Hey All,

Can someone explain this question to me? I got to E by POE, but I am not completely seeing why E is correct.

Conclusion: "There is no genuinely altruistic behavior."

The reason for this (the conclusion) is because behavior that appears to be altruistic is actually self-interested. Shouldn't E read: "takes for granted that any behavior that can be interpreted as altruistic is in fact self-interested"? Where does "interpretation of self-interested behavior come in?"

This implies that we are supposed to treat altruistic behavior and self-interested behavior as synonymous, but isn't that out of the scope? Or at least premature with the information we are given? All this argument establishes in terms of the relationship between altruism and self interest is that altruistic behavior implies self-interested behavior. We're not saying self-interested behavior implies altruistic behavior, correct? I'm confused why E treats them as synonymous terms of the argument.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-32-section-1-question-19/

Hello everyone,

I'm sort of cramming law school apps, since July is when I decided that I wanted to apply. I started using 7Sage in August.

In the beginning, I was about -3 or -4 per LR section, even with flexible timing. With JY's videos, he has helped me to master LR. On my last PT (I think it was # 61) I went -0 and -1 on the two LR sections, with time left over to spare.

I actually enjoy doing LR now. Every question is like a mini word puzzle :)

Thanks 7sage,

Steve

I spend a couple of hours to figure out the structure/what's the author's position but I still do not understand it...

So he is disagreeing with Taruskin right?

What are exactly their arguments? What is the position of the "artists"? Do they intentionally misrepresent elites?

I'm especially confused with the last paragraph. At first I thought the author is agreeing with Taruskin...

Could anyone give me summary of each paragraph or just author's argument and Taruskin's argument are fine too.

Thank you in advance.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-78-section-4-passage-2-passage/

So I was really struggling with RC. It is something that you can be really good at if you are well read, because it really is for people who are excellent reader and you can only be that if you come from a household where reading was really emphasized. I don't so I really had to get to the core of the problem and instead of just PT and burning them, I decided I was going to relearn how to read. I did couple of things which really helped, so if you have some good amount of time in your hand before taking the LSAT, here are some suggestions.

1) How to read a book by Charles Van Doren ( quickly skim through it as it has some really good advice on reading different kinds of material, philosophy, science and literature)

2) I found this amazing free online course by Duke University on Arguments. It really gets into the guts of what arguments are, several exercises and resources to really get good at identifying them. This is extremely helpful for both LR and RC. Here is the link to the course https://www.coursera.org/learn/understanding-arguments

3) If you don't have time for the course, I would get the kindle version of this book: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HDQ435C/ref=oh_aui_d_detailpage_o00_?ie=UTF8&psc=1

4) There is an amazing hour long webinar on RC by Sage Jimmy: https://classic.7sage.com/webinar/jimmy-rc-qt/

Let me know what you guys think, and if you have any other suggestion.

Hey All,

So, I've been looking for some tough reading material to read in my spare time in order to better condition myself for RC sections. I know JY mentioned The Economist and New Yorker in one of the curriculum videos, but both of those publications require (not cheap) subscriptions. Any ideas where I can purchase maybe 4 or 5 old issues of either of these publications? Or does anyone have any other ideas of tough reading materials that do not require subscriptions?

Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-45-section-4-question-18/

I'm pulling my hair out as I am trying to figure out why the correct answer for PT 45 S4 Q18 is A... The question reads,

18. Decentralization enables divisions of a large institution to function autonomously. This always permits more realistic planning and strongly encourages innovation, since the people responsible for decision making are directly involved in implementing the policies they design. Decentralization also permits the central administration to focus on institution-wide issues without being overwhelmed by the details of daily operations.

Answer:

A) In large institutions whose divisions do not function autonomously, planning is not maximally realistic.

Ok, first of all, is the first sentence referring to a conditional relationship or a causal relationship? I assumed it was the former and

created a conditional chain that looks like this: D --> A. If this is the case, the next sentence can be connected with the previous condition by saying divisions working autonomously always permits more realistic planning like this: D -> A -> MRP (the word "always" is a necessary condition indicator word and I assumed this is how I should interpret this sentence).

To me answer choice A sounds like a mistaken negation where we are saying ~A -> ~MRP... and I was really confused by this. How can we assume that a large institution's planning is not maximally realistic just be cause their divisions do not function autonomously? Or am I interpreting this AC incorrectly and it is really saying ~MRP -> ~A ...

I am always confused as to how to correctly identify a conditional or causal relationship... For example, when they start talking about how decentralization "permits" the central administration to focus on ... how would you define this relationship as? Could anyone please shed some light on how you would go about solving this question? Many thanks in advance!

Hey All,

So this question is asking for the answer choice that would most strongly support the Development Commissioner's position. I cannot see how C is the correct answer. In order to chose C, we have to make the assumption that the Development Commissioner wants to prevent damage to the endangered species. Nowhere in his response does he even imply that. All he says is that "We have been conserving. Plus, we don't even know if wetland development will do what you're saying it will. All we know is we need wetlands for growth, so we should allow it. Other countries have been ignoring wildlife--we have a right to as well! These are our resources!"

C says that "Only when a reduction of populations of endangered species by commercial development has been found should regulation be implemented to prevent further damage." What if the Development Commissioner doesn't think they should implement regulations even when they notice a reduction in the species? What if he prioritizes growth, at any cost? That's why I chose E. I reluctantly chose E, because I know technically he didn't mention that the have been depleting natural resources, but he certainly implied that these regulations would be a waste of our resources towards the end of his argument. He said that we have a right to govern our natural resources, just like the other countries, who are doing exactly what the Wildlife Commission is arguing to regulate. I never liked E and I see why it's wrong, but it was a desperate choice when I ruled out 4 (seemingly) worse choices. I figured the inference I would have to make by choosing E beats the flat out assumption I would have to make by choosing C.

So...help!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-32-section-4-question-08/

I often have different diagrams from JY's.

How do I know mine is actually fine? I know his ones are more efficient and trying to have similar ones, but often times I have different game boards.

Thanks

How do you guys handle second guessing? I'm beyond pissed because I just missed 5pts on a RC section due to second guessing! Obviously, I don't really "get" it, I guess. But I need something deeper than that. RC has always been my worst section so this just makes me hate it even more! The best I've done on RC is -3 during BR but who knows during the timed PT, -30??? Ugh so frustrated! What do you guys do? When under time constraints my performance plummets! Admittedly, I do tend to abandon some of my notations that I do during BR for fear of losing or running out of time.

Hey All,

I've watched JY's explanation of this video and I'm beginning to see why E could be a correct answer...but I do not understand why it is THE correct answer. I fear that if I was asked this question again, I would still choose B.

Here's my reasoning. The question says that the druid stones discovered in Ireland are very old, but there was a particular druid stone found in Scotland, so, therefore, this one must be more recent. Before approaching the answer choices, I figured, okay...the argument is making an assumption about things found in Scotland. The assumption is that most things found in Scotland (or at the very least, the druid stones found in Scotland) must be newer than druid stones found in Ireland.

Coming from this understanding, I do not understand why B is not the answer. B states that the argument is flawed because it takes the fact that most members of a group (things found in Scotland) have a certain property (newness comparative to Ireland stones) to constitute evidence that all members of the group (including the druid stone found in Scotland) have that property. This embodies the assumption the argument is forcing us to make. Just because some things are newer in Scotland, does mean that everything found in Scotland has this property.

I consider E to be less correct. Where in the argument is it accusing druid stones of being the ONLY members of a group with a certain property? How are we supposed to infer from this argument that the author is making an "Ireland druid stone vs every other druid stone" distinction, rather than an "Ireland druid stone vs. Scotland druid stone" distinction.

Hi guys,

Question is here: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/prehistoric-paintings-weaken-question/

So just to dive deeper and solidify foundation, I tried to translate this question into a logic framework and I wrote it below. Please see if it is done correctly

~Carbon-->Age (if there is no carbon, then we can determine its age)

~Limestone with paint-->~sample (If we there is no limestone with paint, then there is no sample)

~Sample-->~Age (if there is no sample, then we cannot determine its age)

And combine everything together we have: ~Limestone--->~Sample--->~Age-->Carbon

Did I translate it correctly? It feels weird.

Thanks,

Panda

Hi Gents and ladies,

Just a curious note on a confusion that I have. Question is here: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/serious-medical-condition-weaken-question/

I knew C is the one to support, but isn't A something wrong too?

In the lecture, JY says don't question the premise, but isn't A doing just that? There are study that confirms it and there is this 1 study that is recent which doesn't. Isn't this an attack?

Some clarifications will do wonders.

Thanks,

Panda

I registered for the December exam.

Hello 7sagers,

I was wondering if anyone had any tips on how to increase your speed on the logic reasoning test portion. I have been studying this section rigorously for months and it is my favorite section . However, even though I understand and can get the correct answer each time untimed I still have yet to master getting 15 correct on the timed section . Any advice ? I'm not sure if I'm nervous or if there is something I can do to help bridge the gap between me taking forever to realize I know the steps .

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-2-game-2/

Hey, guys I'm having a problem with understanding the first rule of this stupid game.

So the first rule goes 'Frank demonstrates exactly one task before Gladys demonstrates any of the task'

and JYP drew a sequence from this rule as this:

G

F (

G - F

It looks kind of weird but what this is basically saying F is both of Gs and the other F is after only one G

But when I first mapped this rule out I drew

F(G, )F

G

what I was trying to say is BOTH of Gs appear before the other F not just one G

I just can't wrap my head around why F should only follow after ONE G not BOTH of them especially given that Frank should appear exactly once before any of G.

But the way JYP mapped this out allows the possibility of something like F,G,F,G

and in this case for the latter G TWO Fs appear before it. Isn't this against contradicting what the rule says?

Hope somebody can help me out with this please!

I wrote my first LSAT test today for the first time since my last write in October 2015. I've been studying 7Sage since the beginning of September 2016. Scored a 152 before blind review and a 159 after blind review. I write the real thing again December 3rd. Can anyone offer any words of encouragement because I feel like there just isn't enough time :(

Dear all,

The question video is here: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-4-question-23/

And my question relates with the word "promising".

From the analysis of the paragraph, the context doesn't give anything of significance. Likewise, the word "promising" too.

But during exam, and under pressure, how do you exactly interpret the word: promising?

If X is promising then X must be good compared to the general sample right?

Please let me know your thoughts and much appreciated.

Thanks,

Panda

For this particular question, I had difficulty understanding what the last sentence was actually saying. I interpreted the sentence to mean that the test could be used during the first year of infection to detect how long one had the virus for a given month. Is this the correct interpretation? Also does it imply that if one has the virus for more than a month for the first year of infection that the test cannot be used? That implication seemed counter intuitive to me, and so I'm having trouble parsing out the language.

So I finished the core curriculum and I have taken 3 PT's. On each test I scored a 157, which was what I was getting before completing the entire curriculum. I am feeling discouraged, but I know I can improve and I'm looking for some advice on how to do that before Dec. I am taking the test in Dec. and I would love to get a 165. LG's seems to be my weakest area but I need to improve everywhere. I am getting 18-20 in LR and 16-28 in RC. Any advice would be greatly appreciated on how to approach the next month of studying. I plan to take 3 PT's a week, but what else should I be doing? Thank you!

hey guys so I wrote for the first time in September.

I was averaging at 153-157 in my practice test. my last practice test i wrote 3 days before the actual test I got a 157.

my diagnostic was a 142. but by September I did about 6 practice test and never hit the 140s once.

I was so happy with my improvement. With my gpa (3.8) I know a mid to high one 150s would make me very competitive in Canadian schools like Ottawa and Windsor.

and on test day...... I got a 149. I was shattered. I was expecting tleast a 150 something.

I struggle a lot with depression and anxiety so this has been a difficult process for me.

My goal is a 157. do you think is possible to achieve that in December

No I don't want to study for 2 years and write later,

any positive suggestions will be great.

I killed arguments, did okay on games. it was reading comp that killed me I only got 8 correct in that section (the worst ive ever done)

In serious need of prep talk.

thanks,

a sad Scorer

I am already registered to write in

I'd like to share my method I used for this game. I thought this game fell into the category of "sounds weird and looks weird, but is actually simple". This seems to be a pattern seen in the 4th game of many 70s.

A very simple way to look at this game would be to think of it as a sequencing game.

Ex. If it says A transferred to B, I would diagram it as A-B

If says A transferred it to 2 other computers, then I would think of the diagram as A connected to exactly 2 lines on the right.

For the rule "S transmitted...", I would have S with exactly ONE letter connected to the right (ie S-__). Also note, I could have something connected to the __ because that wouldn't be connected to S.

For the rule "..to R also .. S", this would be diagrammed as __-R with that same "__" connected as __-S. That should look like __ with 2 things to the right of it (those 2 things being R and S). Now combine this rule with the previous rule about S and your result should look like __ connected to R and connected to S. And S connected to exactly one other thing (don't know what yet).

At this point you might want to think about what could be the first __ that transfers a virus to R and S. Our remaining letters are P,Q,T,U. As for what S will transfer to will also be one of those 4 letters (at this point). Please also remember that each letter can only receive the virus once, meaning there is at most only one letter directly connected to left of a given letter.

Finally, we find out either R or T transmits to Q and either T or U transmits to P. This gives us a lot of information because now we can start to figure out what goes in each blank. By simply placing 1 letter that transfers to both R and S, almost everything else will trigger and fall into place.

I hope this helps simplify the virus game. If you're still a little confused, I can go into more details and break everything down.

I received my score, and I'm a bit disappointed. It's two points below my expected score, and three below my most recent PT average. This score is 4 points below the 25% of my reach, and 1 point to 3 points above the 25% of schools i know I'll be satisfied with.I know I wouldn't be able to see a significant increase if I take December, because I'm writing my thesis right now and that takes up most of my time. Here are my options:

1. Apply to internships/jobs and wait to retake in Sep 2017. Then apply Fall 2018. There are a couple of drawbacks for this option: I'm an international student, and finding a paid internship/job is not the easiest thing, especially because I hold a liberal arts degree in the social sciences. If I have to apply while being unemployed, it will be a bit financially difficult for both my parents and me. I am also currently working with an application counselor, and I don't know if she is willing to wait until next cycle to continue working with me (without asking me to pay for next year as well).

2. Apply this cycle, and make the decision of retaking/reapplying when I get my admission results. If I'm happy with my results, I will enroll 2017. If not, I can retake the LSAT and reapply.

What do you all think?

So the title pretty much is my question. I understand that when practicing logic games it is helpful to prove each wrong answer choice. But during the actual LSAT, would it be more time efficient to just pick the right answer choice based on the game board inferences and move on? Or would is it worth the time to make sure the other answer choices are wrong?

For example, if I see on my board game inferences that answer choice A is right, should I just move to the next question without reading the other answer choices? or should I still read them to make sure that answer choice A is right. Thanks!

My brothers and sisters of the LSAT (sounds so corny lol),

I understand that many of you are anxiously awaiting your LSAT score; however, I have a question for you. Hopefully, it'll divert you from anxiety for a few minutes haha. On average, how do you interpret the word "OFTEN" in a logical reasoning stimulus?

Would you say if falls within the realm of "many" or "most"?

Thank you all.

Woke up, thanked GOD, showered, ate breakfast, now I just keep checking my email. I mean I do have an iPhone and the emails are always delayed. So any minute now......