Hey All,

So we have this health study that found that people who gained approximately 1 pound per year after the age of 35 tended, on the whole, to live longer than those who maintained the weight they had at 35. However, there have been other studies that indicated that weight gain tends to lower life expectancy.

Pretty standard resolve the paradox stimulus. I'm thinking: "Okay...well 'weight gain' is a pretty vague concept. 1 pound a year versus 10 pounds a year will certainly yield different results. Maybe the answer choice has something to do with that? Or maybe we find out that one of the tested groups were not representative-- meaning maybe they were poor eaters or the weight gain was a result of muscle gain because they were regular gym goers."

Well, none of the answer choices did any of those things (not completely anyway).

I eliminated the correct answer (C) because it says that smokers tend to be leaner than nonsmokers. It says nothing about weight gain.

If (C) read: Smokers, who tend to be less likely to gain weight than non smokers, tend to have shorter life spans than nonsmokers, then I could see what the test writers were getting at. (C) would be providing us with an example of a situation in which another factor (namely, smoking) can effect the outcome of the study. (C) would give us a potential reason that these two studies yielded different results because the group was not a representative group. I think (C) would still provide a very weak resolution because it is not specifically linking the scenario in (C) with our stimulus and we are just given a vague possibility that may or may not be relevant. However, I'm not a fan of the other ACs either, so I guess (C) is what we're left with. The "may" part of "may or may not be relevant" is apparently enough.

HOWEVER, my contention with C is what I mentioned earlier. During my timed section (and even BR...) I eliminated C because it said nothing about weight gain. So smokers are usually leaner? Okay...? Maybe there is some sort of propensity in leaner people to smoke? Maybe people who eat less are more inclined to pick up smoking habits? The point is we don't know...so how on earth can we assume that weight gain is playing a factor at all in the scenario in (C)?

Thanks in advance.

Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-1-question-05/

Here is the LSAT question from the problem set I am currently on in the course.

I have really got down the strengthening questions and I actually think they are quite fun. But the weakening questions are ironically my weakness at the moment.

The question:

I chose C in the initial timed test and stuck with it after the blind review. I totally see now how C completely supports the hypothesis, and is therefore wrong. But I was really analyzing D.

In the blind review, I wrote down that the reason I did not chose D was because it makes an assumption that Caplin fish are in a low supply. They both eat the same fish, so what? What if there are millions of these fish in great supply, than this would not matter at all. It also makes an assumption that Harp seals are better at catching and eating Caplin than Cods are. This assumption is still too large for me to understand why it would be the right answer choice.

I guess, by default, it would be right answer choice, since all the others are very wrong. But I would really appreciate someone explaining when I should have a critical eye for assumptions and when I shouldn’t, because it has obviously has swayed me in the wrong direction.

Is taking two pretests the week of my actual LSAT too much? I don't want to get burnt out but I feel like the more I take the more prepared I feel. Advice anyone?

Despite reviewing JY's explanation (https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-4-question-25/), I don't understand why answer choice (C) is incorrect while (D) is correct.

For one thing, how is answer choice (C) different from PT29 - S1 - Q16 (https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-1-question-16/) correct answer choice (B)? There, (B) said "some..." and JY said even though the "some" may or may not address the case addressed in the stimulus, it could still potentially weaken the argument. So then why can't answer choice (C)s "Not all" in this case use the same reasoning?

Moreover, answer choice (D) talks about being able to control an involuntary action which just seems to deny the premise that Marianne's actions are involuntary. This also says nothing about whether or not you should be held responsible. Being held responsible for an action that you can control is a further assumption we would have to make.

I have a question for answer choice A for the second question on "mental contortions." Although I got this question correct, I was really hesitant on marking A the right answer due to the word "beforehand." In the context of the passage, it states that "judges' instructions to juries to ignore information learned outside the courtroom" could not be "relied upon," and such instruction would become "mental contortions" to the jurors.

In my mind, information learned outside the courtroom (where prejudice can be formed) can be formed not only before the trial, but also in the middle of a trial, and therefore, I thought answer choice A was incorrect as it limits the scope to only before the trial (hence, descriptively inaccurate). However, I eventually chose A because all the other answer choices also limited the scope to "pretrial," which really confused me...

I'm actually a native South Korean student, so I may be unfamiliar with the concept of a "trial." If we are to assume that there is a certain case that lasts several days, and the parties of the case go to court several times to dispute the case, to my understanding, this as a whole would still be one trial. Therefore, I thought that juror prejudices could be formed in the middle of a trial (or, during a trial), as they would go to court, and then go home (get information outside the courtroom), then go to court, then go home, etc.

I would really like some clarification on this and any help would be great!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-3-passage-1-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-3-passage-1-questions/

Admin edit: Please review the forum rules. Posting full questions from PTs is against our TOS.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the teacher's argument?

(A) A journalist undermines his or her own professional standing by submitting for publication statements that, not being attributed to a named source, are rejected for being implausible, unoriginal, or dull.

Can someone explain why A is the correct answer choice? I feel like I'm not getting the conditional logic of this question.

I diagrammed as AP (accepted for publication) --> HP (highly plausible) or HO (highly original) or HI (high interest among audience). I think the contrapositive should be ~HP and ~HO and ~HI --> ~AP. But I think A is doing ~HP or ~HO or ~HI --> ~AP. Am I missing something?

I am retaking some of the 70's PT's to get ready for Saturday (fingers crossed!). Most of the LR is no problem for me, I just was hoping for a bit of a discussion on a few questions, maybe someone can critique my reasoning? So here it is:

This is an extremely tricky strengthen question for me.The stimulus doesn't ACTUALLY mention that population growth will continue, which is the flaw I suppose. IF the trend doesn't continue, then there is no need to address concerns. Beyond that, the argument DOES indeed note that the planets resources allow for "food to be produced" at several times what it is now, and that there is a maximum to it. Answer choice B (the one I picked way back when) doesn't mention food shortages, so that is a count against it, but I am caught on the terms here "food resources from ... the ocean ... will eventually be fully utilized". To me that could be a counter to the objection, "maybe food has a maximum PRODUCTION amount, but we fish from the oceans, which doesn't count as PRODUCING, its more like procuring." I read produce here to mean "to compose, create, or bring out by intellectual or physical effort" [Merriam-Webster def. 6]. I suppose LSAC here means "to give birth or rise to : yield" [Merriam-Webster def 2]. Anyone find this a bit frustrating? Thoughts on how to avoid confusion when they try to play tricks on language?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-2-question-07/

Sorry for the ominous title, but I'm really conflicted on what to do, and friends/family aren't objective enough to give me a solid response.

I am Canadian and applied to 7 schools across the country, I wrote the LSAT in December after delaying the September exam after studying for 4 months. I wrote in December because I felt like I had to, since I had already submitted all my applications and was dead set on attending law school in 2017.

I didn't feel great writing in December, and left the exam feeling like I would need to rewrite. I got my score back and scored 10 below my average, 155, and have a personal high of hitting 171 on a few preptests. My struggle section is LR by a long shot - average about 6-8 wrong per section, and -12 on the section on the December test. I'm not sure if my issue is stamina or lacking the fundamental knowledge for the question types. I average between 0 -4 on LG, and between -4 -6 on RC.

I recently decided, due to pressure from family/friends and myself to write the test in February because my main concern would be losing this application cycle and the money used to apply. My scores have improved slightly from taking a month long break, I came back and got 171 on my first PT since my break, and gotten 169, 168 etc since.

My main question for the community then is this, do I grind it out and hopefully save this application cycle, or sit it out and write in June or September and maybe still get accepted this year? I also emailed my schools I applied to and told them I would be writing in February and to put my application on hold, would it not look bad to then go back and tell them to change it back?

Hi, I am having a hard time differentiating between a cause and effect and a conditional statement. Would anyone have tips or tricks?

In the Powerscore logical reasoning bible (under conditional reasoning) there is a statement saying "No robot can think." They say that the diagram is R ---> /T (if an entity is a robot, then it cannot think). Im just confused as to how being a robot is the sufficient condition, and in general how they got this diagram. Im also getting confused on how they describe these relationships.

I went through the RC in the 70's to try to glean some more information and feel more comfortable going into the sections. Nothing super profound, but I was at least able to categorize them by their most common types. Feel free to add any other common structures that you find!

Straight/Regular Passages:

Comparative Passages:

Passage A:

Passage B:

Hello! So I'm fool proofing the LG bundles now, at first I was doing like 6-7 new per day. Now I'm finding that by the 3-4 new LG/day it's a mental drain & I didn't take into consideration the repeats. Does anyone have a good number of LG/daily that's realistic for daily routine while keeping up with RC & LR. I'm trying to finish them within 2 months. Any feedback will be really helpful :-)

Logic games used to be like another language to me but it has gotten to be my best section as of now. However, when the clock is ticking, everything i know about LG seems to go out the window. When I BR my test (during untimed conditions of corse), all the inferences that i should have made under timed conditions come to me almost instantly. Its extremely frustrating that I can do them but the pressure of time prevents me from performing to my full capability. I imagine it is because one can reasonably anticipate what the RC and LR will entail but with LG they can really throw anything at you. Does anyone else have this issue? Any tips or advice would be appreciated. I really want to get LG down pat as i'm taking the lsat next week (Feb 4th). Freezing up on LG is dramatically bringing my score down from what it can be even though I feel most prepared for it.

Hi guys!

Just a quick question regarding typing out your thought process for LR. I recently developed the habit of typing out my thought process and explanations for each answer choice after grading a PT to try to understand where I'm making mistakes. However, should I be doing this only after blind reviewing and grading the PT? Or should I begin the typing process when I blind review?

Many thanks!

Hey everyone, just wanted to get clarification on something. I find myself, when confronted with a MBT or SA question, immediately translating to logic. It is hard for me to find the correct answer choice otherwise. However, it does seem to eat up some time. Is there a better strategy to approach these questions? I would be very comfortable with the questions if it wasn't for the timing element, due to the formulaic nature of their structures.

Hey everyone,

I'm having trouble clearly identifying the assumptions in logical reasoning questions. I understand the difference between necessary vs. sufficient assumptions, overlooked possibilities & mismatched concepts. But, during my timed practices, the assumption is not clicking in my head. Any advice or tips would be greatly appreciated. Maybe even a new way of approaching the stimulus?

I saw something in a comment somewhere about logic game sets of similar questions to do, and I saw on one explanation JY had "if you struggled with this type of question, here's a bunch more". Are there multiple of these lists/ do these lists exist?

OK, so my battle with RC and been brutal, long, and very emotionally draining. I originally was going like -16, now I'm going -5ish. In RC I have seen the biggest gains. I have done really well and learning to "see the forest" before I examine the trees. As @"J.Y. Ping" put in a RC webinar, you have to be able to understand the passage at the 10x level, the 5x level, and the 1x level, 10 being the forest, 5 being individual paragraphs, and 1 being the individual trees.

Questions related to the 10x and 5x level are starting to become very easy to me, even for some of those level 5 passages. What still to this day trips me up are those 1x level questions where you have to understand certain parts of the passage at the 1x level. Out of the 5ish questions I usually miss, almost all of them are 1x, fine detail level questions. When I BR and grade my PTs I always see the right answer and I'm like, "Ahh! Damnit. It says it right there in that one tiny sentence! How did I miss/forget that part?"

My question to all of the RC gurus out there is how did you learn to remember things in the passage at the 1x level under timed constraints? For me, I almost always have to return to the passage, and I usually just don't have enough time to make it happen, so I circle the question and skip. The questions I miss are generally due to not remembering a specific detail from the passage, and not having quite enough time to return to the passage. When I come back to these questions, I usually just POE because I am at my last 2-3 minutes of the section. It's so frustrating because I am so close to going -0 on some sections, and the questions I miss are really not that hard, it's just remembering the fine detail.

As always, thank you for the feedback!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-76-section-2-question-24/

We are looking for a necessary assumption.

The conditional for the first sentence is: write in order to give pleasure  /impart truth. However, the conclusion of the argument is that this conditional is not true. They say that if this conditional was true, then you could take any popular book on the shelf and the conditional would be: popular  gave people pleasure  /impart truth. To do this, you would have to assume that if a book gives people pleasure, then it would have to have been written in order to give people pleasure. Just insert the original conditional in right in front of the “/impart truth” part of the equation.

This was counter-intuitive for me because I was immediately looking for a bridge to the conclusion of the stimulus, which is that those who write in order to give pleasure CAN impart truth to their readers. This one is tricky because it is asking you to look for the NA in a part of the stimulus that you’re not used to looking for it.

[Admin edit: Replaced with link to question. Please don't post copyrighted material, thanks!]

73.4.20 https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-4-question-20/

This is a phenomenon-hypothesis Strengthening question, so we are looking for an answer choice that strengthens the hypothesis or an answer choice that prevents an outside factor from weakening the hypothesis.

The passage is basically saying that the process goes like this: When nerve cells are damaged after a stroke, glutamate can leak from them and can kill other nerve cells. We are left to reasonably presume that this is included in the definition of continuing nerve cell deterioration. Therefore glutamate is present in blood of those whose nerve cells continue to deteriorate after a stroke.

Answer choices (it came down to C and D):

A – incorrect because saying that any neurotransmitter that leaks from damaged nerve cells will damage other nerve cells does not strengthen the relationship we want. It doesn’t give us any more reason to think that glutamate in particular is impacting surrounding nerve cells.

B – incorrect because it’s irrelevant

C – This was very hard to eliminate, but it is incorrect for a couple of reasons. 1) Knowing that it is the only one that leaks from damaged nerve cells doesn’t necessarily impact the relationship. If it does, we have to stretch it with a bit assuming in order to do so (for instance, you have to assume that it actually DOES leak from those nerve cells). 2) It doesn’t rule out the possibility that glutamate could come from five billion other locations in the body. It therefore definitely does not strengthen the statement that glutamate from damaged nerve cells is a cause of brain damage. Just because it is the only neurotransmitter that leaks from oxygen-starved or damaged nerve cells does not mean that it only leaks from those nerve cells. In fact, it leaves the door wide open to think that it could leak from a long list of other places, and we know from the stimulus that we don’t care about those other places. We just want to know if leakage from oxygen-starved or damaged nerve cells causes brain damage, and this answer choice doesn’t give us enough security and clarity for us to be able to do that.

D – This is the correct answer, because it specifies that glutamate can ONLY come from damaged or oxygen-starved nerve cells. This enables us to say (or at least makes it possible for us to say) that glutamate very well could cause brain damage/long-term nerve cell deterioration, since the way it can get into the blood stream in the first place is from oxygen-starved or damaged nerve cells.

E – incorrect because 1) we don’t need to know anything else about nerve cells to conclude that glutamate causes brain damage, and 2) it doesn’t matter that they can leak glutamate and still survive intact. This has no impact on the relationship we are trying to strengthen, since if they were destroyed, it wouldn’t do us any harm or any good.

[Admin edit: replaced with link to question. Please don't post full questions, thanks!]

Hoping someone has some advice on this for me. When JY goes over strengthen/weaken questions on LR, he identifies the conclusion and looks for an answer choice that either provides more support for or weakens support that the premises provide for the conclusion. I've been trying to practice answering questions in under 1 minute/20 seconds, and to do this I feel that I can use this approach pretty successfully in general. In general, should I try to come up with an assumption of the argument before I approach the questions? Or would having an assumption in my mind potentially distract me from thoroughly examining the answer choices?

Appreciate any suggestions!

Jeff

The statements provide the most support for holding that Sandra would disagree with Taylor about which one of the following statements?

Answer: D) Some sciences can yield mathematically precise results that are not inherently suspect.

Okay, so I answered this incorrectly on the diagnostic, and watched the video explaining what the correct answer choice was. I'm still a bit confused. This type of question is a disagreement question, which means that the right answer choice has to be a statement that one of the two speakers agrees with and the other disagrees with. In this passage, Taylor and Sandra are arguing about whether or not all mathematically precise claims should be subject to skepticism. Taylor clearly holds that all mathematically precise claims are suspect, while Sandra believes that some scientific disciplines can obtain precise results which are not suspect.

D clearly aligns with Sandra's argument, but I am confused by the wording of this question. It says the statements above provide the most support for holding that Sandra would disagree with Taylor about one of the following statements. Doesn't that mean we are looking for a statement that Taylor believes in and Sandra disagrees with?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-2-question-16/

I have an issue with the negation of this answer choice, if someone can help me--I would be most appreciative:

Most of the trade goods that came into western Mexico centuries ago were transported by boat.

Lsathacks says the negation is this:

Merely half of all trade that came into Western Mexico came by boat.

But, I think the negation should be this:

Between 0-50% of the trade goods that came into western Mexico centuries ago were not transported by boat.

Am I wrong in this thinking? Please help out!!

Hello all! I was hoping I could get assistance with the order in which I should study for the LSAT! I am taking the exam in September but I thought it's better to study earlier since it's my first time taking the exam! I have been studying logic games for 30 minutes a day for a week now. I was wondering if that's a good amount or the right thing to study first. Should I start with logic games then reasoning then comprehension or is there a better order? I am going to try and do an hour a day for the remainder of the time I have before the exam I just want some good tips starting out so I am best prepaired! Thanks so much!