Confused with the answer choices on this one.

Any explanations?

Thanks in advance

Admin edit: Please do not post LSAT questions word for word.

I'm having trouble with this Fact Pattern and Question Stem.

I'm assuming it is supposed to be faulty because the FP makes the switch from talking about tall tulips to tall plants.

However, we know that tulips are the ONLY plants in the garden. And we also know they are all tulips. How is it faulty to make the step that the only plants in the garden are tall plants?

I think this question really gets at the subtly of the "support" role we have to play to make the relationship P -> C more relevant.

I oscillated between A and E but eventually went with A, primarily because I thought the phrase "shout not be allowed" matched nicely with the "government should ban". Even during BR, I stuck to my original choice, which tells me I clearly don't understand this question. I do see that (E) has a conditional statement Promote -> Healthy and that the Healthy is denied because of the premises given in the stimulus but I felt that was also similar for (A). (A) has "people doing things that endanger their health".

So my thought for (E) was that, even though it does suggest that "If not healthy, ad should not promote", it doesn't necessarily link the "government should ban" aspect. This is such a curve breaker question (and there is no JY explanation for this) that I was really hoping someone could shed some light on this question.

If possible, could anyone share their reasoning/understanding of this question?

Thanks in advance :)

I chose (C) assuming that "hope" is a certain effect that can translate into a medical effect. Now, I see that is an unwarranted assumption. But as for (D), I found the term, "the medical treatment the patient is receiving" too vague and I didn't know whether it was referencing to the alternative medicine or orthodox medicine.

Could someone help me with their reasoning as to why (D) is correct?

Thanks a lot in advance!

Hello fellow 7Sage students! I am taking the December LSAT and wanted to see who else is, and if you wanted to form a study group! I am aiming for a 155-158, but I welcome all that are really serious about getting it done the next few months! Who's with me?

I am almost done the CC. How do I fool proof LG? Do I do it with the games I have trouble with on my PT's, or I just fool proof any games I have trouble with, aside from doing the games on the Pt's? Basically, my question is, is fool proofing separate from doing my PT's?

Am I the only one that feels like reading about conditional reasoning messes up my head .. feel like just skipping this chapter ? feel like I'm more able to solve a question without diagramming as the conditional reasoning showed me how to

Any advice would be appreciated.

At what point during your LG studies did you start to improve? I see a major uphill battle for me.

If a question says, 'if blank comes before blank, but all other conditions remain in effect"....All other conditions refers to the game rules and/or any rules that were specific to a previous question as well?

The best advice is to wait until you are "ready" to take the test! The greatest gift is to take the test and achieve your score!

For some of us, that didn’t happen on our first take.

What happens if after taking the test and the experience leaves you stressed thinking you weren’t ready?

Before you get your score, please consider doing a thorough post-take written analysis of your experience. As recommended to me by the Sages in my attempts to match my PT scores to Actual test scores, I have seen significant improvement by following their advice:)

There are 2 aspects post-take that are paramount to gain from the experience…

-How did I procedurally take the test?

o Was my pre-test routine sufficient to provide the best testing experience?

o Was my timing strategy on point - Did I skip difficult LR questions, RC passages & LG games efficiently?

o Did I let a rough patch undermine my confidence in my ability?

What were my weaknesses that caused me to lose confidence?

o What LR questions, RC passages, LG games cost me time or points?

o Did I try a new strategy too close to test date that I hadn’t made instinctual - to think more about the strategy than what the test presented?

o How did I handle questions that are my known weakness and what can I do to drill them to remove that insecurity?

I learned so much from my previous takes! The first take is a blur - I had no clue what I was doing even with all of my prep to take it when I was ready. My 2nd & 3rd takes were exciting because I saw the differences in my understanding not just on certain specific aspects of the test but on a global understanding of how to conquer the test.

Hope you feel the same way I do with no regrets about being "Ready"... If you achieve your score, then LS application focus! If you under-preformed, then you have a game plan.

If a retake is on your horizon, hope this helps :)

All the best on your scores!!

Hi All! Hope you are all studying or awaiting your scores!!

I am planning to write in December 2017 but if my scores are not within the range I wish I will be writing in February 2018. I wanted to know everyones opinion regarding the February LSAT.

Has anyone on this forum ever taken the LSAT and encountered a difference from the other PTs or other exams they have taken? I am aware this is an undisclosed exam therefore many of us would not be able to answer this question unless you have taken the February exam. Please let me know what everyones opinions are! I appreciate everyones point of view!!

Looking for an LSAT tutor in the Greater New York Area or Long Island. Please pm me for my email. Thanks.

Hey guys,

I have two questions!

I'd really appreciate your input regarding whether I should print out a fresh copy for RC blind review. Is it as helpful to do so as it is for LR blind review?

RC Drilling

Do you guys drill RC from earlier PT's (1~30). If so, do you drill by passage (8min45s) or do a full RC section then BR?

Thank you so much!

Hey guys,

I was wondering what PTs people used to master the logic games using the fool proof method? I would like to be time efficient and if there are certain tests that will help me master them at the beginning, I would love to start with those. Nonetheless, I will eventually do 2-3 logic games or a LG section per day leading up the test.

I know there's a LG bundle, however I plan to write in December and would like to use the next two weeks to get close to my target score for that section (-2/-1). So basically, I'd like to know if there are certain preptests (ie.18-35) that may assist me in this. I struggle with timing for the most part with LG right now, and also have trouble with the games that have FL/conditional reasoning.

Any suggestions? Let me know what you guys have tried and what has worked for you.

Im trying to find out how hard Section 1 of PT 58 was. For me it wasn't really hard, but I missed a couple more than I would like.

Spoiler alert: Doesn't break the bank.

I had a bad habit of using my eraser on LG so I........dramatically took the eraser off my pencil. Took a couple times of me still flipping the pencil over but now I'm crossing out instead of erasing (and actually making less mistakes).

Namaste.

I know LSAC is giving cancelled Florida LSAT takers the chance to switch to December for free, but are they rescheduling the September one? It is not clear on the website. If they are, is anyone just going to wait until they know the reschedule date to decide whether to switch to December? This is so frustrating studying without knowing when the test is :/

I'd love an explanation on this one!

Thanks in advance

I am going through the curriculum and get about 1 wrong per passage. I usually complete a passage & its questions under 8.5 minutes. The low resolution summaries have been very helpful but I still get -1 per passage. I am just wondering if my results will improve overtime as I do more RC practices or should I do something else to improve my accuracy?

What has been the biggest help for you?

Hey all,

I am planning on taking the December LSAT and, with that date looming, I am really trying to break from the high/mid-160s and move into the 170s (and beyond!). I have been reading a bunch throughout these forums with regards to study schedules, but I haven't found anything that seems to be of much help to me.

So, without further ado, I was wondering what you all suggest as my plan of attack? I have already completed the CC and done every logic game from 1 - 10, in addition to some PTests. I figured that I should try and tackle about a practice test every other day, with an intense BR session in between each test. Should I use PTests 11 - 35 to drill each section (RC is my weakest, but I could use improvement on everything, not to mention that I still have a bunch of tests I still have yet to see)? Or should I just take those as full PTests in addition?

Thank you in advance for your help!

I apologize if a few of you fine mentors have already told me when this group will start to gear up, and I know its really early days yet. But, I wanted to get a feel for my Summer full time & Fall part-time study plan with respect to at what point I should be at in my studies in order to join such a group. If I was told, it has totally slipped my mind---I'll write it down this time!

I know I need to be done with CC and starting to PT with BR, and I know one jumps in whenever one reaches that numbered PT within the group's schedule, but I wanted to get a tentative long range game plan in place to find out how I can consistently join this highly recommended group study, whenever it starts.

Plus, I'd like to find out if I'm just too slow and should not consider sitting for Dec '17 as a reasonable goal, or if I'm close to the target. I realize study pace is entirely individual, and I can guess June '17 (and September '17) dates and groups come first at the moment.

But one question that keeps nagging at me, specifically: there are so many PTs, does the Study Group start at 36 or somewhere in the 50s (that's a totally random guess), or some other number, to reach the most recent & published LSAT by 1 week before test date?

And, do the groups cover every single PT or just a sampling in each group of ten: # 40s, 50s, 60, 70s, & 80s.

I thought this might help new 7Sagers get a long range game plan in place too.

Thanks!

Hi All,

I've been pretty good with setting up and reading conditional chains for in-and-out games but for some reason I'm really confused with the conditional chain for PT 34 S4 G4 (if you recall, it's about splitting six doctors to either the Souderton or Randsborough clinic).

Here is the simplified version of the conditional chain for this game:

~N --> ~O --> J --> ~K --> P

When I look at this, the minimum number of doctors that needs to be in the in group (Souderton) is two since we have two separate OR pairs (~O --> J and ~K --> P) as was asked in question 21 (and the correct answer was "two").

So this is where I get really confused. If this is the logic we are using to interpret a minimum number of doctors, why can't the correct answer for question 19 (which asks for a complete and accurate list of doctors at Souderton) be E (N and P)? Why can't the ~N --> J pair be treated the same as ~O --> J? If we only have N and P, aren't we still good since we have at least one of N and J and one of K and P?

I guess I am really confused as to how to correctly account for the OR pairs when there so many overlap between them in a particular chain like you see above? Thanks for your help in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-4-game-4/

Having a hard time deciphering answer choice D correctness. Particularly, i am not being able to get over my thinking that D assumes that marks were formed at the place where sandstone was formed. I mean, the marks were formed somewhere else and sandstone was moved to where it was find millions of years after the marks were formed let's say by an earthquake or stuff. Isn't it plausible?

Also, why can't some "early life forms" from answer choice C can leave those marks?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-61-section-2-question-14/

In the lesson Valid Argument Forms 4 - 9 of 9, a corollary to valid form 6 is introduced that reads—

A –> C

B –> C

∴ /A some /B

I understand how this form follows logically and how it relates to valid form 6, but it seems as though the /A some /B conclusion would NOT hold under the following scenario despite adhering to both initial premises.

Imagine you have A's.

A

A

A

All A's are C's.

AC

AC

AC

Imagine you have B's.

AC

AC

AC

B

B

B

All B's are C's (in this case, A and B do not intersect, without loss of generality).

AC

AC

AC

BC

BC

BC

Now, the inference should be "some non-A's are non-B's," however from the above scenario, all non A's ARE B's. Can somebody reconcile the above scenario with the valid argument form?

I've seen this example brought up in the lesson's comments section, however I have not seen it addressed directly.

Thanks!