Discussions

LSAT

New post

311 posts in the last 30 days

How do you diagram "is"/"usually" statements? For example, PT 54 Section 4 Q 22.

"The morally preferable act is usually the one that serves the long term interest. Because of this, businesses often have compelling reasons to execute the morally preferable act."

I halt on these SUfficient assumption questiins because they are not readily diagrammable...

Another one is diagramming causal statements:

"Most friendships begin because someone felt comfortable approaching a stranger"

0

I am not sure why answer choice D in question 68 section 3 of PT 68 is incorrect. Here is an explanation for why I think D can be considered the correct answer.

I made 3 assumptions about parallel reasoning questions which I would like to explain with aid of the following (flawed) reference argument:

Premises: 1. A --> B

2. A --> C

Conclusion: B -->C

Assumption 1) Contrapositives are permitted and do not change the structure of parallel reasoning question. For example, the following argument would be considered parallel to the reference argument:

Premises: 1. not B --> not A (this is a contrapositive of A --> B)

2. A --> C

Conclusion: not C --> not B (this is a contrapositive of B --> C)

Assumption 2) Swapping a given variable with its negation at every single occurrence of the said variable does not change the structure of the argument. This is because any variable can be redefined to be the negated version of its original definition. For instance, instead of defining D = dog, we can define D = not dog and then swap every single occurrence of D and not D in the argument without affecting its structure.

For example, the following would be considered parallel to the argument stated above (in assumption #1) and thus, by extension, also to the reference argument:

Premises: 1. not B --> A

2. not A --> not C

Conclusion: C --> not B

Note that I swapped A and not A as well as C and not C from the example in assumption #1.

3) The positioning of the premises is irrelevant to the structure of the argument and thus swapping them is permissible. For instance, the following argument would be considered parallel to the reference argument:

Premises: 1. A --> C

2. A --> B

Conclusion: B --> C

I just swapped premises 1 and 2 from the reference argument.

Now, onto the question. Here is how I traced out the argument in the stimulus:

Premises: 1. balcony --> fireplace

2. balcony --> no 1-bedroom

Conclusion: 1-bedroom ---> no fireplace

Replacing words with symbols in the above argument:

Premises: 1. A --> B

2. A --> no C

Conclusion: C ---> no B

Swap C and no C (assumption #2):

Premises: 1. A --> B

2. A --> C

Conclusion: no C ---> no B

Take contrapositive of conclusion (assumption #1):

Premises: 1. A --> B

2. A --> C

Conclusion: B --> C (contrapositive of no C ---> no B)

Analysis of flaw: one necessary condition leads to another necessary condition. I am going to look for parallel of this in the answer choice.

Now, onto answer choice D. Here is how I traced out the argument in the answer choice:

Premises: 1. cat --> no dog

2. dog --> no fish

Conclusion: cat ---> fish

Take contrapositive of premise #1 and conclusion (assumption #1):

Premises: 1. dog --> no cat (contrapositive of cat --> no dog)

2. dog --> no fish

Conclusion: no fish ---> no cat (contrapositive of cat --> fish)

Swap premises #1 and #2 (assumption #3):

Premises: 1. dog --> no fish

2. dog --> no cat

Conclusion: no fish ---> no cat

Change to symbols:

Premises: 1. A --> no B

2. A --> no C

Conclusion: no B ---> no C

Swap B with no B and C with no C (assumption #2):

Premises: 1. A --> B

2. A --> C

Conclusion: B ---> C

Eureka!!! Exact same structure as the stimulus.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-3-question-24/

1

Hi All,

So the stimulus in #20 reads,

"If one does not criticize a form of behavior in oneself or vow to stop it, then one should not criticize that form of behavior in another."

Would this sentence translate to

1. ~Criticize one's own behaviour AND ~Vow to stop it --> ~ Criticize other's behavior or

2. ~Criticize one's own behaviour OR ~ Vow to stop it --> ~ Criticize other's behavor?

I initially thought that the latter was the case but not sure about it anymore... Any feedback will be greatly appreciated!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-77-section-2-question-20/

0

I agree it's easier to see the questions with game elements as initials rather than as the (often bizarre) spelled-out names that appear on the test. But as time is my big hurdle, I'm skeptical that the time it takes to rewrite the questions is worth it. As best I can tell by introspection it takes me little time to do the mental translation. Does anyone want to make an argument that I ought to rewrite the questions?

0

Hi All,

So I'm still struggling to identify exactly when certain arguments could be strengthened or weakened by the total number of samples (or any sort of number play for that matter) and when they cannot be. I remember seeing a few questions in the past where certain group was seeing a particular pattern or a phenomenon while the other group didn't and the discrepancy was due to some problems related to the size of the sample in one group (either their total number of participants were not counted properly, thereby inflating the trend) etc.

PT 77 Section 2 #19: A recent study examined the daytime and nighttime activity patterns of two populations of tree-dwelling lemurs - the first living in a rain forest, where tree canopy cover is consistent year0round, and the second living in a deciduous forest, where many trees lose their leaves during the winter months. Both groups of lemurs were found to be more nocturnal during winter months than they were the rest of the year. However, the winter increase in nocturnal activity was significantly more pronounced for the population living in the deciduous forest than it was for the population living in the forest.

For the question above, none of the answer choices really stood out for me initially and when I looked through them again, I noticed how the AC (D) was talking about the bird population in these forests are different, in fact, the lemur population in the rain forest is twice the size of the population in the deciduous forest... I thought that if that's the case, couldn't it be possible that the nocturnal activity looks more pronounced in the deciduous forest even though the two forests had the same number of birds that are both just as active at night? The correct answer turned out to be (B) which talked about the high-flying bird predators who hunt their prey during daylight...

So my question is, how are we supposed to know when these numbers actually come in play and exactly what the question means in this case - whether there are more % of these birds in each forest (in which case the population size matters) or it could be that the entire bird population is following a certain trend?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-77-section-2-question-19/

0

This is my weakest Question Type, and although I have practiced memorizing all 20 flaws I have trouble recognizing them on the LSAT because I am often stuck between two answer choices. What should I do? What was your method or how do you approach this QT in terms of improvement?

2

I got this question correct but really don't know why. I look at the answers and they just look like gibberish. I try to break the words down and make the answer sound similar, but I still have no clue what most those answers are saying. I went through the lessons on weakening questions but it didn't seem to help for this type of super wordy question at all. Anyone else struggle with the real wordy weaken questions? Any tips or advice?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-4-question-21/

0

Does anyone know how the alternative scantron accommodation is carried out? If an alternative bubble sheet is provided, how does it differ from the ones that non-accommodated test takers use and is there one available for download?

0

In PT 67 S3 G1 Q4, JY determines that "(A)" is correct for a "which one must be false?" question, and then says, "and you can check the rest; you should check the rest [my emphasis]." Now as we fans of JY know, he very often does not check the rest in order to save -- shall I say not to waste? -- time. What criterion should I use in deciding whether to check the rest?

0

(For newbies: this refers to Lesson 18 of Introduction to Logic Games & Sequencing Games)

Does "in time" refer to JY's estimate of the time required as shown with, and stated in, his explanation of the game? I can't think of any other time criterion to use, so:

Is there any reason I shouldn't use that estimate as a hard-and-fast rule, meaning that if I exceed it at all then I should re-do the game? I guess another and totally nerdy way of asking this is: are these estimates the mean of JY's subjective distribution of the time a -0 LG section scorer would take, or are they generous such they are comfortably to the right of that mean? If the former I could chalk up a minor exceedance to variance and move on; if the former I'd have to re-do.

I know this seems a nitpicking question, but I think it might make some difference to me as I'm just starting a rigorous 20-day push featuring 84 games of LG practice.

0

Suppose that you're choosing a hypothetical board where A, B, and C MUST be in the group. But D floats, and need not be in the group. Since we're asking for what COULD be a complete and accurate list, would answer choice {A, B, C} suffice? Or need we include floater D, who does not out of necessity need to be in the set ?

0

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-1-question-06/

I had gone over this question during Saturday's BR call and I got some great feedback, but this isn't quite clicking with me yet. I just need help eliminating answer choice E.

So the argument is as follows:

CTX: Teaching students calc before they attend university may significantly benefit them.

P1: If students are taught calc before they are ready for the level of abstraction involved, they may abandon the study of math altogether.

C: If we are going to teach pre-university student calc, we must make sure they can handle the level of abstraction involved.

I chose A, but during my personal BR I changed it to E.

A says: "Only those who, without losing motivation, can meet the cognitive challenges that new intellectual work involves should be introduced to it."

At first, I second guessed this answer choice because I did not interpret the stimulus to say that the students need to "meet the cognitive challenges," only that they need to be able to handle calculus to a point where they don't lose motivation in mathematics. I thought it was possible for a student to take calculus, not do so well (and not meet the cognitive challenges), but still be able to "handle the level of abstraction" in the sense that they did not lose interest in math as a result of the level of abstraction. I interpreted "handle level of abstraction" to mean "not being psychologically deterred from math." I didn't take it to mean that they had to achieve a certain level of performance.

E says: "The level of abstraction involved in a topic should not be considered in determining whether that topic is appropriate for pre-university students."

I am really struggling with this answer choice. The premise says "before they are ready for the level of abstraction" and the conclusion says that we must "make sure they can handle the level of abstraction." In this entire argument, the actual level of abstraction is unchallenged. The only thing we are challenging is the student's capability of handling it. The conclusion is claiming that, if we are going to teach pre-university students calculus, we need to evaluate THEM and make sure THEY can handle it. I chose E because I don't see why the level of abstraction couldn't be what is considered before teaching them. Maybe the level of abstraction should be reduced for some students or maybe it should be reduced in general for all pre-university students. It could just be that the level of abstraction is just generally too high. Why couldn't the conclusion instead be "If we are going to teach pre-university students calculus, we must reduce the level of abstraction to meet their "handling capacity." E eliminates this alternate conclusion.

I was told that I am approaching this question like a sufficient assumption question and not a pseudo-sufficient assumption (which is why I lost faith in answer A-- I was focusing too closely on the logical structure of the argument to my detriment). That's most likely the case, but I still don't feel confident in eliminating option E. Any insight is greatly appreciated.

0

It is officially about 3 months away from the February LSAT and I am extremely stoked but still a little nervous. People have suggested three months as the best amount of time one should spend in studying. But I find that despite this effort, one might still fall short of one's intended goal due to a number of different factors. One factor which I believe is crucial for progress is the ability to study efficiently.

When it comes to standardized testing, I suck at studying efficiently. I sometimes find myself spending enormous amount of time studying but never breaking the "plateau". With that being said, I would like to get some insights on how you all study. Outside of the 7sage curriculum, how do you all fine tune the skills needed (e.g. speed etc). For example, as a philosophy major I try to spend time really understanding the subtleties embedded in arguments in the readings that I'm assigned as a helping tool. What else do you all recommend?

Also, I know it can be hard to study for the LSAT while one is still in school but this is a reality for many of us. In school, I work best when I follow a routine that I've set for myself, otherwise I'll procrastinate my whole life away. I've been thinking of ways to fuse these two into my schedule but I would also like to hear other thoughts as well.

0

I got a 164 on my first LSAT after scoring between 169-172 on scored PTs. However, the testing conditions were less than optimal and I filed a complaint. Is it possible for me to get in the 170's with a little over a month of additional studying? If yes, how can I accomplish this goal?

0

For those of you that sent in documentation requesting accommodations did you get a decision in line with the 14 day deadline? Is it normal for LSAC to go over 14 days because I am hearing from others that submitted weeks ago that they haven't gotten any news. I am still waiting to hear back and despite repeated calls and emails to follow-up I have gotten ZERO clarity on a decision or when it will be made.

1

Fellow 7Sagers,

I have not struggled with an LG section in such a long time. I just retook the LG section from PT 57 (Which I did first time around so long ago), and I struggled with the time allotted. I am used to finishing LG in 25-30 minutes at most. I am wondering whether it was the product of me just feeling tired today, or is the section more difficult than average? I found the section a bit more difficult than the usual.

All input is much appreciated.

1

Ok so I'm doing my blind review, and when I initially did the test I chose the correct answer even though I wasn't happy with it because it seemed more like a sufficient assumption to me. I don't have the ultimate package so I don't have the explanation for this so if someone could help me out that would be much appreciated.

When I read this question I immediately found the gap between choose more wisely and emotions unchanged

I was hoping for an answer that bridged the gap ever so slightly without being obnoxious and of course E bridged that gap but the only if really annoyed me

I interpreted E as an SA in my BR because I diagrammed the following:

human emotions unchanged --> humans unable to choose more wisely

contrapositive: humans able to choose more wisely --> humans emotions have changed

This is precisely what E does and so I went with D thinking it was a little better (now I see why it fails)

I guess D when put to the negation test says something along the lines of "humans do not always choose on the basis of their emotions" and in the conclusion it says: "humans are GENERALLY unable to choose more wisely" so the not always wouldn't really be good enough because the conclusion isn't always saying that it's the case that people do not choose more wisely today, it just needs to be true in at least one case.

When E was put to the negation test it seems like it would be something similar to: it's not the case that humans would now be able to make wiser choices than in centuries past only if an essential change had taken place in their emotions, so we can choose wisely without a change in emotions

Overall, really annoyed by this question...would appreciate any input/feedback on what I mentioned above

Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-2-question-12/

0

For this question, I was able to see that the flaw was a equivocation between a substantial budget and an adequate one. Answer choice E seemed to reflect that train of thought, but I didn't find the wording to be clear. In particular, the answer choice mentions that the meaning of "adequate" needs to be reevaluated in the new context. Wasn't the word adequate brought up only in the conclusion? Where has the stimulus evaluated the use of adequate prior to the conclusion? Additionally, would the "new context" be the during the dissolving of the Soviet threat of confrontation?

0

For this particular problem, I wasn't able to clearly articulate why answer choice C was incorrect. I interpreted the conclusion to be a causal one, specifically one that claims that the author's political party is responsible for the decrease in unemployment. I do see how the premises contradict the observation that unemployment decreased, but I'm not sure why answer choice C is incorrect. I saw answer choice C as providing an alternate cause and showed how the perceived changes in employment is not due to the author's party but rather seasonal fluctuations.

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?