Someone help me out here? I have a vague understanding of why C is the right answer, though I naively selected A. Best explanation I could come up with is that there will always be not obese kids being born into the population, regardless of the percentage increase of obese kids.

Hi,

If you watched the video explanation for this question, could you please help me understand what exactly is it saying? I watch it at least 15 times and I am still puzzled by it. Read all the related posting, still no help.

While taking the test, I saw that the necessary and sufficient conditions have been flipped (assuming this is the flaw). However, I couldn’t locate the correct answer choice that explains this flaw.

I just cannot wrap my head around the video explanation as to why B is the correct answer choice. Is it correct because it points to the flipping of the necessary-sufficient condition or is it the correct answer choice because it points to the mistake of “success in sale” is not the same as “making a comfortable living in sales”? or is it something else?

Answer choice B is saying that if P --> Q does not preclude the possibility of R --> Q. Is this statement necessarily pointing to confusion in necessary and sufficient condition? In my head, this shows confusion as to what sufficient condition entails.

Are we not trying to bridge the gap between premise and conclusion?

Answer choices A and C is equally confusing. Are we supposed to look at the conclusion statement [at least three years developing a client base --> make a comfortable living in sales] while analyzing these answer choices or the statements in the premise [success --> in sales for at least 3 years].

Any help?

Thank you

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-18/

Hello guys,

This was obviously a tough question, and after hours of tearing out my hair, I understand where the flaw is and why answer choice E is correct. Yet, there is still one component I am confused about.

Can someone in more detail explain how the individual income and car price could decrease, and individuals could still pay more today versus 25 years ago? Because, originally, I assumed it was erroneous to assume that people are spending more today on cars, if there income is substantially lower than in the past. I believe it relates to the proportion aspect, but I am still confused.

Thanks in advance,

Kristen

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-26-section-3-question-24/

Hey guys,

I've started doing logic games this week... I went through the sequential games section and now on the sequential grouping with a twist games.

I've never done a logic game before and am doing all the Ultimate+ problem sets; and I find most of them incredibly challenging. I don't even know where to start on a lot of the diagrams/inferences.

I'm wondering if this is a natural symptom for a beginner or something I should begin to pick up intuitively. I am trying to do the foolproof method as much as I can... But I'm a little anxious I'm completely inept at this section.

Thanks!

Hey guys,

I am in the middle of the fool proof method, working on all logic games from PTs 1-39. In the beginning I was just skipping the miscellaneous games because JY would say "you don't need to worry about this, you won't encounter it on a modern-day LSAT etc." However, after exploring the question bank and different types of questions it appears that there are very difficult miscellaneous games recently (especially with the virus game last October). So I'm wondering how closely I should be reviewing these miscellaneous games and I guess I am answering my own question as I type this... so I guess my real question is how were your experiences with miscellaneous games after using the fool proof method? How closely did you focus on them? Did you find that the lessons you learned from the more common types helped prepare you? I find my speed and accuracy, along with my understanding of sequencing, in/out, grouping games and grasp of conditional logic are all increasing at a normal rate, but then I get totally discouraged when I can't even do a miscellaneous game in under something like 20 mins.

I also just want to thank everyone who posts on here, I am going at this 6-7 hours per day, some days are better than others and when I'm at my lowest I usually go on here and am just constantly reassured that I am normal and so many other people have been in the exact same situation I am in... the only solution is to keep pushing forward.

Thanks!

Hello all,

I’m seeking some clarification for the following argument that is given as an example of a “Belief vs Facts” flaw in the Core Curriculum.

Admin edit: Removed. Please link to the argument and do not post things directly from the course.

My breakdown of the argument is as follows:

A (FRB) is a (X)

Dr. L knows that her colleague’s lab detected a (FRB) earlier this year

Therefore, Dr. L knows that her colleagues lab detected an (X)

The curriculum says the conclusion does not follow because it’s not clear that Dr. L knows what (X) is, except that her colleague’s lab detected one. So my question is would the conclusion follow if it instead said “Therefore, Dr. L knows that her colleague’s lab detected a (FRB)”, rather than an (X) that was erroneously concluded? I’m just a little tripped up because the argument is concluding that Dr. L knows that her colleague’s lab detected something (X), which follows from the premise that Dr. L knows that her colleagues lab detected an (FRB), which is an (X). I feel as though my lack of understanding for this flaw is exploited time and time again on LR questions so any additional insight is appreciated. Thanks!

The last 3 words of the conclusion states "such as diatoms." Doesn't that only mean that some of the Antarctic algae COULD be diatoms? Or is that stating that diatoms were in fact a large portion of the Antarctic algae? I hesitated on answer choice D because if diatoms weren't the only type of Antarctic algae then this answer choice isn't as relevant. Thanks for any input.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-2-question-04/

So I am currently working on incorporating the memory method into RC and have had mixed results. I'm losing a lot of time on the questions portion. When y'all go through the AC's, once you find the correct one do you then skip the rest of the AC's or read the rest just in case?

I'm early on in the process but I'm ranging from 30 secs over to hitting 5:09 on the questions. Just want to see how everyone else is doing it.

Hello, all!

After personal reasons forced me to step away from the LSAT for some time, I'm just now getting back into the swing of things. What was clear to me back then is not as clear to me now. Thus, I must ask: why can't we infer "B most A" from the statement "A most B"? Perhaps what I'm struggling most to grasp is this: what does one assume in making this erroneous inference?

Thank you all for your time!

Hi all,

Blind reviewing the aforementioned Prep Test and having trouble with PT.63.S.1.Q.10. I almost never have these kinds of very basic questions below (i.e., what exactly is the conclusion?) But bear with me, I found this problem sneaky.

"Thus, Ms. Sandstrom should pay for this damage if, as the Mendelssohn claim, she could have reasonably expected that the column would lead people to damage the Mendel's farm."

Is this entire last sentence of the stimulus the conclusion? Or is the conclusion only the first clause: "Thus, Ms. Sandstrom should pay for the damage"? Does that have something to do with why A is the right answer?

Why is D incorrect?

Note: I've already watched JY's explanation videos but would appreciate if someone could thoroughly break the stimulus down and answer the 2 questions I have above. Thank you SO much in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-1-question-10/

Is there a summary PDF of the valid and invalid argument forms?

Thank You!

Hi Guys,

I am having a bit of difficulty with this question.

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/banana-epidemics-na-question/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-3-question-03/

It's the banana question.

I have a hard time distinguish B. I mean, it is a sufficient assumption, yet it is the correct answer for the necessary assumption too.

I am feeling a bit, how do you call it, mumble jumble right now.

Can any one help to explain?

Hi guys,

I was wondering if you wondered the same thing when you entered into this lesson question:

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/regulating-the-banks-na-question/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-2-question-15/

Is it correct if I translate the argument into a logic as:

Tightening-->Loan Less-->Economic Downturn

Tightening

Conclusion: Economic downturn

Aside of this logical flaw, the problem is wrong due to temporal causation flaw.

Am I correct about this?

If so, I guess you can still generate answer choice if the argument is bad as a start even logically invalid?

Thanks,

Panda

Does anyone have a list of "math" questions for the LR? I seem to be struggling. Thanks!

removed

Hi all,

I took the LSAT for the first time last Saturday. I can't stop thinking about it. Sometimes I'll wake up and think I did fantastic, other times thinking I probably got destroyed. I probably play out the "worst case" and "best case" scenario in my head about 20x per day.

Is this normal? I was prepping at about 168 over the past month and honestly I could have gotten anywhere between high 150 and high 160. (the comparative reading passage was probably the hardest passage I have ever encountered, up there with space passage from PT76). If LSAC was smart (and at the same time cruel!) they'd give us an option to pay to get the results quicker! They'd be making bank.

Any other test takers going crazy like me!?

Hi fellow scholars!

I have a long commute to work (about 40 mins) and in between studying on my own, I was curious if anyone had any audio books or critical thinking excercises that could be listened to on my drive. I feel like it's such a waste of time when I could be listening to something that could help me during my studies.

Thank you!

I usually get 6-7 wrong per LR section in late PT50s or early 60s. Yet, when I did PT40s(PT42), I got 10 wrong per section. I felt lost and confused. Should I review the CC before doing more timed section or PT?

So I have been Blind Reviewing for the past two weeks since I am new to 7sage. Before i used Blueprint as well as The LSAT Trainer but heard very good things about 7sage. Anyways I was wondering if anyone else second guesses themselves when they are Blind Reviewing. For many questions I am getting wrong that i Blind Reviewed because I wasn't 100% sure if it was correct i end up second guessing myself and chose a wrong answer when the correct answer was my original answer if that makes sense lol. Let me know if this is happening to you as well and any tips?

Hey 7Sagers,

I had someone write in with concerns about adjusting their schedule for the June LSAT (since it's in the afternoon and not in the morning) and I thought you guys could help! It's a very brief question, so here it is:

I have a specific concern regarding June, namely, I know for a fact that my mental focus fades really bad mid-afternoon, while being sharpest mid-morning. Any suggestions that you may have would be most greatly appreciated.

Hi all,

Just a quick question, does the word "can" indicate a relationship or is it indicate like "could", "might" a probability?

For instance, the sentence, "Some reporters can scoop all of the reporters", can you translate it into: Reporter X(-Some-)Scoop all of the reporters. Or is it just a statement indicating probability of this relationship?

if that is not true, then, as a rule of thumb, you can never translate a probabilistic statement into a conditional statement since conditional statement are 100% of occurrence?

Hi Guys,

I was trying to prove the following statement, please help to see if it is correct:

(A-->B)-->C

not (A-->B) or C

(A some/and B) or C

C->(A some/and B)

is there more step to go below this?

So all I can get to is that, if C fails, then some A are not B.

Hi guys,

I have some confusion going on here between the difference of the following question:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-4-question-23/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-1-question-23/

In sum,

From PT25-S4-Q23, we learned that:

If A cause B cause C, then it concludes C causes A; this is wrong because the possibility of C some A, or C and A, is ignored.

If that is true, so why is: PT27-S1-Q23 answer choice A wrong.

If most A cause B, then B, therefore A, the structure of PT25-S4-Q23, then, if we had follow PT27-S1-Q23 logic, it gets down to: (negating "most" to "some not", then it follows that some B is not A is ignored, which is what answer choice A says isn't it?

Hi All,

This is a difficult flaw question and I intent to give a shoot at explaining it, which is different from JY. Please help and check my explanation's validity.

The question link is here: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-4-question-25/

For flaw question, the first step I do is always noticing the logic and try to draw it out. This helps to distinguish whether the logic fallacy is a formal fallacy or informal fallacy.

Under this question, the logic are breaking down into the following:

Premise 1: Reporter knowledge-->Press Agent-->Tells Everything-->1 reporter knows more->Scoop other reporters

Activator: Tells Everything

Conclusion: Scoop other reporters

By this we notice that it is a SA/NA fallacy.

However, we are not finished. As time consuming as drawing the logic out, the question steam puts the final hurdle.

The question didn't ask "Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning in the argument", but instead, it says, which one of the following which isn't stated, but is consistent with the flaw.

In other words, we are trying to find one thing that is consistent within the flaw, which we have defined. And we are not defining the flaw here, but a consistent use of language.

Which marks E correct, which translates into: 1 reporter knows more-->Reporter knowledge. I agree, the translation isn't as perfect, but it does draw a great deal of similarity.

Had the question asked to identify the flaw in this question, then B becomes the correct answer, which states: one doesn't have to be a reporter and not scoop the reporters. To see this, refer to PT25-S4-Q23.

Please comment on my explanation.

Thanks,

Panda

Hi guys,

I wonder if you can help and check my analysis to see if it is correct or not.

The question is here: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-22/

I used logic to solve this question.

The logic goes of the following:

Law abiding people->Environment->Character->Criminal Action->Crime

And the conclusion states:

Crime->Law abiding people

That is why answer E is correct.