Discussions

LSAT

New post

210 posts in the last 30 days

This is a principle question.

I got this wrong in both drilling and blind review.

So I thought I am looking for something that will do the following:

connect the premise to the conclusion

SO, say something about how something that is a health hazard should be banned

My reasoning:

A) This is the one I picked in BR. I thought the phrase "should not be allowed" could be a referent to banned. It could be taking it a bit to the extreme, i.e. making that extra assumption, but to me this seemed like the strongest answer choice.

B) The argument is not about misleading claims, but rather if something is a health hazard it should be banned. This answer choice does not do that.

C) This is stretching the argument to an extreme. This is like saying advertisements for vitamins should include all side effects etc. This answer choice says all health hazards associated with promoted products should be included. The argument says if a product has a health hazard, it should be banned.

D) This answer choice is irrelevant. Conforming to regulations and standards is information that is extraneous and the argument did not address.

E) I thought this was wrong because of the word ban while this answer choice is discussing promoting a product. I guess it could be correct because if it is not a health hazard then it would be healthful. This could be the contrapositive, "if a product does not promote smoking then it is not a health hazard" Then you would take the extra leap and say if it does not promote smoking then it is a healthful product, and you would just ignore the health hazard part since that is no longer relevant.

I'm really confused. In my reasoning, I did not address the "promote smoking" part, maybe that's where I went wrong. I still think this could be a big leap of assumptions. If someone can tell me if my reasoning is valid/reasonable and explain answer choices A and E to me, I would be most appreciative!

0

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-3-game-3/

I have a question relating to conditionals in grouping games.

Although this was a relatively simple game in that L and P are together and G and H are not together, rendering a limited number of combinations, the two conditional statements upon which the more difficult questions depended made the game significantly more challenging.

In the video explanation for this game, instead of diagramming the conditionals in the typical if---> then format, J.Y. instead quickly jotted down the resulting game boards for each conditional. In this sense, the game is unique in that the two conditionals provided actually resulted in two fully solved "worlds." Because this rarely happens in grouping games, I wasn't in the habit of looking to see if the conditionals resulted in solved worlds. What J.Y. does, makes the game significantly easier.

My question is this: Whenever we have conditional statements in a grouping game that result in a solved game-board, should we jot down the solved game board? Or should we wait to see if questions require it? I suppose that doesn't make much sense...maybe what I'm getting at is, HOW do we know when use this technique.

Either way, this was a very simple game, made difficult by conditionals. I'd like to know how to avoid making the error I made in the future. Thoughts?

0

So, I've drilled LR using Tests 29-58. I BR all my work. I was getting 2-3 wrong per section, which is my target, but once I moved into the 50's I started getting 5-6 wrong per section.

I just can't seem to cut this number down. Most of my wrong answers hinge on details that are so subtle it's absolutely infuriating; answer choices that hinge on the correct interpretation of the word "susceptible" or other minutia.

I seem to have hit this plateau where nothing I'm doing is helping. How do I improve when most of my wrong answers hinge on these really small details? BR doesn't seem to be helping. I'm wondering if there are suggestions.

I want to save Tests 60 and above for full-timed tests, so I think I'm going to go back to the beginning and drill LR all over again :(

0

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-4-question-13/

Admin: Edited out passage because it was word for word. Please paraphrase.

I wanted to ask if this is the breakdown. because in J.Y.'s video he says that where it states "so it is no less wrong to grant this power to society" is the conclusion, but i see that as the sub conclusion.

and I thought the main conclusion would be [The ancient Greeks failed to recognize that morally, democracy is no improvement over monarchy] ..... because then you say "why should i believe this" and the rest of the argument tells you why.

0

The "/A->B" rule is so important for grouping games that PowerScore uses a special symbol ("A(-|-)B", or "the double-not arrow") to note it. As a person who understands how important this is for grouping games, I think the "double-not arrow" is brilliant. As a person who has tried to explain it to others, it is both frustrating and confusing. The "double not arrow" is ONLY used when the sufficient term is negative and the necessary term is positive--or is it the opposite? It makes a huge difference, but I find it almost impossible to keep it straight in my head, much less explain it to someone else. For that reason, I think JY is wise to avoid using it here at 7Sage.

But what if it were not confusing? I have come up with TWO arrows that practically write themselves and make grouping games much easier. All you have to do is look at the way we write out "/A->B" and "A->/B."

Note how the slash comes first in the "/A->B" situation, but comes second in the "A->/B" case. Let's turn those slashes into pictures. If we put the forward slash first, we can make a "/\" picture. If we put it second, we get a "\/" picture.

/A->B turns into A(-/\-)B

A->/B turns into A(-\/-)B

Pictures are helpful if they mean something, so let's call the "/\" picture an "erupting volcano." The "erupting volcano arrow" means that something is erupting, so that something must be in your slot. The "\/" looks like a "leaky funnel," which means something is leaking, which means something must be OUT.

If you can remember that "slash comes first" means "/\," and "/\" means "erupting volcano," and "erupting volcano" means something must be in, you can turn a "/A->B" rule into a full slot within seconds. And if you can remember what a "leaky funnel" does, you'll fill an out slot just as fast.

And there's no reason to ever get them mixed up!

0

If you had to name the top 5 things you always keep in mind while doing the RC section, what would they be? I am really having trouble breaking a -6 average on RC and was looking for some helpful hints that I may be overlooking.

0

Hi everyone, do you do comp. passages last or first or just in the order they appear?

Context: My goal is a 173. I will be taking the September LSAT. RC was usually my forte, and I never had to worry about it, but ever since hitting the modern tests (60+), something has not been clicking, and on my last two p-tests, I got 6 wrong in each RC section. Minus 6!! My goal is to get -1 or -2 on each section, and LR and LG have (slowly) been shaping up to this standard or exceeding it. So RC is definitely now my Achilles heel.

I think it's because I suck at comparative passages or because the questions just seem harder on modern tests (or both). Not sure. I was wondering if it would help to do comp. passages in a certain order.

Near the end of my RC sections, with 5 minutes left, I panic a lot and it blinds my intuition. If I'm between two answer choices, you best believe I end up choosing the wrong one in those 5 minutes because I'm not thinking clearly.

If I do comp passages first, I get the hardest thing out of the way and I have a peace of mind for the rest. The danger is that I spend way too much time in the beginning and then panic because I don't have time and miss questions on easy passages.

If I do comp passages last, I get the easiest/easier passages down first, but totally bomb the comp passages because they are harder to solve in general, but add in the fact that I'm also panicking!

Aghhh. Any suggestions/help/anecdotes regarding RC are super welcome!

It's just frustrating because once I think I've got a certain section down, another pops its head up! Like fighting a hydra.

0

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-1-question-11/

I got my answer right for this question. But in JY's explanation, he explained the meaning of the last sentence as: # of people who consume Caffeine is GREATER OR EQUAL to # of people who consume other addictive substances.

I am confused that JY explained "as many as"="GREATER OR EQUAL to". I always remember "as many as" means "EQUAL to" from my grammar lesson. Could someone help me with this confusion?

Thank you in advance!

BTW, JY mentioned this question is extremely hard. How much time should I spend on an extremely hard questions? I am still in drilling mode and I spend 4 mins on this question. I know for sure that is too much time for 1 question........

0

I saw someone post in a different discussion a video of Nichole Hopkins (from ilovelsat.com) going over her notation method. Does anyone else use her method? I just wanted to get some thoughts from others who have tried it. While watching the video, I was excited because I really thought it was going to be helpful. However, trying to implement it has been difficult.

I haven't had a lot of trouble with the RC section, except when I'm taking a full practice test. I haven't really employed any notation method because during the core curriculum, I was doing very well on RC. My notation method was pretty much just circling random things I thought might come up and notating the argument structure loosely. Before I started doing full tests, I was getting -1 or -2 on full, timed RC sections. But on the full test, I've been getting -5 to -7.

So, I thought I'd try Nichole's method. So far, it's really slowing me down and I don't comprehend as much as I used to. I'm just wondering, is it just a matter of doing it over and over until it becomes second nature before it becomes helpful? Or should I just go back to what I was doing before?

0

Hello fellow September LSATters :)

What's your game plan for the next month?

My last two PTs (71,72), I scored a 173 and 172 respectively. I'd be BEYOND happy with that score on the actual LSAT. But I'm getting nervous about the actual test date and wanted to hear some thoughts on what might be the best way to embrace the final month. At the moment, I plan on PTing and BRing twice a week (expect the final week before test) with a day or two or timed-sections in between. Thoughts?

0

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-4-game-4/

Hi guys, I got a problem with translation of last rule of Game 4 of PT 24.It would be great if someone could help me and explain my error to me?

The rule states V cannot be in 'unless' (negate sufficient) both H and M are in.

Can, is a indicator (negate necessary) which in this case because we have cannot should be translated /H or /M -->V and its contrapositive would be /V --> H and M.

The correct translation based on J.Y. video and answer choices is V ---> H and M.

0

I found this comment posted on the PT explanation page And I was wondering if anyone could answer what this person has to say because I'm in the same exact position as this them. If you could watch the pt explanation video or look at the question than look at the copied and pasted comment below: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-52-section-1-question-22/ (Explanation link)

linmat09

I have no issue identifying what part of an answer choice is a conclusion and which part(s) is/are a premise. However, I’m not always sure how to translate a prem or conclusion into which is necessary and which is sufficient.

For ex., we only have the necessary conditions for something that is wholly truthful. BUT when I read A, (and for the sake of this question lets assume that he was actually abducted so that it meets the “true” component of the necessary), I can’t tell what becomes sufficient and necessary.

So assuming it really was true and it wasn’t intended to deceive, how do I know that these are sufficient and not necessary IN the answer choice?

Is there really a way at all to conclude something in an answer choice THAT IS GIVEN TO US AS A SUFFICIENT in the stim? I could only think of something like “The only wholly truthful statement ted made to the investigator was true and he was not trying to deceive the investigator….”

But clearly, that doesn’t make very much sense. lol

OR, could they give you an answer choice that said something like “Ted made a wholly truthful statement, therefore, his claim about (and go off on a long confusing description) was both truthful and made without the intention to deceive”

0

Hey guys,

So I just recently did Game 3 from PT 62 as a Grp-chart game and got -2. Later I learnt that doing that game in a non chart form helps with not making mistakes.

So my question is, when you have two set of variables given with a certain number of spaces allotted for e.g. exactly 4 employees, Q,R,S,T each attend exactly two of the talks,F, G, H, I.

OR something like researchers H,L,P will learn at least one at most three languages R,S,T for e.g., how do you tell for sure whether to use a chart or not?

0

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-67-section-2-question-20/

I am having a lot of trouble seeing how C and D are not saying the same exact thing. Here is how I broke down the structure of the argument.

Premise: Mars escaped severe bombardment by asteroids.

Major Premise/Minor Conclusion: There could have been microbial life on Mars prior to there being such life on Earth.

Premise: Many meteorites originating from Mars have landed on Earth.

Conclusion: Life on Earth may have started when a meteorite carrying living microbes were carried here from Mars.

Most explanations for this question say that D is wrong because it does not establish the truth of the main conclusion, saying that just because there was life on Mars does not guarantee that a meteorite carried life from Mars to Earth. But the thing I am having trouble understanding is that both the minor conclusion and major conclusion account for the possibility that they are not true by using could/may. So in order for the both conclusions to be true, all you would need to show is that it is possible.

After all, if the minor conclusion is true, if there is a possibility that there was microbial life on Mars, isn't it certainly true that this allows for the possibility for a meteor to carry such life to Earth (which is what the main conclusion is).

0

I am having hell of a hard time figuring this one out; I have 3 issues here:

If the press were not profit making the only alternative is subsidy and with it outside control

1)I was thinking: NOT profit making------> Subsidy and Outside control

but then I remembered "the only" is group 1 indicator and I changed my diagram to:

Subsidy and Outside control--------> NOT profit making

and of course this does not lead to the right answer choice...

2) what's up with that AND? which one is right?

Not Profit Making--------> Subsidy & outsideControl

or

NOT profit making--------> Subsidy--------> Outside control

and then link either with Subsidy -------->NOT honest Journalism

3) Am I making this harder that what it actually is? I keep diagraming LR questions...

0

hi,

I dont understand why E is wrong...it says the citys mayor requested so they invested in computermodeling technology right?

if the mayor was not a proponet they would not request it...I thought. any ideas? :(

Is it bc of the part *because of* ? so we dont know if its because of that reason mentioned in E...but could be other reasons?

thank you in advance.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-1-question-18/

0

Hi all,

So I know "a few" is logically equivalent to "some" (more than 1), but for "few," can we say that it is logically equivalent to the opposite of "most"? An example would best show what I mean:

1. A few cats are blue. (Some cats are blue.)

2. Few cats are blue. (Most cats are NOT blue.)

Is this correct?

Thank you! Just a small nit picky logic thing that I keep forgetting to confirm.

0

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-71-section-1-question-24/

I can't understand why answer choice 'B' is incorrect! Need some help!

The flaw of the argument is that it assumes there is no other reason that a child could have sleeping problems. Thus the conclusion that "removing the tonsils eliminates sleeping problems" rests on this assumption.

Answer choice 'E' is exactly that.

On second look however answer choice 'B' is exactly that as well.

The argument certainly relies on the assumption that there is (no other reason a child could have sleeping problems) than from the tonsils which is "tantamount to making the conclusion true." Answer choice 'B' even matches up 100% with my explanation!

What's more is that answer E and B when compared to each other support each other as well. Example:

"(B)relies on the assumption" that there "(E)is no other cause for sleeping problems during sleep"

Have looked all over but I can't find any explanation on this. Thanks for any help in advance.

0

Hi all! I have been studying for about two months now and initially had started out using the Powerscore Bibles but after about a month and a half I realized that their approach to the LSAT was just simply not for me nor was I a fan of their explanation methods but that's besides the point. Anyway, I purchased the 7sage course about two weeks ago and I love it! I certainly think that this is a much better approach for study and will complete the course with pretty high confidence that I will receive the score I want.

However, I believe I made the mistake of registering too early. I am currently registered to take the September LSAT and the deadline for postponing is August 30th and I am just not sure if I will be ready yet, or if I want to rush through the 7sage course to make myself ready by September. Before registration, I already had my mind up about taking it twice so I am definitely going to be taking it in December but do you think September is too early for me right now and that I should postpone? The only reason I am still contemplating postponing is that I don't want to only take the exam once (I have heard taking it twice is the way to go to ensure your maximum score) and I don't want to push back my second time taking it to February because I think February is too late. Overall, I am simply not sure what I should do. Any advice?

0

With the September LSAT knocking on the front door, I planned a week of vacation away from work about 2 weeks before the exam, with the goal of reducing any work-related stress to have better focus. What is the best plan of attack for September studying? Do a few PTs, but nothing too new? Focus on fine tuning reading comprehensive (my lowest scoring area)? Go on vacation, get a great tan, and try not to think about it?

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?