Can someone clarify the following?

At least B as A: B≥A

At most B as A: B≤A

Or vice versa....?

I am getting confused so much! plz help!!! :D (3 Thank you 7sagers!(/p)

Hello! I didn't see any prior discussions on this question, and it's confusing me a bit so I wanted to get some outside opinions!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-4-question-17/

We have an underlying principle/SA question which means that our answer needs to fill the logic gap pretty much completely.

Background info says that confidence of a testimony has little correlation with the accuracy of said testimony.

Support says that factors can alter the confidence of a testimony without changing its accuracy.

Conclusion says that police officers shouldn't allow situations where witnesses giving testimony can hear other witnesses giving testimonies.

The designated correct answer for gives us the principle that the confidence in one's testimony is affected by seeing other testimonies. To me, this leaped out as a wrong answer choice because the passage seems to suggest that confidence in one's testimony doesn't really matter, so there would be no incentive to prevent it.

D, on the other hand, seemed to fill the gap using unusual, but plausibly correct logic. If the police, for some reason, cared about confidence more than accuracy, factors that change confidence would want to be controlled. I don't know why Police would want to know about confidence rather than accuracy, but it's not our job as test takers to question the likelihood of a gap-closer to occur in the real world; we want to know if that gap closer, taken as it is, would bridge the support with the conclusion.

D does it in an ugly fashion, but I don't think A does it at all. Knowing that viewing other testimonies can alter confidence doesn't give us any logical reason for police officers wanting to prevent it. We can't bridge the gap between evidence and officers stopping testimony exposure without understanding the criterion based on which an officer would want to prevent testimony exposure. Even if you make the least extreme assumption and consider that police would want to stop something that alters the accuracy of a testimony, (since accuracy of evidence is important to court cases) answer A becomes more flawed in that it gives the support an attribute that the police wouldn't care about, or use in a decision for policy.

Any help is appreciated :) Thanks guys!

Hey everyone,

So question 24 in section 2 of Prep Test 61.

This question I've been trying to grapple with for 3 days (seriously). I understand how conditionals work, but this question just doesn't work for me no matter how many times I do it, or listen to J.Y's explanation. I'm getting caught up on two things:

Here is the question:

Stimulus: It is unlikely that someone would see history as the working out of moral themes unless he or she held clear and unambiguous moral beliefs. However, one's inclination to morally judge human behavior decreases as one's knowledge of history increases. Consequently, the more history a person knows, the less likely that person is to view history as the working out of moral themes.

Stem: The conclusion of the argument is properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?

So the right answer is:

B) The less inclined one is to morally judge human behavior, the less likely it is that one holds clear and unambiguous moral beliefs.

I actually got the right answer, but only through process of eliminating the wrong answers. I couldn't get full connection in this argument to get the answer as the missing sufficient assumption and it is driving me full out mad :)

The first thing that bothers me about this argument is the "unlikely" at the beginning, which I'm not sure exactly what to do with. The second thing is that the second premise [one's inclination to morally judge human behavior decreases as one's knowledge of history increases] does not ring to me as a conditional if/then type of sentence. I see that they are connected, but decreasing/increasing relationships aren't something I see fitting well into a conditional sentence sequence.

Secondly, even if I grant that this is a conditional statement, this is the logic drawing I end up with:

[P1] See history as working out of moral themes (SHWMT) ---> holds clear and unambiguous beliefs (HCUMB)

[P2] Morally judge human behavior decreases (MJHBd) ---> Knowledge of history increases (KHi)

[Conclusion] The more history a person knows (KHi) --> the less likely they are to view history as the working out of moral themes (/SHWMT)

So if I was to write this out in pure logic:

SHWMT --> HCUMB

MJHBd --> KHi

KHi --> /SHWMT

So even if I grant the weird statements around increasing/decreasing I still can't get from this to the missing premise:

The less inclined one is to morally judge human behavior (MJHBd) --> the less likely it is that one holds clear and unambiguous moral beliefs (/HCUMB)

MJHBd --> /HCUMB

I just can't wrap my head around this one as logically connecting in a sequence chain. Am I just having a brain stall?

Any thoughts @Sami ? :)

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-61-section-2-question-24/

Hi when will the logic game explanations be available for June 2017 lsat PT81?

Thanks

So I've been reading a lot about how the recent exams have started incorporating more "weird games," i.e. ones that aren't the traditional grouping, sequencing, in/out games (labelled as Misc. here at 7sage). For example, the infamous "virus" game, which I haven't tried yet, but from what I understand was notoriously difficult and weird.

I was just wondering whether these "weird" games are completely new, or are actually just a different form of one of the Misc. games that have appeared in older tests. In other words, if I fool proofed 1-35, will I be safe in tackling these sorts of games? Have any of these recent weird games been completely new and have no analogous counterparts in PTs 1-35?

Thanks for the help!

I got some questions... Can someone help me find the inferences of following?

.

• M←/→N→O inference:

I believe no inference can be made ….. or is it O←s→/M?????

.

• P -m→ Q ←/→R inference:

P -m→/R

.

• A←s→B←/→C inference:

Again, I don't think there is any inference that can be made …….. but some people say A←s→/C, /C←s→A...

.

.

.

.

.

Can someone plz help me find the correct inference? Thank you!!! (3(/p)

I might just be venting right now, but I can not for the life of me get LR down to 0 - 2 range. My brain just doesn't want to grasp it! The questions always seem to stump me in just the right way during timed sections and then when I see them again with time make 100% of sense. I sit down and right out why every answer is wrong and why one is right. I go back to the CC on how to approach different types, I do LR many, many many, times per week.

GAH.

Okay sorry, but for real its getting under my skin.

I took the June 2017 test, scored a 172. Goal was 176+. I definitely have room for improvement on LR, but I think I know how to approach that. RC I'm a little more unsure about. For reference, I was -3 on RC on the June test and that's right around where I usually score.

I've heard of people drilling RC but I don't know what that actually entails. Anyone have experience with that?

I've used PowerScore, LSAT Hacks, LSAT Trainer, and other tutor's videos on how to approach a passage. I've found that notation is distracting and prevents me from reading the passage. I just sort of read the passage, don't move on to the questions until I understand it and then when I answer questions I either go back and reference lines or I just know the answer. In other words, I just wing it.

If you had 6 weeks to dedicate just to RC, how would you structure that time?

Hey all, could anyone please help with finding grouping games wherein there are subcategories BUT we are not given which game piece belongs to which category and we are also not given the number of game pieces to be alloted to each group. For example - 3 groups - A, B and C, 7 game pieces, sub categories scientists and philosophers, atleast 2 scientists are there and maximum 3 people in group A, something of this sort.

I have been able to find grouping games with sub categories but the games do give which game piece falls in which category.

Similarly sequencing games with sub categories in which the game pieces are undefined with respect to their categories AND not all game pieces are to be sequenced, some are left out so there is a little subsidiary in out game going on as well.

Hello, 7Sage!

So I just took the LSAT for the second time in June and got a 163. I took it the previous June and got a 159. I'm trying to stay positive about the improvement, but I was consistently scoring around 168 for the two weeks before my last test after 4 months of studying and working through the 7Sage basic curriculum - so I'm feeling like there is potential for improvement. BUT is it worth it to take the test for a third time? Does anyone know if the third attempt looks bad on an application, even if it is an improvement?

Thanks for the advice!!

I was thrown off by the question stem for A.1.23, in which it asks, "The Y's response would most seriously call into question which one of the following conclusions, if that conclusion were drawn on the basis of the evidence given by X?" Does this question stem appear in the recent PTs (70+)?

Fellow 7Sagers,

My current situation is the following: I score in the 171-177 range, and my most consistent scores lie between 172 and 174. The only reason I'm not scoring consistently in the high 170s is the RC section. I currently miss anywhere from 3 to 6 questions. My pacing strategy is good, so I'm not suffering from time issues. I usually do really well on 3 passages and miss a couple questions on one of the passages, which negatively impacts my raw score in the section. I'm interested in feedback from people who are currently scoring -0 - -2 on the RC section. Thank you.

Sup y'all,

So just got my score back (159), but I really wanted closer to a 165 so I def plan on retaking it in September. My weakest section was Reading Comp, and I was wondering if I could get some input on how I should go about studying these next few months. I was thinking about getting a power score bible for reading, and doing that 4 days a week,then doing 2 days a week LR and 1 day a week LG.

Open to suggestions though if anyone with more experience thinks my game plan is faulty.

Thanks in advance.

The negation of poor is not poor. The question assumes that you are either rich or else poor. What about the middle class?

Hi,

I understand that answer choice D is correct, but I have been struggling for quite a bit on eliminating answer choice B. Can anyone explain why this is incorrect?

When I was doing this question, I noticed two errors in reasoning, notably: 1) concluding a "must" causation from what people believed, and 2) that evidence of "historians" were being used to lead to a conclusion of a matter of natural science (or physiology).

Answer choice B seems pretty much right on the spot with the second. B reads: it cites the evidence of historians of popular culture (that people had a widespread belief on yawning was common in many parts of the world in the past) in direct support of a claim (that someone else yawning must be the most irresistible cause) that lies outside their area of expertise.

I took it to be true that discerning the physiological causation mechanisms of yawning is indeed outside the area of history. What may have gone wrong? Thanks!

I'm a bit bummed -- scored 2 points higher than where I was averaging my first few practice tests and 6 points under my average across my most recent 20 (in fact, the lowest of those by far). While it's a good score, after spending 3 months studying full time and $1000 on the course and study materials, a 2 point increase makes me nauseous to say the least. A big part of my score was RC, missed 7 right off the bat.

With my GPA, I don't have a shot at T-14 schools, so now I'm weighing my options. I could retake in September, but I feel like I've expended my study options. I used the Ultimate 7Sage pack, did most drills, completed the Core Curriculum, and did all of the PTs. I could study by retaking practice tests, but I worry it would not be very useful to do so, especially because I went over the questions I missed over and over again. I realize this score was a fluke compared to my trends, but I am not sure how I can keep my average up through September without new questions to work from.

Is it worth retaking? Part of me feels like it'll just be a waste of time and effort. Advice appreciated!

In levels of validity are the question types the same ?

So after 12 hours of going through my PT, BRing and reviewing each question i have located my weakness: seeing and diagramming logical chains in LR. I am getting tripped up with SA and Parallels . How did you guys get past seeing all the fluff and just seeing the logical structure? I cant seem to separate whats important for the logic? I know all the indicators and the theory behind parsing out sentences from JY. Anything specifically that helped you?

Hi all, I am currently going through the CC, specifically the weakening questions. I have found that in many of these questions, identifying the conclusion seems pretty straightforward (thus, therefore), and even at the end of the paragraph. However, I keep thinking of MP and MSS questions, where conclusion indicators at the end are often traps for a sub-conclusion. What are your experiences with conclusion indicator traps? Do they typically just apply to MSS and MP, or should I continue to look for them, even in weakening and other LR questions?

Does anyone have an educated guess as to what the curve possibly could be?

I took PT 66 RC a week ago and got -16. Without BRing for it I retook it just now and ended up with -13. Not much difference! I had to skip the last passage AGAIN and got stuck between 2 answer choices in 10 questions. The ACs were much harder to eliminate and I felt I was in a foreign land of RC. I felt so lost and confused throughout the proces. I wanted to test whether it was a major burnout or RC got significantly harder for me and unfortunately it was the latter. In PT 62 I had a similar experience with -16. I scored -7 (PT65), -5(PT64), -9 (PT63) but WTH went wrong with those two...? I'm wondering if anyone had a similar experience... I am scared of taking PT 67 to experience another FALL. Really hoping this RC was harder for a lot of people. Any advice on how to BR this PT RIGHT would be much appreciated. HELP ME.

In my drills (20's to 30's), I score -3/-4 for easier sections and -1/-2 for harder sections. What does this mean and has this happened to any of you? How do I overcome this?

Sharing this in hopes that it might be useful to some:

In an effort to feel more comfortable with "mathy" questions (involving proportions, percentages, averages...), I searched the discussion forum for a list of such questions and it seems that only @dannyshaw had looked for something similar.

I quickly realized that there were lots of them, at least 4-5 questions in each PT. I found them by searching "proportions", "percent", or "average" in my digital PTs. Does anyone have any suggestions of what other keywords to search? I can also come up with "number", "incidence", and "prevalence", but those don't seem to come up as frequently.

Has anyone else drilled these types of questions? Is it more useful to read something like How to Lie with Statistics than drill?

These are several "mathy" questions I found just in PTs 1 and 2.

PT01.S3.Q11 - proportion

PT01.S3.Q21 - proportion

PT01.S3.Q12 - average

PT01.S4.Q04 - percent

PT02.S2.Q04 - average

PT02.S2.Q14 - average

PT02.S2.Q16-17 - percent

PT02.S4.Q05 - proportion

PT02.S4.Q15 - percent

Cheers!

So i see that some LR Qs will say if .A. it is likely that .B.

Is this conditional?

JY talks about how these are freebies but i am really struggling with them. And i dont think its an issue in my understanding of logic