My big issue with this question is about why B is the correct answer. It seems to equate "exploiting" with "destroy" and I'm not sure how reasonable of an assumption that is to make. Since this is a logically inferred question, I assumed that the right answer would have a higher degree of validity than an MSS answer choice.

But answer B, the right answer, seems to combine the two groups of environmentalists into one group, and I'm not sure that's implied anywhere in the argument. Noneconomic justification appears in the second sentence with the many group. The defensibility of exploiting features appear in the previous sentence with the some group.

How are we to infer that we have to combine these groups? Does it have to do with the economic costs in the last part of the second sentence?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-3-question-08/

So I chose answer choice A because author Q simply states, " ought to have been effective, but he has not been" the author is just saying that he's been ineffective but doesn't offer up any evidence as to why he is ineffective. Can someone explain to me why my reasoning is wrong? that would be greatly appreciated! thank you!!!!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-2-question-11/

Hey guys!

Hope everyone had an amazing holiday weekend!

I've decided to go back over some of the very beginning core stuff to make sure I have a solid understanding before moving on in the curriculum. I have the LSAT Trainer and I'm trying to use that as supplemental material to explain the concepts I'm having trouble with. This is going to seem really silly...maybe it's because I'm just starting out, but this threw me for a loop:

"When we are asked to evaluate the reasoning in an argument, it is always in terms of a very specific task: our job is always to evaluate and understand why the reasons given DO NOT justify the point that is made. For every one of these questions, your understanding of why the support doesn't justify the conclusion will be your primary gauge for evaluating right and wrong answers (p.35)."

So every argument is wrong? For some reason I remember hearing JY say don't worry about whether the argument is RIGHT OR WRONG..... What is the logical reasoning section asking me to DO?

If anyone could help clarify this, I'd greatly appreciate it!

Thanks guys!

The definition is "if two variables cannot be next to one another, there must be at least one space separating them", and the equation is Total slots – # w/i variable = # empty slots between the variables.

Can any body give a full explanation on what separation principle is? I don't get what w/i variable represents... Thanks in advance!

Hi,

Would this be the best plan to perfect the logic games by September 15?

Finish the core material as fast as I can. I am 40 percent of the way through and started last Thursday. I'll obviously slow down a little now that I am through a lot of the logical reasoning stuff.

Foolproof games 1-35.

Resume PTing with blind review. I haven't used any of the newest 20 tests. I have the newest book of tests on its way in the mail and will purchase the next ten whenever they come out after the June test. I have used a lot of the other old tests, but may add one of them in directly before or after each of my new practice tests in order to build endurance.

Thanks for any feedback, especially by people who have improved on and ideally nearly perfected logic games. They are my one hangup on the test and thankfully according to 7sage are a weakness that seems fixable.

Context about me and the test:

I am retaking a 172 from the February test in September. For the February test, I studied for about 3 weeks predominantly by PTing and have been intermittantly since. Logical reasoning is very intuitive to me. I miss an average of one in the two sections on each test. Reading comprehension is similar, though I miss a few more (about 1-3 in the one section). Logic games I can get the right answers with sufficient time, but struggle to finish. I did not complete the last game during my test in February guessing blindly on the last 2 questions and close to blindly on the preceding ones from that game. I really haven't got better or worse by practice testing and reviewing (but not blind reviewing) since February(however I did discover 7sage through the logic games explanations). I average 173 with the vast majority of errors on logic games.

Hey everyone,

I'm currently registered for the June LSAT, and have been studying since December. I've been aiming for the 166-170 range since my diagnostic. I eventually worked my way up throughout the semester to averaging a 163, and immediately following my final exams, I scored a 169 (maybe because I had a break from looking at the LSAT for 2 weeks?). For about 3 PTs after the 169, I averaged a 166 or so. Since then (so in the last week and a half/two weeks) I've seen a steady decline in my scores, to averaging a 164 again after another 4 PTs and a low 160 this afternoon (sigh). Other than the few tests that I performed really sub-par on, my BR has been sitting consistently around 173-175.

Has anyone else had a similar experience while studying, or have any advice about this? Obviously it's pretty frustrating to see a decrease in your scores when you'd expect some improvement in the final stretch.

Thanks!

This one tripped me up quite a bit. I need a better explanation than J.Y. gave in the video. In a flaw question, are we to assume all the premise are true? In this question it says;

"...to play a card game devised to test perception and memory."

When I read this, and this might be my major issue, I automatically assumed that this card game was perfect to test perception and memory. I did not see a reason to question its credibility. Then I read the conclusion which said the idea that perception and memory are reduced by 80 is false.

This lead me to believe that I had to show that perception and memory could not be tested in any real way. So I chose answer C.

C.) Perception and memory are interrelated in ways of which we are not currently aware.

My reasoning here was that if we didn't know how perception and memory interact, then the card game could not have allowed for an accurate reading and therefore the conclusion could not be properly drawn.

the correct answer choice just seemed to easy and to not really do anything to counter the argument. Answer E. says;

E.) Playing the study's card game perfectly requires fairly low levels of perception and memory.

this just seemed so weird to me. How can I just say "oh hey, your card game that you designed to test perception and memory does not actually test perception and memory"? This seems like I'm attacking the premise directly, and I thought in arguments we were not allowed to do that.

help...

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-4-question-08/

So i am just finishing the CC and i have always struggled with LGs. I find that sometimes i can finish a game which is rated at a 5 in difficulty with no problem at all. But then i will completely bomb a game that is apparently really easy and after 7 or 8 minutes i give up and watch JYs explanation. Not sure why this is happening. Any insight would be much appreciated.

Alright, so I've been grinding for the last 3 months to prep for the the June LSAT. Done upwards of 30 PTs with Blind Review and I seem to have plateaued at about a 168-172 score under timed conditions. Wondering if anybody has any tips for the next two weeks that might help me eke out a few more points. I would be ecstatic with a 170, I know what an achievement that is, but the difference in scholarship money between a 170 and a 173 is probably tens of thousands... I usually ace the Logic games unless I run out of time, LR is usually -2 or 3 per section, and RC is toughest for me, averaging -5/6.

I am currently hovering round a BR score of 174.

I usually make about 4 to 5 overconfidence errors, spread out over LR and RC.

Sometimes I get a question wrong in my BR as well. How do I fix that?

I usually go through the whole exam.

Also, what are your thoughts on retaking PTs?

Hi dear 7sagers, and sages,

First of all, I am having trouble understanding the difference between negation and contrapositive but I think I am slowly getting it.

What troubles me, however, is how to negate a relationship, or in other words deny it, which has an And/Or statement in the conditionals. So, for example, I will use @JY's example from his lesson on DeMorgan's Law:

"If Tom plays, then Jerome and Simmi play too"

Translated into lawgic that would be: T→(J and S) (which could be split)

Now, if we negate the statement altogether, what happens then? "It could be the case that if Tom plays, neither Jerome nor Simmi play" am I right? ....T→NOT(J and S)

Moreover, how do you translate that? T→/J and T→/S ??? Or in other words, T→(/J and /S) (which could also be split)

Hi,

I've been taking PTs with 32 minutes for all sections and felt quite challenging to get those difficult curve-breakers right in 32 minutes, especially for LR. I definitely think those extra 2-3 minutes could be very useful (currently getting 5-6 wrong combined), but for those who score high in LR, do you think 2-3 less minutes should not make a huge difference? How do you guys use the last 5 minutes of the section (in full 35 min section)? Should I rather go back to doing 35 min section PTs?

With these being a bit wordier than your average LR question (especially with the AC's), what is an appropriate time to shoot for?

Hi All,

I could use some help with this necessary assumption question. I definitely see why C is a necessary assumption, but I'm having a hard time figuring out why E is not also an equally necessary assumption. I have yet to find an explanation online that addresses my thought process.

The argument is as follows:

P1: Nuclear reactors are sometimes built in “geologically quiet” regions.

P2: Geologists call these regions “geologically quiet” because such regions are distant from plate boundaries and contain only minor faults.

P3: No minor fault in a geologically quiet region produces an earthquake more often than once in any given 100,000- year period.

C: Out of all the potential nuclear reactor sites in such a region, the ones that are least likely to be struck by an earthquake are ones located near a fault that has produced an earthquake within living memory.

I had chosen E, but the correct answer is C. I see why C is a necessary assumption, but my current issue is seeing why E is not.

C is correct because we cannot assume the relative location of the nuclear reactors to the minor faults. It could be that some nuclear reactors are on one end of the "geologically quiet" region and that the minor faults are miles away. C addresses the assumption necessary to position all the nuclear reactors on the same playing field (proximity wise), which renders the conclusion's validity possible.

When I chose E, it was based on a similar thought process that I believe C requires...I chose E because the stimulus never said that the faults had to produce earthquakes. The stimulus says that the maximum is one earthquake every 100,000 years, but what if there are some faults (or entire regions...) that produce NO earthquakes? In that case, it is not the faults that have had an earthquake in living memory that are the least likely to be struck by an earthquake-- the least likely would be the faults that are "dormant" or "inactive." E fixes this by establishing that there will be at least 1 every 100,000 years (in conjunction with the stimulus, that means there will be exactly 1 every 100,000 years).

Can someone help me out here? I see two equally necessary assumptions and I know I'm most likely misinterpreting the stimulus? Or E?

Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-2-question-21/

For logic games, if the question is asking for a CBT could a MBT be correct? For example, if R has to go into the 9th spot and R being in the 9th spot is one of the answer choices, could that be correct? TYA!

Hi could someone help me out with the diagramming on this one? I found it absolutely confounding and I'm usually pretty decent at conditional phrasing.

So what I took away from this after looking at this thoroughly was that the original logic chain is something to the effect of:

P1: EW (Weak Economy) -> PRC (Prices Remain Constant) and UR (Unemployment Rises)

P2: UR -> ID (Investment Decreases)

P3: /ID

What I got from this was: EW-> PRC

-> UR -> ID

Arrow in the second line after the blank is supposed to symbolize the "and." (And is split after, Or is split before)

From there: /ID ->/UR ->/EW

PRC seems irrelevant now since you've already failed part of the "and". Sufficient (EW) is already failed by /UR, therefore PRC floats. It can do whatever.

How do we get from /ID ->/UR ->/EW

to /EW -> ID must be false

Not sure how this is correct. Obviously, since we know ID is stated in the stimulus, this must be true. Then it says EW, which we know not to be true.

Similarly, with D, we know that the economy is not weak, must be true, but prices remaining constant, I have no idea how this figures in.

Same thing with E. Either unemployment is rising, and we know that it isn't, or the economy is not weak, which also must be true. We know both of these must be true. Still not sure how this translates into an either...or statement.

What am I missing here? Is it something to with the either...or statements?

Principle or PSA question?

In LR, I try to identify the question type as quickly as possible, but sometimes I cannot identify immediately. I have hard time differentiating PSA and Principle questions under timed conditions.

Typical PSA questions are like:

"Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning above?"

and I can identify it as PSA immediately.

But for example, PT57.S2.Q1. says:

"The reasoning above most closely conforms to which one of the following principles?"

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-57-section-2-question-01/

This is a fairly easy question, but I didn't know that this is a PSA question until after I read the stimulus and ACs.

Do you have any tips in differentiating PSAs from Principles quickly?

=============================================

Is Q39.S2.Q11 a PSA question?

Also, 7Sage labeled Q39.S2.Q11 as PSA, but I feel like this is a Principle question since we're given a conditional statement in the stimulus, and answers give us a premise and a conclusion.

"Which one of the following judgements most closely conforms to the principle above?"

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-39-section-2-question-11/

Is this a PSA question? If so, can someone elaborate on the difference between PSA and Principle questions?

Thank you :)

I'm adding my explanation to this question since it doesn't currently exist on 7sage. Feel free to critique my reasoning.

This is a necessary assumption question. We know this because the question stem says the argument above makes which one of the following assumptions? The correct AC must be an assumption we know the argument makes. Therefore, it is a necessary assumption.

P: R bacteria provide nitrogen to bean plants and other legumes. Nitrogen is an essential plant nutrient. Wheat must normally be supplied nitrogen by nitrogen fertilizer.

C: If technology produces wheat strains that will host R bacteria, the need for fertilizers will be reduced.

Flaw: I originally thought but what if nitrogen is not the only essential plant nutrient for plants to grow? Might the need for fertilizer remain? B plays on this erroneous understanding. This isn't the actual flaw.

A. 'should' is irrelevant. This is not about what should happen it's about what is/will happen.

B. This was temping and it the trap answer choice. The conclusion says the need for artificial fertilizers will be reduced if biotech succeeds in producing wheat strains who host R bacteria. What about other reasons growers need to add fertilizer? Can we conclude from no longer needing nitrogen that fertilizer demand in general will be reduced? Even if nitrogen only comprises a small subset of all fertilizer use, if we eliminate the nitrogen need, then yes, the fertilizer demand will be reduced. This is true even if nitrogen is not the only soil nutrient that must be supplied. The key word to not falling for this trap answer choice is "reduced." Perhaps I was temped because I was thinking "eliminated." If the conclusion said the demand would be eliminated then yes nitrogen would have to be the only reason growers use fertilizer.

C. This is not necessary. It talks about other grasses but even if it didn't, even if there are strains of wheat that do have R naturally, we know there are some that aren't. That's what the whole argument is about so this is irrelevant.

D. Similar reasoning to C. We don't need legumes to be the only crops that produce nitrogen. We know some wheats don't and we know there is an existing need for nitrogen based fertilizer. The argument is simply saying the need will go down if wheat is modified to host R bacteria.

E. This is absolutely necessary. If the R bacteria did not produce nitrogen in the wheat roots then it wouldn't reduce the need for artificial fertilizer. This is the true flaw. Just because the plant will host the bacteria doesn't mean that it will necessarily have the desired effect.

Happy Sunday, everyone!

I'm currently working through the Core Curriculum, and for the harder problem sets in the Logical Reasoning modules (mostly Sufficient and Pseudo-Sufficient Assumption questions sets) I'm able to eliminate 3/5 answer choices without any problem. Of the remaining two answer choices (which is always the correct answer choice and one incorrect one) I end up eliminating the correct answer choice and choosing the incorrect one, even after carefully considering both options and writing down explanations for why I eliminated or chose each AC.

Has this ever happened to any of you, and what did you do to correct it?

Thank you for all your help ~ it has been invaluable in my study prep! =)

is it Some are not A and not B?

A --> C

B --> C

/A some /B

I was trying to translate this into english and was having some trouble.

for example,

all jedi use the force. all sith use the force.

if you are not a force user, you are not Jedi and not Sith

so..

some are not Jedi and Not Sith? ( /A some /B) is that correct?

Hi all,

I just did a full-simulated LR section and scored -5. I missed #2 so I feel like I missed a big opportunity there. I haven't finished going through the curriculum. I take the September LSAT.

What's it going to take to get that number down to -3 or better on every.single.section? Could this be a pattern recognition issue or just more practice?

I feel -3 or less is a good goal because LR and RC are nearly impossible to score perfect consistently because of the varying nature.

Im having trouble understanding why answer choice E is correct. I chose answer choice D because the conclusion has to do with the experts being useless because they offered contradictory information. I thought that when were looking at reasoning method questions were supposed to look at the conclusion and see how it is flawed. Here is my reasoning for the other ones to be incorrect:

a) This isn’t the correct answer because its not talking about the argument

b) This is also incorrect because it has nothing to do with the argument

c) Why would we consider other opinions outside of health when were talking about health related issues

d) This is correct because Ive eliminated every other answer and also because they’re assuming that just because the expert opinions are trustworthy in one case that they have to be trustworthy in all cases

e) This is incorrect because the argument doesn’t have anything to with whether or not the coffee is good for you but rather the experts are useless

TYA!!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-1-question-06/

Through the BR process, I've noticed that I can attribute 1-2 missed questions per LR section to "misreading" the stimulus. It seems that I am prone to skip an important adjective that clarifies the correct AC. Most of the time, I approach the AC's with a good understanding of the argument/facts, but for the few questions that hinge on these small clarifiers, I often get burned.

When I read the stimulus, I typically follow the end of each line with my pencil. I've noticed in JY's live commentary videos, he tracks literally every word with his pencil. Does anyone have a method of reading (specifically in terms of pencil usage) that they feel allows them to capture even small details? Do you think I would benefit from switching to this more methodical approach? Thanks in advance!

My goal is a 168+ to get into my target law schools.

My PT score range is 164-166. I have burned PTs from 55 - 70.

Today I had the worst score (PT70) since I started studying earlier this year.

I am contemplating withdrawing or taking the June test and immediately canceling. If I withdraw, I will lose money. If I take and cancel, I will also lose money BUT I will at least have had the experience of sitting and taking an offical LSAT.

The only other consideration is that I can not take the September LSAT due to work scheduling and I will instead be taking the December LSAT. I would like to apply this upcoming fall and I am a bit worried that December is late for the LSAT...

Thoughts?

Thank you.

Hi 7sagers!

What kinds of patterns have you seen emerge in MBT/MSS questions? For example, I personally have seen that for conditional - heavy stimuli, LSAC loves to use mistaken reversals & mistaken negations as wrong answer choices.

Are there any other patterns that you have noticed -- perhaps other patterns in the answer choices, in the stimulus structure, or in the way the answer choices relate to the stimulus?