Hi all!

I was wondering why answer choice C in question 27 was incorrect. Here, the word irony describes Tollefson's conclusion, which I thought was spot on.

Tollefson suggests major changes in the programs, yet he understands the complicated bureaucratic nature of the programs that may stifle such changes from happening. So to my understanding, there is a sense of irony in Tollefson's conclusion.

J.Y. explains that it is not ironic because the author agrees with Tollefson's conclusion and just wants better solutions. J.Y. further explains that had the author disagreed with Tollefson, it would be pointing out something ironic. However, why can't the author point out an irony while agreeing with Tollefson's conclusion? I can't quite understand why "a stance of agreeing or disagreeing with the author" affects "a method of pinpointing a drawback of an argument."

Can anyone explain why this answer choice is incorrect? Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-4-passage-4-questions/

Hello guys,

Can someone please map out the logic of this argument and show how we can properly infer answer choice B? I am utterly confused :(

Thanks,

Kristen

Does anyone knows where I can get the list of In/Out games from PT41-80?

Thank you!:)

My biggest issue with logic games right now is timing, which I've had a lot of success in getting down for most game types. The one that I continue to struggle with are in/out games. I almost always get all of the questions correct, but in/out games will usually take me between 12-15 minutes to do.

I have an incredibly hard time making inferences in a timely manner with in/out games. Not so with other types, and I'm not sure why in/out is the biggest struggle for me. Identifying "not both" pairs has been a help, but does anyone have any suggestions or strategies or just advice on how to get things to start clicking with in/out? I've been drilling in/out games and will get it after a while but, that first take is always a difficult one.

I'm still trying to get through the CC currently, and I see the importance of mastering the inferences for the LG's. However, I also want to keep making progress as I'm still up in the air if I will be ready for June. Should I wait till I am done with the CC to start mastering the games, or do it as I go? Thanks!

Title says it all. I'm having trouble finding an answer through Google.

Still trying to tease out the stimulus on this one. I don't understand what the two different DNA tests are or how they are confused or what the assumption is.

Premise: DNA tests can't distinguish among samples from different people. Samples A and B are both different, but test says they are both A.

Conclusion: You can't exonerate someone because their DNA did not match the DNA at the scene of the crime. Sample A did not match Sample X (crime scene), thus, one would expect A and B to be exonerated since they were both identified as A. Or that B would be exonerated anyways because the tests says his DNA is also A. But the author is saying, no, you cannot exonerate sample B because B was misidentified as A, so B could still be the assailant.

I was able to eliminate all the other answers. This is just one where I can't understand why AC B is correct. Let me know if I misunderstood the premises here.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-45-section-1-question-24/

I am at the point where I can get 100 percent correct on LG with unlimited time, but still have trouble finishing all four within 35 minutes and usually end up bubbling in the last game at the end. I always am too nervous not to check wrong answer choices once I've come across an answer that I think is correct (assuming that the answer is not E), but I am worried that this is costing me precious time. I was wondering if people usually tend to move on once they've found a correct answer choice.

Hey All,

I just took Preptest 2, Section 1 twice (once timed, once untimed) and BOTH TIMES got my butt kicked...even going through the correct answers now, I'm like "What?? How on earth is that correct?" Has anyone else taken this section and had a similar experience? Also, is anyone willing to take this section and maybe BR it together (post answers...because I have seen them)?

Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-3-game-3/

The first time I ran through this game, I went -4 and way over time. Really just stumbled through it without understanding. Then I CCBRed. During BR, I "found" an inference and split the boards based on it. That trial went sooo smooth: -0 and 3m UNDER the prescribed time by JY.

Then I watched the video explanation and noticed that JY did not make the inference I made. I went back and reviewed and now I'm not sure if the inference I made was valid or not lol. Did I make an invalid inference and benefit from dumb luck??

Here is JY's GBs:

___ |19_| _o

___ |20| ___

Here are my GBs:

19_ |19_| o

___ |20| 20

and

___ |19_ |19o

20_| 20_ |___

Having gotten this far in explaining my question, I believe I did make an invalid inference because my GBs limit the possibilities such as:

___ |19_ |19o

_| 20 |20

However, if anyone has something to add, or I'm still not seeing it correctly, please let me know. I PT around 160 and consistently go -10+ in games. To say LG is my bottleneck is an understatement.

Admin edit: Please review the 7Sage forum rules before posting again:

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

I had difficulty choosing between A and C. The correct answer seems to be A. Can anyone give a good explanation for why A is correct over C?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-31-section-3-question-15/

I am having difficulty seeing why the correct answer in this question is D. The argument shows that two methods of investigation yielded different results. The conclusion then states that there is no need to look further for an explanation of the difference in the studies' results. Answer D states that the argument's reasoning is flawed because the argument fails to "recognize that two different methods of investigation can yield identical results". I don't see how this is a flaw of the argument. If they had recognized that two different methods of investigation can yield identical results what affect does that have on a study that didn't have identical results.

Any insights that you can provide would be appreciated.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-2-question-09/

Hello 7 Sagers - I'm in the post-CC stage preparing for the June '17 test, and I'm almost averaging my goal BR score, which is encouraging. I have a question about anticipating the correct AC in the LR section. For which question types should we be doing this? I know strengthen/weaken can bring in outside information to affect the amount of support, but should we try to guess the answer for all other question types before moving to the AC's? Thanks in advance!

Hi everyone!

I just got my score from the February LSAT (my first take) and am disappointed. I got a 163. The average of my last 5 preptests was 166.4 and my highest score was a 171. My BR scores were always between 170 and 175. I feel like I can do better if I take it again and am looking at taking the October test, but I've read mixed opinions about taking it twice.

Is it true that top tier law schools will simply look at an average of your LSAT scores if you take more than once, rather than looking at your highest score? In everyone's opinion, what score would I need to get on my second take in order to justify the second take?

Please let me know your thoughts----i need advice!!!

Hi

So, it seems that these circular reasoning questions are killing me... okay so I have a question on answer choice B. I am not quite sure why this argument is circular reasoning. The structure is:

Okay, so the explanation to this question states that it is circular reasoning with premise 1 (Violent crimes are rare) and the main conclusion (The claim that there is a large number of violent crimes in our society is false. However, the reasoning on why I eliminated this answer choice was:

So if we were to look at this argument structure specifically at the circular reasoning part:

This seems to be good inferencing to me? I recall a lecture in 7sage's logical courses.

Here, to say that it is not the case that all cats cannot bark can mean several things: few cats can bark, many cats can bark, or all cats can bark. Yet, we never question the inference made from this structure...

Even if we were to assume that those two sentences meant the same thing, it is not circular reasoning if you provide additional premises. See https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-2-question-09/ (see from the 2:20 mark). After doing several circular reasoning questions, this advice seems to not stand anymore... Some clarification would be great on this point that the addition of additional premises circumvents the argument from circular reasoning.

Any take on these two points? So in my view, I'm not sure but would like some clarification on this, is that even though we see an answer choice, and from mechanical thinking, identify the answer choice as circular reasoning, there are quite different nuances in each one. For instance, here is another answer choice that can be identified as circular reasoning.

PT17 S2 Q2

E) draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim given in support of that conclusion

If this wording for circular reasoning had been provided, it would definitely miss the mark, as being rare is NOT a restatement of not a large number.

However, if we are to look at the answer choice in question:

PT24 S2 Q8

This wording would be true for this argument. While the conclusion is NOT a restatement of its premise, it still does presuppose the truth of it (If the statement that violent crimes are rare is true, then without a doubt, the conclusion that there are not a large number of violent crimes is true, as "being rare" implies that "it is not a large number").

So my take on this is that:

Any feedback would be great!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-2-question-08/

My problem with MSS seems to be that I usually can't anticipate an answer choice in advance. Only about one out of five or six times does my my "anticipated" answer choice actually appear. And half the time, it turns out to be a trap anyway.

Unlike Main Conclusion, where I can usually predict the answer, I end up going through every single answer choice and crossing out the wrong ones until one seems viable. Needless to say, it is time-consuming and not very helpful.

I was wondering if anyone had a step-by-step process to anticipate the correct answer.

Thanks in advance.

After looking at this question for quite a while, this question still does not click with me.

I am not too sure how answer choice C can effectively close the gap.

Thank you so much for your help!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-4-question-21/

.

Hi all,

I am quite puzzled by the answer to this question altogether. The answer to this is answer choice A (circular reasoning of the first sentence and the last part of the last sentence following "because"), but I am not quite sure why this is circular reasoning. When I saw this question and when I stumbled across answer choice A, I eliminated this by:

seeing the premises as the first sentence and the part of the last sentence that followed "because" which both state "in order to succeed in today's society, one must have a college degree," while seeing the conclusion as "the skeptics objection of counterexamples are only apparent success (the conclusion indicator of however pointed to this)." Thus, the premise and conclusion were different.

even if we were to see the first sentence and the last part of the last sentence to be the conclusion and premise, this wouldn't be circular as the first sentence is a general statement of succeeding in today's society, whereas the last sentence discussed the concepts of : 1. "true" success (a matter of degree in the success), and 2. why a college degree was important (because it showed that a person did not have enough "education").

Again, even if we were to see the first sentence and last part of the last sentence to be the conclusion and premise (and assume that they are stating the same thing), it is not circular reasoning if you provide additional premises. It took me a while to find the 7sage lecture on this but here it is https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-2-question-09/ (see from the 2:20 mark).

So the structure would be like this:

Conclusion: In order to succeed in today's society one must have a college degree

Major Premise: The skeptics version of success is only apparent

Premise: without a college degree a person does not have enough education to be truly successful

The addition of the major premise would, according to J.Y., sidestep this from circular reasoning.

Any take on these three understandings of this question? Any help would be great!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-3-question-20/

Hi all,

I have a question on answer choice C.

I understand the flaw of the survey: how it fails to distinguish the residents who dropped out in its own schools and those who dropped out of schools from somewhere else. But, after contemplating the answer choices, I am reluctant to accept answer choice C as the correct answer (the part where it says: those who had received their schooling elsewhere).

To my understanding, if you "received your schooling elsewhere," this meant that you did NOT dropout. To "receive something" would be to finish in the transaction of getting that something. So, answer choice C would be pointing out a flaw of distinguishing that was incorrect. If the answer choice had said having "attended (which opens up the possibility of dropping out" instead of "received," then I would have no problem with the answer choice.

Any take on this? If my understanding of "received schooling" is incorrect, any explanation (or examples that can show the usage of the word/phrase) would be great!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-15/

I had a hard time understanding why (A) is the right answer. After thinking about it for a day on and off, I came up with this reasoning. Please take a look if my logic behind getting the right answer is correct.

I wonder if this this question can be viewed as Resolve Reconcile type; the premise says the land-dwelling whales needed hind limbs capable of supporting its weight, and conclusion says the fragile limbs of whale found in the fossil is the remnant of whale once lived on land. But I tried to solve it as strengthen question.

This question talks about whales from three different periods; ancient whale (lived before fossilized whale skeleton), fossilized whale, and modern whale.

Premise:

Conclusion: The fragile hind limbs are remnants of limbs that land-dwelling whale once had.

I initially misunderstood the conclusion as the fragile hind limbs found in the fossil is the remains the whale that was living on land. So land-dwelling whale having fragile limbs is contradiction within the premise... but the correct understanding is the fragile hind limbs newly found in fossil is how the ancient whale evolved to be. The key was a correct understanding of the word "remnant."

So, to summarize it... whale evolution is like this chronologically.

Ancient Whale (ones lived before the newly found fossilized skeleton)

Fossilized Whale

Modern Whale

So, we need to strengthen the conclusion that the fossilized whale skeleton that has fragile limbs is the evolved form of whales limbs that lived on land at one point.

(A) is correct. The confirmation that ancient whale had a full pelvis would strengthen that by evolution it became a partial pelvis (as found in fossil) and now only bare remnant of pelvis.

(B) This weakens the conclusion

(C) irrelevant

(D) I initially chose this answer and that was because I misunderstood what the conclusion meant precisely.

(E) irrelevant.

It became a quite long explanation... I wonder if I am overthinking when it is really a simple question. I would appreciate any confirmation or correction on my reasoning. Thanks!!

Prior to my intensive two week study, I was scoring on average -5 on LR & RC and -6 on LG.

After two weeks of intensive study (question banks, review of my weaknesses etc.), I am missing -3 to -5 on LG and on RC.

That is the good news.

BUT

Bad news. I started missing -7 and once -8 on LR. :(

My overall score has dropped as a result.

WHAT IS GOING ON???

So, what I'm understanding about the practicing of the LR questions (MSS specifically) is that you just need to be a 100% sure about your answer choices. The Blind Review applies for the questions that you weren't certain of the answer in order for you to reach that 100% certainty as to why the answer choices are correct/incorrect. Furthermore, the question choices that yield subtle differences that makes you think "hmm... could be.." is definitely wrong because there's an answer choice that is definitely solid with the given premises... Right? I'm curious because I was doing the Preptest29-Section4-Question3 and realized that the answer I chose (D) was the aforementioned "hmmm.... could be..." so during my blind review, before consulting the explanation video, I re did the question and saw that (A) was the correct answer because it did not have the possibility of being countered when I plug it into the stimulus.

I'm making my trek back into LG and while watching JY's LG Fool Proof Method, he says to get the clean copies and all and to focus on making inferences which I totally understand. But he makes no mention of the questions. Should I include those as well or just focus on the inferences?

This is my biggest problem at the moment, and I don't recall this being in the curriculum. Could someone point this lesson out if I'm missing it? Seems like a pretty big part of the test.