Discussions

LSAT

New post

97 posts in the last 30 days

Prep Test A Section 1 Question 21

I was stuck between answer choices C and E for this question but am having a hard time fully understanding why C is the correct answer. Would appreciate an explanation! #help #feedback

Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

0

I just finished the principle reasoning section, and I'm wondering if I should go back and redo the lawgic lessons. I still find myself really struggling with the forms (and wanting to use them when I attempt to answer the questions). Has anyone had the same problem? Or has anyone gone back and redone the lessons?

BTW I plan to take the LSAT for the first time in April

0

Based on an examination of three types of rates (small, average size, and large), a recent study found that in rats, SIZE↑ correlates with HEART PROBLEMS↓. In other words, the study found that the greater a rat is, the less likely it is to have heart problems.

RRE EXCEPT. Four of the answer choices must be able to CONTRIBUTE to an explanation of this correlation; one does not. I did not do a pre-phrase here and went straight to the answers.

(A) Compared to large rats, smaller rats are more likely to have fatal diseases that strike earlier than heart problems. Under timed conditions, I took this to suggest: Small rats generally are more likely to die before heart disease strikes, so that heart disease will be overrepresented among the surviving small rats. However, this inference does not follow. If small rats tend to die young, the total NUMBER of surviving small rats that gets heart disease might be smaller, but there is no indication that there would be a corresponding increase in the PROPORTION of small rats that gets heart disease. This answer choice thus does not contribute to an explanation the observed correlation and thus must be right.

(B) Small rats are more likely to have blood vessel issues that causally contribute to heart disease. This helps to explain the correlation.

(C) Larger rats have less stress than smaller ones. If you assume that stress is causally related to heart disease, this contributes to an explanation. Under timed conditions, I thought that this assumption was too big of a jump, but compared to (A) this answer choice still is better. (A) does not contribute to an explanation at all, (C) does so if we make an additional assumption that seems fairly plausible from a common-sense perspective.

(D) The most common cause of heart disease in rats also causes them to be small. This explains the observed correlation by identifying a joint cause of small size and heart disease among rats.

(E) Larger rats do more exercises than smaller rats that causally contribute to heart health. This contributes to an explanation.

(C) is right, (A) is wrong. Under timed conditions, I had taken (A) to lead to a sampling bias making smaller rats not afflicted by heart disease less likely to survive such that heart disease becomes overrepresented among the surviving small rats. However, this inference is false. Just because small rats might be more likely to die for reasons other than heart disease, heart disease does not have to afflict a greater proportion of the surviving rats. I made a mistake here in assessing the implications of this answer choice and then switched to (C) because (C) requires an additional assumption to be explanatory ('Stress causes heart disease').

Takeaways: I originally had chosen the right answer (A) but then switched to (C) after mistakenly making the above-described inference. I likely was overthinking (A). I need to keep an open eye for the distinction between NUMBERS and PROPORTIONs. If unsure, close my eyes for a couple of seconds, do some deep breaths, calm down and reflect. I definitely felt uncomfortable in selecting my answer but could not quite identify what went wrong. NUMBERS vs. PROPORTIONs is a crucial distinction here, similar to e.g. POSSIBILITY vs. ACTUALITY, INATE vs. ACQUIRED, or MENTAL STATE vs. REALITY. Be vigilant, stay alert to these commonly used distinctions.

1

(P1) According to dinosaur fossils, dinosaurs had an oxygen isotope ratio in their bones that suggests that their CORES had roughly the same temperature as their LIMBS.

(P2) Today, cold-blooded animals have much warmer CORES than LIMBS.

(MC) Therefore, dinosaurs were probably warm-blooded.

Weaken

This argument assumes, among other things, that warm-blooded animals, unlike cold-blooded animals, do NOT have much warmer CORES than LIMBS, or some other temperature distribution that deviates even more from the dinosaurs'. To anticipate the right answer, I thus was expecting a weaking option targeting this assumption.

(A) Unlike cold-blooded animals, warm-blooded animals only have SLIGHTLY warmer CORES than LIMBS. This goes in the direction of my pre-phrase but is not very strong. Crucially, it remains more likely that dinosaurs were warm-blooded than that they were cold-blooded, just as the author claims. So this answer choice does not seem to actually weaken, even though it gets at the assumption that the author makes, and that I had identified as the weak point of their argument.

(B) Dinosaur fossils don't actually allow you to do the temperature inference described in (P1). This answer is very unusual in that it attacks a premise rather than the reasoning in the argument. Nevertheless, this answer choice definitely weakens, since it takes away the data about dinosaurs that the author presupposes. Keep this answer choice around but be vigilant; see if a less premise-focused answer choice is available.

(C) About oxygen generally. Does not seem to pertain to the argument.

(D) Body temperatures in small and large animals other than dinosaurs. Does not seem to connect directly to the argument; especially since the stimulus does not identify dinosaurs as either small or large.

(E) Warm-blooded animals are more active and use more oxygen than cold-blooded animals. This again does not seem to relate directly to the argument under consideration.

(C), (D), and (E) turn out to be largely unrelated to the argument in the stimulus, and (A) does not seem to weaken the inference made by the author. This leaves (B) as the only remaining answer choice, and thus (B) must be right.

Nevertheless, (B) feels very much uncomfortable and is unusual. (B) just straight up contradicts information that we get in the stimulus, rather than attacking the author's reasoning. It also seems unusual to have this sort of unexpected answer choice so early in the section; just expecting straightforward questions in (Q1)-(Q10) is too naive.

I originally chose (A) because I got too focused on my anticipation of how the right answer could look like, and thus I neglected (B). Nevertheless, a more careful examination of what (A) and (B) are actually saying would have allowed me to get this question right. I need to stay alert to the details of individual answers and compare them against each other; a more thorough examination between (A) and (B) would have allowed me to see that (A) does not in fact weaken and that (B)'s unusual character does not prevent it from being the right answer here. Read answer choices carefully, compare them against each other, and choose the one that has the fewest problems.

0

So the stimulus presents a paradox where sales (as measured by the value of the clothes sold) has increased one year an then Fabrico closed a store the very next year due to low demand. How can sales be up but demand fall sharply the next year? C presents a situation in which a huge increase in the price of raw materials spikes and the clothing prices spike too. (for instance, a $5 t shirt is now being sold for $15. Maybe Fabrico sold 2 t shirts and now people are only buying 1 but because the success is being measured by the value of the clothing, 1987 was a good year). It then follows that it would be unsustainable for customers to keep buying now-expensive clothes in 1988 and Fabrico would close a factory.

0

So for the past couple of PTs I took, I always did well on the first LR section (avg -2) and got a couple more wrong on the second LR section (avg -4 to even -6). I noticed that on the second LR I get even some of the easiest questions wrong. This doesn't happen when I take a long break between my first LR and second LR. Also, I tried taking the second LR first and the first LR later, and the same thing happened. I scored better on the first LR section I took, even though it was technically the second LR section. I'm assuming this is because I get worn out and lose concentration. Any advice on how to fix this?

P.S. My LR BR score is about -2 in total.

0

Hi everyone, I'm currently struggling with RC (mainly timing issues). I'm working with standard time and it's just not enough for me. When I'm practicing with a little extra time or just untimed, I tend to write out my low-res, view points and all that stuff and I ZOOM through the questions missing no more than 1 or 2 at the most on the passages. When timing constraints are on, my note taking is shit and I can't comprehend the text as much as I should be and I rush. Do I just need to slowly get rid of the physical note taking?

0

I just took the LSAT writing sample. I used every second. When the clock struck 0, I was taken to a page that said something like "Oops, error. Try reloading the page or talk to us in the chat". My videocamera and screen continued to be recorded. I chatted with a proctor and he said the close will tab. I'm still worried it didn't get submitted...... Has this happened to anyone else? How do I check to see if it got submitted?

1

Hey everyone,

I am planning on taking the January 2024 LSAT. I have been studying for quite a while now, and am scoring in the range of 152-155. I recently just decided to purchase 7sage due to the overall positive results it has produced for students. I have been PT'ing using 7sage as well scoring within that range, however, I have been scoring between 166-168 on my blind reviews. Here are my averages for each section:

LG: -6/-7 (-1/0 BR)

LR: -9 (-5/-6 BR)

RC: -10 (-5/-6 BR)

One of my overarching issues is pacing. I can't seem to quite get to where I want to be given the time constraint. This usually forces me to skip a LG section, and forces me to miss a fair amount of questions on both RC and LR. Sometimes, depending of difficulty, I may skip a LG section while being about 50% on each answer for another.

From all of this, I would just like to know what I should do going forward with studying. Should I go through 7sage's modules and work each section out? I work about 30 hours per week, and since my graduate classes are completed for the semester, that is really my only obligation as of now. My goal score is to get around a 160. Thank you so much!

0

Curious what people think about this question. The second rationale is essentially that a punishment should fit the severity of the crime. Applied to the answer choices, we are to understand that we are not looking for an exact match, but rather a consistent parallel form of reasoning.

So, rationale: punishment = severity of crime.

A: Correctness = fairness

B: Correctness = what society deems correct

C: Correctness = consequences + inherent fairness

D: Correctness = consequences + intuitive rightness

E: Correctness = consequences

Curious on why A is the best answer. Fairness? Is this because attaching fairness to the correctness of an action is consistent with determining the severity of a punishment on the severity of the crime? There's no clear linkage.

0

Has anyone tried LSAT Wizard's logic game methods? and how do you feel about incorporating that with JY's method? I recently watched LSAT Wizard's videos and I feel like it is quiet helpful but also feel like I'm even more confused on how to learn LG

1

I am just happy that I have finished the test today and got sort of valuable experience for sure. A bit lost for some time out of panick. Remote testing at home. No technical issue encountered, proctor was very friendly. Had a ten-minute intermission for the restroom, came back and went through security check.

Honestly, LG was not that hard, and it was the only reason I rushed to take the test this time because I have practiced a lot over a long period.

My goal is 170+, which I know, is only realistic with tons of efforts, at least, for myself.

I will continue to study for the next one in Aug.

0

I've noticed that a huge issue I'm having right now is drawing way too many boards on logic games. Whenever a question introduces new conditions, I can't just picture it in my head- I need to be able to visualize it. I've always been the same way with numbers, I've always been terrible at mental math. What should I be doing to help this? Will I make better inferences in time? I take the LSAT in like a month and would love to address this soon.

0

I am trying to figure out how I can better understand negating conditionals. For that I tried to start with truth tables for conditionals. But I found that I am unsure if I understand the truth tables for conditionals.

“Princeville is a city in Quebec. If you live in Princeville (P), then you live in Quebec. (Q).”

In what situation is the conditional relationship P→Q true and in what cases is it false?

In other words when is P sufficient for Q and Q is necessary for P. There are four possible outcomes:

1)  you live in Princeville (P=T),  you live in Quebec (Q=T). (P→Q applies & is true)

2) you live in Princeville(P=T), you do NOT live in Quebec(Q=F). (P→Q is false)

3) you do NOT live in Princeville (P=F), you live in Quebec (Q=T) (P→Q is F?!? why?)

4) If you do NOT live in Princeville (P=F), you do NOT live in Quebec (Q=F). (P→Q is F?!? why?)

A diagram of a circle with a blue and yellow circle AI-generated content may be incorrect.

The last two rows do not seem to be very clear for me if we look at set/subsets.

If I replace the conditional statement with subset symbol P→Q =P⸦Q the truth table does not seem to be very clear.

However, the following (from https://courses.lumenlearning.com/frontrange-mathforliberalartscorequisite1/chapter/1-8-truth-tables-conditionals-and-biconditionals/) makes more sense to me.

p → q where p is I live in an apartment and q is then I pay rent. 

What are the outcomes?

  1. I do live in an apartment and I pay rent, then the situation is true (no eviction!)

  2. I live in an apartment and I don’t pay rent, then the situation is false (eviction, broken promise)

  3. I don’t live in an apartment but I do pay rent, then the situation is true (though why would you do it?)

  4. I don’t live in an apartment and I don’t pay rent, then the situation is true (no promise broken)

 

-

The truth table makes sense if we define and look at conditionals so:

"If P then Q" simply eliminates the possibility that both P is true and Q is false.

P⟹Q  ≡  /(P and /Q)  ≡  /P or Q

 

For the inverse:

It would be nice if there was a clear example of how to do the same for an inverse please. I can do it if /P→/Q = / [/(P and /Q)]  = P and /Q. However is there an easy to understand example for this?

0

Re-posting this in a more organized manner so everything is in one place. Here is some context.

Last attempt for this cycle.

150 -> 155 -> 159.

I need a 161 at least to be at the median for my dream school. 2 more points.

Of course most of us feel less pressure / whole different dynamic practice test vs. real thing, but I was scoring 163 - 167 for the last 10 tests I took prior to the October LSAT. Not sure if my brain freezes or what. My average was 164 so I was expecting a 160 at least.

Please help, how can I get these two extra points? What would you do in my shoes?I guess Im asking if i retake all the ones i took and start from scratch 7sage? or focus more on review? obviously with the performance anxiety of it being real doesnt help me but instead is a deterrent, i need this to feel as "fake" and relaxed and possible. what do i do study method wise? Im willing to put in the work next month but dont know what to do study method wise.

Any help or insight would be much appreciated. thank you in advance

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?