Hi All,

This question gave me some issues during my timed take and BR. I'm hoping to talk through it and get someone else's perspective.

We are given a set of facts and we are asked which one of the ACs can be properly inferred.

So, if the scientists are correct, we have this chain of events here:

Air pollution caused global warming, which enhanced the strength of El Nino which caused the widespread drought, which made the tropics especially susceptible to fires.

I don't have an issue with eliminating A, B and C.

D gave me a bit of an issue though. Is D incorrect because it specifies "size and intensity" rather than mere occurrence? For example, if D said "At least some scientists believe that air pollution was responsible for the susceptibility of the tropics to fires in 1997," would that be correct? Or is there something else I am missing here?

I also considered the possibility that D could be wrong because D prescribes a believe to a group of people (some scientists) that might not have been something they were even aware about. For example, the stimulus states a belief of many scientists that have to do with El Nino, global warming and air pollution, NOT the fires. The fire in the tropics is a separate occurrence that the scientists may or may not be aware of. So, due to the mere lack of knowledge, the scientists could believe that air pollution was responsible for the strength of El Nino, but because we do not know the extent of the scientists' awareness of the fires, we cannot infer that they would have any beliefs about the fires. Belief presupposes knowledge of the subject of that belief, right? So it could be the case that, if the scientists were aware of the fires that they would infer a causal relationship, but we are not told that they are aware.

I can't tell if this is me taking this question wayyyy too far and overthinking it, but I would love to know what anyone else's grounds are for eliminating D.

Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-69-section-4-question-20/

Hello gamers,

I seem to always get stuck on sequencing games where one of the rules involves having "at least two spaces between X and Y". I get particularly stuck when there's a switch on top so it can either be X _ _ Y or Y _ _ X. Furthermore, sometimes I skip over the "at least" part, which ensures other issues... I know this uses the same concepts as all other games, but for some reason this kind of rule always takes me longer to get my head around. Does anyone else have this issue?

As for improving time, anyone know of certain games with this quality? I want to do as many as possible so I can get more comfortable.

Thanks!

Sophia

Im slightly confused by this question. It says that taking 'no headache pill stops pain more quickly' so why wouldn't the answer be B? Unless it is referring to one person taking different types of pills and comparing its effect, Danaxil would most quickly resolve a persons headache. However, we might not be able to compare between two people? Am I on the right track?

Your help is much appreciated :)

The answer for this question is E. I don't think any of the answers really have a logic structure that parallels to that of the stimulus. For the stimulus I got:

CA--> P

CA some MR

therefore, P some MR

For E I got:

SP some TP

SO some TP

therefore SO --> SP

I won't exactly say they are parallel, though E is the closest answer I guess.

Any thoughts on this?

Hello, could anyone explain to me why the answer is B and not A. Isn't the argument centred around reduction in capital gains tax and how they would lead to increase in deficit?

I still don't understand this question, I chose A but the right answer is B. Why is it B, since it does not mention anything about persons?

I am retaking for june to get off the waitlist at WashU and wanted to see if anyone in Dallas wanted to get together to study.

On PT 35 S1 Q15,

Conclusion: We should be skeptical about the magazine’s conclusion.

Premise: The sample is unrepresentative and the question is biased

answer choice B contains Most (the conclusion drawn in most magazine surveys have eventually been disproved.) and JY shared that it provides little bit of support to the argument.

my question is,

is it always safe to assume that MOST provides little bit of support for strengthening question?

how about for SOME?

Hi everyone. I'm having trouble following the rules to translate a sentence with a group 3 indicator. The lesson states that it doesn't matter which term you put as the sufficient condition at first, as the result will be the same - you negate one of the terms, and then create the counter-positive. I keep seeing 4 possible outcomes. Here's what I mean.

If you have the sentence: There is no reward without hard work.

"no reward" is /R; "hard work" is HW

Let's say we choose /R as the sufficient condition:

/R --> HW

To negate, you could either do:

/R --> /HW OR R --> HW (negate the "no reward")

That gives us the counter positives: HW --> R and /HW --> /R (If there is hard work, then there is a reward. If there is no hard work, then there is no reward)

Lets say you choose HW as the sufficient condition:

HW --> /R

To negate, you could either do:

/HW --> /R OR HW --> R

That gives counter positives: R --> HW and /R -- /HW (If there is a reward, then there is hard work. If there is no reward, there is no hard work)

Any suggestions for someone struggling with the required intuition to crack this?

Hello 7sagers,

I am thinking of doing free reading comprehension tutoring by using passages from older practice tests. Let me know if any one of you is interested in joining me.

I do want to put it out there that I am doing this primarily for my own good because RC happens to be my weakest section. My average for LR is -1.5 but RC is -5 at the moment. So I need to focus on that and one really good way to improve on RC is to go over it with someone.

So if you are struggling with RC and would like to work on this with me, I would be happy to help. But if you are doing well on RC and would still like to just work on it with me let me know as well. I think either way this could be helpful to everyone who just wants to work on improving their reading comprehension skills.

So yes : ) Let's tackle RC!

Update:

Hey everyone,

So I think the best way to proceed would be to just meet and do a passage together. We can rotate volunteers when we go to the next paragraph and then we can all do the questions together under time constraint. So with that said, I have set the tutoring time to be Sunday, May 7th at 5:00 p.m. (eastern time).

We will be using the Reading Comprehension section from PT #3. So please have a clean printed copy of the RC section in front of you and be ready to work on it as we go along. To get the most out of this session, please do not do the passages before the meeting. I think the best way to do this would be to work on this together.

If you would like to join me on Sunday simply click the link provided below at that time and hopefully I will see you all there : ).

P.S. for people who cannot make it at this time. Please let me know what day and time does work for you. I'll do my best to accommodate you guys the next time : )

Decoding Reading Comprehension with Sami

Sun, May 7, 2017 5:00 PM - 6:30 PM EDT

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/863069925

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States: +1 (646) 749-3122

Access Code: 863-069-925

First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: http://help.citrix.com/getready

I noticed that 7sage provides a list of foundational in/out logic games, grouped by easy, medium, and hard. Are there are other sets of games for sequencing and grouping games?

Hey guys, I was wondering whether the #19 is usually the most difficult question of each LR section? anyone has the same feeling?

Failed to understand student's argument. Any insight will be appreciated.

is that if A, then not B, and A or B, but not both the same thing?

Can someone break this down for me?

I was torn between 2 different answer choices.

I mean I can see how B is correct, but I also thought D had merit.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-49-section-4-question-16/

I have a question about PT49.S4.Q16. If this were a sufficient assumption question, can (D) be a correct answer?

(D) says "beautiful → best." "Most beautiful" are beautiful, so it would to be "Most beautiful → beautiful → best." (D) certainly fills the gap in the argument. But I think it's not necessary since we don't need all beautiful pieces to be the best to conclude that "beauty" and "truth" are different.

Argument Breakdown:

[[Main Argument]]

Premise: A [beauty = truth] → X [most realistic (R) → best (B)]

(Sentence 2: If there were no difference, then the most realistic pieces of art would be the best as well)

Premise: /X [most realistic (R) and not best (/B)]

(Sentence 3: But many of the most realistic artworks are not among the best)

————————————

Conclusion: /A (beauty =/= truth)　

(Sentence 1: There is a difference between beauty and truth)

[[Sub-argument]]

Premise: A [beauty = truth] → C [most realistic (R)→ most truthful]

(Sentence 2: since the most realistic pieces are the most truthful)

A [beauty = truth] → C2 [most realistic (R)→ most beautiful]

[[[[[GAP IN THE ARGUMENT]]]]]

——————

Conclusion: A [beauty = truth] → X [most realistic (R) → best (B)]

(Sentence 2: If there were no difference, then the most realistic pieces of art would be the best as well)

[[[[[GAP IN THE ARGUMENT]]]]]

C2 (= C) → X

most realistic (R)→ most beautiful → best (B)

[[Answer choices]]

Why is answer (B) wrong?

So, I understand that:

Answer B says: Deer ticks sometimes drop off their hosts without having fed at all.

Okay, I understand that Ticks drop off host when fed to capacity, and not before. BUT, I also know that Deer ticks feeding off white-footed mice must drop off between noon and sunset.

So I assumed that if Deer ticks started feeding on the mice really late in the day, they would have to drop off them right at sunset, EVEN if they didn't finish feeding!!!

Also, I thought ticks and deer ticks behave differently because the sentence "Deer ticks feeding off white-footed mice must drop off between noon and sunset" to me contradicts "Ticks drop off host when fed to capacity, and not before." This is because I assumed that no matter what, deer ticks MUST drop off their hosts AT SUNSET regardless if they didn't finish feeding.

Sentences 1 and 2 feel contradicting to me.

Why am I wrong to think those things? How can I properly adjust my though pattern?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-4-question-05/

So I have gone through the entire course and I would say it has helped greatly, before when I would do a LR section I would be getting 14-15 right untimed. Now untimed (which generally takes me 45-50 minutes) I am seeing improvements where I usually end up with 20 right (I always do BR, where I choose to keep or change my answers, so sometimes ill hit 20 with changed answers sometimes i'll hit 20 without changing any answers). I have noticed though that I am consistently atleast -5 to -6 wrong on my LR sections untimed. I have also realized that flaw, parallel and Resolve reconcile explain give me the most trouble. What do I need to do to greatly increase my score on untimed sections? I have reviewed the flaw, causation and parallel sections on 7sage. Does this just come with continued practice and extensive review on untimed LR? and once I am seeing these improvements on untimed tests, how will I begin to increase my speed? Should I be doing blind review on every single question after I do a section or just the questions that posed me difficulty?

I wrote the December LSAT and scored a 151, due to bombing the logical reasonings sections. I am writing in September 2017 and will spend however many hours necessary in order to increase my accuracy and speed on logical reasoning.

Would anyone have any advice for selecting the correct answer choices for weaken questions? It seems that I still get stuck between two or three answers, especially the non-causation ones. How have you mastered this question type? Any ideas would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!

Hi, I'm hoping my fellow 7Sagers could help clarify my muddled brain (I'm probably overthinking this).

When a stimulus says something is more/less likely, I understand it's regarding a chance, but does it already take into account the total amount in each group? For example, I was reviewing PT 37.2.25 - my question doesn't really have anything to do with the actual answer, but wanted to clarify and get feedback on my thought process:

One of the flaws I anticipated was that cars with air bags may be more likely because there are just more cars on the road with air bags v. non-air bags. I think this is a very reasonable assumption since in our real world, it's mandatory to manufacture cars with air bags and there are simply not as many non-air bag cars anymore. However, is this a reasonable flaw to make or should I understand that the argument has already taken into account the total number of cars with air bags v. non-air bags and so I should just take at face value that the percentage of accidents is higher for cars with air bags? Hopefully this made sense - appreciate your responses in advance.

Link to the PT Q referenced above: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-37-section-2-question-25/

Hi guys, I'm going through the biconditional part of the curriculum. Im wondering, for the Or, but not both biconditional, why don't we just write it out like this A -> /B and B->/A, that way you can link it up as well if a chain comes up?

https://media.giphy.com/media/3oEdv5hgaihi21MhyM/giphy.gif

https://media4.giphy.com/media/3o6gaQc4a0hghj1T2w/giphy.gif

We are coming down to the final stretch...

https://media1.giphy.com/media/xT5LMz1fARkO1JhWyQ/giphy.gif

If you are... then please let us know!

So thankful for all that 7Sage offers to the community & I know that we can be a support system for each other during these last weeks.

Most importantly if there are any areas that could help us achieve our goals, please share any and all questions so we can reach out to Sages to provide their expertise.

I just finished my first pretest after completing the CC and I have jumped up 18 points in my LSAT score. Needless to say, I am super stoked to see that these past few months have paid off.

Regarding the question posed in this topic post, I missed a flaw question by picking the same cookie cutter answer choice under timed conditions as well as during a freshly printed BR. This was an AC that J.Y. always says will reappear as the correct AC in the future (I did PT 35). I realized, ironically I guess, I have a flawed sense of understanding about this particular flaw. So, I was wondering if there is a function to find where this cookie cutter answer choice would have actually had been the right AC, so that I am able to fix this mistake for good.

Thank you!

Hey everyone, just wanted some insight.

So I have just started to tackle reading comp passages. I am curios to know for those that have increased their score and improved on this section how have you managed to decrease your time spent on reading the passage and answering the questions?

Did you just force yourself to push through the passage when timing yourself during practice or did the timing issue become less apparent with the more practice passages that you did.

I know that RC is the longest to see improvement but It would be helpful to know what people's experiences have been in this section.

Many thanks!

I love the fact that J.Y. adds the target time in all the logic game explanations. It just hit me that i don't practice my logic game full proof method with a scantron. I normally just use scantrons during my PT and BR or when I'm doing random timed sections from old LSAT's.

Do those target times for LG include bubbling in the scantron or without the scantron? If the target time includes bubbling in, i will begin using a scantron when doing the full proof method.

(Full proof method is so wonderful because I've done it for like 15 or so games and now when I do games I've never seen before the inferences are so clear, the rules are easier to understand along with the questions. Having a better idea of when and when not to split the game is incredible. Along with knowing when rules do and don't kick. I just couldn't have asked for a better prep.)