Hi all,

Link to the lesson: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/traffic-accident-principle-question?ss_completed_lesson=1135

First of all, C can be eliminated because of sequence: car stolen a week before the suggested actions were published. But I had a different view, below.

I'm looking to get some clarification about why exactly answer choice C is wrong and I think it has to do with translating the scope of "voluntarily" as an adverb as being more important than the positively stated "undertake" versus "not undertake."

Any help appreciated!

Regarding answer choice C, it states that Collen voluntarily did NOT take some action (which one could argue I guess is a form of voluntary action itself), whereas the principle states that the actions are undertaken (affirmatively). The video explanation does just this, stating that Collen's failure to do something was a voluntary action, but this kind of reasoning makes the distinction between undertaking and not undertaking meaningless, if we talk about not undertaking an action in that context, that just ends equating with, oh, you made a choice NOT to do something, so you chose to do something.

Is it possible to rule out C since it is talking about an action that she did NOT undertake when the principle is talking about actions that the person DOES undertake? To me this looks like a failure of the sufficient condition, which means the rule is irrelevant.

I guess we could see the principle as having an AND statement in the sufficient condition:

undertook action AND knew consequences AND did so voluntarily, therefore responsible.

C looks like we fail the first segment of the AND, while satisfying the last two, so the conclusion doesn't follow.

Also, another way to get at this confusion might be looking at producing a contra positive of the principle because it is difficult to determine how to properly negate the original premise.

Contra positive: A person is not responsible for the consequences because NOT(know that actions they voluntarily undertake risk such consequences)

A person is not responsible for the consequences because they did not know the consequences OR did not do so voluntarily Or did NOT undertake an action.

Answer choice D seems to be getting at the idea that not doing an action is part of the negation. Colleen did not undertake the slamming of the door. We know D is wrong because it is trying to conclude she IS responsible for an action she did NOT undertake. In parallel to C, Collen voluntarily did NOT undertake the precautions, here Collen voluntarily(?) did NOT undertake the slamming of the door, just her here brother did it, whereas in answer choice C, no one did it.

The question is as follows:

Admin edit: Please do not post full questions on the discussion forums! Removed the question.

I chose (A), but it was incorrect because the actual correct answer is (B). I understand the reasoning behind why answer choice (B) is correct. However, I am concerned as to the actual fact that we are taught to consider the stimulus truth and to not question the premise, rather we ought to question the conclusions.

As this was an older LSAT - ought test takers still concern themselves with these types of questions (where the premise/speaker of said premise may be questionable)?

Hope to receive word from someone soon.

I am taking the June 2016 LSAT. I am in need of a serious study buddy. My goal is to score a 165. If you are looking for a study buddy please let me know. I can be reached ]via email (Admin edit: Email removed. Please pm for email). I am currently in New York. I hope we can encourage each other in this brutal LSAT journey! Lets beat the LSAT together!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-3-question-23

I understand the reasoning in the video, that just because X is preceded by Y, it doesn’t mean that Y is the necessary condition.

However in the other forums that I have ventured, the instructors would diagram the conditional as

Every Major War in the last 200 years -> Sharp increase in acquisition of weapons.

I understand that “every” introduces a sufficient condition, but if we accept that “is preceded by” is not a necessary condition, then could the conditional statement stated above still be valid?

Thanks!

A stimulus says "A poem is any work of art that exploits some of the musical characteristics of language." (PT27 Sect.1 Q20) I would map that statement with lawgic as follows:

Expl Musical Char of Lang & Work of Art ----> Poem

or Work of Art that Exploits Musical Char of Lang ----> Poem

Now, what if the stimulus said "A poem is a work of art that exploits some of the musical characteristics of language"?

Seems like it should be obvious, but it's not (to me anyway). Is it a bi-conditional?

If something is a poem, then it's a thing that is a work of art that exploits the musical characteristics of language. So Poem ---> WA that EMCL.

Then let's say we come across this mysterious thing that is a work of art that exploits some of the musical characteristics of language. What's that called? Is it necessarily a poem? (WA that EMCL ---> Poem?)

PS: Not sure any of this matters.

So in reviewing the lessons on weakening I came across the one about the Olympics and it made me curious about attacking the support for the Sub Conclusion versus attacking the support for the Main Conclusion from the Sub Conclusion in these types of questions. Does anyone happen to know if on the more challenging questions whether or not it is more common that the correct ACs attack one more frequently than the other? Or is there not really a pattern?

Link here: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/how-to-quickly-react-to-logic-games-question-stems-flashcards

Do the flashcards for reacting to LG question stems and identifying properties of incorrect choices apply to LR question stems as well?

Thanks!

I'm doing games from preptests that were released before LSAC changed the format of the games to allow for much more space over two pages. Is it ok to use blank pieces of 8.5x11 inch paper to do each of these games? I don't want to give myself too much space and discover later on that I've been fomenting bad habits.

In real time, I was down between B and D. I chose D because it "felt" correct.

In regards to actual reasoning, I'm assuming D's appeal to authority is illegitimate because something like smell is so subjective and appealing to an expert wouldn't make sense?

I am not certain on B.

Any help would be appreciated.

In the stimulus, it says "A field of study is genuinely autonomous discipline by virtue of its having a unique methodology"

I translated that sentence to mean that IF a field of study has a unique methodology, THEN it is genuinely autonomous discipline.

But Superprep book explanation says "all that a field of study requires to be a genuinely autonomous discipline is a unique methodology" which I translate to mean that unique methodology is a necessary condition instead of sufficient condition.

I highly doubt that the Superprep book makes any mistake, but which translation is correct?

Thank you

The correct answer here made zero sense to me.

In answer B, he says she says "Hey, recycled paper isn't necessarily lower quality. In fact, the best paper was made was made from recycled materials..."

How is that irrelevant?

Frankly, all the answer choices seemed a bit zany in this one.

Hi, I'm confused with these statements. They refer to some kind of flaws, but can't seem to pinpoint exactly what they are.

Does anyone know what they're called?

1. The argument assumes without warrant that a condition under which a phenomenon is said to occur is the only condition under which that phenomenon occurs (in other words, the argument assumes that one way is the only way)

2. It sets up a dichotomy between alternatives that are not known to be exclusive. (in other words, the argument assumes a limited number of possibilities when there could be more)

First off, my apologizes for posting twice in such a close time period, but wanted to get some advice on my personal situation.

I began studying for the June 2016 date in mid-January using the Powerscore LR & LG Bibles, which I finished a couple of weeks ago. I have skimmed through the RC Bible, but I know it's pretty much regarded as worthless, and I already have a pretty good section performance so I'm not planning on reading it fully or doing any of the exercises. My diagnostic in January was a 155, and in the first couple weeks of studying I regrettably took a couple more PTs scoring around the same; after realizing that this was a bad strategy I decided to wait until I had completed the core material before taking another PT. After finishing the LG Bible and while reading the LR Bible I took some practice LG sections to drill, which is when I discovered 7sage and found the LG video explanations. The 7sage LG video explanations helped me translate the raw skills I had learned into a mechanical game strategy. In retrospect I would have obviously rather just used the 7sage curriculum, but at this point I think it would do more harm than good. I recently took my first PT since finishing the LG & LR Bibles and scored a 166, followed by another the next day at 163, so I feel confident that I've made at least a 6-7 point improvement so far. With a little over 11 weeks till the June date and another 40 PTs to do, I feel pretty confident that my target score of 168 is within reach. I think the next few points of improvement will come from honing in my LG approach, and maintaining higher reading focus on LR & LG, which alone should yield a couple more raw points based on my review of my most recent PTs. Overall, I feel confident when approaching the test; obviously there are still many improvements to be made, but I don't have that "lost" or "hopeless" feeling with the fast approaching test date.

At this point, given my results and goal, should I just continue on my self-study method, take the remaining PTs and use BR between PTs? Or should I postpone my test date and do the 7sage curriculum?

Based on a couple of other advice threads I've read, a lot of people push delaying a test date, but a lot of those threads have been people on their 3rd attempt, or people that feel woefully unprepared for an approaching test date. So I'm curious to see if the consensus will change.

Thanks in advance!

I made this comment on the video 5 months ago, but I still would like to get an answer or opinion on this: So for MSS/MBT questions containing other people’s opinion and author’s opinion, we should always choose answer that states author’s opinion because that is what must be true based on stimulus…correct?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-3-question-21

I am struggling very bad with time issues regarding RC.

When it takes me around 12/15 minutes per passage, I get all of them correct or miss only one.

However, when I try to speed up my pace down to 10 minutes per passage, I do terrible.

My game plan was to get down to 10 minutes, then 8 minutes, so eventually I can get through all of the passages for June.

SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME!!!!

Admin edit: Please do not post LSAT questions word for word.

I'm having trouble with this Fact Pattern and Question Stem.

I'm assuming it is supposed to be faulty because the FP makes the switch from talking about tall tulips to tall plants.

However, we know that tulips are the ONLY plants in the garden. And we also know they are all tulips. How is it faulty to make the step that the only plants in the garden are tall plants?

Anybody from this area interested in starting a study group? I will be taking the Blueprint LSAT course in April and supplementing it with 7sage

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/introducing-new-drugs-strengthen-question

Looking to get a better idea of the logic on answer choice E, which is an incorrect answer choice.

I understand that A is the correct choice because reasoning from an example which is already the best case compared to alternatives strengthens the argument, given the premises.

Comment from @DumbHollywoodActor was helpful in shedding some light on E's logic:

(E) mixes up the logic. If you take the contrapositive, you can see it more clearly: “if most new drugs shouldn’t be on the market, then the new antihistamine shouldn’t be on the market.” The argument provides the necessary condition, but that doesn’t mean it gets to conclude the sufficient condition.

However, I would like to understand this statement better: The argument provides the necessary condition, but that doesn’t mean it gets to conclude the sufficient condition.

We must accept the premises and the conclusion as true for LSAT questions. I get that if we accept the premise as true, that is affirming the necessary condition of the logic in choice E. But, if we accept the conclusion as true, that also satisfies the sufficient condition of the logic.

Put simply, after reading the argument I am left with these two true pieces of information:

P: antihistamine should not be on the market (A)

C: these new drugs should not be on the market (B)

then E gives me this logic of "these new drugs should not be on the market" --> "antihistamine should not be on the market"

So, I'm left looking at that B--> A statement, and holding A and B in my hands, with no understanding of where to plug them in. If I plug B in, then I get A, but apparently that is not the correct answer.

Is it because the reasoning in this argument is inductive (that is, moving from a specific example to a general rule) and so it isn't helpful to say that "this general rule is the case" therefore "this specific examples is the case," since the argument is not applying a rule, but rather trying to support one?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-3-question-13

I can't see the difference between the flaw in B and the the flaw in the incorrect answer choices....

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-02

Hey! Can someone explain to me why for (section 1 Q2) the answer is B? Frederick does not comment on representing genres at all......or did I miss something?

I'm wondering how folks actually organize the physical workspace for LG? How and where do you actually write on the paper? I'm kind of old and have done my current job for a couple of decades. In that context I've come to the conclusion that when I'm feeling in the weeds, it's usually reflected in my workspace. If my workspace feels dirty, I feel lost and underwater. Cleaning up the workspace is usually my first action when I have those feelings.

It seems that in the context of LG, the workspace is the page. How do people keep that page organized?

People often discourage erasures. Frequent copying of multiple game boards seems impractical. People also seem to discourage writing on master game boards.

I see the logic of these ideas, but they seem to crash up against reality fairly hard.

For example, if one is translating the rules as one goes, and then drawing inferences one is likely to end up with rules that are entirely represented on the game board and no longer need to take up physical or mental space in the rules list. One must either erase it, cross it out or leave it, none of which make for neat pages. After "crashing" rules together I often end up with a bunch of crossed out or erased rules and have a hard time recognizing which rules must still be considered. Likewise, I often end up with floaters in odd spaces, which doesn't provide clarity.

JY almost always uses his magical eraser when demonstrating because, I assume, it offers clarity. Other times there are obvious edits where the video has been paused and the rules and game boards re-written to provide clarity. That clean clarity seems to be a factor in his speed.

The LSAT allows neither erasers nor editing of the space/time continuum, so how do you folks keep your page relatively clean and organized?

Likewise, how do you handle questions wherein there are too many game boards to copy in a timely fashion. JY handles this by using his magic copy and paste feature and also his magical eraser. Again, I believe that magic is generally prohibited on the LSAT (?) and thus not an option. How do you handle conditions that are added by question stems without writing on your master boards?

Dear 7sage community,

Could someone please explain to me why answer E is correct? I can justify eliminating answers A,B,C,D, but not picking E. Most of all, I cannot comprehend how to apply the 'can be false' principle to a statement containing 'some' and a negation ('not'). By now my brain hurts from all the theories I tried to convince myself of.

Thanks a lot!

See here: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/the-embezzler-weaken-question

The Embezzler (weaken EXCEPT question)

This question gave a lot of people trouble, particularly regarding why answer choice (C) weakened the argument. After reflection, I believe I may have unpacked the reason why this is a clear cut wrong answer choice. However, I am wondering how C does not straight up contradict the conclusion of the argument, which we are not supposed to do in weaken questions. I am grateful for any input or feedback on this attempt. Let's begin!

minor premise: embezzler had special knowledge and access

sub-conclusion/major premise 1: embezzler is an accountant or actuary

major premise 2: an accountant would probably not make the mistake which revealed the embezzlement

main conclusion: it is likely that the embezzler is an actuary

Answer choice (C) states that there are 8 accountants and 2 actuaries

This is where things got dicey. Many people felt that the premise that "an accountant would probably not make the mistake" affected the probability that answer choice (C) was hinting at. However,there seem to be two major assumptions made to jump from the premise that "an accountant probably would not make the mistake" to the conclusion that "it is likely an actuary is the embezzler." First, the assumption that, because an accountant probably would not make the mistake, that therefore an actuary probably would make the mistake. Second, and this is a huge unstated assumption, the person who made the mistake is the person who committed the crime.

For example, even if we accept that an actuary has a greater likelihood of making the mistake that led to the discovery of the crime, is it not possible that an actuary could make the mistake but not have committed the crime? Therefore, the likelihood of committing the mistake and the likelihood of committing the crime are separate and distinct from each other. Conflating the two is a major assumption of the argument and a major reason for confusion on answer choice (C).

If we separate the assumption that the person who committed the mistake is the person that committed the crime from the conclusion that an actuary likely committed the crime we can use simple probability in looking at answer choice (C). Granted, this requires us to assume that of all accountant and actuary employees at XYZ Corporation, each person had an equal chance of either committing or not committing the crime. However, this lets us avoid introducing confusion of who was more likely to have committed the crime versus who was more likely to have made the mistake that led to the discover of the crime. Then the answer choice weakens the argument by stating that we would have to concede it seems there is greater probability that an accountant was the person who committed the crime.

That solves it for me.

However, I would really appreciate insight on how this answer choice does not both (1) directly contradict the conclusion and (2) avoids the assumptions that provide the support from premise to conclusion.

Regarding (1), C in English becomes It is likely that an accountant is the embezzler; this is in direct contradiction to the stated conclusion in the stimulus that "it is likely an actuary is the embezzler." Maybe it depends on the definition of "likely?" In other sources, I see it means, possible to be true, but I also see at as being used as probable (that is, in probability we could not say that it is probable if there was actually only a 20% chance, as is the case of actuaries being the culprit in answer choice (C)).

We accept the premises and conclusion as true, as we must for weaken questions. Now if I told you that there is an 80% probability of an accountant being the embezzler, how could you seriously hold on to the truth of your conclusion that "it is likely an actuary is the embezzler?" Unless likely is meant as "could be true?"

Regarding (2), the support provided by the major premise that an accountant would probably not make the mistake ties into the conclusion by (a) assuming the person who commits the mistake also committed the crime and (b) that the actuary is more likely to commit the mistake. Answer choice (C) doesn't go after any of these. It instead focuses on the probability of the person who committed the crime, which seems just attacks the conclusion directly and changes it's outcome.

In other words, looking at the unstated assumption which conflates those who made the mistake with those who committed the crime, the main conclusion really just states a probability that has no relation to the rest of the argument except via extreme assumptions. Then answer choice C directly changes this probability.

After further parsing this, I would actually say the major conclusion does not follow from the premises and that the argument has made the flaw of confusing likelihood of committing the crime with likelihood of making the mistake. The detective spent all his time discussing the likelihood of the mistake but then expressed his conclusion as one of likelihood of committing the crime (which we know nothing about). C introduces information about the likelihood of the occupation for those who could have committed the crime. But this entirely shifts the detective's erroneous conclusion.

Thanks!

"the author assumes one reason when others could be plausible"

Can you tell me the name of this flaw? Thanks in advance!

I started taking the course in January and am now two PTs in. The first was on Monday, a 153 which was 6 points higher than my diagnostic, giving me a much needed confidence boost. However, my LG score was -10, definitely a black spot. Yesterday, however, I scored an abysmal 150 mainly because I scored a -15 (!) on the LG section. The worst is that when I watch the video explanations I can immediately tell why I messed up: my diagramming. I simply did not illustrate the rules well, which was disheartening since once I knew how to diagram I can get almost every question right obviously.

I don't know what to do right now. Do I stop my PTing until I have a firm grasp on LG? If so, how exactly do I go about improving? Should I still take my PT next week? My self esteem and confidence have sunk. My goal is to break the 160 barrier by test day, a score that I hope is within my reach. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.