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/

Why is the correct answer C? I did watch JY's video, but still not sure why B is wrong. Here's my reasoning:

Yolanda’s conclusion: Joyriding is the MORE dangerous crime (than gaining access to computers without authorization)

Arjun’s reasoning: I disagree (or meaning, Joyriding is NOT MORE dangerous crime (than gaining access to computers without authorization)

Why? Because computer crimes also cause physical harm to people.

Here I think the Arjun’s flaw is that what’s absolute (computer crimes cause harm) cannot prove what's relative (computer crimes cause MORE harm than joyriding.

Yolanda’s making a comparison argument (joyriding is MORE dangerous) but Arjun’s disagreeing with it with only the evidence that computer crime also causes harm. He does not establish that computer crime is MORE dangerous, only that it is dangerous.

That’s why I thought that he does not provide a valid evidence to disagree with Yolanda. Am I reading answer choice B wrong? Would any evidence, albeit an invalid one, be fine to eliminate answer choice B?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-14/

I'm debating between taking the September or December LSAT. Is one option inherently better than the other? How does early decision factor into this?

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

Hey all,

What's really tripping me up is that this question stem is written in the passive voice. The stem saying "could have remained unchanged in force and focus IF which one of the following had been advanced as a counterexample in place of the word 'absentee'" makes me believe that the original explanation wouldn't have to be amended if it weren't for the counter example of "absentee" being used. So I was trying to find a counter example that talked about an individual performing the action unilaterally, while not needing the explanation that resolves the impasse which is what I thought the question stem was asking me to do.

If the question stem was "the reasoning could remain unchanged in force and focus if which one of the following words is used in place of the word 'absentee'" rather than the goddamn passive voice, then it really would be much easier.

Can someone clear up my confusion? Am I just crazy???

Paging JY

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-4-question-22/

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?

I am taking a 10 hr flight tomorrow, I would love to study in the air. There is no wifi, however. Any way I can view the lessons without internet?

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:

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!

HI everyone,

I have been struggling to correctly answer sample logical reasoning/weakening the argument type questions. Unfortunately, I am repeatedly selecting the most attractive wrong answer choices for each of the questions. My LSAT preparation material is advising me to use conditional reasoning techniques to identify the correct answer choices. So I am wondering if anyone can tell me whether using necessary condition and sufficient condition strategies works with finding the correct answer to logical reasoning/weakening the argument type questions.

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"

I'm at a point with Logic Games where I can consistently get -0 in 30 minutes, but I acknowledge a significant reason for this is that I've done every game at least twice -- the ones that gave me particular trouble, many more times.

I want to stay sharp on the section as I gear up to retake in September, but I also don't want to be blind-sighted on test day, when I will be faced with a new set of logic games for the first time in over 3 months.

So -- is anyone else in the same boat? Would anyone recommend a testing prep company that writes their own logic games instead of using LSAC official ones? For LR or RC, I'd be very skeptical about using questions not asked on the actual exam, but given the nature of LG, I think the benefits outweigh the cost, as I'd be supplementing the made-up games with real sets.

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!

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!

So I'm currently studying for the September LSAT, but wondering if the December one would be too late to take when it comes to the admissions process. Would it be better to take the September LSAT because it is right when the admissions cycle opens up?

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?

Is it ok to translate "Writing can only succeed if it meets the expectations." as:

"Meet Expectation --> Succeed"

or

Is it "Succeed --> Meet Expectation"?

I don't know if we see a sentence like this on LSAT, but I just saw this sentence in real life and got confused by its placement of the word "only."

I have not done as many of tests to get a conclusion, but I heard there is a difference, is that true? anything you guys noticed?

I've heard very little about this. Does anyone use a particular method for triaging LR questions you want to return to? Dark/light circles/squares? Marking a question "completed" after you return and feel 100% confident?

Thanks!

Is there anyone in the area of Clemson/Greenville currently studying for the September LSAT who would want to form a study group? I was thinking we could pick a few PTs to take individually and then BR together, but am definitely willing to study in whichever way the group thinks is best!

Can anyone show me their diagram of this question?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-4-question-12/

In one of the lessons, JY states:

"Some dogs are cute. All cute things are loveable.

Therefore, some dogs are lovable".

My question is, why is it not, "Therefore, ALL dogs are loveable"?

So i have made tremendous strides in my RC method and technique over the past couple of weeks. Contrary to populer belief, i think RC is a very doable section, especially with the proper incorporation of the memory method.

My question is: does it ever get to the point when one is comfortable with every passage they encounter? I realize this is subjective, but i am asking about your personal experience.

Alot of times i will read a passage and BAM, i feel super in control of the content and absolutely breeze through the questions. And these arent necessarily based on the content or the difficulty. And sometimes i just seem pretty blurry even after a couple of reads. Any thoughts?

Hi! September is coming up quick so my social activities on the weekends will be kept to a minimum. Will anyone else be studying tonight and tomorrow night? If so, I think it'd be a great idea to set up a chat group in case I have any questions and vice versa!

I am learning MBT Questions. JY uses diagrams. Should we, too?

Hi guys! General question about strengthening questions. I know from reviewing the core curriculum that, in theory, you can strengthen an argument one of two ways:

1.) adding premises that support the conclusion

2.) increasing the relevance of an existing premise to a conclusion

However, the more strengthening explanations I watch, the more I notice the right answer never really adds an independent extra premise. It always relates back to an existing premise, and makes it more relevant. Also JY mentions in several videos that the AC's that seem to add extra premises are the trap answers.

So, are there examples of correct strengthening AC's that do add an extra premise that in no way has to do with any of the premises already in the stimulus? Because if so, that would be quite useful in identifying trap answer choices. Thank you!