209 posts in the last 30 days
Hello, all!
After personal reasons forced me to step away from the LSAT for some time, I'm just now getting back into the swing of things. What was clear to me back then is not as clear to me now. Thus, I must ask: why can't we infer "B most A" from the statement "A most B"? Perhaps what I'm struggling most to grasp is this: what does one assume in making this erroneous inference?
Thank you all for your time!
Hi all,
Blind reviewing the aforementioned Prep Test and having trouble with PT.63.S.1.Q.10. I almost never have these kinds of very basic questions below (i.e., what exactly is the conclusion?) But bear with me, I found this problem sneaky.
"Thus, Ms. Sandstrom should pay for this damage if, as the Mendelssohn claim, she could have reasonably expected that the column would lead people to damage the Mendel's farm."
Is this entire last sentence of the stimulus the conclusion? Or is the conclusion only the first clause: "Thus, Ms. Sandstrom should pay for the damage"? Does that have something to do with why A is the right answer?
Why is D incorrect?
Note: I've already watched JY's explanation videos but would appreciate if someone could thoroughly break the stimulus down and answer the 2 questions I have above. Thank you SO much in advance!
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-1-question-10/
Is there a summary PDF of the valid and invalid argument forms?
Thank You!
Hi Guys,
I am having a bit of difficulty with this question.
https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/banana-epidemics-na-question/
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-3-question-03/
It's the banana question.
I have a hard time distinguish B. I mean, it is a sufficient assumption, yet it is the correct answer for the necessary assumption too.
I am feeling a bit, how do you call it, mumble jumble right now.
Can any one help to explain?
Hi guys,
I was wondering if you wondered the same thing when you entered into this lesson question:
https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/regulating-the-banks-na-question/
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-2-question-15/
Is it correct if I translate the argument into a logic as:
Tightening-->Loan Less-->Economic Downturn
Tightening
Conclusion: Economic downturn
Aside of this logical flaw, the problem is wrong due to temporal causation flaw.
Am I correct about this?
If so, I guess you can still generate answer choice if the argument is bad as a start even logically invalid?
Thanks,
Panda
Does anyone have a list of "math" questions for the LR? I seem to be struggling. Thanks!
removed
Hi all,
I took the LSAT for the first time last Saturday. I can't stop thinking about it. Sometimes I'll wake up and think I did fantastic, other times thinking I probably got destroyed. I probably play out the "worst case" and "best case" scenario in my head about 20x per day.
Is this normal? I was prepping at about 168 over the past month and honestly I could have gotten anywhere between high 150 and high 160. (the comparative reading passage was probably the hardest passage I have ever encountered, up there with space passage from PT76). If LSAC was smart (and at the same time cruel!) they'd give us an option to pay to get the results quicker! They'd be making bank.
Any other test takers going crazy like me!?
Hi fellow scholars!
I have a long commute to work (about 40 mins) and in between studying on my own, I was curious if anyone had any audio books or critical thinking excercises that could be listened to on my drive. I feel like it's such a waste of time when I could be listening to something that could help me during my studies.
Thank you!
I usually get 6-7 wrong per LR section in late PT50s or early 60s. Yet, when I did PT40s(PT42), I got 10 wrong per section. I felt lost and confused. Should I review the CC before doing more timed section or PT?
So I have been Blind Reviewing for the past two weeks since I am new to 7sage. Before i used Blueprint as well as The LSAT Trainer but heard very good things about 7sage. Anyways I was wondering if anyone else second guesses themselves when they are Blind Reviewing. For many questions I am getting wrong that i Blind Reviewed because I wasn't 100% sure if it was correct i end up second guessing myself and chose a wrong answer when the correct answer was my original answer if that makes sense lol. Let me know if this is happening to you as well and any tips?
Hey 7Sagers,
I had someone write in with concerns about adjusting their schedule for the June LSAT (since it's in the afternoon and not in the morning) and I thought you guys could help! It's a very brief question, so here it is:
I have a specific concern regarding June, namely, I know for a fact that my mental focus fades really bad mid-afternoon, while being sharpest mid-morning. Any suggestions that you may have would be most greatly appreciated.
Hi all,
Just a quick question, does the word "can" indicate a relationship or is it indicate like "could", "might" a probability?
For instance, the sentence, "Some reporters can scoop all of the reporters", can you translate it into: Reporter X(-Some-)Scoop all of the reporters. Or is it just a statement indicating probability of this relationship?
if that is not true, then, as a rule of thumb, you can never translate a probabilistic statement into a conditional statement since conditional statement are 100% of occurrence?
Hi Guys,
I was trying to prove the following statement, please help to see if it is correct:
(A-->B)-->C
not (A-->B) or C
(A some/and B) or C
C->(A some/and B)
is there more step to go below this?
So all I can get to is that, if C fails, then some A are not B.
Hi guys,
I have some confusion going on here between the difference of the following question:
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-4-question-23/
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-1-question-23/
In sum,
From PT25-S4-Q23, we learned that:
If A cause B cause C, then it concludes C causes A; this is wrong because the possibility of C some A, or C and A, is ignored.
If that is true, so why is: PT27-S1-Q23 answer choice A wrong.
If most A cause B, then B, therefore A, the structure of PT25-S4-Q23, then, if we had follow PT27-S1-Q23 logic, it gets down to: (negating "most" to "some not", then it follows that some B is not A is ignored, which is what answer choice A says isn't it?
Hi All,
This is a difficult flaw question and I intent to give a shoot at explaining it, which is different from JY. Please help and check my explanation's validity.
The question link is here: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-4-question-25/
For flaw question, the first step I do is always noticing the logic and try to draw it out. This helps to distinguish whether the logic fallacy is a formal fallacy or informal fallacy.
Under this question, the logic are breaking down into the following:
Premise 1: Reporter knowledge-->Press Agent-->Tells Everything-->1 reporter knows more->Scoop other reporters
Activator: Tells Everything
Conclusion: Scoop other reporters
By this we notice that it is a SA/NA fallacy.
However, we are not finished. As time consuming as drawing the logic out, the question steam puts the final hurdle.
The question didn't ask "Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning in the argument", but instead, it says, which one of the following which isn't stated, but is consistent with the flaw.
In other words, we are trying to find one thing that is consistent within the flaw, which we have defined. And we are not defining the flaw here, but a consistent use of language.
Which marks E correct, which translates into: 1 reporter knows more-->Reporter knowledge. I agree, the translation isn't as perfect, but it does draw a great deal of similarity.
Had the question asked to identify the flaw in this question, then B becomes the correct answer, which states: one doesn't have to be a reporter and not scoop the reporters. To see this, refer to PT25-S4-Q23.
Please comment on my explanation.
Thanks,
Panda
Hi guys,
I wonder if you can help and check my analysis to see if it is correct or not.
The question is here: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-22/
I used logic to solve this question.
The logic goes of the following:
Law abiding people->Environment->Character->Criminal Action->Crime
And the conclusion states:
Crime->Law abiding people
That is why answer E is correct.
I noticed that they started going to the elimination question right after each individual rule rather than doing it after going through the rules as a whole and thinking about deductions. Why did the process change?
Also, what do they say about doing "if" questions first on LG? recent videos seem to be doing that. is that a change from previous process? if so, what is the reason for the change?
thank you.
Q. When to and not to use formal logic and/or contrapositives
How do you diagram this
J is selected unless W is selected
J is selected if and only if W is selected
If W is not selected then J is not selected
Either J or W must be selected
Help anyone
Hi guys,
I am really confused about this question: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-4-question-17/
After reading the question, I notice what the author is trying to do. It is trying to argue for a sentimental value to counteract the mayor's argument for the monetary value. And the conclusion argues can be translated as due to the great importance of the sentimental value the item listed should be restored.
From this, I immediately draw up the missing assumption which is almost a principle that is missing: if sentimental value in this case is greater than monetary value then the government needs to fix it despite the fiscal limitation.
As such, I moved into the answer choice and didn't find it or anything close to it.
So I was puzzled between A & B. And finally I chose A for the reason that the argument appealed to emotion. But it is wrong.
Why?
collecting all thoughts about the Monday February test
Hello,
I would really appreciate some advice here,
So My RC on old PTs (20s to 30s) were on average -3, I knew that old RCs are much easier but at least I thought my reading ability wasn't too bad. But the more recent like 60s PT, I'm now averaging -8 and this really freaks me out.
The pattern that I am seeing is that I would miss only 1 or 2 on entire 3 passages and get completely destroyed on one particular passage that feels most dense. (usually the second one) It seems comparative passage doesn't pose much problem.
Should I just print out most difficult passages and focus drill them?
Its just so frustrating how my performance on a single passage kills the RC score
I chose C. The stimulus talked about two different groups eat dinner at home sharing similar nutrition value etc. J.Y. says that (D) address paradox by suggesting the first group(work outside of home) eat outside more often. But it still confuses me why C is wrong.
Any insights would be appreciated. I face a hard time to solve PRE Question which should be easy to tackle for most people.
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-2-question-05/
I'm quite confused on this question. I was down to answer choice A and E, and ultimately chose A. I understand why E is correct, but I still cannot grasp why A is not.
I thought that the stimulus could be viewed in relations to not only "conclusion/premise," but also "phenomenon/hypothesis." The passage is telling us why "consumers are buying more durable goods" because they expect economic growth. And with this, the economist further explains/hypothesizes that "the economy seems to be heading out of recession. "
To my knowledge, providing any hypothesis to a phenomenon would be trying to explain the phenomenon, which is exactly what answer choice A states. For instance, if you see a phenomenon that whatever you drop from a building falls to the ground, by hypothesizing that there seems to be a force (gravity) that makes items drop, this would be providing an explanation to the phenomenon. Any help would be great!
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-2-question-10/
Hey guys! Here's the official Feb. LSAT Discussion Thread. Please keep all discussions of the Feb. 2017 LSAT here!
Here's some ground rules, taken from my usual sticky:
We know that everyone will be excited to discuss what was on the Feb. '17 LSAT, but mentioning specifics about the test (e.g., "I got B for question 6" or "the 3rd LG was sequencing") can get both us and you in a lot of trouble with LSAC. Saying that the test was hard/easy without going into detail is okay, but anything more specific is not okay. LSAC monitors this forum.
If you're unsure what may be too specific, feel free to PM me with what you'd like to post.
The only exception is you can say which sections were real or experimental. For example, the LG with "flowers" was experimental. That's okay.
TL;DR: PLEASE don't talk specifics about Feb's LSAT!
Real/Experimental Keywords here:
