusion and attack just some/another part of the conclusion (just like "this practice" part in this question) when I encounter weaken/strengthen questions which means we should attack/strengthen a conclusion.

As far as I remember, I saw some of the weaken/strengthen questions that I shouldn't attack/strengthen the whole part of the conclusions just like this one.

Can anyone explain me?

Thanks!

I don't understand why A can't be an answer and C is right.

The stimulus said "Instruction is available-> consumers would find it much easier to put together" and I should find out the situation which cannot always meet the principle.

I thought if it went like this Instruction is available-> consumers would "NOT" find it much easier to put together, so that's why I picked A.

But the answer is C. It's like Instruction is NOT available-> consumers would find it much easier to put together, right?

So how can C be an answer?

I mean when we find something against principles, shouldn't we find A-> NOT B (if the stimulus says A->B)?

So that's why I thought A is an answer because it's just like A->Not B (But C is "NOT A->B")

Can anyone explain why C is an answer and A is wrong?

Thanks!

So who has committed to the October test? How ready do you feel you are? I've paid my fees and I'm locked in. I'm consistently getting the PT score I'd be happy with on the real thing (17 tests done so far). I'm just hoping I'm able to duplicate my practice results on game day. Good luck to all!

Statement reads:

"Rattlesnakes molt exactly once a year."

How would you negate this? Is is better to use one statement that says "Rattlesnakes do not molt exactly once a year" or is it better to split it into two that each say "Rattlesnakes molt less than once a year" and "Rattlesnakes molt at least twice a year"? Or is the first statement logically equivalent to the combination of the second and third? Thanks

strategies for moving up a point or two/ maintaining mental health?

I first need to thank you all, the members in 7sage, some of you encouraged me a lot 3 weeks ago when I just finished my first PT. As a result, I registered for December 2015 for my first shot.

As I finished my fifth PTs, some questions have arise. I really need your help and suggestion. My first PT, ( I think it should be too horrible to record the credit score. actually I didn't figure out how to record the credit and blind review score at that time), I got 150 as blind review score, the credit score is missing. PT 37, my second one, I got 147 and 150 for BR. PT 38, 150 and 152 for BR. I got 145 and 157 (BR) for PT 39. And the most recent one, which I just finished blind review 2 minutes ago, PT 40, 148 and 159 (BR). It seems like I have improved a little bit. However, I wonder if I am left behind.

I feel "time" is really a big issue for me currently. For logic, I usually have no time for 4 questions, sometimes when I skipped some "hard" ones, I end up with having no time to do them. For reading, I usually have only 5 minutes when I heat the last article. For games, I usually have 5-6 minutes for the last game of that section. Is this normal for a newbie?

How you guys do blind review for Reading? I usually have 1-2 articles which I feel totally lost in a single section.I would re-read all the four articles and do all the questions again for blind review without taking time. And then I look at the video for each article when I just finish blind review of that article. But I quite dislike this way. I feel I need to force myself speeding up, for which this type of BR will not helps. So today, I use the timer to redo all the reading for blind review according to the time J.Y. suggested in the video explanation. I feel this is helpful. I feel is quite real, because I correct 9 questions even under time stress. Don't laugh at me. I used to hate taking time so much, since it gives me so much pressure. But I figured out this week: how I practice will really pay-off at the day I am taking the test; worrying and avoiding is totally useless, the problems and weakness will always be there.

Another question is how you guys circle the bubble sheet. I feel like it is better for me to circle each question once I just finish that question, cos if I circle all of them after I finish the whole section, I probably would run out of time.

I will really appreciate your responses, and have a nice weekend.

Hello all,

Something I'm having a little difficulty with is differentiating "most strongly supported" vs "most helps to justify" questions.

I know that for MSS, we need something that helps validate the premise and/or conclusion. I know it doesn't have to make the conclusion 100% valid (although it can).

For MHTJ, it seems like it's nearly the same. This one is more on the lines of a SA where we need to find the gap between the premise and conclusion. Basically when I see these two types, I tend to attack it the same way.

Can anyone help me clear up some fog? Thanks!

An answer choice reads:

"A totalitarian regime can perceive loss of public passivity as a threat to its power."

How would you go about negating this statement, beyond simply saying "It is not the case that..." Is there a general rule for negating statements containing the word "can"? Do we negate it by saying that it becomes "may not" or "will not" or "cannot"?

If you are in the middle of filling in your answer sheet can you finish bubbling or do they disqualify you for filling in the bubble once they say to stop? How Nazi are they?

Hey guys,

Been on here and studying for the October LSAT since late July. It's been quite the journey to say the least! After completing all the material, and now taking 4-5 PT a week since late August, I have seen little improvement. Some days are tough. At times it's difficult to keep my chin up when I have an off day. However, I think it's really important at the end of each day to be positive.

I glance at my calendar…19 days left. 19 days to learn, improve, and focus. Although I have seen little progress in my scores and I am well below my target score, there are 19 days to get it together and make it happen. It is possible. The LSAT is challenging, yes. This entire admissions process is as well, yes. But, it is extremely important for all of us to remain positive and understand that this is simply part of the process. Since I first got on 7sage and started reading posts in the feed, I managed to find comfort in knowing I am not alone out there in my quest to tackle this exam and get into law school. Although this is obvious, a nice reminder here and there goes a long way.

I wish everyone the best for the exam on the 3rd. Remain positive, work hard, and be accountable for your work. Know that in the highs and lows of the next few weeks and months, there is someone right there with you chugging along. Improvements can be made, and life is good.

Cheers to 7sage, and cheers to all of us kicking ass.

Is it possible to post an explanation for 19/2/9?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-2-question-19/

I do not understand how the answer choice C is supported at all. What part of the premise supports answer C? Thank you.

I am signed up for Oct 2015 *freaks out* what happens if I chicken out and decide to change my date to December? What looks worse... Taking in October and get a shitty score and retake it in December or withdrawing from October and taking it in December

Hey 7Sagers! Here's a question from a student I thought you could help out with:

I am looking for someone to critique my attempted negations for necessary assumption question Dec 2009, s3,q25. Thank you so much.

My negations:-

A. Scientists ...always have biases...

B. ...biases...are shared among all scientists.

C. Biases ...are likely to impair...

D. Interpretation of data is not the only part...

E. ? (I am clueless in this one)

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-59-section-3-question-25/

If you would like to join just send me a msg with your Skype handle.

I completely missed this question. I thought B was very unattractive, and I confidently eliminated it during the test and during BR. I would appreciate it if someone just completely dismantled my reasoning because I don't understand how my reasoning is wrong on this:

Some people think that highway speed limits should be increased to reflect the actual speeds of drivers (which are higher than current speed limits). This increase would greatly decrease saftey since higher average speeds would result. Most violators would obey the new law and almost all of the people that obey the current speed limit would increase their speed.

What I am looking for: This is a very hard passage to understand. The support for the conclusion is that higher average speeds would result since most violators would obey the new law (either increase, decrease, or stay the same speed depending on how much the speed was increased) and current law abiding drivers would increase their speed. The argument is flawed because we don’t know the magnitude of the change. What if the speed limit is increased by 1 MPH? Almost all law abiding citizens could increase by 1 MPH and the most fast drivers could decrease by 15 MPH (if you assume that they were driving very fast). So, it is possible that the average speed actually decreases!

Answer A: This is consistent with the argument since “almost all” (in other words “some won’t) increase their speed.

Answer B: IDK, I still am very skeptical that this weakens the argument. Where does the argument imply or give evidence that uniformity of speed is important? I have a feeling that the author would just say “so what?” to this. Also, the argument doesn’t talk about what a “low speed” is. The argument is talking about “higher vs. lower” speeds. This answer choice seems to making a “relative vs. absolute” flaw that we talked about during the 7sage course. The argument says that some of the drivers (“almost all” idea like in answer choice A) are not going to increase their speed, so there won’t be “uniformity” of speed because some are still going to be below the speed limit. I just feel like the author would respond by saying “dude, you just helped my argument! The speeds aren’t going to be uniform!” Additionally, I don’t see how JY assumes that a shift in the distribution now becomes a narrower distribution. Can someone break this one down?

Answer C: So what? Just because you haven’t been involved in an accident doesn’t mean your danger level has decreased.

Answer D: This is consistent with the argument, so it is not a weakener. The author says that most will obey the law, which could imply that some will still not.

Answer E: Is believing what is safe the same as actual saftey? What if the violators are very risk loving?

Can someone explain answer choice E for me and why it is not a good answer?

I remain unconvinced, and still think (C) is a better answer!

Answer (C) does not say that the nesting boxes are smaller, but just that they provide less space for eggs (because they get overcrowded). In my view, the given statements support this conclusion [that the boxes are smaller than the natural nests] because they seem to link the ducks' failed reproductive efforts to the fact that the boxes become overcrowded. If, by negating this conclusion, the natural nesting sites had just as much, or less, space for eggs, then this reproductive practice would seem to be disadvantageous from the start. Therefore, (C) seems to me to be the right answer.

Answer (D), on the other hand, makes less sense in my view. Why would the ducks' reproductive efforts be more successful when the boxes are hidden? Is the assumption that those nests, though hidden, could still be found by some and thus the practice would become less rare?

I don't really understand the argument, which is why I am having a tough time deciding between D and E. Can someone break the argument down and discuss those two answer choices?

After multiple starts and stops due to family, I have covered the basics to prepare. I still have weaknesses in a few areas but feel confident in others. I would really like to expose all weaknesses under time constraints while not burning thru PT's while I am still learning through the BR process.

I started the LSAT journey haphazardly so I do not have a diagnostic, but the few PT's I have taken are 155-160, but no blind review as of yet for optimal knowledge of where I stand or as JY would say that it could have been "blind luck":)

My plan is 2 per week with thorough BR - thanks to everyone sharing their experiences to not burn-out. I am not sure that going sequentially is the best plan given the shifts in the later PT's (not harder, but different - thx again for all of the input). But, I am not sure it is wise to use more current PT's during this stage.

Fortunately, I started studying before PDF ban and have all PT's and JY's videos to make the process easier. My plan is to join as many BR group sessions as I can that do not conflict with family obligations.

For you that have been there - done that - what sequence would you advise to begin serious PT'ing?

While I've seen my LG and LR improve a lot over time, I'm afraid I've plateaued a bit in RC. On average I make -4. I've already done the whole 7sage curriculum (twice) and I'm reading the LSAT Trainer for the second time. Does anyone recommend the RC Manhattan Prep for RC? I saw it's $10 on Amazon, but I was just wondering if it was worth my time to read through it. Any thoughts or advice on this question and more generally the RC section would be appreciated :)

I got this question correct, but I marked it for BR because I like analyzing parallel questions for practice. During BR, I am having a ton of trouble eliminating B.

Specifically, the flaw in the argument is your typical invalid argument form: A-->B. B. Therefore A. The argument invalidly uses the converse of the premise as the conclusion.

Answer choice A clearly does that, and this is the correct answer. However, doesn't answer choice B technically do this as well?

Here is my breakdown of B:

Discover something new-->Examined all possible solutions. Fran -Discover something new. Therefore, -Examine all possible solutions. This answer choice invalidly uses the inverse of the premise. Nevertheless, if you take the contrapositive of the conclusion, Examine all possible solutions-->Discover something new, isn't this logically identical to the flaw in the passage? In other words, am I misreading something in this answer choice, or is the "form" better than the "substance?"

Thanks.

This reminds me of taking college algebra three times untill i finally got it ..... ahhhh I am so discouraged.