Am a big fan of knowing that on RC questions there is always specific, identifiable evidence for why an answer choice is right/wrong. However, I am struggling on this question.

Question: ""The passage suggests that Dworkin would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements?"

I chose B:

"Judges should not use their moral intuition when it conflicts with the intentions of those legislators who authored the law being interpreted."

Because of lines 7-11:

"their own moral convictions, even if this means ignoring the letter of the law and the legal precedents for its interpretation. Dworkin regards this as an impermissible form of judicial activism that arrogates to judges powers properly reserved for legislators."

The passage clearly states Dworkin thinks judges should not override legislators by applying their own moral intuition. Why is this not captured in choice B?

I understand that E is something Dworkin would agree with given that legal positivists don't accept moral guides whereas Dworkin suggests they play a role in law.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-2-passage-4-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-2-passage-4-questions/

Hi Guys,

I think I have spent a lot of effort in coming this up and I want to share with you my hypothesis to see what you guys think about this as of how do you correctly tackle every SA, PSA, Strengthen and Weakening. (I suppose that I can add the NA question type into it as well, but...I am not there yet)

If you like it, please comment. if you hate it, please comment. If you want to add on or correct me, please please comment.

So here is my hypothesis:

1) Every SA, PSA, Strengthen, and weaken is an argument. Therefore, there is/are assumption[s].

2) First job is to read the stimulus and find the task. The task requested will then require us to go to various stages. For instance, If it is SA and PSA then we need to find the assumptions. But if it is strengthen or weakening then we need to bring one step further to find the best way to address it.

3) Read the question steam. When reading, it is important to find the stimulus and conclusion. When identifying, we have to be able to find the relationship between the stimulus and conclusion. For example, does the stimulus jump right into conclusion or does it just go from stimulus then major stimulus then minor conclusion then major conclusion, etc.

4) Find the word that is linked. One word or term is always in the premise and another is always in the conclusion. And if you link them, there comes your assumption, which is where you stop for your SA and PSA questions. SA and PSA questions can be made hard in 2 ways. The first way is that they give you 2 premises, which means that you have 2 assumptions (P1-C1), (P2-C2). But the method used is the same. The second way is to introduce something similar but not exact as of your anticipation.

And now comes to the answer choices. When answering the question, be mindful of how difficult the question is. If it is an easy question then your assumption, which you had anticipated should show up there in plain side. Some cosmetic on wording can occur, but there should be little difficulty in identifying them. You circle and move on.

But now for harder questions, while you do exactly the same thing above, you deploy the process of elimination method and find your final 2 candidates. When found, read carefully as of how they are worded. One wording can make a whole difference.

5) From step 5,we move into strengthening and weakening questions. The strengthening and weakening is just either block an objection (strengthen) or call out an assumption (weakening), but the twist here is that you have to assess how to best address it. But once again, your pre-forumulated assumptions stays.

The easy strengthening and weakening question just do this. But for the harder ones, they do something else.

They have a general tendency to call out an still connected but indirect the answer choice that deviates from you initial anticipation.

But before we go there, let's take a look at a question, where I disagree with JY's analysis. https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/new-appliance-models-weaken-question/

In this question, there are embedded in it 2 argument parties making 2 arguments. On one side, there is the consumer, who claims because there are different modifications, product name should be different to differentiate them. On the other side, it says, because every modification is beneficial to the consumer, consumer should just ignore it)

So if you analyse the argument this way, the assumption pops out to you right away by connecting the words.

Assumption 1 from the consumers: The appearance of the product is not enough for the consumer to identify the modified version.

Assumption 2 from the merchant: every modification will benefit consumers.

And answer choice D, directly calls out the first assumption.

In the end, I always believe there is a model to solve these questions. A fool proof model.

I watched the video.Yet I'm still stuck in (B). Any ideas and insight will be appreciated.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-1-question-23/

Hi All,

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-07/

I was between B and C for this question and was hoping folks could weigh in on why C was wrong. I did listen to JY's explanation but still have some hesitations for getting rid of C. Here's the overview:

Context: Scientists are said to assume that something is not the case until there is proof that it is the case

Conclusion: The characterization (above) of scientists is false.

Premise: In evaluating a question of whether an unresearched additive is safe, scientists would say the following based on the characterization:

1. The additive is unsafe because it has not been proven to be safe

2. The additive is safe because it has not been proven to be unsafe.

Premise 2 : No scientist can assume without contradiction that a given substance is both safe and unsafe.

My Pre-phrase: Argument shows that taking a statement to be true results in a contradiction, so the statement cannot be true.

Answer Choice B: A statement is argued to be false by showing that taking it to be true leads to implausible consequences.

My Thoughts: I circled this upon first reading it but wasn't crazy about the word implausible, which I read as unlikely or not probable. If they would have given me something more like illogical, I would never have read on.

Answer Choice C: A statement is shown to be false by showing that it directly contradicts a second statement that is taken to be true.

My Thoughts: I read this as...a statement (ie the context) is shown to be false by showing that it directly contradicts a second statement (Premise 2) that is taken to be true. JY's explanation stated that there was no second statement, which seemed to me to exist. I can throw it out for not being a "direct" contradiction since the contradiction is in the application...

Would love any feedback on C!

Now I finished majority class for LG(except some sequencing game and miscellaneous game) while cracking the LR by type.

I basically drilled the PT1-38 LG twice and finish under estimated time. I feel more confident for coming Feb test at least LG.

While I drill LR, I need some advice on LR and RC drill(if needed).

Thanks!!

I'm scheduled to write the Feb exam and I've noticed that my RC is my worst section by far! I'm averaging - (3-5) per LR section, and -(0-2) per LG section... but getting around 15-17 (out of 27) on RC... I find that I focus too much on the content rather than structure. I most always correctly answer MP questions but find myself lost on questions that reference specific lines and ask for such things as the tone. Recently I've tried to focus less on content, but then I am complete loss when it comes to questions that ask for analogous situations/opinions/beliefs (because I either don't know the authors motives or I spend too much time trying to re-read). I've done loads of passages to know that my skills deteriorate with complexity (obviously like everyone else) but rather than by theme (science, econ, law, etc)... with the exception of history passages, which I would rather just guess :p

Any tips or recommendations for specific skills to help keep on track of what's happening in the passage, without trying to retain information overload?

THANK YOU!!

After watching video, I understand why A is true. Yet, I still confuse about (D). Is it not a flaw?

The link is here https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-4-question-14/

Can't get this game, it got on my last bone marrow. Please explain in layman terms , I am taking Feb, 2017 exam. Thank you.... Carmen

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-7-section-2-game-3

It seems JY recommends copying the game board for questions that give you new premises

Like: if a question says "if M is in lane 4, what might be true?" then you would make a mini game board and put M in 4, then add whatever deductions you can from M being in 4.

To me it seems much faster and less cluttered to write the permanent rules, board, and deduction in highlighter, and the temporary ones in pencil. Then after each question, you can just scrub the entire board area with your eraser, instantly deleting all the work that is local to one question.

Of course, the con is that you don't save information about previous questions, chiefly examples of hypotheticals that "could be true". My gut feeling though is that this is only useful on about 10% of games, and the speed/clarity gains from not having to recopy the board over and over outweigh the loss of that benefit.

Anyone else have a perspective on this, or a preference one way or the other?

Hey All,

So I know I am probably about the 9,000th LSATer to say this but....RC is by far my worst section. I have come to a point in my studies where I am super frustrated because I consistently miss a ton of questions for two reasons in particular:

1) I go too slow and I don't get to finish the section;

or

2) I go too fast and miss a ton of important details.

Both of these unfortunate results yield anywhere from -8 to -11...I've tried apps to allow me to read quicker (which work to an extent...but then I have the whole missing details issue), I've tried notating, I've tried not notating, I've skipped questions, etc. I feel like I've tried everything with little improvement.

I also will admit that I enjoy nothing about RC. I will review LR and LG questions all day, but RC really brings my mood down.

I also will admit that I think a huge factor in this is anxiety. I know how poorly I do on RC, so I begin the section already nervous and as the section goes on, as I come across the inevitable "hiccups," I panic.

So tips for RC and tips for dealing with anxiety during the section are much appreciated!

For each of the LR sections, what might the general proportion of very hard and hard (4 and 5 dots on the difficulty scale) to medium and easy questions?

Hi Guys,

I have noted a direct contrast between principle and MBT.

Take these 2 questions for example:

MBT: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-2-question-23/

Principle: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-2-question-11/

In the former one, anything that can be pushed out works as long as it abides to the principle within the stimulus.

However, of the latter one, when you are asked to draw a principle from the question, the right answer is best to cover 100% of the text. As by this logic, answer choice B is inferior than D solely because B only covered 50% of the argument while D covered all of them.

Hi Guys,

Can you guys please help me take a look if my analysis on B & C is correct? https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-3-question-08/

The question is very much like a SA question. The answer choices can be quickly eliminated by a match principle into the sufficient condition. However, I think we can expand on this problem more.

A is correct. So won't go into detail about it.

B. The sentence is wrong based on 2 reasons. The first reason is by putting the conclusion as the sufficient condition. Even if we were to change the answer into: If election campaigns are to be funded from public funds, it will allow politian to devote less time asking for money than serving the interest of the public, this is still wrong because it is formulated into a C-->P Relationship, while what we are looking for is P-->C relationship.

C is wrong because it talks of a different set that we do not know. Had this question be translated into an Inference MBT Except question, the asnwer choice then is correct.

D. is wrong based on 2 counts. The first count is of the same reason as B by messing up the location of the conclusion into the suffcient condition. But in addition to it that the question steam mix in an unrealted element. Evne if we have deleted that related element from the sentence, it is still incorrect and not 50% correct due to the location issue with the conclusion statement.

If we were to extent this answer choice's analysis a bit further.

Suppose that in this case, the answer choice for A is wrong too. But D is formulated in the following fashion: "if public funding of some activity produces a benefit to the public but also inevitably a special benefit for specific individuals, the activity should be fully funded by the public while the special interest taker group contributes proportionally more".

In this answer choice, iff answer choice is made wrong in other fashion. D will be correct on 2 counts. 1) The sentence is 50% correct. Although it do have irrelevant items in it but part of the argument goes through along with our principle. 2) It is the most correct answer in comparison with the rest of the answer choice.

Had LSAT do this, then the question's difficulty is pushed to a level 4 or 5 difficulty.

E. is wrong because it like C speaks of another different set of population that is above this univerise. Again, it can become a correct answer choice if it is an MBT Inference Except question.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-4-question-15/

Hi guys,

Is there an error in this question? There is a historical LSAT question that I am...disagreeing with: PT30-S4-Q15. PSA.

The question, rewrote, consists of:

P1: Too large or too small of class size is bad.

P2: Very light or very heavy faculty work load is also bad

C: Crowded classes and overworked faculties are bad.

In general, I feel the argument's conclusion is valid. "Large class size", reference to "crowded classes" ,and "heavy faculty workload", reference to "overworked faculties", are both bad.

What is wrong with just taking 50％ from each premise and concluding something from it?

However, above this, I see another gating point, which is the answer.

The correct answer is "very small class sizes or very light workload" are also bad. While, I feel that, in order to arrive at this premise as a needed one, we need to have something like "if the school's both class room and faculty workload is at medium level, then it is good". Right?

Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks,

Panda

I am having a difficult time trying to organize when and where the terms "some," "many," or "sometimes" can be used correctly or not, and this question came across my mind. Would my line of reasoning be correct if answer choices B, C, and E be wrong (not strengthen the argument) even if the wording of the answer choices be changed to corroborate the argument in the stimulus while leaving the words "some" and "many" intact? Would the answer choices be wrong simply because of "many" and "some"?

For instance, if we were to change C to read: Some automobile passengers whose inner ears indicate that they are *not* moving and who have a clear view of the objects they are passing get motion sickness

would this answer choice still not strengthen the argument? In other words, if the argument in the stimulus stated "We hypothesize that A -> B," and an answer choice stated "some A-> B," would the answer choice strengthen the argument?

Usually whenever I see "some" or "many" I become very cautious... now I'm having real difficulty in finding how "some" or "many" can be used correctly to become the correct answer choice... Any help would be great!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-1-question-18/

I find abstract FL AC's to be quite a hassle on the LSAT. Usually I POE it down to one answer, which feels right, but I don't work through the FL if I feel it'd be a super time sink. So I BR and work it out then (now). I'm talking about AC B here, "No migraine sufferers with heart disease will take the new medication except under careful medical supervision." The no makes it a not both relationship: IF MIG sufferer w/ HD -> NOT take medication. The "except" gets translated to an IF NOT, which now becomes a joint sufficient condition: IF NOT under supervision.

SO, in total:

IF MIG sufferer w/ HD

+ -> NOT take medication

IF NOT under supervision

How is my methodology?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-2-question-03/

Hi KS,

Perhaps you are taking the Feb LSAT, but given that the Dec test is only 3 weeks away, let me share my RC strategy. Not sure if you have the Trainer book yet, or if it's been helpful. If so, then great! Apologies for the extreme length of the below. I hope it's helpful.

The method I use/developed relies on 1) heavy annotation of the passage structure (the form) and 2) active abbreviation of main ideas as I read to reinforce and memorize relevant info (the content).

All RC Passages have the same deep, basic structure, in that they track a linear thought progression with claims and supporting examples. Avant-garde lyric poetry this is not.

The first paragraph of each RC passage is basically the "opening statement" for the passage and helps to introduce the general idea, argument or thesis. In fact, the passage itself is basically the central idea, argument or thesis come to life in a more expansive way. Generally, the opening statement of the passage begins by providing a tiny bit of context, then either a) states an Overarching Claim or Thesis To Be Supported, or b) showcases a Unique Perspective that Needs To Be Explored or Countered, or c) names The General Problem At Hand. Sometimes it skips the context and goes straight to the general idea. As soon as you encounter these elements, in the left-hand margin scribble down CTX for context next to context, then put a CIRCLE or BOX around the claim, problem or important viewpoint, then scribble "claim" or "prob" or "view" next to that and then draw a line to the circled claim/problem/viewpoint. If you find the Main Point, write MP next to it. You should ALWAYS box ALL authorial names and the term "some x" that denotes the perspective of some scientists, some historians, etc., and then draw a hanging arrow from the box leading out to the left hand margin, because the LSAT always comes back to the viewpoint of at least one of these groups or persons in its questions. That arrow and box will help you find these viewpoints right away.

After the passage's opening statement, the passage goes to into its big PROBLEM TO BE RESOLVED schtick. It names either a Problem (P), Issue (I) or Question (Q) that will be explored, resolved, supported or countered later in the passage. Typically, 2-4 additional P's, I's or Q's will also arise throughout the passage, in a linear fashion. In the left hand margin, if you encounter a question, write out Q1 in the left hand margin, if it's an issue, use I1, if a problem, use P1, etc. These concepts are very similar but not exactly equivalent, so it's up to you if you want to distinguish between them from passage to passage or just use one abbreviation for all of RC. Typically, each passage will stick to either Q's, P's or I's throughout; so try to use the same abbreviation every time. Anyhow, pretty much immediately after (or slightly after) a Q1, I1 or P1 is raised in the passage, you will find an Answer related to that Q, that I or that P. Next to that Answer, write A1. I make gratuitous use of circling and drawing lines from the notations of Q1 or A1 in the left-hand margin to the Question or Answer they refer to in the passage itself. With a connecting line, you can refer back to it later right away. It's basically just connect the dots. After you encounter and mark A1, you may then encounter additional support, evidence or examples that back up A1. Scribble "supp," "evi", or "ex" next to it and keep reading. Continuing to read, you will likely then come across a second question, issue or problem - mark that as Q2, I2 or P2 (whatever it is). Or, you may instead come across another answer to the first question that was raised - mark that as A2. Keep reading and marking. Every time you find a Q, P or I, and their corresponding A's, mark them as Q1, Q2, Q3, or A1, A2, A3, etc. and then draw a line from that notation to the Q or A it refers to. As stated above, scribble quick abbreviations for things like meth(od), evi(dence), supp(ort), tech(nique), ex(ample), counter whenever you find them. This technique outlines the structure of the argument right there on your left hand margin, and solidifies it in your mind. You will end up with something like "Q1, A1, supp, ex, Q2, A2, counter, Q3, A3, MP" right down the left side of the passage. So, so, so helpful for me. Also important: do NOT forget to write out the word COUNTER in the left-hand margin next to any counterarguments presented that counter or object to the passage's own argument(s). Also, do not neglect to read, understand and note the Honorable Mention of Further Suggestions for Research or Theoretical Inquiry that are usually laid out at the end of the passage. If that's not there, the end of the passage is probably a re-statement of the argument's conclusion or gives a grand teleogical justification for the argument's thesis. Just remember that the left hand column is reserved for an outline of your argument's FORM, and not it's content.

PART ONE OF THREE - KEEP GOING TO PART TWO

Hi Guys,

I am going through the parallel thing and I think I have to look at the advanced logic first in order to do them.

Do you guys felt the same thing?

Is there a list anywhere of challenging logic games (of all types) that are important to know inside and out, as part of LG prep?

Or is there a way to sort 7Sage's LG explanations by the difficulty column? Apologies if I'm missing it.

To my fellow 7sagers and LSAT warriors,

I would like to share my story prior to scores being released with the hopes of encouraging anyone who scores below their target.

First, if you happen to get a low score don’t worry about it, it’s not the end of the world. Do not spend the day beating yourself up over it. This is an incredibly hard test. The LSAT is probably the hardest thing I’ve ever undertaken in my life.

I decided I wanted to become an attorney way back in 2011. I had zero academic skills or knowledge when I began my journey. I mean ZERO. I don’t even have a high school diploma. I’ve failed countless times since then however every time I failed I paused, figured out what I did wrong, fixed it and kept going. I now have a BA in PSCI.

If a stranger would have come up to me and tell me that in 17 years I would be a combat veteran with a degree and hopes for law school I would have laughed in their face and called them insane.

The point I am trying to make is that if you are unhappy with your score don’t get upset and don’t worry, it is not the end of the world.

If you decide that you must put off applying, do not let, that upset you too much. Any thing good in life takes time, hard work, and dedication. I am 33 yrs old, and am 90% sure that I’m going to have to retake. I doubt I will start l1 until I am 34.

I would like to share some advice given to my by my former plt. Commander who now owns his own firm and argued in front of the 9th circuit as a law student. He told me that I will face many obstacles and setbacks. However, when that happens I need to step back, do an AAR, figure out what I did wrong, learn from it, don’t dwell on it and move on.

I just thought I would do my best to encourage everyone here that no matter how hard or bad it gets, DON’T QUIT!! NEVER GIVE UP!

I sincerely hope all of you receive great news today or tomorrow. I have enjoyed reading all the posts here at 7sage. Thank you for reading my jumbled incoherent attempt at encouragement!

-Paul Pederson

(JY, Dillon, and the rest of 7sage staff, you all are amazing. I can not thank you enough for what you have done and continue to do with 7sage and LSAT prep. From the bottom of my heart, thank you.)

Experimental LR: Bumblebees and sleep study, Valley United

Real LR 1: The tiktaalik fish

Can't remember questions from the second LR, my apologies

Edit: LR 2: Pet allergies?

Real Games: which office floor on what day, which train stations are out of service, something with H before R

Real Reading: Chinese dialects, Multiverse and movies, Social Darwinism, Comedians and Chefs

Good Luck

I've been studying for the LSAT for almost a year, will be taking the Feb. Test. My biggest struggle by far is LG, strictly due to time. I finish with a good score, but always with one game left. I've been looking into the full proof method, and I have just a few general questions, if you could help me out that would be very appreciated!

1) The method states that you should make inferences by memory with speed and control on 10 clean copies of a game that gives you trouble. Does this mean I just have to make the inferences, and move on? Or does it mean I have to do the entire game 10 times, with speed and control? The main issue here is that I memorized the answers for each question, so doing the actual questions is unfair. So is it just to memorize the inferences up front so you can reproduce them quickly on a different game?

2) Does this method work for weird games? I know generally it does not, seeing as how the inferences are supposed to be reproduced. Just wondering if I should apply it to "weird" games also.

Thank you! Good luck on the LSAT, whenever you find yourself taking it.

Hi,

I haven't been able to sleep well ever since I took the LSAT. Is there anyone else who is as anxious? Do you have any tips to handle the anxiety? I know these are stupid questions to ask, but this group has provided me with support through my prep so I figured why not? It will help to know I am not alone.

The argument breakdown is as follows:

P1: Surgical procedures differ in one important aspect from medicinal drugs.

P2: This one important aspect is that a correctly prescribed drug depends for its effectiveness only on the drug's composition, while the effectiveness of even the most appropriate surgical procedure is transparently related to the skills of the surgeon who uses it.

C: The proposal to extend clinical trials to new surgical procedures should not be implemented.

So we are looking for the flawed reasoning. I was able to eliminate B, C, and E, but my worry is that I also eliminated A (the correct answer) and chose D, not because I liked D, but by POE.

Would someone be willing to explain to me why A is the correct answer? The argument is saying that the extension should not happen, and it seems that A would only add a premise, rather than constitute a flaw. Is the flaw because the stimulus only mentions one important point at which they differ, and A is pointing out a second important point?

(Also, on a side note, has anyone ever come across a flawed reasoning question where the answer was "the argument is flawed because they didn't cite any scientific evidence"? I am usually quick to eliminate these because, logically speaking, an argument works with the evidence it is given and draws conclusions from that. Sometimes they are terrible conclusions, but regardless, one does not need scientific evidence to validate a terrible argument. If we are speaking scientifically, empirical evidence is clearly important. But, for our purposes, I just don't see how a lack of scientific evidence can ever be the logical flaw in an argument. I chose D for this answer, already suspecting it was wrong, but I did so by POE. Any thoughts on this?)

Thanks!