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?

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.

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?

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]]

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

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.

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

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?

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/

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/

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 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?

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!

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.)

Any advice for breaking down SA questions into valid argument forms like JY does in the videos? The more questions I see, the more challenging it is to find an AC that matches my diagram. Is there another way to approach SA questions? Sometimes it seems like the AC for these questions is just a restatement of the conclusion and/or my prephrases don't match the answer choices very well. Does anyone think of these questions like strengthen questions? Any suggestions would be great! 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!

One effective way that I discovered for myself to solve WEAKEN questions is the following: you have to set your mind in a way that can come to the argument's conclusion even without the provided premise(s). Or you can have the premise(s) and still not come to the conclusion provided in the argument. This way you basically do not attack the premise nor do you attack the conclusion. You agree with both parts of the argument. However, you show that both the premise(s) and the conclusion can exist without one another, e.i. you reach the conclusion without the provided premise(s), maybe by providing the conclusion where it does not requiter premise or you have the premise(s) but the conclusion may not actually happen. So in the LSAT world's WEAKEN region the premise(s) that the argument provide do not guarantee the conclusion. That's how you "damage" the support. Below is an example:

Argument: Because Mike likes rich life he works hard to make money.

P: Because Mike likes rich life

C: he works hard to make money

One way is to show that P happens but C still does not happen.

(A) Mike likes rich life but that fact does not motivate him to work (I know its a simple argument but you get the point)

Another way is to show that C happens without P.

(B) Mike works hard since he enjoys his job (he does not work hard for the sake of money).

Please share your thoughts!

Thank you 7Sage!

Hi! Here is an updated strategy from the below post

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/10749/my-rc-strategy-that-got-me-to-0

What I've found helpful in addition to the original post is thinking about the range of what the central theme CAN and CANNOT do based on what is known and not known about the central theme. This is especially helpful for those difficult curve-breaker Qs (inference Qs, analogy Qs) , because curve-breaker Qs usually test the MEANING of the passage, rather than what's explicitly stated. You can only draw the meaning of the overall passage/ key theme when you understand the range of what is known and then going one step further, inferring what a certain thing can/ cannot do.

How do we figure out what something can/ cannot do? Let's make a very quick example. Say that the passage says that frogs only swim in the water. This is what we know about the frogs. Then we can infer /water -> frog don't swim. Thinking about this range really helps to understand the key features of the central theme and its importance. (When it fails the requirements it needs, it cannot do its job (contrapositive of S-> N) But obviously, when the sufficient condition is met, we don't know anything about whether necessary condition was/is/will be met (but I think it is less relevant in RC. What's more relevant is thinking about the range of necessary conditions and understanding what would happen when those conditions fail)

Here's the bad news: in the RC section, the LSAT doesn't get this explicit about sufficient and necessary conditions. The curve-breaker Qs are difficult for a reason. If everyone can identify the conditions easily, then it wouldn't be a curve-breaker Q. I repeat, the LSAT doesn't usually give you the typical "conditional indicators" (if, when, any, only when, requires, etc) to figure out the sufficient/necessary conditions easily. Sometimes they do. But most of the time, we have to really infer about the necessary conditions based on what the passage says. The passages only HINT at these necessary conditions by omitting something, or by only stating 1 necessary condition (which, by default, would mean that other conditions won't work without this condition)

The good news: Here's the typical way the LSAT presents a necessary condition.

For example, let's take PT62 passage 1. No worries, I won't spoil too specific details for you.

What we do know about lichenometry is

Think about what's known about lichenometry. From there, infer what it CAN and CANNOT do. According to the passage, lichenometry only does certain things within a specific location only using certain materials. It cannot function when something falls outside that location (not specifically the LOCATION, but certain geographical features necessary; if the certain geographic location is missing the material required, then the necessary condition fails and lichenometry cannot do its job.

But you also have to be extremely careful and identify precisely what the necessary condition is. If you generalize too much, then you might also be susceptible to trap answer choices. What lichenometry needs is a certain material. From this, we can only infer that if it misses the material as a whole, it won't be able to do its job. However, if it has certain qualifying conditions that affects the material, then it might still be able to do its job. We must carefully distinguish what must be true from what can be true)

Again, this is what's hard about the LSAT RC passages: the necessary conditions are nowhere explicitly stated. The LSAT does not explicitly say what lichenometry can or cannot do.You have to combine all those info above (what we know/ don't know about lichenometry) ; it is our job to infer the range of function based on what's known, and IDENTIFY PRECISELY what the necessary condition is.

You can also go backwards. Ask the question what CAN it do to backtrack; asking that question helps to summarize what we do know and what we don't)

Also, this strategy applies when the subject (central theme) involves a human being. It is because a human being is usually a central theme in a diversity passage, and the diversity passages are all about what someone/ some social group couldn't do before and how the social structures/ individual consciousness evolved for them to be able to do something.

For example, PT 63, passage 2. (don't worry, i won't spoil the deets)

It is about Kate Chopin. She is compared to other groups of writers. The key to the passage is all about what those groups did/ didn't do and from that inferring what they could/ couldn't do given the social structures and conventions at the time. Pretty much the same thing with PT 62 passage 4 on Jewett.

(I am using PTs 62 and 63 as examples because they are in Superprep II)

Obviously this strategy can be applied to science/ law passages as well.

Law passages- what the law can/ cannot do, theory can/ cannot do, a material can/ cannot do

Science passages- conditions under which a hypothesis would work, conditions under which the central theme (subject being experimented etc) can function

My theory is that knowing what a subject can/cannot do is especially central to understanding the LSAT passages BECAUSE as lawyers we would be basically doing the same thing. What can we do based on this law? What can't we do? What can this law do for us? What can't it do? It is all about inferring about our agency and the range of usefulness/ restrictiveness of the law based on what's known/ not known about the law.

To summarize:

Important /= necessary. Also, /important and still necessary.

Think about LR necessary assumption Qs. Some assumptions are important, but not necessary. Some assumptions are not important, but necessary.

Hope this helps

Oh yeah PLEASE DO NOT SHARE THIS WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES. I want this info to be limited to 7Sage. Thanks

Can someone explain to me this stimulus? It says "Which one of the following could be an accurate and complete list of the students who review only Sunset?" Usually, the "complete and accurate" stimuli want a list of all the items across all possible worlds that fulfill the requirement. However, in this problem, they are apparently only asking for the students in 1 world. So answer C says J and L, which would be true if you looked at all possible worlds (ie J can review only S in one world whereas L can't, and L can review only S in another world where J can't). However, the correct answer is A, which says only L. Answer A thus only applies to 2 of the 3 possible worlds. I don't understand how the stimulus specifies this. It reads exactly the same as stimului from other games that are asking across all possible worlds.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-42-section-1-game-4/

I've been struggling with a bunch of the LR questions and have gone back into the CC and used up almost of all of my questions sets.

I'm tired of looking at questions that I've done before because I remember what the answer is pretty much. Would it be bad if I burned the rest of the 30's to give myself some new questions to look at?

Hi. I'm not sure how to translate "those in search of jobs should move to a city with high-tech businesses" into lawgic. I thought the word "should" might be a necessary condition, but JY didn't put an arrow to connect JOBS and HIGH TECH. Whereas in Manhattan forum, one of the instructors translated it as "if you want JOBS, go to HT" which would require the use of an arrow. So I'm not sure which is the right approach to take..

Also, is it even a valid argument?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-4-question-25/

From BR'ing, I've noted fundamental concepts of of strengthening/weakening cause and effect arguments. For instance, you can strengthen the argument by saying that in the absence of the cause, we don't have the effect.

My question is where this was in the curriculum - I watched the videos on causation theory but couldn't find it there, nor did I find it in strengthening/weakening lessons.

Hi all

I cannot find any reason why (C) is wrong here.

It seems to me that (C) eliminates one alternative cause (genetic cause?) and thereby strengthen the argument that P-fat is responsible for the development of eyesight.

I compared (C) with (A) in S4Q17 in the same PT. (A) eliminates one possibility alternative by saying that "Earth did not pass through clouds of cosmic dust earlier than 800,000 years ago. This is because it negates an possibility that something other than fluctuation might have caused ice-age if the ice-age had occurred earlier than 800,000 years ago when the fluctuation started to happen. (A) turned out to strengthen the argument. Then, why does (C) not strengthen the argument? (I mean Q14)

Thank you very much

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-4-question-14/

I was only able to answer this Q correctly by process of elimination.

I am still unsure why A is right on its own merit, however.

Isn't it too much of an assumption to say that Chopin thinks that their idealization was "misguided?"

I know that Chopin does not "agree" with them and does not "share" their nostalgia.

But how do you infer from "not sharing" to "misguided?"

I may disagree with someone else's opinion, and can still think that someone's opinion is valid/ worth its own merit etc.

"Misguided" just sounds too strong for me and kind of out of character for the LSAT.

Could anyone explain further? Many thanks.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-4-passage-2-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-4-passage-2-questions/