So, I've done this question many many times. And I've never felt great about it. Can some run it down for me?

Specifically, answer choice A.

Here's what A looks like:

A:

Writer has right ---> Author granted writer the right

I believe A is incorrect because "Writer has right" should not be in the sufficient condition.

Rather, to be correct, A should look like this:

Author granted writer the right ---> Writer has right

Is this accurate?

(if you want to add anything else helpful, it'd be greatly appreciated).

Even though this question is old, it has several lessons built into it. I was able to parse this question out mainly because of the lessons on 7Sage. The first lesson I see with this question is the importance of being attuned to the grammar of the LSAT. The stimulus begins with “since.” This should reference back to the core curriculum grammar lessons: “since” generally introduces something that we will be using to build towards a conclusion. In other words, we are hurled by the first word of this argument into a premise. We also have an additional premise that is introduced by the word “and.” We then have a comma and the conclusion is given to us in conditional language. I sometimes feel on LR that what I am given in a stimulus is like joining a conversation mid-talk and I am expected to piece together the information into the way the authors want us to. This is a perfect example of that phenomena in my estimation.

The second lesson in this question is the heavy use of conditional language. You have to know your conditional indicators in order to map this question correctly. What we end up getting when we map this question is:

P 1:If you support the new tax plan——>no chance of being elected.

P 2:If you truly understand economics——>Not support the new plan.

C:If you have a chance of being elected——>truly understand economics

The third lesson from this question is the idea that questions are often related in the task they set out for us, a deep understanding of this sits at the bottom of the case for reading the stimulus before the question stem: if you can tell what is wrong from the stimulus this thinking goes, the question stem shouldn't have to be read first (I am not a proponent of this view.) When I lined those conditionals up, out of habit I wanted to find the sufficient assumption. Well it turns out that if we look at this question through a sufficient assumption lens, we can actually garner quite a bit. Lets take the contrapositive of that first statement:

P 1: If you have a chance of being elected——>Not support new tax plan

P 2:If you truly understand economics——>Not support the new plan.

C:If you have a chance of being elected——>truly understand economics

So insofar as the premises supporting the conclusion this isn’t a valid argument. But why? Above there is simply no way to get from the premises to the conclusion. The forth lesson dawned on me when I was BR’ing this question: This is where the flaw really is: as currently stated, the premises do not support the conclusion. Familiar terms are used in the premises and conclusion as a way to distract us, but the conclusion might as well be something about football or motorcycle maintenance. There is simply no support for the given conclusion from the given premises. The relationships between the elements do not support the given conclusion.

This is when we take a look at the fifth lesson embedded in this question and that is to take a close look at the question stem. This isn’t actually asking what the flaw is in the way we are all used to. Instead, this question is asking us for something that the argument ignores the possibility of. More specifically, that the argument ignores the possibility that “some people who _____” The fifth lesson here is how to deny a conditional relationship. So if I were to give you the conditional relationship: All cats are mammals, you would deny that by saying “some things that are cats and not mammals.” The existence of a thing that is both a cat and not a mammal is enough to deny the sufficiency of something being a cat triggering the necessary condition of being a mammal. With this knowledge in mind lets take a closer look at what we are given in the stimulus.

chance of elected———>Not support new tax plan

+

Understands economics——>Not support new tax plan

Conclusion:

Chance elected——>Truly understands economics

How could we make this valid? We could say that Not support new tax plan——>Understands economics!

99 times out of 100, if we have gotten this far and we are stuck, it was actually our translation of the logic where we have gone wrong. Meaning if this was a sufficient assumption question, I would bet that I had translated something wrong. But, we didn’t. The only other possibility is something very peculiar: it appears that our author has given us: Understands economics———>Not support new tax plan, but has interpreted this statement in logic to mean: Not support new tax plan———>Understand economics! If we (wrongly) interpret the second condition as Not support new tax plan———>Understand economics, we have a simple A——>B——>C argument.

This is an incredibly difficult step to take. I am open for correction here, but the idea that we are given a conditional statement, that we translate correctly, but have to take a leap in judgement to conclude that the author might have interpreted that conditional statement wrong is hard enough. Finding where the author’s translation went wrong and then negating that translation to point out the flaw makes this, for my money, the hardest flaw question of all time. The author's assumption here is actually a mistranslation of the logic to: Not support new tax plan———>Understand economics The denial of this is (D)

I look forward to a correspondence with members of this community about this question. Has anyone come across something like this elsewhere? Would it behove us to classify this flaw under the umbrella of sufficient/necessary flaws more generally? Thank you!

David

**Admin note: edited title**

Hello fellow 7sagers,

There is no right or wrong answer to the question at hand. I know 7Sage's method is to read the question stem first. However, I am curious to hear from individuals who have tried "both" approaches. Which made your task of comprehending the stimulus and answering the question easier?

Thank you in advance.

I like to spend time up front by solving for all the boards. This makes me more confident for selecting the correct answer and I can get through the questions faster.

However, some games have so many possibilities that it takes a significant amount of time to solve for all the boards. So, to save time, I do not solve for all possibilities. I finish the games a lot faster, but I may miss 1 or 2 questions.

My questions are: when should one simply brute force their way through the answers to save time?

Is it better to compromise accuracy to save time?

What is a happy medium?

I like to spend time up front by solving for all the boards. This makes me more confident for selecting the correct answer and I can get through the questions faster.

However, some games have so many possibilities that it takes a significant amount of time to solve for all the boards. So, to save time, I do not solve for all possibilities. I finish the games a lot faster, but I may miss 1 or 2 questions.

My questions are: when should one simply brute force their way through the answers to save time?

Is it better to compromise accuracy to save time?

What is a happy medium?

I know (A) is correct since it points out there may be no relation between jury decision and testimony. Yet, I'm still confused about (B). Is it descriptively wrong since the stimulus only says one fact instead of two facts?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-4-question-13/

Thanks in advance!!

With regards to the second rule, does anyone know why we can't simply place both F&G in out group? JY's explanation suggests placing G (Out) in one world and F (In) in the second world.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-1-game-3/

Hi everyone,

I'm taking the LSAT on Feb 19 and I'm start to panic a bit. For each practise LSAT I've taken my Logical Reasoning scores hover around 65%. Comparatively my Logic Games are around 95% and my Reading Comprehension is around 85%. I'm completing all the sections comfortable timewise. I really need to improve the LR sections but I've got no clue how to.

I've gone about halfway through the powerscore bible. Do I keep going through that even though it seems I haven't grasped basic concepts? Do I buy another book? Do I just practise a lot?

Help!

Hi

I've been studying for logic games for about 2 weeks or so, trying out the fool proof method.

As I was covering the games from Pt18~28, I was averaging about -3 or -1 in the earlier ones.

But I got completely destroy by Pt 27 then scored perfect on Pt 28 on time. (BTW I did both on thr same day)

I'm not sure how confident I should feel with the game section.

To think that the score can fluctuate so much between 2 Pts was a bit shocking.

Does unorthodox games also become more predictable after continuous practice?

Hey All,

So this is a PSA question. I selected answer E when timed and I didn't even circle this question to BR because I was so confident in my answer. It wasn't until I was reviewing with some others during a BR call that this error was brought to my attention. I got some great feedback from those on the call, but upon further solo reflection, I'm still not 100% confident with this.

This is how I interpret the stimulus. There are two categories of people mentioned: adults and children. There is this technique to address chronic nightmares that works on adults. Children who are nightmare prone are likely to suffer from nightmares as adults. Therefore, we need to identify these children and treat them.

The conclusion specifies efforts towards identifying nightmare-prone children. I'm thinking to myself- well, why not utilize this technique with ALL children? Why are we putting the effort into identifying then treating these children. I chose E because it addresses this issue. I interpreted E as justifying the conclusions claim for focused effort.

The correct answer is C, which says psychologists should do everything to minimize the number of adults troubled by chronic nightmares. My issue with C is, by accepting that we must do EVERYTHING (bold statement to begin with, but we are looking for an PSA, which allows for that I guess), then shouldn't we also teach ALL children this technique? The stimulus doesn't set up the necessary condition that, if you suffer from chronic nightmares as an adult, then you did as a kid. The stimulus says it is more likely for nightmare prone children to suffer as an adult. So since this isn't a determined, 100% relationship, in order to do EVERYTHING (like C says), we should be addressing this margin of potentiality for non-nightmare prone children to develop chronic nightmares as an adult.

In short, my issue is C seems to inherently contradict the conclusion.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-59-section-2-question-13/

I'm hoping that someone might be willing to check my thinking/analysis before I go to the explanation. It has been suggested that if we write out an explanation for our thought process that it helps to solidify our learning. This is my attempt to follow that suggestion. Also, could someone tell me if it's advisable or not to attempt to do what I've done prior to viewing the video explanation, or am I complicating things too much? Should I just skip all this work and go right to the video explanation first?

PT 38.1.19

Answer selected during test: (E)

Answer selected during BR: (A)

Correct answer: (C)

Notes:

Since it has been a few days since I took the test and performed my BR, my original thinking is somewhat fuzzy. However, I think the reason I selected E on the test was because I thought that if people only deserve happiness according to the happiness the provide others, then a truly bad person couldn’t deserve happiness because they don’t bring happiness to others.

I think I selected answer choice A on the BR because I was thinking there was a disconnect between the idea that we only value the happiness that is deserved and that we only deserve happiness according to the happiness we provide to others.

Now, how did I miss answer choice C? I think the reason that I missed the correct answer and selected wrong answers twice is because I wasn’t appropriately identifying with the argument. In the first place, I wasn’t looking for a conclusion. I was just looking for a statement that “fit”. I see now that the word “therefore” indicated that I was to be looking for a logical conclusion that appropriately rested on the premises. Also, the question stem indicates that I need to complete the “argument”. Since an argument is a premise + conclusion, and since there is no conclusion in the stimulus, I needed to identify the proper conclusion. I think I wasn’t appropriately identifying the premises in the argument; all of the extraneous statements boggled me a bit. So without the proper understanding of the premises, it’s understandable that I wouldn’t be able to identify the conclusion. I’m still struggling to clearly identify the premise (in fact, I think there is only one), but here’s what I think it is:

P: The happiness people deserve is determined by the amount of happiness they bring to others.

Which would then couple with the proper conclusion:

C: The judgment that a person deserves to be happy is itself to be understood in terms of happiness.

So, if I understand this problem now, the reason I selected the two wrong answers is the same reason I missed the right answer: I didn’t properly identify the premise in the argument.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-1-question-19/

Hello all,

For the June 2007 Prep Test, for Section 4 (RC) and question #13 ("Which of the following principles underlies the arguments in both passages?") I see why E is correct, but why is D incorrect ("The discovery of the neutrological basis of a human behaviour constitutes the discovery of the essence of that behaviour.") A detailed explanation would be appreciated!

Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-4-passage-2-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-4-passage-2-questions/

I'm confused why the arrow splits for PT 22 GAME 4 RULE 4 and the arrow doesn't split for PT 31 GAME 2 RULE 4 even though they both contain the words NEITHER NOR.

I thought the arrow can't be split for NEITHER NOR statements.

Hello!

I'm going to take the February LSAT in a few weeks and obviously I'm freaking out. I have 6 Fresh PTs left (the most recent ones) but I just don't know how to space them out.

Problem is I was hitting an average of 171~3 on my timed PTs but devastatingly, today my score dropped to 167 (I bombed one LR section - 7 wrong, I usually get -2, -3 and Reading was little more difficult than usual). That's almost close to my starting score (165) and I now fear that I haven't been studying the right way. My target score is around a 175, which so far I've only managed to get with BRs.

Should I space out my 6 remaining tests so that I do about 2 tests per week till February, or save most of them till the last week before the test and hope for a jump in my score?? ANY ADVICE WOULD BE INCREDIBLY HELPFUL! Thanks!!

Hi Can you please give me some tips for the writing sample, I need Some advice!

Hi Everyone!

I just wanted to thank the 7Sage community for helping me through was has been the hardest undertaking in my academic career!

After countless hours of studying, BR calls, PTs, scoring (and sometimes tears and disappointment), I am happy to say that my LSAT journey is over!

I wish everyone here the best of luck on future LSATs and the admissions process.

I will be applying this cycle and I'm excited to see where my fellow 7Sagers will end up.

Who knows - maybe some of us might cross paths in law school!

Thanks for all the good times, ya'll!

Cheers,

Hazel

Good lord, I find this question frustrating and I cannot for the life of me determine how any single one of these answers could be seen as satisfactory.

This is the question where West says that Haynes is the worst inspector. I honestly couldn't figure out how any answer would suffice, and even seeing the correct answer, I cannot begin to fathom why it might be correct. I think this literally may be the only case where I haven't been able to even begin to understand why the right answer is correct for this question.

The correct answer states that Young responds by denying one of West's presuppositions. But I cannot see how Young does this. Young states that Haynes inspected significantly more than half of the appliances inspected last year. I immediately registered this as countering West's argument by pointing out that given the proportion of appliances Haynes inspected, it does not indicate any failing that such a high proportion of rejected appliances would have been inspected by him. Can anyone give me a breakdown of this?

Where is the "presupposition?" How on earth would Young be countering it?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-79-section-4-question-12/

I just drilled the LG section from PT 18 and it totally threw me for a loop! Train lines? The random promotions game? What was that? I'd happily take snakes and lizards. For those of you looking for weird games, look no further :).

Off to drill them until I hit time... it was such an odd section I felt it deserved a shout out.

Is it possible to chain up bi-conditionals, and if so, what inferences can be drawn? For instance, imagine a a grouping game with three groups and the following rules:

A and B are not in the same group.

B and C are not in the same group.

The rules are:

A (---) B

B (---) C

If we take the contrapositive of the second rule (C (---) B), I believe we can link them up. A (---) B (---) C.

Can we conclude A (---) C? But if the game includes three groups, then does this inference even matter?

Hi everyone!

This is kind of a weird question, but it's on my mind whenever I take a PT. I am hovering in the mid-160's right now, and have taken a little under 10 PT's. Games is by far my worst section; only finish 3 of the 4 every time like clockwork. When I go to BR them and have all the time in the world, I usually get a perfect score (not a feat that seems to be uncommon with games when you have unlimited time to finish them).

But this always then brings my BR up into the 170s, and well...this seems inflated to me. BR is supposed to measure potential, and it seems strange to say I'm a solid 170's potential scorer right now when I have such a huge crutch in games. It's like taking out my giant Achilles' heel from the equation every time I BR, and I don't want it getting in my head that I'm doing better than I really am. (Lol I've found that ego is a dangerous enemy with the LSAT.)

Has anyone else ever encountered this issue? Or have a way to BR their games with this in mind? Thanks guys :)

Hey Guys,

I am very confused on this question. I thought the answer would be A.

The paragraph says in the first sentence that there are two kinds of horror: mad scientist and monstrous beast. The last sentence then says that both kinds of horror stories describe violations of the laws of nature and are intended to produce dread in the reader. Therefore, why would the answer not be A?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-42-section-2-question-16

Hi guys,

I was wondering if you guys have any good tip in terms of approaching parallel questioning? So far, after doing 15 question, the only thing that I came up with:

1) Attention to structure

2) If difficult to understand, supply with an example to fill the referencing words.

Any good tips for this type of questions?

Thanks,

Panda

I would love to join forces with any of you out there-- either in person or online! I live in Poughkeepsie, NY, but I work in Manhattan (for any of the locals?). Either way, looking forward to the next 4 months.

Hello,

Could someone please check my work and let me know if what I have below is correct? I felt like this is a conditional heavy question. It took me 45 minutes to work out this question. Is there any quick way to go about questions like these (or is the answer more practice?)

This is how I translated each sentence in the question-

S1- Teachers effective → Teachers have the power to make decision in classroom

S2- /Teachers have the power to make decision in classroom → /enable students to make decision

= enable students to make decision → Teachers have the power to make decision in classroom

S3- Independent learners → making their own decision

S4- Teachers effective → Teachers have the power to make decision in class room

Putting it all together:

[S1] Teachers effective [S2] Enable students to make decision → Teachers have the power to make decision in class room

[S3] Independent learners → Capable of making their own decision

A) Could be true. Mistaken reversal of S3

B) Could be true. S[1] and [S2] are not chained together to reach a valid/invalid conclusion

C) Could be true. Same as answer choice B.

D) True statement

E) Correct answer because it is false according to S2

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-23/

Hey All,

You can never have too much practice with RC, right? Which is why you should definitely go check out this passage and then help a girl out with a question that is causing her to pull her hair out :)

E is saying that phytopathogens typically attack some plant species but find other species to be unsuitable hosts. I eliminated this answer choice because the passage never says that it is the species that causes them to be unsuitable hosts. Rather, it is the fact that the crops are rotated, not giving the soil a chance to become suppressive.

Plant A is sowed in a field, lets say. But the crops aren't rotated so the phytopathogens do their thing and the yields decrease. But then, the farmer notices this decrease in yield, so Plant B is sowed in Plant A's place. But after a while, the soil become suppressive again and the phytopathogens come back into the picture. Then Plant C replaces Plant B, etc.

Furthermore, the passage says: "The problem can be cured by crop rotation, denying the pathogens a suitable host for a period of time." (emphasis added)

The species of plant is irrelevant. The phytopathogens are "triggered" by lack of crop rotation and they can only be stalled for a period of time. I mean, I know we can't infer that every single plant species is in danger of phytophathogen wrath, but I definitely don't see how we can infer that there are some species that are not.

I chose D, which I realized was wrong because of "majority," but E just seems completely unsupported.