Hello,

I'm confused on how to approach this weakening question. My understanding of the auto industry executive's argument:

The auto industry executive is rejecting the recent guidelines that are requiring the production of cars with higher fuel efficiency (C) because statistics show that cars after 1977 that were built smaller to be more fuel efficient had a higher incidence of accident related fatalities (P). As I understand it, the executive is making a poor correlation-causation argument between building cars smaller and the assumed increase of fatal accidents. I'm having trouble with how the AC's best weaken the argument.

I initially chose D, and was struggling to find a better AC during BR. I eliminated E and B right off that bat. That left A C D. I chose D because I thought if modern technology could make cars more fuel efficient WITHOUT having to alter the size of the car (the executive is linking smaller fuel efficient cars and fatalities), then it might weaken the argument. You eliminate the need for change in size, you eliminate one potential connection with accidents.

I'm struggling to see how AC C is correct. I noticed the change between big and small and left that AC at first. Can someone help explain how that is the correct AC. From my understanding, if large cars can have a better fuel efficiency from new technology based off recent guidelines, does that weaken the executive's argument that the guidelines would have to adopt previous standards that they (incorrectly?) linked with accidents and fatalities?

Listen and subscribe:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify

Rahela and Eric dive into what it really means to find what works for you on the LSAT. From study schedules and practice test habits to mindset and motivation, they share the lessons that helped them go from frustration to breakthrough. Whether you’re just getting started or refining your approach, this episode will help you tune out the noise and build a plan that fits you.

Hello,

Here is my analysis for question 17 in section 3 for prep test 72. This is a weaken question; therefore, I wanted to weaken the connection between the premises and the conclusion.

Argument Analysis:

Premises:

Individuals who get injured due to unsafe actions not only cause injury to themselves but also can put financial and emotional burdens on others who they are close with.

Conclusion:

The Government is vindicated in making actions that are considered risky to one’s health illegal, in order to guard other people’s interests.

Prephrase:

Just because something that could be injurious to one individual and that brings pain to their family is not grounds for outlawing it. Think about it this way, just because trampolines can cause you harm and make your family pay your hospital bills doesn’t mean that this is grounds to ban using them.

Answer Choices:

A. This supports the argument because it further justifies why it would feasible to implement the law. The reason is due to the fact that it shows how putting a burden on the people you have close ties to constitutes harm to oneself.

B. This doesn’t weaken because just because we have an obligation to not injure ourselves doesn’t mean that we won’t injure ourselves. For example, one may have an obligation to not eat their sister’s last piece of chocolate cake; however, is that obligation strong enough to prevent us from eating it? Probably not.

C. This strengthens because it meets the necessary condition of posing a financial burden to the family.

D. This weakens it entirely because entirely wipes out the evidence that the argument provided for the conclusion. If the evidence is not sufficient than the conclusion is not entirely justified to be true.

E. Again, just because you have an obligation doesn’t mean that it will guarantee that people won’t do it. The person could easily say, well this law will just affirm this obligation.

Honestly, I wish I hadn’t gotten this question wrong. I had originally picked B because I assumed that because one has an obligation to not do something that they won’t do it. But, how many obligations have we had that we have broken? Conversely, D shows that the evidence that the person gave does not completely bolster the argument for instituting the law.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-3-question-17/

I just worked through PT 44.4.20 and noticed the flaw traced to the lack of support between the premise and sub-conclusion. This is the first time I've encountered a question where the flaw hasn't been between the sub-conclusion and main conclusion. Is this common in other types of question, or does the LSAT usually focus on Sub-Conclusion to Main Conclusion flaws?

Parallel questions have been a huge flaw of mine in PT and drilling, does any1 have any tips that will help me not be utterly confused?

why was it marked D instead of C? i feel like C is the correct choice because it matches the argument.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

I don't see how D seriously undermines the hypothesis. How do we know anything about the death of diatoms? For this answer to work, you have to assume that Antarctic diatoms die near Antarctica (why can't they move or float away, or the death shells float away?) Lastly, don't you have to assume that the sediment left by the death shells would be indicative of a population increase? Aren't life and death two totally different ideas?. How are we supposed to know that these are OK assumptions?

Take for instance A (just for the sake of argument, I understand that A is incorrect). I think A would work if you assume diatoms of today are similar to diatoms during the ice age. You would also need to assume that the "unusually large amounts of ferrous material" that does not exist today would not promote a further increase in their population today. How are these assumptions less reasonable than the ones needed for D to be correct?

Question Stem: Sufficient Assumption

Stimulus: Shoe factory employs more unskilled full time workers (W) than all other businesses in town combined.

If shoe factory closes, more than half of town RESIDENTS who are W will lose jobs.

See the shift between the W that are employed at the factory in the premise, and RESIDENTS in the conclusion? Look for an idea connecting these 2 ideas: workers at the factory and residency.

A. residency, no workers

B. workers, no residency

C. workers, no residency

D. everyone employed at the factory is a resident.

E. neither

D works because without it, we have no idea where the workers come from - what if they all live OUTSIDE Centerville? Then there is no way the conclusion is true. So D closes this one gap.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

Hi,

I received my September LSAT, and would love to go over the test with someone else who has also taken it via video chat. Are there any rules against this? I understand that you cannot sell or distribute the test, but I was not sure about this. If there are no rules against it, does anyone want to go over the test who will be taking it again? I would particularly like to talk about LG.

Thanks,

Lauren

I have been studying for a few months and now average 169 - 170 in my prep tests. A few weeks ago I sat down and did a usual prep test but got a 178, which was my highest score yet.

However, the 2 prep test after that amazing score were both 167, which was subpar for my admission goals. This high and low kinda shattered my confidence, but I got a 169 on my prep test yesterday. It’s a good score, but still not sufficient.

I am at a point where I know I have the skill to do well, but its my mentality that is put to the test every time. I am sure I will face harder challenges than this is Law School, so this is good preparation.

Im taking the LSAT in October and hope I can produce a consistent and high enough score. Have anyone else experimented something like this? And how did you improve after it?

Thank you!

Phoenix Yuan

For this question, I initially chose answer choice E because the background information really swept me up. My intuition told me that because the passage wrote about all of these other linguistic influences, the answer choice probably had something to do with that. However, upon BR, I ended up going with the correct answer choice A because the first sentence in the passage notes that the nature of English literature reflects... the English language. Thus it follows that the "origin of English," referring to the language, played a role in shaping English literature.

In PT 77, Section 2, Questions 5 and 14 they both use the word "linked" in their arguments. When the LSAT uses the word "linked," does it only mean correlation?

Have you ever attempted to do the first 10 questions of a section in 10 minutes, or wondered how much time had elapsed when you tackled a certain question? We've added an extra metric to our timing tooltip to give you more insight into your performance. Go to the result page for any drill, solo section, or practice, and hover over the timing column. You'll see not only how much time you took on the question but how much time elapsed before your first visit.

I am confused about how to classify the different question types into formal logic vs. those that use informal logic. For example, would you classify MBT as formal logic because it uses conditionals, but WSE as informal because it uses primarily the spectrum of support? Would other types fall in the middle, like SA, which some answers/questions involve conditionals and the spectrum of support?

.

Hello! Was working on this obsolete exam RC as practice and unfortunately only got 2/6 correct. Was wondering if anyone could please explain questions 16, 17, 18, and 20. Thank you!

Hello!

I am currently progressing through the LR section and I am finding that I am understanding each section OK but I am very confused as to how to more overall identify when I am dealing with an argument versus when I am not. The causality arguments in the WSE section are also confusing me, as JY talks about how there are different kinds of them and I am also finding it hard to differentiate between an Alternative Cause Argument and the Basic One-Off Causal Argument among others. Can someone help summarize these in a way thats easy to understand?? Thanks so much!

I had 3 LR(I’m unsure as to which we’re real) , 1 RC (the one with lies/mistakes) and 1LG(the one with the flowers)

I feel pretty strong about this test

Would the contrapositive of "If all farmers were to practice organic farming, they would be unable to produce enough food for Earth's growing population" be different from the contrapositive of "If farmers were to practice organic farming, they would be unable to produce enough food for Earth's growing population?"

The only difference is the "all" right before "farmers."

Thanks!

ive been studying lsat for a year already (approximately 1-2 hrs a day). My initial pt score is 153, and after 3-4 months I got around 160. However the score just doesn't go up anymore. I about to take the test on dec. 6th so I have literally 2 months left. My target in dec is 165+. Is that reasonable?

I just purchased this course 5 days ago and I found this course really useful but, I've already wasted all the pts (40-75). So I don't know how to follow the schedule of this course in a smarter way in this case.

I quit my job few days ago so now I have 8 hrs ago (!!!)

Anybody who got similar experience or anybody who has any idea about what should I do now?

hi all!

first off congrats on all those who sat for the Nov test and completed it in one piece! I feel somewhat accomplished in doing that alone, it being my first official administration. But I am also trying to be somewhat realistic with myself, knowing that I am almost 100% sure that I want to sit for the Jan test and take a shot at getting a higher score!

I had been studying since June before taking the Nov test, so obviously completed all 7sage CC and taken PTs 40-50, so now what?

trying to take into consideration my known weaknesses that I feel in myself, and use those to try and construct a new study plan, I wanted to reach out and see if anyone else in the same/similar situation as myself, have any advice. mainly what you have done in the past or what you will be doing until the Jan test? I'm thinking of more timed sections instead of full PTs to start out & focus more on getting a few extra points from RC (since personally I did not spend much time at all learning RC strategies to begin with), along with getting a constant LR section that I am confident with. what about you?

thanks so much in advance for taking the time to help a girl out :)

This question asks us to find an answer choice that matches the flaw in the stimulus.

The form of the argument in the stimulus and the form of the argument in the correct answer choice are not at all identical, and this is the difficulty of this question.

The argument in the stimulus says:

Stallworth claimed that [A]

A+B --> C

/C

Therefore, /B

A = Stallworth supported the proposal

A+B = Henning also supported the proposal (the "also" was referencing Stallworth's support)

C = proposal received government approval

Answer choice A says:

TV news claimed that [A and B]

A --> /B

Therefore, /B

A = the traffic accident occurred on Aylmer Street

B = Morgan witnessed the accident from his kitchen window

The TV news made two claims (claim A and claimB), then a not both rule (A --> /B) is stated. Since both A and B can't be true at the same time the author concludes that B must not have happened. However, the author is ignoring the possibility that it was A that didn't happen.

Answer choice B says:

City government claimed that [A]

A private institute claimed that [B]

Therefore, the city government is to blame for A

A = 15% of city residents are behind on their property taxes

B = property taxes in the city are higher than average

The flaw here is that the author assumes B caused A, rather than a number of alternative possibilities such as high unemployment or people being distracted by studying for the LSAT every day and forgetting to pay their property taxes. The other unwarranted assumption is that the city government sets the taxes. Maybe the citizens vote to determine the tax rate. It's even possible that the county determines the property tax rate in this city. It would not be logical to blame the city government for something they have no control over.

Answer choice C says:

According to Kapoor [A]

According to Galindo [B]

Therefore, if B --> /A

A = haz waste site does not pose danger to the community

B = haz waste site is on an unsuitable tract of land

Two different ideas (danger and suitability) are discussed but assumed to be the same idea. We don't know why Galindo thinks the land is unsuitable. Maybe it's because this land is really rocky and it's expensive to dig holes in the ground for burying waste. Maybe the hazardous waste just smells bad and Galindo doesn't want to drive by the waste site on the way to work every day.

Answer choice D says:

According to rivals [A]

B --> C

Therefore, Harris is a poor choice for mayor

A = Harris favors the interests of property developers

B = a good mayor

C = willing to stand up to property developers

This argument assumes that Harris is not willing to stand up to property developers. Again, this is an argument that conflates two different ideas (favoring the interests of developers and being willing to stand up to developers). There is no reason Harris can't do both. Also, even if Harris isn't "a good mayor," he could still be a better choice for mayor than anyone else who is willing to do it.

Answer choice E says:

Latest government figures claim [A]

B

Therefore, /A

A = regional unemployment rate declined in the last six months

B = the region lost thousands of manufacturing jobs

The assumption is that the unemployment rate can't go down in a period when manufacturing jobs were lost. However, maybe it was Amazon that bulldozed a factory in the region and put up an office building. The two ideas (regional unemployment and jobs in a specific industry) are not the same.

Admin note: edited title

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

*The kind of question this is:* Weaken

*CTX:* Local agricultural official gave fruit growers of District 10 a new pesticide that they applied for three years to their pear orchards in place of the pesticides they had used before.

*Premise(s):* during the three years, the proportion of pears lost to insects was significantly less than it had been during the previous three years period.

*Conclusion:* based on the results, the official concluded that the new pesticide was more effective than the old pesticide, at least in the short term. In limiting the loss of certain fruit to insects.

*What I am looking for:* Just looking for answer choices that weaken the argument. Maybe an alternative explanation as to why the pears lost to insects were significantly less than it had been during the previous three years period.

*Answer A:* Yes, this is the right answer. This is irrelevant and does not weaken the argument. There were less fruit being produced because the number of mature trees has declined of the past 8 years. Who cares. The argument is talking about the “proportion of pears lost to insects.” So, it doesn’t matter how many pears we started with, it’s how many of those that were lost to insects with the new pesticide.

*Answer B:* Not the right answer. This weakens the argument. Insect abatement programs were used in the last 5 years, and were successful. That explains why the pears lost to insects were significantly less than it had been during the previous three years period.

*Answer C:* Not the right answer. Over the past 5 years, the birds that prey on the insects that feed on the pears have spent more time in the district 10 region. Weakens.

*Answer D:* Not the right answer. Insects in district 10 that infest pear trees are water breeders, and access to water for them is shrinking. This means the insects did not get to the pear trees. Weakens.

*Answer E:* Not the right answer. It is saying the old pesticide is still in effect after it has stopped being used, so it may not be the new pesticide that is credited with eliminating many pear eating insects. Weakens.

How do y'all review for RC like untimed/timed sections for wrong and flagged questions?

Can someone please explain question 13. It's frustrating there is no explanation available. :(

Admin Note: Edited title. For RC questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# (P#) - brief description of stimulus."