Can someone please breakdown this question for me??

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-2-question-18/

Hey Everyone,

So I'm currently drilling NA question types through the Cambridge packet things. I'm looking at question 20 in section 1 of PT 36, and it says its an NA question type.

I got the right answer quite quickly, but for the life of me I can't seem to figure out how this isn't also a sufficient answer choice - something which has never happened to me before. What I mean by that is, answer choice E being true seems to be sufficient to make the argument true.

Core:

P1: Ensuring Justice in the legal system ---> Citizens capable of criticizing anyone involved in determining punishments

P2: Legal system's purpose is to deter ---> System falls into hands of experts whose specialty is to assess how potential lawbreakers are affected by the system's punishments

P3: Most citizens lack knowledge about such matters

C: Justice is therefore not ensured in the legal system

E) Citizens without knowledge about how the legal system's punishments affect potential lawbreakers are incapable of criticizing experts in that area

I JUST THOUGHT OF THIS: Is the reason why E isn't sufficient for the argument is because P1 never states the number of citizens who must be capable of criticizing lawmakers? P3 says MOST citizens, meaning some citizens do possess the knowledge necessary to criticize lawmakers, and therefore justice CAN be ensured in the legal system? The argument requires it to be necessary, if you didn't need to understand the affect of the legal system's punishments, then the conclusion is completely wrong. But with E being true, the conclusion can still be true - we just don't know if it has to be true.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-36-section-1-question-20/

Sharing this in hopes that it might be useful to some:

In an effort to feel more comfortable with "mathy" questions (involving proportions, percentages, averages...), I searched the discussion forum for a list of such questions and it seems that only @dannyshaw had looked for something similar.

I quickly realized that there were lots of them, at least 4-5 questions in each PT. I found them by searching "proportions", "percent", or "average" in my digital PTs. Does anyone have any suggestions of what other keywords to search? I can also come up with "number", "incidence", and "prevalence", but those don't seem to come up as frequently.

Has anyone else drilled these types of questions? Is it more useful to read something like How to Lie with Statistics than drill?

These are several "mathy" questions I found just in PTs 1 and 2.

PT01.S3.Q11 - proportion

PT01.S3.Q21 - proportion

PT01.S3.Q12 - average

PT01.S4.Q04 - percent

PT02.S2.Q04 - average

PT02.S2.Q14 - average

PT02.S2.Q16-17 - percent

PT02.S4.Q05 - proportion

PT02.S4.Q15 - percent

Cheers!

I got some questions... Can someone help me find the inferences of following?

.

• M←/→N→O inference:

I believe no inference can be made ….. or is it O←s→/M?????

.

• P -m→ Q ←/→R inference:

P -m→/R

.

• A←s→B←/→C inference:

Again, I don't think there is any inference that can be made …….. but some people say A←s→/C, /C←s→A...

.

.

.

.

.

Can someone plz help me find the correct inference? Thank you!!! (3(/p)

So i have foolproofed games 1-35 thoroughly. Probably 5 to 6 times each. And the hard ones closer to 10 times. Now i am in the pt phase and during the time after a pt, after review and drills, i spend time going through those old games and some newer ones. How many games do you foolproof a day.? New and old?

@"JYP JYP" @twssmith @danielznelson @"Daniel.Sieradzki" @"Cant Get Right" @"Alex Divine"

Are any study group leaders, mentors or sages interested in leading a session on LG in CC and PT's??? Since we'll be having sessions for LR and RC, it seems practical to have one for LG as well. Any thoughts???

Is this right? And what is the meaning of No As are Bs? Are these three sentence the same one? Thx.

Hey guys, I just posted a

It's a difficult in/out game that can be made easier with a better game board. Have a look!

Given how much weight YouTube places on likes/dislikes, would you guys mind "liking" this video on YouTube if you actually find the new approach helpful?

Related: I also posted a

Can someone please help me with this question. Been sitting on it for 2 hrs

In a parallel q: does the order of the premises have to match the AC?

In PT11 S4 Q22 i diagrammed,

P->/L

/P->S

/S

/L

And AC 2:

/M->P

P->/C

/M

/C

So i see that they are identical but it came in a different order.?

Hi all,

Having trouble with 2 questions in pretest 55, and I'd love to get some further explanation if anyone would be so kind!

In the second passage(s) in RC, for question #9, I chose C. Is this wrong because of the "most"; I see why B is also right, but can't figure out how to distinguish between the two. Is it simply because passage A doesn't explicitly address the issue of whether eradication advocates are genuine (though it is certainly implied, in my view)?

And for the last passage, can someone explain why #23 is D rather than C? Is it because "cheap substitute parts" are not a perfect analogue for tulips (as it suggests inferior quality) whereas book don't lose their quality when simply reproduced?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-2-passage-2-passage

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-2-passage-2-questions/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-2-passage-4-passage

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-2-passage-4-questions/

Hello! I didn't see any prior discussions on this question, and it's confusing me a bit so I wanted to get some outside opinions!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-4-question-17/

We have an underlying principle/SA question which means that our answer needs to fill the logic gap pretty much completely.

Background info says that confidence of a testimony has little correlation with the accuracy of said testimony.

Support says that factors can alter the confidence of a testimony without changing its accuracy.

Conclusion says that police officers shouldn't allow situations where witnesses giving testimony can hear other witnesses giving testimonies.

The designated correct answer for gives us the principle that the confidence in one's testimony is affected by seeing other testimonies. To me, this leaped out as a wrong answer choice because the passage seems to suggest that confidence in one's testimony doesn't really matter, so there would be no incentive to prevent it.

D, on the other hand, seemed to fill the gap using unusual, but plausibly correct logic. If the police, for some reason, cared about confidence more than accuracy, factors that change confidence would want to be controlled. I don't know why Police would want to know about confidence rather than accuracy, but it's not our job as test takers to question the likelihood of a gap-closer to occur in the real world; we want to know if that gap closer, taken as it is, would bridge the support with the conclusion.

D does it in an ugly fashion, but I don't think A does it at all. Knowing that viewing other testimonies can alter confidence doesn't give us any logical reason for police officers wanting to prevent it. We can't bridge the gap between evidence and officers stopping testimony exposure without understanding the criterion based on which an officer would want to prevent testimony exposure. Even if you make the least extreme assumption and consider that police would want to stop something that alters the accuracy of a testimony, (since accuracy of evidence is important to court cases) answer A becomes more flawed in that it gives the support an attribute that the police wouldn't care about, or use in a decision for policy.

Any help is appreciated :) Thanks guys!

Sup y'all,

So just got my score back (159), but I really wanted closer to a 165 so I def plan on retaking it in September. My weakest section was Reading Comp, and I was wondering if I could get some input on how I should go about studying these next few months. I was thinking about getting a power score bible for reading, and doing that 4 days a week,then doing 2 days a week LR and 1 day a week LG.

Open to suggestions though if anyone with more experience thinks my game plan is faulty.

Thanks in advance.

Hello, 7Sagers!

I'm a bit puzzled with this NA question and wanted to get your input on the matter.

This question states that medical schools are teaching curative medicine and preventative medicine at a 10:1 ratio respectively. It goes on to state that despite this, the use of preventative techniques lowers medical costs significantly.

The claim is that if medical school's have the goal of making medicine lower in cost, they aren't spending enough time teaching preventative medicine.

The correct necessary assumption is purportedly that the amount of time needed to teach preventative medicine thoroughly is greater than one hour for every ten currently being spent on the curative counterparts.

Now, a negation test should confirm this answer, but from my perspective, it does not. Negating the statement results in the time to teach preventative medicine thoroughly being equal or less than one hour for every 10 spent on curative. Now, I assume that at this point the LSAT wants you to assume that because the ratio now favors preventative being taught thoroughly, the argument falls apart because they're no longer spending insufficient time.

But who's to say that the ratio of time spent has anything to do with the actual time spent? The argument has to do with the actual time spent. In fact, we could only be sure that there isn't an insufficiency if we know for sure that the med schools are meeting or exceeding the total amount of hours needed for thorough teaching of curative medicine.

So what if we have a 10:Less-Than-One thoroughness need ratio ? Maybe the schools are teaching 1000 hours of Curative and 100 hours of Preventative, when students actually need 10,000 hours of Curative and 200 hours of Preventative to be thoroughly taught each respectively. (This would give us a 50:1 ratio of time needed for curative vs preventative thoroughness, congruent with the negation of the right answer, but still leaving the argument perfectly in tact.)

If the argument can easily be correct without the designated answer being negated, why can we call it a necessary assumption for the argument? The argument can be just fine without it being true.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-32-section-4-question-19/

It's the company sending out project managers LG,

which of the following if substituted for...would have the same effect

I was just looking over this past LSAT, which I took, and it hit me that there might be a bit of a trick to make substitution Qs easier. Part of the issue in substitution Qs, at least some of the time, is that once your diagrams, split game boards, etc. have become filled in to some degree, it's hard to unravel that and see exactly what the effect of a specific rule was. But if you check first, before making your diagram, if there's a substitution question, you can keep that specific rule in mind while diagramming and see clearly the effect of that rule. It happened to work like a charm for me while reviewing the substitution questions on the June 2017 LSAT. I'm wondering if anyone has tried this, and if not, perhaps it's worth a try.

So this is a weakening question. I was torn between two answers during the test, and switched from the right answer to the wrong answer.

I see why the correct answer is correct but not why the wrong one is wrong.

The conclusion of the argument is that Neanderthals probably preserved their meat by smoking it.

The support is that lichen and grass were found in the fire places. Which doesn't burn hot, but has a lot of smoke.

Answer choice A says: In close proximity to the fireplaces with lichen and grass are other fireplaces that, evidence suggest, burned material that produced more heat than smoke.

Doesn't that take away the support for smoking? We now see they had the ability to cook meat, which means they didn't have to smoke it.

Answer choice B says; (correct answer) In the region containing the Neanderthal fireplaces in which lichen and grass were burnt, no plants that could be burned more effectively to produce heat or light were available 60,000 years ago.

---- I see why this weakens too. They only had one option for heat or light, so it doesn't mean that they were using it to smoke their food.

I just don't see why A is less correct than B. They both seem right to me, what am I missing?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-79-section-4-question-19/

Hey there I'm averaging -11 on RC. (156) I have done the CC method of RC and my score went up a little, but does anyone have any tips to further increase my score?

Particularly tips for speed. If I skip a passage I get -0 on the passage in which I take a little more time.

Any and every bit of info will be appreciated. Thanks :D

Is the use of a word like "should" prescriptive on the LSAT.? What i mean is: if a stimulus says that something will happen or could happen, will that exclude an AC that says something " should " happen?

I see many parallel questions that will have a word like "should" in one of the answer choices and im starting to suspect that they are wrong bc the stimulus is not suggesting what ought to happen. Am i crazy here??

Hi all,

I just finished the first reading section "introduction on reading comprehension" in CC. I also watched @"nicole.hopkins" video about her RC notation strategy. Both inspire me a lot about how to approach RC.

Right now I finish reading a passage in 3.5-4 min, but I spend way too much time on answering questions. I can spend between 8-12min on questions! Passages about art review are especially hard for me. And the timing is a big issue. With in 35min I can only finish 3 passages, with average -1 per passage.

I realize that I spend time trying to prove a wrong choice is wrong from the passage, while it is never mentioned. I also find myself spend a lot of time on comparing the rest of the answers after eliminating. I look at one choice, feeling that there is a tiny part I don't like, but I can give reasons for why I can stand it, and repeatedly do the same thing to another choice. I am trying to switch my method/mindset, and I would love to know how you approach the questions and choose the answer confidently.

A lot of high scorers suggest that we should read for reasoning structure. It sounds like making a lot of sense to me, but I am not very clear about how to apply it. And I don't feel that simply asking "what's the main idea of the paragraph" can't ensure me catch the structure. Actually, sometimes I feel interrupted by these questions. I mechanically ask myself about MP simply because I am trying to follow JY's method. Also, I find that not all "transaction/switch" of the meaning happen between the paragraphs. There can be more than one level of meaning within a single paragraph. How does the reading process look like when you are reading for structure? I am so curious.

I am also trying Nicole's notation strategy, and I think it can be very helpful in locating details asked in questions. But I also find that I am not very used to the strategy, and by taking notes I am slowing down my reading speed. I keep on asking "should I circle/box this?" And I don't find that making notation helps in reading for structure. I suppose it should, is it? I will keep on practicing, maybe modify some of the notation strategy, and I would love to know if anyone also take note while you read, and any suggestions would be helpful.

Thanks a lot in advance! :)

So I've been reading a lot about how the recent exams have started incorporating more "weird games," i.e. ones that aren't the traditional grouping, sequencing, in/out games (labelled as Misc. here at 7sage). For example, the infamous "virus" game, which I haven't tried yet, but from what I understand was notoriously difficult and weird.

I was just wondering whether these "weird" games are completely new, or are actually just a different form of one of the Misc. games that have appeared in older tests. In other words, if I fool proofed 1-35, will I be safe in tackling these sorts of games? Have any of these recent weird games been completely new and have no analogous counterparts in PTs 1-35?

Thanks for the help!

I took the June 2017 test, scored a 172. Goal was 176+. I definitely have room for improvement on LR, but I think I know how to approach that. RC I'm a little more unsure about. For reference, I was -3 on RC on the June test and that's right around where I usually score.

I've heard of people drilling RC but I don't know what that actually entails. Anyone have experience with that?

I've used PowerScore, LSAT Hacks, LSAT Trainer, and other tutor's videos on how to approach a passage. I've found that notation is distracting and prevents me from reading the passage. I just sort of read the passage, don't move on to the questions until I understand it and then when I answer questions I either go back and reference lines or I just know the answer. In other words, I just wing it.

If you had 6 weeks to dedicate just to RC, how would you structure that time?

I understood "A or B but not both" as one of the followings:

Then what is the contrapositive of it?

A/B = CONTRAPOSITIVE => /A + /B ?????

But my last statement (3) indicates /A and /B could fall under the definition of "A or B but not both".

Can someone clarify my thoughts please :(

The negation of poor is not poor. The question assumes that you are either rich or else poor. What about the middle class?

I was thrown off by the question stem for A.1.23, in which it asks, "The Y's response would most seriously call into question which one of the following conclusions, if that conclusion were drawn on the basis of the evidence given by X?" Does this question stem appear in the recent PTs (70+)?