Discussions

LSAT

New post

311 posts in the last 30 days

Hello,

I have a question on a reading comprehension question (PT 19 S3 Q18). I was really shocked to see that the answer was E. While testing, I thought this was a typical trap answer choice used in weakening questions on logical reasoning, and I can't seem to understand why this is the answer. With respect to the rate-of-speciation hypothesis, the author of the passage compares the arctic and tropics, stating that the "subgroups in an arctic environment are more likely to face extinction than those in the tropics," and that "the latter are more likely to survive long enough to adapt." (lines 57 - 61)

On the other hand, answer choice E states that "most of the isolated subgroups of mammalian life within a tropical zone are found to experience rapid extinction." In assessing this, I thought this had no bearing on weakening the argument made in the passage because it did not compare between the arctics and tropics. Who cares if "most" of the life in the tropics experience rapid extinction? I thought:

(1) most? if there were 100 million subgroups, and only 20 million survived, who is to say that this is not enough to create a new species?

(2) the rate-of-speciation hypothesis is in regards to the rate of speciation compared to that of extinction (lines 45 - 48). Even if there is a high rate of extinction, if there is a higher rate of speciation compared to that of extinction, the hypothesis would still hold

and

(3) as this answer choice does not compare arctics to tropics, who is to say that the arctics do not have an even more rapid rate of extinction? Therefore, there a more species in the tropics than the arctic.

Is there something that I'm missing? The only reason I can think of to why the answer is E is just that it is just the best out of the bunch. Still, I would like to think that if such a question were to appear on a logical reasoning question, it would be a wrong answer choice... Any help would be great with this question!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-3-passage-3-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-3-passage-3-questions/

0

is it logically valid to conclude that if A-->B, then A+C -->B?

I am reviewing S3 Q19 from PT 51.

The correct AC seems to mobilize this reasoning.

0

In one lesson, Jy says, the contapositive of "If Tom plays then Jerone and Simmi play too", is " If Jerone and Simmi do not play, then Tom won't play". However, it can be that J and S can play, even though T does not. If it would say "Only if Tom, then..", then ok I agree with this. But I do not understand why it cannot be that J and S can play, even though T does not?

0

Hi all,

I am having difficulty gaging the rolling admission process. I am taking the September exam because I have been planning to get my app in as soon as possible. But, I don't think I'm ready. I will probably remain scoring in the mid 150s. But I've had less than a month of proper study time. I know I can do a lot better if I wait for December. But, I have a fear it is detrimental to apply that late in the game. Is that true?

0

I can't see why E is a better AC that D. Any thoughts?

Flaw

Argument Summary:

Context: The presence of X has conditioned the US to support a substantial defense budget.

Premise 1: X is gone.

Conclusion: Doubtful that the public will support an adequate defense budget.

Prephrase:

X-->Y

/X

/Z

Huh? What is an “adequate” budget in the absence of X? That is the issue here.

Answer Choices:

A) No it definitely does not. It does just the opposite and presume the public cannot be manipulated in the absence of X. Eliminate.

B ) Well it does do this but that is not the flaw. The issue lies in term “adequate”. Eliminate.

C) He uses the descriptor “doubtful”. Definitely not it. This is confusing because it’s hard to understand. But it is false and not the flaw. Eliminate.

D) Well yea it does do this. The argument concludes /Z, but provides no support for that in the argument.

E) Yes it does this too. What the hell does “adequate” even mean?

0

Hello,

I came across a puzzling question while I was answering this reading comprehension question. Just to be clear, my question is more a question on formal logic than that of reading comprehension. I was wondering if the following two statements (ideas) have the same meaning.

Statement 1: Since courts cannot decide such cases on legal grounds, for its resolution, they must consider exercising judicial discretion.

Statement 2: Since courts cannot decide such cases on legal grounds, they rely for its resolution only on judicial discretion.

These two statements are statements that I edited and recreated from the passage to fit the description of my question that came across my mind regarding conditional logic (the first hybrid statement is located at lines 24 - 29 in the passage, and the second statement is a hybrid statement of answer choice D of question 14). Using conditional logic, it seems that in both cases exercising judicial discretion is the necessary condition for the resolution of the case [Statement 1 has "must" and Statement 2 has "only"]. However, just intuitively, the first statement seems to imply that while judicial discretion is necessary, there may be more. On the other hand, the second statement seems to imply that judicial discretion is THE one and only necessary condition....

Is there something I am missing? Is there maybe a subtle difference of meaning between necessary condition indicators such as "require/must/only if/etc," and the indicator of "only"?? Or is it maybe because the necessary condition for the first statement is "CONSIDERING judicial discretion" while the necessary condition for the second statement is JUST judicial discretion? They look like logical equivalents, yet they seem to imply two different things.... Any help would be great!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-4-passage-2-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-4-passage-2-questions/

0
User Avatar
•

Wednesday, Aug 2, 2017

qifengqian432

LR question

How to describe the situation: No one in this house will go to the party.

A. In this house ------》-- go to the party

B. -- in this house -------》go to the party

1

Hi everyone,

So i've been posting here semi-often these last two weeks as I work through the CC. I'm just over the 30% mark in material and I decided to take a timed LR section today. I took the June exam and got a 154 and the test we did at the beginning of CC got a 154 as well. I missed roughly -10/-11 on each LR section and even blind reviewed the same. Today I missed -11 and blind reviewed -8. Two questions I still felt foggy about, so I was ok with them being wrong. To say I was disappointed still is a bit of an understatement. I won't relive the gory details but I had a small kitten who has never seen anyone upset in my face and a friend show up with an entire container of ice-cream (I didn't eat the whole thing but I thought about it).

Can I do better by September? I feel so discouraged that this stuff just doesn't want to stick and even more upset that answers I felt like I could totally justify were plain wrong. I don't really want to postpone my exam to December for a multitude of reasons but I need a better score. I've just been doing the CC but should I start mixing in drilling? PTs? Timed PTs? I think I just need to put in more hours every week so if anyone if willing to give me a schedule to follow every day I will happily oblige.

Send help, good vibes, prayers to whoever you believe in, advice, funny memes, etc.

1

hi guys,

so when you have a SUPER long inference Q, how do you approach such questions?

I know that for argument type questions, we MUST understand the relationship between the support and the conclusion before moving on to the answer choices.

But since inference questions are just statements, not arguments, do you move on to the answer choices even if you don't fully understand the stimuli?

0

When answering questions on the logical reasoning section, I found myself having a difficult time distinguishing between common answer types. I feel as if my problem is that I don't know the clear cut distinction between these types. They are as follows:

  • It is cited as some evidence against/for a claim

  • It is cited as a direct contradiction of the claim

  • It is cited as a fact supporting the claim

  • It is an attempt to undermine the criticism cited against/for the claim

  • It is cited as a reason for the claim

    • Would someone be willing to help me out with this? Whenever I am doing a PT I often find myself delving into these answer stems for too long.

    Thank you!

    0

    If I want to practice validity questions....which questions should I be drilling the most? NA, PSA, SA, and MBT....is there anything I'm missing?

    Understanding and applying validity has been suuuuuch an uphill battle for me. And just to make sure it's sunk in, I want to drill as many of those question types as I can.

    Thanks!

    0

    Hey guys,

    I plan on drilling every RC passage from PTs 1-35. Just wanted to get some input on whether this would be a good strategy? I understand that RC changes in newer tests with the addition of the comparative passages. I'm also unsure whether there's a drastic change in the question types in PTs 60+. Or does it not really matter, and it would still be useful to drill from RC 1-35?

    Thanks for the help!

    0

    Hi all!

    I just finished PT 38 and scored a 176, BR 179. These are absolutely wild scores for me, as I average around 165. I am studying for a retake in September, after scoring a 161 in June.

    I am reminding myself this it is an outlier score, but noting that I am capable of it (somehow). Typically, I struggle with RC, can foolproof LG (though potentially missing 1-3 stupid questions, or a really hard game stumping me), and am I seeing lots of improvement on LR lately (missing 2-5 per section normally).

    Thoughts? How should I approach/adjust my attitude after this score?

    P.S. Planning another PT tomorrow, so that will be added to the bag-- taking 2-3 per week until Sept.

    0

    Here's the situation: during many of my times practice tests I find that I get bogged down in the middle of the section. I can make it through the first 10 questions with little issue and recover by the end but I find large chunks of wrong answers in the middle. Of course, there are questions I still struggle with and I understand that I can approach individual question types but does anyone have experience with this? Is it also true that the middle of the section is where the hardest questions are?

    0

    Hello,

    I was working on PT35.S4.Q11, and came across the expression "if all and only those", and it seemed to me as a biconditional indicator, but I haven't come across it yet. Do you agree?

    Lawgic: real (---) "entities posited by the most explanatorily powerful theory of the science"

    0

    once I get the setup right I can do quite well on making inferences and completing the game. But I am horrible when there are multiple sets that must be assigned. I don't know what the base should be, and I am quite poor at determining if they should be in columns, how many per Collum, or rows. Overall I am just horrible at setting the games up. How can I improve?

    1

    Confirm action

    Are you sure?