If A most are B and B most are C is it correct to say A most are C ?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-2-question-18/

18. Editorialist: The positions advanced by radical environmentalists often contain hypotheses that are false and proposals that are economically infeasible. But there is a positive role to be played even by these extremists, for the social and political inertia that attends environmental issues is so stubborn that even small areas of progress can be made only if the populace fears environmental disaster, however untenable the reasons for those fears may be.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the editorialist’s argument?

(A) The little progress that has been made in improving the environment is mainly due to the fear created by radical environmentalists.

(B) Radical environmentalists, by promoting their views, stimulate progress on environmental issues.

(C) Social and political inertia is most effectively overcome by an extremely fearful populace, regardless of whether its fears are well-founded.

(D) Radical environmentalists often put forth untenable positions in order to produce the fear that is required to bring about moderate reforms.

(E) Radical environmentalists advocate positions without regard for factual support or economic feasibility.

I am debating between A and B...

Why can't A be the correct answer choice? Is it because of the word mainly? or is it because answer choice (a) is saying that fear is the sufficient condition for the little progress to be made while the stimulus is saying that fear is the necessary condition for the progress?

Also, D seemed a little bit tricky but I eliminated that since we don't really know from reading the stimulus alone that environmentalists purposely said false things to create fear.. Is this the right way of thinking?

The correct answer choice is B, by the way. Thank you in advance!

I had it down to A and D and chose D. With that said, can someone destroy my reasoning for why A is not the right answer so that this sticks...

Ok, so what if pollen is transported from one region to another by wind, and human movement, we would have to assume that the pollen transferred is indistinguishable from the pollen that is KNOWN to have been unique to that area.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-49-section-4-question-08/

I place a because after the statements of interest in the stimulus and the statement that makes sense with a because coming after it I deem to be the conclusion. Is this an ideal strategy for argument labeling and mp questions?

I'm confused how to write the conditional logic for this. Can somebody please explain this? When I see how the video skipped over labeling the first sentence like a premise, I got confused why he then uses it in conditional logic (TMU---> IASC)? I also got confused with what to do with the third sentence. I thought its a conclusion because of the keywords thus, until I got to the last sentence. I understand how he got the conclusion as /TMU.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-15/

I wrote out my conditional for answer choice E as this:

Independent--> (/TF and EB)

Is that ok?

The video wrote Independent and /TF--> EB.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-19/

I'm doing really badly on this question type. I am going to rewatch the videos and lesson for this question type, but does anyone have any advice on how I can improve?

When I did this question type in the past, I got frustrated and skipped to the next question type, but this time I want to master it and do well on it. If someone could give me some constructive advice, I would be most appreciative!

Mystery loves company....I don't really study with people but it will be great to have a study buddy to hold each other accountable. We could meet up in public areas like cafes...library (preference)....etc. DM me if interested. Please only serious ppl...no crazy ppl. : )

I did not understand how and why he figured out which parts of the sentences he could use to make conditional statements from the video. He did not use conditional logic for the first sentence even though it had key words "not" and "are".

His diagram had:

LECC--> ELCI

ELCI--> LCI

LCI--> IH

I don't understand how he took from the sentence, "many people would do so" and instead wrote LCI. I'm just confused.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-06/

This question really baffles me. How can B be correct? If the probe reveals that the light reflected is much less, how would that support B? Please help, I'm so confused!

I understand now that the answer is A, but I am having a difficult time seeing why B is wrong. Answer Choice B says Theodora is ignoring the research cited by Marcia. Which I agree with since Theodora mentions people loosing their jobs in the meat industry and can't afford nutritional diets due to people becoming vegetarians. This shows Theodora ignoring Marcia's claim from the research.

I got confused because I feel there are two separate ideas being discussed. The first idea is in the first sentence in Marcia's argument and the first sentence in Theodora's argument. Which talks about whether vegetarian diet lead to nutritional deficiencies or not. Then there is the second idea, which is the second sentence in Marcia's argument and the second sentence in Theodora's which is lengthier. Marcia's second argument is vegetarians can get nourishment from nonanimal foods. Theodora argues by ignoring Marcia's research and claiming something else. Theodora gives the example of the people loosing their jobs and not affording nutritional diets. Since the second idea from both women's second sentences was lengthier from Theodora's argument I felt that was more important and chose answer choice B. How should I have approached this problem? I fail to see how the strength of the language in Theodora's first sentence vs Marcia's first sentence can be lead to the analysis and picking of answer choice A.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-61-section-2-question-08/

I did not understand the explanation in the video.

I diagrammed the following based on my understanding.

ES and PIL ---> OS

PIL ---> OS/e

Therefore, /E and PIL

I chose answer choice A thinking the only part that is missing from the premise to the conclusion is ES---> OS.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-61-section-2-question-03/

Given the LG section tests efficient use of time to accurately complete all four games within 35 minutes, what criteria do you use (if any) to determine when to template hypothetical diagrams (or not)?

An observation not judgement: JY in his videos tends to err toward mapping out possibilities early, which can recover time later on via more rapid answering of the questions. Equally important, the process tends to systemically reveal deeper inferences - absolutely critical to LG success.

On the other hand, there exists some point of negative returns on time invested. Too many hypotheticals take more time, can add clutter rather than clarity, and in the end not all were necessary. An alternative is to build hypotheticals "on the fly" specific to each question, and thereby build understanding along the way.

Clearly arguable trade-offs exist, but also for each LG (examined in hindsight) an optimal path. So my question to everyone (since we are not armed with hindsight) going into a new LG: What is your criteria and, most importantly, for each criterion what is your reasoning for doing so?

I translated the following into lawgic:

ES and SPIL --> OS

SPIL---> OS/e

/E and SPIL

Therefore, ES--> OS

I don't understand why in the video explanation the second sentence is dismissed. What does JW mean when he mentions it is not a necessary condition? So he strikes it out along with part of the last sentence and I don't understand why he does that either.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-1-question-03/

When it comes to CAUSATION strengthening and CAUSATION weakening questions, I know how to do them, but I have a hard time determining if causation is in the conclusion, which is needed to approach these questions correctly.

Can some please tell me what to toll for in order to do the correct?

I still don't understand why answer choice E is wrong. My understanding is, iIf stress is a symptom of a weakened immune system, then wouldn't that mean that symptoms such as stress then lead to or cause the weakened immune system?

stress as a symptom---> weakened immune system

I don't understand how and why Jon explained it that a weakened immune system is the sufficient and stress is the necessary? And that the causal relationship is flipped.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-1-question-07/

When I do the SA quizzes, I do exceptionally well. Actually, I have gotten all of the problems correct. However, when it comes to actually doing the SA problems on the test, I have a hard time transcribing the majority of the SA problems.

Can someone please give me advice on how to overcome this.

Very frustrated!!!

Admin note: Please don't post your title in all caps.

So LG3 rocked me, and I don't feel good about LG4 either. Usually my LG is near perfect. I'm talking -2 for an oversight and a rule substitution question. However, I think I did very well on RC, which I usually bomb on. LR neutral.

Benefits and drawbacks of a Feb retake? NEED a 160 for all of the schools I care to attend, and even if there is a healthy curve, I'm not sure I'll score in that range.

Anyone else in a similar boat? Need to vent? Need to retake? Not sure if I should be planning on waiting two more months before I can send apps. Might really hurt me. SO LOST.

When I do the SA quizzes, I do exceptionally well. Actually, I have gotten all of the problems correct. However, when it comes to actually doing the SA problems on the test, I have a hard time transcribing the majority of the SA problems.

Can someone please give me advice on how to overcome this.

Very frustrated!!!

So I am doing terrible with RC, terrible, and I started trying the memory method. I don't usually finish all of the passage in time or all of the questions. Should I review the passages after---since the goal of the method seems to be improving speed and short term memory -and I have a long way to go I'm wondering if I might be better off to not review after and just keep trying to work on speed and memory...what do you think/recommend?

@Pacifico

I tried to tag you in my comment on pt 20 s4 q22, but I'm not sure if it worked because your name wasn't highlighted like it is in this comment box. Please let me know if you received my original tag. Thanks for your help in advance!

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-4-question-22/

Completely missed this one; I really don't see how B is a necessary assumption. Can someone breakdown by B is necessary?

People on the Internet sometimes can't tell the difference between good medical information and bad medical information. The bad stuff is written more clearly than the good stuff, which makes the bad stuff more appealing to people with zero medical experience. Thus, people who rely on the Internet when diagnosing themselves are probably going to do more harm than good.

What I am looking for: Our conclusion is about diagnosing and harming yourself, which are new ideas, so I expect the correct answer choice to bridge that gap. Specifically, the first sentence talks about how people are going online for "medical information," but the conclusion talks about "diagnosing themselves," which is a part of that more broad idea. Are people going to rely on the quackery when they diagnose themselves? What if they use something else instead? Additionally, the idea of people having zero medical background is talked about as a premise, but the conclusion is about people in general. Do people in general not have any medical background?

Answer A: This is what I picked since it was left after POE. I didn't love it, but I was pretty confident in eliminating the other answers. This answer is wrong since "typically" is too strong. We only need people to diagnose themselves sometimes.

Answer B: Not exclusively rely on scientifically valid info--->Likely do more harm than good. This is for sure a sufficient assumption, but I don't see how this is a necessary assumption. If you negate it: Not exclusively rely on scientifically valid info SOME Not likely do more harm than good, then so what? Our conclusion is about reliance on the web in general, and our premise only states that quackery is appealing to people with ZERO medical experience. How does this answer choice bridge the gap between that people vs. people with zero medical experience? Can't there be people that use primarily scientifically valid info pared with some quackery and not likely do more harm than good? I don't see how that is inconsistent with the argument. I was pretty confident getting rid of this answer choice for that reason. Specifically, I think the idea of "exclusively" is way too strong; can't Not exclusively (sometimes, primarily/but not all, etc.) still work?

Answer C: No harm? Too strong.

Answer D: We don't know what people assume or how they weight the importance of clear writing.

Answer E: Only if? Way too strong.

On Saturday, I had my worst, worst case scenario happen... I have epilepsy and I had a full-blown seizure the day of the exam. Since I live across the street from my testing site, I dragged myself out of bed and showed up to the exam but ultimately decided that I wasn't going in the mental state to take an exam and that it would be unethical to screw up everyone else's testing experience should I have another seizure. I talked it over with the proctor and it was decided I should take an absence instead of a cancellation so it wouldn't count towards my 3 takes in 2 years. I still plan to apply to law school this year, though. Will an addendum be sufficient to explain the absence? I'm in the process of obtaining official documentation from my neurologist and I have an LSAT score from October that is alright, but was trying to raise a few more points? I worry that they will think that if I'll have a seizure on such a big day like the LSAT that it could happen again. Super bummed because this is my first one since high school.

I've heard arguments for both. I'm naturally inclined to read the argument before the question stem but I wrote the 12/5 LSAT today and probably got one of my worst scores ever. Since I will probably be re-writing, I'm looking at switching up my strategy for a better performance on the next go 'round.

What's your approach?

I got this question correct (D was the flaw I anticipated), but during the exam and BR, I couldn't come up with a reason to eliminate E. According to the video explanation, E is explicitly supported in the passage, but I'm just not seeing it. Here is the video: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-3-question-02/

Almost everyone I know hopes to make a living as painter, musician, etc. if they currently work as dishwashers or store clerks. Therefore, almost all want to be artists, even though they might have to work other jobs to make money.

What I am looking for: Big sample flaw here. The sample the author uses is not varied enough and extremely limited: the people the author knows that are dishwashers or store-clerks. The author uses that as evidence to make a conclusion about "almost all" people in general.

Answer A: The argument isn't circular.

Answer B: The argument sort of makes a part to whole flaw, but it isn't as extreme as this answer choice. The argument never talks about what is true of EACH person (we only have "almost all" relationships) and even then, the evidence is only about people the author knows, not everyone in the country.

Answer C: Is the view widely held? We don't know.

Answer D: This is exactly what I anticipated, so I picked it over E.

Answer E: I read this, and got held up for second. Doesn't the argument do this? The conclusion is about "wanting to be an artists" while the premise is about "making a living as a painter, musician, or poet." Sure, there is an assumption that painters, musicians, or poets are types of artists, but that seems like an OK trivial assumption to me. If those people are not artists, the who are artists? I think the crux of eliminating it is that you don't "need" to make a distinction, but why not? Isn't there a pretty sizable difference between "wanting" to be something (like being a perpetually lazy college kid that doesn't have to wake up until 1:00) vs. making a "living" doing that? I don't see how it's OK for the argument to equivocate on these ideas.