So, what I'm understanding about the practicing of the LR questions (MSS specifically) is that you just need to be a 100% sure about your answer choices. The Blind Review applies for the questions that you weren't certain of the answer in order for you to reach that 100% certainty as to why the answer choices are correct/incorrect. Furthermore, the question choices that yield subtle differences that makes you think "hmm... could be.." is definitely wrong because there's an answer choice that is definitely solid with the given premises... Right? I'm curious because I was doing the Preptest29-Section4-Question3 and realized that the answer I chose (D) was the aforementioned "hmmm.... could be..." so during my blind review, before consulting the explanation video, I re did the question and saw that (A) was the correct answer because it did not have the possibility of being countered when I plug it into the stimulus.

Hi all,

I have a question on answer choice C.

I understand the flaw of the survey: how it fails to distinguish the residents who dropped out in its own schools and those who dropped out of schools from somewhere else. But, after contemplating the answer choices, I am reluctant to accept answer choice C as the correct answer (the part where it says: those who had received their schooling elsewhere).

To my understanding, if you "received your schooling elsewhere," this meant that you did NOT dropout. To "receive something" would be to finish in the transaction of getting that something. So, answer choice C would be pointing out a flaw of distinguishing that was incorrect. If the answer choice had said having "attended (which opens up the possibility of dropping out" instead of "received," then I would have no problem with the answer choice.

Any take on this? If my understanding of "received schooling" is incorrect, any explanation (or examples that can show the usage of the word/phrase) would be great!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-15/

This is my biggest problem at the moment, and I don't recall this being in the curriculum. Could someone point this lesson out if I'm missing it? Seems like a pretty big part of the test.

I had a hard time understanding why (A) is the right answer. After thinking about it for a day on and off, I came up with this reasoning. Please take a look if my logic behind getting the right answer is correct.

I wonder if this this question can be viewed as Resolve Reconcile type; the premise says the land-dwelling whales needed hind limbs capable of supporting its weight, and conclusion says the fragile limbs of whale found in the fossil is the remnant of whale once lived on land. But I tried to solve it as strengthen question.

This question talks about whales from three different periods; ancient whale (lived before fossilized whale skeleton), fossilized whale, and modern whale.

Premise:

Conclusion: The fragile hind limbs are remnants of limbs that land-dwelling whale once had.

I initially misunderstood the conclusion as the fragile hind limbs found in the fossil is the remains the whale that was living on land. So land-dwelling whale having fragile limbs is contradiction within the premise... but the correct understanding is the fragile hind limbs newly found in fossil is how the ancient whale evolved to be. The key was a correct understanding of the word "remnant."

So, to summarize it... whale evolution is like this chronologically.

Ancient Whale (ones lived before the newly found fossilized skeleton)

Fossilized Whale

Modern Whale

So, we need to strengthen the conclusion that the fossilized whale skeleton that has fragile limbs is the evolved form of whales limbs that lived on land at one point.

(A) is correct. The confirmation that ancient whale had a full pelvis would strengthen that by evolution it became a partial pelvis (as found in fossil) and now only bare remnant of pelvis.

(B) This weakens the conclusion

(C) irrelevant

(D) I initially chose this answer and that was because I misunderstood what the conclusion meant precisely.

(E) irrelevant.

It became a quite long explanation... I wonder if I am overthinking when it is really a simple question. I would appreciate any confirmation or correction on my reasoning. Thanks!!

I am really struggling with this question type. It is the most often question I get wrong in LR.

My current scores are

(-3 to -4) RC & LG

(-5 to -6) LR

If I can get 2 more flaw questions right - they are very common and I always miss 1 or 2 - I could increase my average LSAT from a 163/4 to a 166/7.

I watched YJ's video and the two step video. I also have practiced many questions. I keep narrowing down the final two and keep picking the wrong one....

Please help!

I'm making my trek back into LG and while watching JY's LG Fool Proof Method, he says to get the clean copies and all and to focus on making inferences which I totally understand. But he makes no mention of the questions. Should I include those as well or just focus on the inferences?

I'm on the MSS section and I'm trying to answer the question before the silent video ends (1m24s). Is that a good estimate for about how much time I should be spending on each questions for the real test?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-56-section-2-question-20/

I'm having trouble understanding why (C) is wrong in PT56.S2.Q20.

I negated the statement as follows:

It’s not the case that psychotherapy should never be provided in a context in which there is any chance that the therapy might be of less than high quality.

= Psychotherapy can sometimes (or always) be provided in a context in which there is any chance that the therapy might be of less than high quality.

I thought the negation of (C) wrecked the argument because it indicated that psychotherapy can be provided when there is any chance (1%)....Is my negation wrong?

I understand why (E) is better, but I want to fully understand why (C) is wrong.

Hi All,

Any help with this question would be appreciated. This is a resolve the discrepancy question (arguably a strengthen or PSA).

I'm going to present the stimulus below, accompanied by my train of thought, so someone can point out to me where I am erring in my approach to the stimulus. I am definitely misinterpreting/overthinking something.

P1: Earlier estimates of the distances of certain stars from Earth indicate that these stars are about 1 billion years older than the universe, which is impossible.

P2: My estimates of the distances indicate that these starts are much farther away than previously thought.

Okay so, at this point the discrepancy is introducing itself. Early estimates indicate that the stars are too old, yet the astronomer is now asserting that they are farther/not too old. What changed between early estimates and the astronomer's estimate? My natural assumption is that the farther the star is, the less bright it is. It seems as though the astronomer is about to call that assumption out.

P3: The farther away the stars are, the greater their intrinsic brightness must be, given their appearance to us on Earth.

Okay so this must have been the change. The early estimates probably weren't educated with this new fact, so they were off in their distance estimates.

C: So the new estimates of these stars' distances from Earth help resolve the earlier conflict between the ages of these stars and the age of the universe.

Okay so the stimulus draws a correlation between brightness and distance, and then infers from that that the age discrepancy is therefore resolved. In order for this to be the case, we need an answer choice that creates a correlation between age and distance.

I was able to select C because it was the only answer choice that directly had to do with the stars' age, but I am confused because C draws a correlation between brightness and age. We don't need that correlation...we need a correlation between age and distance. I have learned from much LR practice that if there is an established correlation between A and B, as well as a correlation between B and C, that does not necessarily entail a correlation between A and C. Likewise, we have a correlation between brightness and distance, C gives us a correlation between brightness and age, so how then can we infer the needed correlation between distance and age?

Thanks in advance.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-20/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-3-passage-4-questions/

I got all the questions right in the timed portion and in BR, EXCEPT #27.

I found it myself between AC’s B and C..

I did not chose C because I saw an underlying assumption that Amelia Wallace Vernon is a historian. Is that a reasonable assumption to make? The first paragraph said “while historians once” thought this… AWV now has research to say otherwise. I thought C was a trap as it was referencing to the historian’s theories that propagated the wrong myth. Directly from the text, the historians were the ones with the preconceived idea of the theory, not the new theories presented by AWV.

Now, I knew that B was wrong when I chose it, but I could not get myself to satisfy this assumption. Maybe it is just pure stubbornness, I am not sure.

What are your thoughts?

These are by far the hardest and most difficult type of LR questions for me. As soon as they turn into 3/5 stars in difficulty or greater I start missing them regularly. What is the best technique for tackling these question types? I've gone over the CC multiple times and it still doesn't explain it.

/Q-->/D D-->W in the 7sage lesson, the teacher said /Q-->/D and /W-->/D, thus, there's no inference made. However, isn't we also can do it like D-->Q and D-->W, thus, some Q are W?

Hi All,

Super confused by this question, mostly because I probably don't understand what the correct answer choice is actually saying.

The argument is as follows:

P1: The flagellum is what bacteria uses to swim.

P2: The flagellum needs many parts before it can even propel the bacterium at all.

C: Therefore, any evolutionary ancestor of bacteria who only had a few of these parts would gain no survival advantage from these parts.

The question is asking for a sufficient assumption. I cannot understand what (B) is saying or why it is correct.

This is what I think (B) is saying: "At this point in time, all of the parts used for survival would have had to help the bacteria swim." So say there was Part A, Part B, and Part C. Part A helped the bacteria to eat, Part B to procreate, and Part C to sleep. (B) is essentially saying that, in addition to these functions, Part A, Part B, and Part C also help the bacteria to swim. Again, we are talking about bacteria NOW (not the evolutionary ancestors that the conclusion brings up).

So present day bacteria have Part A, Part B and Part C (as well as others, since there are "many"), each of which help them survive but also are utilized for their swimming abilities.

The conclusion talks about evolutionary ancestors that only had a few of these parts. So lets say that an ancestor only had Part A and Part C (pretend they morphed from being asexual to sexual creatures-- clearly not a scientist, but go with it). From my perspective, we need more information that (B) does not give us. For example, why would the functions of Parts A and C have no "survival advantage"? Parts A and C still allow the bacterium to eat and sleep. Is swimming necessary for survival? We are told that they need many parts to swim, but if they CANNOT swim, why would that render their other parts useless when it comes to "survival advantage"?

We know that there needs to be "many parts" in order for the bacteria to swim. We also know that the ancestors in question had "few parts," so we can infer that they could not swim. But the conclusion is very strong in that it is saying there are NO survival advantage to ANY of its existing parts. I just don't see how (B) gives us the information we need to arrive at this conclusion.

I believe I must just not be understanding what (B) is actually saying.

I chose (C). My thought was that, if all the parts of flagellum are vital to each of its functions, then it makes sense that, if an ancestor didn't have certain parts, they wouldn't be able to do anything. For example, Part A, Part B, and Part C are all necessary for ANY of them to function; therefore, if an older ancestor didn't have Part B, then Part A and Part C would provide no survival advantage because they cannot perform without that third part. So unless all of the parts are present, then none of the parts would provide a "survival advantage". (C) provides a very broad and strong claim, but I am seeing it fill a gap that (B) isn't.

Thanks in advance.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-3-question-18/

I have a question about "almost every Wednesday" in PT55 S1 Q15.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-1-question-15/

When I read this question, I thought the statement "almost every Wednesday" prevented having free poetry readings on every Wednesday.

So I diagrammed like this:

Wednesday --M--> Free Poetry Reading (FPR)

Wednesday (--some--) /FPR

But JY's explanation says:

Wednesday --M--> FPR

Most can include all, so it does not exclude the possibility of having free poetry readings on all Wednesdays.

What does "almost" mean on LSAT?

The Memory Method is introduced in Lesson 2 of Intro to RC. JY seems to suggest practicing this on 6-8, but does he mean for us to complete this practice before moving on to lesson 3? That would be independently. Just looking to nail this detail down before moving on in the course.

Thanks

I think I understand why B is right, since middle ear infections are not defined as being bacterial infections in the stimulus. Probably just assumed this on my first read, which led me to pick A or D. I can't remember. I've drilled this question at least twice.

Answers C and E are easily disqualified. However, A and B all seem to provide about the same level of explanation as each other.

D is wrong, I suppose, because, again, ear infections are not defined as bacterial infections in the stimulus. To me, A provides just as much support as B though. They're both similarly vague and do not really do much to explain the discrepancy.

Why is B right?

Got this one right by POE but had a tough time being OK with A. It is definitely something I considered as a flaw in the reasoning. However, the use of "the identity of the practical joker" in the stimulus (which we accept as true and cannot contradict) means we have to accept that there was one single person who was the joker. A tells us there was more than one joker. How does A not contradict the stimulus?

Am I missing some way of reading "the identity of the practical joker" to mean that there could be more than one person?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-40-section-3-question-14/

I cannot for the life of me figure out why C and D are wrong, can give a coherent detailed explanation for why they're wrong?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-40-section-3-question-23/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-3-passage-1-questions/

For question #5...

I initially got this question wrong and I stuck with my AC in BR. Needless to say, I am still confused even after the video explanation. I initially brought the answer choices down to B and E. In blind review, I looked very closely at the two. I see that there are assumptions made in both. In both instances, I knew this was a weakening question, so my false understanding lies somewhere in the answer choices/passage.

In AC B: why zoologists classifies the okapi as a member of the giraffe family?

I chose this answer twice. Lines number 4-13 are the contexts for this answer choice. The passage clearly lays out why "zoologists first classified it(okapis) as a member of the horse family." But it fails to say that zoologists now classify okapi as the giraffe family. What if they did not? The passage does not say the zoologists ever changed their classifications of the okapi, it simply states they were wrong. The passage picks back up on line 10 after this point, stating that the okapi have been confirmed as members of the giraffe family, but did the zoologists accept this change? Was the change in classification done by a different entity? It does not say. I can see how there are giraffe characteristics stated, but the AC says "why zoologists classifies the okapi" I simply cannot wrap my head around this.

In AC E: why okapis leave much preferred foliage uneaten?

Lines number 39 and 40 are the contexts for this answer choice. It gives the phenomena of the species not eating the preferred foliage, leaving much of it uneaten. So I asked myself in BR, WHY? Well, the answer is that they choose to sample other leaves. So, at this point, I am telling myself that this is an explanation. Great, I don't know why they chose to sample other plants, but I do know why they left the preferred foliage uneaten. I even went as far as to make analogies in order to make sure I was able to understand this question. For this AC, I thought of the analogy: why did John not eat all of his favorite food at the carnival? Well, John wanted to sample other food. I cannot wrap my head around why the passage did not "provide information intended to help explain this AC.

Thank you in advanced for reading this. I know it is quite a bit of text, but I figured that if I fully explained my thinking, it would be easier to critique.

Hello guys,

This was obviously a tough question, and after hours of tearing out my hair, I understand where the flaw is and why answer choice E is correct. Yet, there is still one component I am confused about.

Can someone in more detail explain how the individual income and car price could decrease, and individuals could still pay more today versus 25 years ago? Because, originally, I assumed it was erroneous to assume that people are spending more today on cars, if there income is substantially lower than in the past. I believe it relates to the proportion aspect, but I am still confused.

Thanks in advance,

Kristen

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-26-section-3-question-24/

Hi,

If you watched the video explanation for this question, could you please help me understand what exactly is it saying? I watch it at least 15 times and I am still puzzled by it. Read all the related posting, still no help.

While taking the test, I saw that the necessary and sufficient conditions have been flipped (assuming this is the flaw). However, I couldn’t locate the correct answer choice that explains this flaw.

I just cannot wrap my head around the video explanation as to why B is the correct answer choice. Is it correct because it points to the flipping of the necessary-sufficient condition or is it the correct answer choice because it points to the mistake of “success in sale” is not the same as “making a comfortable living in sales”? or is it something else?

Answer choice B is saying that if P --> Q does not preclude the possibility of R --> Q. Is this statement necessarily pointing to confusion in necessary and sufficient condition? In my head, this shows confusion as to what sufficient condition entails.

Are we not trying to bridge the gap between premise and conclusion?

Answer choices A and C is equally confusing. Are we supposed to look at the conclusion statement [at least three years developing a client base --> make a comfortable living in sales] while analyzing these answer choices or the statements in the premise [success --> in sales for at least 3 years].

Any help?

Thank you

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-18/

So I am currently working on incorporating the memory method into RC and have had mixed results. I'm losing a lot of time on the questions portion. When y'all go through the AC's, once you find the correct one do you then skip the rest of the AC's or read the rest just in case?

I'm early on in the process but I'm ranging from 30 secs over to hitting 5:09 on the questions. Just want to see how everyone else is doing it.

Hey guys,

I am in the middle of the fool proof method, working on all logic games from PTs 1-39. In the beginning I was just skipping the miscellaneous games because JY would say "you don't need to worry about this, you won't encounter it on a modern-day LSAT etc." However, after exploring the question bank and different types of questions it appears that there are very difficult miscellaneous games recently (especially with the virus game last October). So I'm wondering how closely I should be reviewing these miscellaneous games and I guess I am answering my own question as I type this... so I guess my real question is how were your experiences with miscellaneous games after using the fool proof method? How closely did you focus on them? Did you find that the lessons you learned from the more common types helped prepare you? I find my speed and accuracy, along with my understanding of sequencing, in/out, grouping games and grasp of conditional logic are all increasing at a normal rate, but then I get totally discouraged when I can't even do a miscellaneous game in under something like 20 mins.

I also just want to thank everyone who posts on here, I am going at this 6-7 hours per day, some days are better than others and when I'm at my lowest I usually go on here and am just constantly reassured that I am normal and so many other people have been in the exact same situation I am in... the only solution is to keep pushing forward.

Thanks!

The last 3 words of the conclusion states "such as diatoms." Doesn't that only mean that some of the Antarctic algae COULD be diatoms? Or is that stating that diatoms were in fact a large portion of the Antarctic algae? I hesitated on answer choice D because if diatoms weren't the only type of Antarctic algae then this answer choice isn't as relevant. Thanks for any input.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-2-question-04/

Hey guys,

I've started doing logic games this week... I went through the sequential games section and now on the sequential grouping with a twist games.

I've never done a logic game before and am doing all the Ultimate+ problem sets; and I find most of them incredibly challenging. I don't even know where to start on a lot of the diagrams/inferences.

I'm wondering if this is a natural symptom for a beginner or something I should begin to pick up intuitively. I am trying to do the foolproof method as much as I can... But I'm a little anxious I'm completely inept at this section.

Thanks!