Can someone help me understand this one? I got it wrong and I understand why the correct answer is correct but not why the incorrect answers are incorrect.

I thought the flaw was Tim using his grandpa as a counterexample to the experts position. My thought was even though the experts had no way of knowing about this specific case, if they conducted studies/experiments they would have accounted for outliers such as Tim's grandpa.

A) This is correct because Tim uses counterexample (his grandpa) to refute a probabilistic conclusion (it is very likely to be harmful to the smokers health). The reason this is correct is also because "very likely" allows for other cases such as Tim's grandpa. I was wavering between this one and B but went with B.

B) I really can't figure out a way to eliminate this answer choice. The information was specific because it was T's grandpa, the only thing I can think of is maybe "information unavailable to experts in the field" and the fact that perhaps the experts were including outliers in their research/assessments prior to making a claim about the future health of smokers. ???

C) I think C is wrong because the experts do not explicitly discount the information of Tim's grandpa, they never mention it.

D) This I'm completely lost on.

E) It never indicates experts that are in agreement with each other and how they derived that agreement, it's focus is on discounting/eliminating their stance on the health of long term smokers.

Thank you in advance, I am most appreciative.

Question about this question and the answers, particularly C and D. The question is a resolve the paradox in which we are told that auto safety experts are concerned about the "increasing popularity" of SUV vehicles, after being told that they are "safer" than small cars in the even of a accident, and that experts have cited their increasing pop as an alarming trend after looking at traffic fatality statistics.

My thinking for C was that if there are more people inside of an SUV, than all other things equal, there would be more people involved in a accident with an SUV than involving a small car, so that would increase the probability of an individual sustaining injuries and/or fatalities in any given accident involving an SUV vs. a small car.

JY in explaining C, comes up with an equation involving this answer which is completely out of left field and that I have no clue where he gets. With D, the correct answer says that their are more fatalities on average between collisions involving small cars and SUV's. My question is that why would the increasing popularity of SUV be an alarming trend, if it is the case that more fatalities occur on average between SUV and malls cars, then wouldn't the increasing pop of the SUV be a good thing, because it would decrease the proportion of SMALL cars and increase the proportion of SUV because b people are dring them instead of msall cars, thereby decreasing the likelihood of collision between small and large cars and lowering the average number of fatalies by decreasing the overall frequency of such occurrences?

Now I'm anticipating that someone will say that "just because they (SUV) are more popular that doesn't mean people will more instead of small cars, but then I don't know how you are supposed to interpret that fact then. Are we supposed to thing that there are therefore more SUV IN ADDITION to small cars on the road now, and that there are now a lager number of cars on the road in total, and that every the popularity means that no one will in fact drive a SUV INSTEAD of a small cars. Is that an invalid interpretation of "assumption". TIA

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-75-section-1-question-06/

I got this question correct, but I wanted to review it because I was really confused with the answer choices.

So, it's a flaw in the reasoning. My whole thought process with the stimulus is/was that the flaw is you cannot assume that since a tax of 1% per gallon would raise one billion dollars/year at consumption rates, a tax of 50% per gallon would yield 50 billion dollars per year. Just because the tax is a certain percentage/dollars does not mean that amount would be doubled. Am I correct in thinking about the flaw this way? I took micro and macroeconomics a really long time so other than the law of supply and demand I don't really remember much for example elasticity.. I know revenue is cost-profit or is it the other way around. I'm really confused so if someone could help me out, I would be most appreciative!

My reasoning is below:

A) the data is not irrelevant, in fact, I would say it is relevant to discussing the flaw in the reasoning.

B) I was thinking about this one for a minute, but then I thought the author is not discussing current consumption figures but rather hypothetical/future consumption figures according to tax policies.

C) I chose this because I thought you cannot assume since a tax of one percent per gallon yields one billion dollars that a tax of fifty percent will yield fifty billion dollars.

D) I was considering this also, but then I couldn't pinpoint the cause and effect, all I could think of was there are two potential situations and we have no idea of the second one is really possible or not.

E) This one I was totally lost on because there is no discussion of morality, it's purely economic reasoning. I ignored this answer choice and focused on the others.

PLEASE HELP!!!!! thanks in advance!

I went through JY's explanation for this question, but i think that explanation ignores this reasoning with the choice D.

I'm still not sure why the credited answer is correct and another one wrong.

I think C perfectly supports the idea that stylistic portrayals are important for comedies because due to C that is where comedies should find humor and "humor is important for comedy". So the criticism because the film has stylistic portrayals (non-realistic) is misguided. in this case resulting film is funny" supports the idea that that it's funny due to stylistic portrayals. Why is C not correct? Unfortunately JY video glosses over this answer choice.

D is really weird because the right answer has an issue that can by itself be a classic flaw question: "a film is successful doesn't mean that it's criticism for not being realistic is misguided". I think that itself makes D a poor choice.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-2-question-06/

Hey Guys,

Question about PT 76, Part 2 (LR), #25:

The answer choices really messed with me because I was between c and d. C plays with the negatives a lot. C says: NONE of the shows that Wilke and Wilke produced last year that were NOT canceled were police dramas.

Can somebody translate this? What do the two negatives mean? Do they mean a positive?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-76-section-4-question-25/

I am just now getting into the habit of prephrasing and I'm not necessarily recognizing common flaws, not immediately anyway. I understand the common flaw listed included in the curriculum may not be exhaustive. There are still questions that I'm not able to prephrase at all. I know some people say prephrase on all question types but The LSAT Trainer says not on all. Is it more advantageous to memorize the common flaws or just be able to recognize the flaw? I ask about it being more advantageous because of answer choices for MOR or flaw/descriptive weakening questions? Obviously memorizing would be more advantageous for those question types but what about overall? I'm sure I'll be able to recognize them with continued studying but I'm wondering if I need to squeeze in flash cards for them or something?

Hello,

I was not sure between A and E.

I think both suggest it does not serve the purpose,

one shows so by denying the necessity of its existence and one by showing ppl would do anyway if they know how to do so.

Why is one correct and one wrong?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-76-section-2-question-22/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-61-section-2-question-21/

I'm trying to understand where my thinking went wrong here, because the truth is that even after spending a lot of time with this question, I know I could make the same mistake on a similar question in the future.

The stimulus says that "A government study indicates that raising speed limits to reflect the actual average speeds of traffic on level, straight stretches of high-speed roadways reduces the accident rate. Since the actual average speed for level, straight stretches of high-speed roadways tends to be 120km/hr (75mph), that should be set as a uniform national speed limit for level, straight stretches of all such roadways."

I'm reading the stimulus with a critical eye, so immediately I'm thinking: "Well, the average speed might tend to be 75mph, but maybe the actual average speed on some stretches in some places of the country is much lower, and in other places much higher. So maybe instituting a "national speed limit" that is uniform across all locations would actually lead to more accidents. What justifies the speed limit being set uniformly? Why not adjust it specifically for each stretch of roadway based on the actual average speed for that location?"

So I read down, looking for an answer choice that speaks to this apparent flaw (as I see it) in the reasoning, an answer choice that tells me why the adopted speed should be uniform. So of course I picked answer choice B. "Traffic laws applying to high-speed roadways should apply uniformly across the nation."

I DO see now that answer choice B leaves out an important element (it doesn't justify why THIS particular law should be adopted), but with my concept of the argument's flaw in mind, I didn't see answer choice E as viable. I got to the answer choice still thinking that the question of whether adopting this traffic law uniformly across the country would in fact reduce the "rate of traffic accidents" was still open to question.

At least answer choice B seemed to address the gap (as I saw it) in the argument.

Where was I off in my thinking?

My question is, once you get the game wrong, watch explanation, get all of the inferences from video explanation, do you print the copies of the game and drill it until you get it correct under timed conditions? Or do you move on to next game and then drill the previous one later in life? I am really confused as to what to do. I feel if I drill it right away I just remember what I watched in video so I get it correct and under time right away from second take. However, if I spend some time doing other LG I forget all inferences and start from scratch on each game. What to do?

Hello!

I was confused between (B) and (C).

I thought the basic structure of argument in passage A is that since something has a bad assumption, so it doesn't work and thus must not be used.

I understand (C) is a good answer choice, but I wonder how (B) is different from (C).

It seems economic models, which presume rationality of actors, have indeed a bad assumption, so it must not be used to predict human behavior.

I would appreciate if you clarify difference between (B) and (C) and explain me why (C) is better than (B).

Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-3-passage-3-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-3-passage-3-questions/

Hello guys, so I just had a realization that I did not want to face but I might have no choice. So my goal score is a 165 and I have taken a total of 11 PTs. My scores were 158,164,161,161,164,162 for the first 6 tests, which were fine by me and I felt as though I can take the September test and get pretty close to my target score. HOWEVER, here is my issue. I recently took PTs 73-76 in order to gear up for the September LSAT during the past week or two and I scored 158,158,159, and a 154 (which is what made me write this.). Seeing that 154 just sucked man because I was hoping to be ready by September. I'm now realizing that I may have to take the December and February(if needed) tests instead. Anyway, i have a few questions for you guys. 1. Am i making the right choice by postponing? 2. From where I'm averaging, is a 165 possible by December? Im asking this question with my recent scores of 158,158,159 and 154 in mind. These recent PTs seem to have been more difficult for me as my averages have dropped. 3. If a 165 is possible, what is the best possible approach I can take in my studying from now until December? I would appreciate ANY suggestions because I'm willing to hear out all advice. I was taking PTs almost every other day in order to get ready for September but Im now realizing that I might have made a mistake with that. Should I take less PTs per week and spend more time on BR? I would appreciate the feedback guys. I really want to be averaging a 165 by December so I want to make sure i approach studying the right way since I had to figure out the hard way that only 3-4 months of studying isn't going to cut it.

the stimulus it says "getting more calories" on the other hand D says "uses more calories" I thought the two are different things...why D strengthen the stimulus?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-77-section-2-question-02/

The conclusion here is that: Athletes who need to improve muscle strength should not use the engineered food.

Premises: Hormones produce growth in connective tissues rather than in muscle mass, which does not improve muscular strength

So, I was stuck between answer choices "A" and "C"

I tried the negation test and thought without both of them the argument falls apart.

I chose "A" because "C" was too strong and thought it was an sufficient assumption.

I'm having a hard time eliminating "A" because, I'm assuming if muscle mass does not increase strength, the premises of the argument falls apart and thus breaks the conclusion.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-31-section-3-question-21/

This question came up on the last BR group call this Wednesday. I'm really curious what you all think about this question! I'd also love to know what your strategies and approaches for tackling this question are. It's a point of disagreement question which (I was so confident that I knew how to easily identify the correct answer to and that I haven't had much of a problem with but it still) defeated me. With the help of some 7sagers I was able to understand what I did wrong. Thanks @Daniel.Sieradzki @twssmith Thom, and @"Cant Get Right" for helping me see my mistakes and convincing me not to go back and redo everything in the CC!

I wrote out a page --a love letter so to speak---for this question in an attempt to give myself the best chance of never making the same mistakes that I did on this question again. I was between choices B and D and I had issues seeing why the correct answer was correct.

Primarily, my first careless mistake was ignoring/not discriminating enough between the meaning of "to the satisfaction of ALL skeptics"..."ALL" I selected an ac with a massive red flag sweeping generalization. Second mistake-- not eliminating B because Chin does not address extrasensory perception in terms of "if it were a real phenomenon." My third failure was that I did not correctly apply the conclusion from Chin's statement (compared to Waller's) and the answer choice as to identify which point they disagree on.

It was interesting that on analytics this question has a high degree of difficulty and most people selected the same incorrect answer I did. So basically the test writers exploited my careless mistakes with the convoluted nature of the real answer choice....well played LSAC

2 weeks back I was ecstatic cuz PT's were actually being sane.

PT 70 - 172 (I was like wut O.O)

PT 71 - 168

PT 72 - 171

Then

PT 73 - 166

PT 74 - 167

PT 76 - 167

PT 77 - 165

*(skipped PT 75 for December prep if needed)

and latest PT 78 got a 164. Now either I had a split personality take over one week/ the earlier 70's were not representative, OR .. hmm I actually have no clue.

I need some thoughts from the wonderful people out there, and if similar things have happened to you guys and how to deal with life (lol)

Also! It's my LR that has suffered. It was averaging -3 to -4 now its gone back to -4 - -7 which is rather frightening. PT 78 I actually managed a -8 in one of the LR sections...

(Link to explanation for ease of access: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-2-game-2/ )

"Each of the following could be a complete and accurate list of the researchers who learn both S and Y EXCEPT:

A) H

B) P

C) HL

D) HP

E) LP"

I am having a really difficult time understanding this question. How can 4 of the ACs ALL be complete and accurate? As far as I understand it, a list that is complete AND accurate can take only one form... the one with all of the correct elements listed. So I don't understand what this question is asking for at all. I wasn't even able to understand the explanation because I couldn't comprehend what the question is asking for.

Please help me understand this one, thanks!

I'm in need of advice. I've been feeling unwell since the beginning of this week, and I thought it was just another burnout. So I lightened my LSAT workload but kept doing school and work as usual. However, some flu symptoms showed up yesterday and I feel really sick today. I sat down to take a PT this morning, and felt extreme fatigue and had a horrible headache. I'm really worried for the test next weekend. I've been prepping for a long time, and I have been hitting my target score before this week. What should I do?

lawlz so this question is a monster, but watching JY's explanation helped.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-76-section-2-question-24/

He explains that the larger argument pattern is:

A --> absurd

not(absurd)

-------------

not (A)

This really helped clarify what I was seeing here. BUT what I can't really fully understand is why we even need to further connect A-->absurd. Isn't A--->absurd already spelled out to us as a premise? Shouldn't we just accept that is what we're given and prove that the necessary assumption is not(absurd)? I understand how "popular" connects "intending pleasure" to "sales figures" but am failing to understand this on a larger level, I think.

w00t for last minute fine tuning with monster questions!

thanks in advance for any clarification here!

Hi Friends :)

I'm feeling pretty good and ready and confident for 9 *HOLY COW* days from now. Not feeling terribly enthusiastic about taking another PT this weekend. Not sure it'd be that useful. But still might for routine's sake.

What're your thoughts? Are you going to take a PT this weekend?

LG is consistently my worst section on PTs. When I try a Logic Games section without the pressure of finishing in 35 minutes, I usually do pretty well (maybe 2 or 3 wrong answers), but when I do a timed section, I'm getting 8 or 9 questions wrong and sometimes I run out of time completely.

I think my problem is keeping track of the time, though I don't have this issue with LR or RC. I feel confident in my ability to make inferences and diagram games, but I'm sure there are ways to improve that as well.

Any tips on keeping time/moving quickly through logic games? Am I just being impatient? It's just frustrating because I can see improvement in every other area that I'm working on.

I chose (A) because I thought verbal explanations of those medical experts are not effective enough for judges and jurors to understand such testimony, which is explained at the end of the final paragraph, and "appreciation of the difficulty involved in explaining medical data" is explained in line 57-59.

(C) also looked a good choice, but I couldn't find the exact moment of "acceptance of accuracy of such testimony" in the passage.

Could you clarify why could (C) be better answer choice than (A)?

Thank you!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-1-passage-2-questions/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-4-game-4/

Hi, I'd like to share a method I used for pt68 game 4. At first glance, it seems like you have to brute force this game; however, you can solve it in a more efficient manner. With this method, this game took me a little under 9 min. Before starting this explanation, I will assume you understand the rules but let me know if you would like that explained as well.

The first step is to understand what the possibilities are in this game. It seems like anything could happen, but we are actually quite limited once we apply a few rules. One technique I found helpful in this game (and other similar ones) was to split via the Q3 rule. One with Q3 (therefore making the rule irrelevant) and one with Qnot3 (therefore triggering Q-S). By doing this, we no longer have to worry about whether or not to apply the conditional rule. Another thing I added towards my rules was that there must be something in between J and G (since they are both finance); the rule ended up looking like this J-X-G-R (just remember the X means "something"). This same concept can be applied to the Qnot3 rule; the result is Q-X-S-Y (the X here and the other X does not necessarily have to be the same thing, it's just there to represent the "something" that has to be there).

So let's start with the Q3 game board. With Q3, next we want to look at J; J has a minimum of 3 things after it so it would seem the only possible spots for J would be 1,2,4. It turns out 1 is not possible because there's nothing that can go in between J (1) and Q (3) other than Y, but Y has S before it. Therefore, we only have to look at J in 2 and 4. Whether J goes in 2 or 4, G and R must go after Q, otherwise we would violate the consecutive rule. If J is 2, we need something in 1 that is NOT finance. This means either S or Y, but not Y because of the S-Y rule. If J is in 4, G must be in 6 (can't put G next to J) and R must be in 7. To go in between J and G, we need something thats NOT finance. Again, this means S or y, but not S because of the S-Y rule again. This leaves us with S and H for 1/2 but since Q and S are of the same group, they must be separated by the H.

Gameboard 1.1 S J Q _ _ _ _ G-R, Y, H These 4 letters can go anywhere as long as they maintain the sequence required and the no consecutive rule. There's a few possibilities here, but it's really not that many nor is it complicated to see.

Gameboard 1.2 S H Q J Y G R (it's completely filled!!)

Next up is the seemingly complicated Qnot3 split. It ends up not being filled in at all, but we only have to remember 2 sequencing chains. As mentioned earlier, Qnot3 triggers our conditional rule leaving us with Q-X-S-Y. This sequence along with the previous J-X-G-R sequence is all we have to keep track of, and H. Once we place one letter, things will start to fall into place.

Gamebaord 2 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [Qnot3] Q-X-S-Y J-X-G-R H(just dont put this next to G or J)

The questions go by pretty quickly.

I'll skip question 17.

Question 18. If Y is 4th... it is best to just look at one gameboard first to see what we can eliminate quickly. Let's put Y4 into 1.2. The result is S J Q Y G R H. B, C, E get eliminated. So we are left with A (J2) and D (Q3). The next board to look at is our only other possibility, which is 2. If Y is 4, then according to our sequence, we must have Q-X-S in 1,2,3 respectively. J can't 5,6,7 since there's 3 things after it so the only spot left for J is 2. The result is Q J S Y G R H. A (J2)

Question 19. If G is 4th, could be true, let's look at a board that has a lot filled in (ie 1.1) So S J Q G _ _ _ with R Y H to place. Scanning the answer choices quickly, you should see E (Y6). We can simply have S J Q G R Y H. E (Y6)

Question 20. Quick and easy, scan through the choices to see if we have anything filled in from our boards. B (H2)

Question 21. For this question we will have to do a bit of work, but nothing too hard since we only have simple rules to follow. If J is 3, we can only be looking at gameboard 2. _ _ J _ _ _ _ ... X-G-R will go to the right of J. What can go to the left of J? We can't put S on 2 because there's 2 things before it and we can't put Y on 2 because there's 3 things before it, so we're left with Q and H; H and J also can't go next to each other so we must have H Q J _ _ _ _ S-Y G-R . Since this is a could be true, the answer choice will most likely be one with S, Y, G, or R. That leaves us with A, D, E. G can't be 4th since J is 3rd [BYE A]. S can't be 2nd since Q is 2nd [BYE D]. Y 5th is ok ... H Q J S Y G R E (Y5)

Question 22. S could be what except...check your previous work!! S1 is in 18. S3 is in 18. S4 is in 21. We don't have anything for S5 or 6, but that's ok because now we only have to test 1. I would choose S6 because that will force Y7. _ _ _ _ _ S Y (this will be gameboard 2 so just fill it in using our remaining sequence chains) We can have J Q G R H S Y. S6 works so our answer will be D (5)

Question 23. To do this question most efficiently, you'll have remember our earlier rules about sequences. If we put R4, that forces J-X-G into 1,2,3 respectively thus placing us in gameboard 2. J _ G R _ _ _ Q-X-S-Y H The only thing that can go in between J and G is Q and H, but not H since it's finance (along with J and G) therefore.. J Q G R _ _ _ S-Y H R and S are both nutrition therefore we are forced into this result J Q G R H S Y C(R4)

Can anyone explain to me why D is correct? This question is about the concert hall.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-2-question-24/

Jon's conditional breakdown shows an example of how the answer choice has to be sufficient based on the argument...

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-1-question-12/

Can someone please explain in a real simple way I read the explanation but I just don't get it with these types of questions

Thank you in advance

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-76-section-2-question-18/