Discussions

LSAT

New post

108 posts in the last 30 days

Can we please discuss why the answer is C instead of A? :o boggles my mind. I checked out the manhattan prep forum for their explanations but i didn't like them.

From this link :) its the second to last questions. Thnx so much guys.

http://classic.7sage.com/lesson/necessary-assumptions-questions-problem-set-8

Also here:

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-26-section-3-question-09/

0

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-4-question-07/

in my timed approach I was confident w answer choice E however in the blind review changed my response to D. During blind review I thought I was making an assumption about the bones having been examined. Where as D focused more on what was evident just by excavating the tomb. Help explaining why D is wrong is appreciated.

0

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-20/

I got this question correct since C was obviously not relevant to the argument, but during BR, I can't seem to eliminate B or E. Why are these necessary assumptions? Here is my breakdown so far:

This is a necessary assumption EXCEPT question. Specifically, we are looking at the skeptic's argument.

Some people have been promoting some herbs to help treat colds. The herbs have a whole bunch of colorful sounding stuff in them: purple coneflower and goldenseal. This dude with a cold doesn't think that the herbs help. He argues, "Say that the herbs actually did work. Most people want to get better quickly. Therefore, almost everybody with a cold would already be using. Since there are many who have colds but don't use it, herbs aren't effective."

What I am looking for: I know we are looking for a NA, but I always like to break down the flaws in the argument if there are any. The skeptic is all over the place. He conflates "most" with "almost everybody." Certainly "most" includes "almost everybody," but 51% is "most" but would probably not be considered "almost everybody." Additionally, so what of "many" people still have colds? The proponents of herbs never said that herbs have a 100% effectiveness rate. Even worse, the skeptic's conclusion is borderline circular as well. The skeptic says that "almost everybody would be using it." He did NOT say that everyone would use it; there could be "many" or "some" people that don't use the herbs in the skeptic's hypothetical world. Anyway, we are looking for an answer that is a necessary assumption.

Answer A: This is a NA. If this answer was not true, then how could almost everyone be using it? There wouldn't be enough.

Answer B: I don't see how this is a NA. If you negate it: the mixture does have side effects severe enough to make many people with colds avoid it, then how does this wreck the argument? Wouldn't this strengthen the argument's conclusion that the herbs are not effective? The negation seems to do the opposite of wreck the argument.

Answer C: This is what I correctly chose because the argument does not concern itself with anything preventative. This answer does nothing to the argument, and it is totally irrelevant.

Answer D: This is similar to A, and it is a NA. If you negate it: if the herbs are not widely known, then how would people know to use it?

Answer E: This is like answer choice B for me. I don't see how this is a NA. What if there are effective cold remedies that people prefer? Does this mean that the herbs are not effective? I don't see how this affects the argument.

0

Hi all,

I am looking for a Skype partner(s) to BR Preptests with for the December test. Ideally, I want to have a call at least twice a week, once on either Tues or Wed night and once on Saturday night. I should add that I am looking for serious and disciplined partner(s) who are committed to calling every week. I would like to start with PT 36 next week.

Please message me if you are interested!

0

Hi guys, I wanted to share an idea that may be helpful in improving RC. One of my biggest stumbling blocks in RC is freezing when I run into topics I'm unfamiliar with (science and economics, mostly). Reading articles on Scientific American and the Economist have been very helpful to increase my familiarity with certain terms. Another tool that came to mind this morning is Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has a "Random Article" link on the left sidebar, and sends you to a completely random Wikipedia article. I feel like this could also be helpful as a means to gaining familiarity with unfamiliar topics. For example, a few that came up were a description of birds in Yemen, an English journalist and publicist named Derek Taylor, and Secretary of State for Scotland. You may have to click a couple times to find something that could be useful, but some of the topics are really out there... like LSAT RC passages.

Obviously, this can't replace any of the main RC study tools like doing actual RC sections, reading dense articles, etc., but it could be useful if you just have a few minutes here or there.

2

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-04/

I got this one wrong... even after blind review -___- but now I think I know why it's actually B and not C

The explanation I'm giving myself is that the experiments performed take THC on its own and not Marijuana as a whole? Then the conclusion states that all of Marijuana contains THC, thus Marijuana causes cancer. While completely disregarding any other properties Marijuana may have?

Can this be considered a "some" statement? (Some of marijuana --> then cancer)

I hope I'm making sense.

0

I currently own pdf copies of prep tests 37-67. With test day nearing, I want to purchase prep tests 68-75.

For those of you who have taken the lsat or know how the real test looks like, would I be better served buying the pdf copies and printing them out or buying the booklet paperback form on Amazon?

I am mostly concerned with similarity to the actual test.

Thanks!

0

I was out for a run yesterday and crashed and burned - hard. It was really only a matter of time before I managed to lose a little skin in the name of fitness, but I never imagined that I would end up with a broken elbow, which is what the urgent care doc diagnosed. So, I'm in a sling and temporary cast (and doing everything with one hand...) and while I likely won't need surgery, I will probably be in a cast come October 3. I've never broken a bone before and would appreciate any thoughts or insight about what test day might look like.

0

Okay so I'm pretty much at my wit's end here with the last 2 or 3 tests I've taken.

As background, I used to be incredibly consistent on the Logical Reasoning section. I would typically miss 1 or 2 per section and would never miss more than 3 overall in both sections combined. This was the case for most of the PTs I took. Then PT50 happened. I thought I was just having a bad day, and ended up missing 5 LRs that test. Then on PT51 I missed 3 (not more than usual) but then today on PT52 I missed 5 again.

Ironically, I'm at the point where I'm getting 180s on nearly every single Blind Review I do. I'm overall pretty accurate at never missing questions that I don't circle, but now I feel like just as I've gotten really good at understanding how to answer nearly any LR question and answering them all accurately and not falling for any of the tricks (untimed) I've also gotten way worse on the actual timed PT. This is hugely frustrating for me since, before this started happening, I was consistently scoring around 174-175 and was weakest in the RC section (with LG nearly always at -0). I spent a week or two and really drilled RC hard and was able to get myself down from nearly -4 or -5 to -2 or -3 each time. But now LR has gone off the rails! I feel like I can't win!

At first I thought it was my strategy for balancing time on LR. Previously, I would skip almost any question I didn't immediately feel comfortable with or thought would take a while (even if they were easy MBTs that I just didn't want to diagram out). Now, I've tried to spend more time just going through the test a bit more linearly so that I don't feel strapped on time having to go back to a bunch of skipped questions at the end of the test. I thought this would be a good strategy but it seems now like I'm missing more questions anyway.

So I'm not sure what to do. On today's test it was hugely disappointing that 2 of the LR questions I missed were incredibly trivial and had more to do with the fact that it seems like I rushed through the question because of time than that I didn't understand it, and, again, I'm able to correct every mistake in Blind Review.

Not exactly sure what to help me improve at this point. I feel too confident to review basic lessons on LR questions (again, I get nearly a perfect score in blind review, so I obviously understand the concepts, its just that something mysterious happens on the timed tests) and I don't really know what else to do other than to look back at questions that I got wrong, but seeing as they're spread pretty evenly across different question types randomly, not sure how good that would do me either. Anyone experience anything like this before?

0
User Avatar
•

Last comment friday, aug 28 2015

697

RC Timing Problem

So Ive been using the BR method strictly on reading comp for the last couple of days and my accuracy has improved tremendously but EVERY time Im incorporating time into the process, my accuracy goes down significantly. Im currently aiming at 3.5 min for reading and the last 4.5-5 doing the questions. Any suggestions? Also, any passage that has 7-8 questions immediately has meant I wont get through all the questions. It freaks me out haha

0

Hi there,

I was wondering if anybody could clarify (please) why the Substitution and Equivalence section was placed at the end of the PTs ( i have the 2nd package). Is this because these types of questions only appear on later LSATs?

I just started PT-ing so i'm at 37.

Please let me know what you guys think.

Thanks :)

0

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-49-section-1-game-1/

Can someone explain question 7 of this game to me?

I get how there are three possible worlds: _ _ N G I N ; N _ G I N _ ; N _ _ G I N

The question asks "...then a film in Norwegian must be shown on". Why is it JUST day 1 and 3. I mean, it could also be shown on day 5 (per the second option above) or day 6 (per the third option above). Why is option "Day 1 and 3" correct as opposed to "Day 1 and 5", which is incorrect?

0

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-2-question-20/

I got this one correct by POE, but I am having a lot of trouble explicitly understanding why E is correct (I was wishy washy with A, but I get why it's wrong). Here is my analysis:

This is a flaw/weaken question.

If it's music, then it has a temporal element since parts of the song are presented over time. However, a painting has no temporal element since parts of the painting are not presented over time. Thus, the viewer's eye has no one path to follow in order to "read" the painting [the "" on read are kind of weird, I think]. As a result, a key difference between listening to music and viewing a painting is that music has a time element while looking at a painting doesn't.

What I am looking for: This argument seemed (at least to me) pretty decent. Temporal order is a necessary condition for music, but it is not for painting. So that seems like an "essential" [necessary] difference between the two. The only flaw that I could see was relating "path" to time. That didn't seem like very good evidence to me.

Answer A: This was my trap answer. I didn't pick it, but I wasted a lot of time eliminating it. The argument doesn't say that you need to be conscious of the passage of time. The passage of time (in and of itself) is the necessary condition for music and not one for a painting. Also, time is an element of the painting and not of the viewer. It is possible that the viewer is looking at his watch the entire time while looking at a painting; that doesn't change the fact that the medium of art (painting) itself doesn't have a temporal element.

Answer B: Who cares about the definition of music/differences between styles.

Answer C: Who cares about their commonalities? Our conclusion is about differences.

Answer D: Is "reading" a metaphor? Maybe. However, the substance of this answer choice is to say that the flaw is circular reasoning. The argument is not. The "reading" analogy is evidence in support of the conclusion, not a restatement of it.

Answer E: This is it by POE. However, I still am having trouble seeing how this actually attacks the relationship between the premise and conclusion. This answer to me juts flat out contradicts the "path" premise and not the substance of the argument.

0

This might seem a bit silly, but in after doing the translations into lawgic exercise...do we always diagram logic whenever we see it in any LSAT question? For instance pt 27 st 1 q 17, I started reading the stem and noticed the logic and diagram quickly but then I didn't really need it. Is that a special case? Does anyone have a recommendation? Thanks!

0

Is there a particular strategy that is recommended for these two types of questions? I feel with MBT questions, it's easier to come up with a more concrete prephase that will resemble an AC closely, whereas this is a lot less likely with MSS. Either way, what's a good mindset to get into in order to consistently answer these types? Is it just absorbing and analyzing the stimulus, trying to prephase, and POE? Are there any tips or insights beyond that?

0
User Avatar
•

Last comment tuesday, aug 25 2015

mjunker387

Silly mistakes

Hey all,

I've been doing pretty well on my PTs, but I'm finding that on the logic games, I'm consistently making 1-2 silly mistakes on the section. I know that test taking anxiety and feeling rushed are causing me to misread questions or answers, and it's painful to see these mistakes when I correct the section. I'm wondering how frequently others are making these kinds of mistakes and what they are doing to fix it. I've been getting better - taking more time reading the questions and answers, but it's still a problem. I'm wondering what your experience has been.

0

I was wondering if anyone is familiar w/ any subtle differences between the two? (I did my LR through the Trainer, where the 'justify reasoning' questions are known as 'sufficient assumption', while the 'justify conclusion' ones are known 'supporting principle -- they're in the same chapter, and for both types, you're supposed to "fill in the logical gap").

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?