Discussions

LSAT

New post

312 posts in the last 30 days

This is a Method of Reasoning question.

I really need help in understanding why answer choice C is wrong. I understand why A is correct and why the other ones are wrong, my reasoning is below:

A) The premise is more people would put money in their savings accounts, the challenge is the past initiative with money being diverted from personal savings and net personal savings remaining unchanged.

B) The disagreement is with the author and a group of policymakers not "among policymakers".

C) I really don't know, this answer choice looks good to me. Isn't the author saying it is more likely to fail because of initiatives in the past did not bring about the change the policymakers desire. Would this answer choice be incorrect because it is too definite?

D) This one can be eliminated because we do not know that this group of policymakers are the same policymakers that advocated the past initiatives. Perhaps they were young kids during that time and not policymakers.

E) The author is not disputing the assumption that a program to encourage personal savings is needed, he is trying to dispute the fact that it will work. He indicates it is not likely to work because of attempts in the past that failed.

0

I don't know about any of you, but RC was my weakest section. I was shocked at this because I am a very good reader. What I have concluded is it was my weakest section because of attitude towards it, not because I don't understand the material. Ever since I changed my attitude about the section, my score improved. I tried really hard to be positive and WANT to do the section, rather than HAVING to do the section. I also tried to steer away from looking at the questions as simply questions and I started to look at it is as more of figuring out a puzzle ( answering the questions is putting the puzzle together). I found I was better able to interact with the passage and the questions.

Maybe I am actually just going insane, but I think attitude is everything.

Happy studying you smarties :)

1

For some reason I can't remember exactly what these question types are called, but they're typically at the beginning of each section and read something like, "Which one of the following could be the composition of each of the teams...." So if someone could refresh my memory on what exactly this question type is called....that would be great!

For these questions we're supposed to go through the rules one by one and eliminate incorrect answers.

My question is this: Typically I find that each rule eliminates ONLY 1 answer choice. There are rare instances where a rule will eliminate 2 answer choices, but this is rare. After I identify an answer choice that a rule eliminates, should I continue to apply that rule to the other options, or can I move on to the next rule. In the interest of time, I've been moving on to the next rule after eliminating an answer choice.

0

So the correct answer is A. I'm really confused by the answer choices and the stimulus.

When I read it, I initially thought this is an extreme example that uses examples within examples because the whole point of the example is that people would elect to feel 75% of their age. However, the example keeps going back with the ages and I don't think his ultimate conclusion is representative of how someone at 48 years old would feel.

My issue with A is it says projecting many responses from many individuals, and while the stimulus acknowledges that it's example is using a hypothetical person not all the diversity of age responses recorded.

B) looked very attractive to me

C) Also looks attractive, but I think there isn't an overly sweeping generalization, it is making a generalization from recorded responses.

D) The first part of this looks good to me, but the author never claims one of the statements is false, he uses it to prove a point.

E) There is nothing about experimenter expectations of respondents, or manipulation of responses, so I think this answer choice is irrelevant.

PLEASE HELP!! Because I hate this question and am really stuck. :/

0

My plan was to wait until 4 weeks to rip into the most recent ptests (60s and 70s). Someone who took the LSAT told me to do these recent tests closer to the test date since they are fresh tests that gauge my skills and give me a good indication of what I'll score.

But I'm thinking that it's more important to get a feel for the modern tests earlier than it is to get an indication of what I'll score. Maybe I should just get started on these already?

(p.s. I've already done some p-tests in those range: 60-64, 68, 69, 70, 72)

Thanks, y'all!

0

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-1-question-21/

I narrowed this question down to A and B but ultimately chose A.

A isn't necessarily wrong, but since this is a "most closely conforms" question, B was determined to more closely conform to the advertisers reasoning. I understand how this could be the case, but it does raise a question about relative terms like "many."

I'm hoping someone can provide some clarity.

The stimulus says that, "advertisers will not pay to have their commercials aired during a TV show unless many people watching the show buy the advertised products."

Correct Answer (B) states, "If a TV show would be canceled unless many people took certain actions..."

When many is used in the stimulus it is used to refer to a subset of people. Namely, those who watch a specific show.

When many is used in (B), it is used in a general sense.

I crossed (B) off because I thought these two instances of "many" were very different.

Say 200 people watch a certain show. Let's say many people, in this instance, is 150 people. In the general sense, this might not be considered many people, since many is a relative term. I mean, if we're just talking generally, who knows what many is.

0

I was watching J.Y explanation for PT 68 Game 2 and he mentions that the stimulus allows for one day to be empty, and later on using the rules he infers that none of the days will be empty. But during the time section when I was reading the stimulus I thought otherwise because it mentions "hearing takes exactly three days" and I automatically thought this means at least one witness per day because if one day is empty the hearing does not takes exactly three days but happens between Monday to Wednesday.

My question is that, did I get lucky or I am allowed to make such deduction?

0

This is a method of reasoning question. I don't understand answer choices A and C. If someone could explain those to me, I would be most appreciative!

A) Literary theory could be considered myths. What throws me off of this one is scientific explanation, couldn't it mean that the second part of J's argument "Myths are not told..because they are no longer bodies of generally accepted truths.." be considered a scientific explanation supporting his first claim? The only thing that makes me think you could eliminate this answer choice is the word problem, because he and G never indicate that there is a problem of myths only giving different explanations (one saying it is solely in the traditional world, and another saying it can also be in the modern world).

B) While G advances an analogous situation, this answer choice can be eliminated because it is not address the generally accepted truths aspect and acknowledges its example is not a narrative which would not be included in J's version of myth.

C) I have no idea other than J does address a distinction between traditional societies and the modern world.

D) It does not do this, regardless this is irrelevant.

E) It does call into question J's version/definition of myth by showing an example where a myth is not a narrative but still operates as a myth.

Please help! Thanks!!

0

This is a method of reasoning questions.

If someone can explain to me why B and D are incorrect and C is correct I would really appreciate it. This is my reasoning:

A) A does not accept C's criterion, she says concepts were widely understood.

B) She does discredit C's evidence by saying that the concept was widely understood in Franchot's time, so she was not ahead of her time. I guess this is wrong bc she does not generalize from new evidence, but couldn't one say she is generalizing by stating what the stipulations for a great writer are? I guess you could mark this as wrong because there isn't any new evidence other than her claim that social consequences were widely understood (but we do not know that this is new evidence, correct?)

C) This seems correct because A rejects C's criterion for what makes a great writer and disputes the specific claim that F was a great writer.

D) She does dispute C's conclusion. She says F was not a great writer and she does present facts for the same criterion (what makes a great writer), it is alternative in the sense that it has different requirements.

E) A does not attack one of C's claims, she simply disagrees with it. She does not criticize the structure of C's argument.

So if someone could go over B and D with me, I would be incredibly grateful. Also, if you could look at my reasoning and see if it is ok, I would be incredibly appreciative.

Thank you in advance!!

0

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-4-game-4/

I have a question about one of the rules...the rule says "S CAN be earlier than Q only if Q is third." I thought it is different from saying "S IS earlier than Q only if Q is third" so I thought S is not nec. to be earlier than Q or if we take the contrapositive of the rule, when Q is not third, we do not have to have Q-S.

But when I watched the video JY explained we actually treat it same as other rules that do not cantain CAN.

So we do not have to take it consideration? (the word "can")

0

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-3-question-16/

So I was not sure about the term switching..."the most important problems" in the conclusion and "important problems" in the premise. So I expected to see something related to that in the correct answer...but is this actually not an important switching?

And that's why I was not sure about the term "few important problems" in A...and thought B is correct because it contains "the most important problems."

0

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-3-question-20/

I was not sure between B and D.

I thought B is correct because it bases its conclusion on premise which contradicts one of its premise...

(It says "the odds are overwhelming that we would be alive during this period too" while also says "because we are not alive during this period")

Is B wrong because they are both premises and one of them is hypothesis?

By the way regarding D...isn't that "not alive during this period" seems true because how can ppl live so long? (It would take centuries right?) The question is not asking flaw in the argument, but I was just wondering whether the argument is valid or not.

Thanks,

0

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-2-question-12/

I was not sure between B and D...

As for D, I thought the word "It fails to address..." Does the argument have to address it? I thought if so to make an argument people would need to address all aspects or components relate to the argument, and was not sure it is necessary to make an argument. So I thought the flaw is more likely "It takes for granted..." in this argument. (B and D mention similar things anyway)

So B was more attracting for me...

At first I thought the word "remotely" may be wrong, but the argument only says "personal reasons" and this could include "remotely association" if it is personal related, so I chose B. Why we are not allowed to think this way?

Thank you in advance.

0

Hi,

I just reviewed the embedded conditional lecture by J.Y.

I now understand why A -> (B->C) becomes A and B -> C

I was wondering what happens if (A->B) -> C appears in the stimulus.

When I tried to translate the conditional by myself

I got this.

(A->B) -> C

~(A->B) or C

~(~A or B) or C

(A and ~B) or C

~A or B -> C

Is this correct? I think there is something wrong about this... but I don't seem to get the exact reason why...

Please help me out 7sagers! :)

0

So, I'm drilling Method of Reasoning questions and this is a question I got wrong.

I think I understand why A-D are wrong, but I don't understand why E is correct.

A) The two individuals only discuss avoidable risks

B) Not having a reference to context is not the issue, the situations discussed are clearly referred

appropriately

C) There isn't confusion the risk is clear

D) This is the answer choice I chose bc I was so confused with the answer choices, anyhow upon blind review I said precision is new information

If someone can tell me if my reasoning seems ok and why E is correct, I would be most appreciative.

Thanks in advance!

0

Hey Everyone,

Just wanted to seek some advice from other 7sagers on tackling Flaw question types.

I have gone over the syllabus a few times on these questions and even memorized the different flaws that could arise. However, I am still averaging around 45 to 50% correct when dealing with these questions. (got the score from my LSAT analytics).

Im following the two step test - 1) Facts 2) flaw but still struggle with these questions.

Can anyone recommend any methods you have used in trying to improve with these question types. Ive noticed these question types appear quite a bit on the LR sections.

Thanks :)

0

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-4-question-20/

Could someone please explain why answer A is correct. I can get there by process of elimination as I understand fully why the other answers are incorrect. But I'd really like to understand the reasoning between A so I can say I have a "full understanding" of this question. It would be helpful if someone could give an example using numbers.

0

I'm just wondering how I should study for RC?

Obviously Blind Review, but how much time should I spend going back and trying to figure out why my wrong answers were wrong? 99% of the time I can get the right answer. That's not difficult. It's doing it in the time constraint.

0

I would like to ask this question.

For relative ordering.

Q - R- P - L

l

G - F

Given the above, who is, could, should or would be first and last and what is the order and ranking?

Also for the same problem.

Y - Z

l

V - W - M - X

l l

K C

Would someone please help me to understand this relative ordering. Thank You.

0

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-1-question-25/

All of the statements follow logically EXCEPT:

A. Some influential art involves original ideas

B. Some 20th century art involves original ideas

C. Only art that involves original ideas is influential (CORRECT ANSWER)

D. Only art that is influential and involves original ideas is great art

E. Some 20th century art is influential and involves original ideas

Can someone explain why C is correct?

I went through and did my conditional diagramming:

Some 20h century art>> great art

Great art>>>original ideas ...... contrapositive: not original ideas>>> not great art

not influential>>> not great art ..... contrapositive: great art>> influential

So i can understand how great art is influential and involves original ideas but I am still unsure of why C is right. Is it because involving original ideas does not necessarily mean its influential?

0

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-69-section-1-question-22/

Hi, I have a question...

I eliminated B because of the word "most." If this says all or significantly large or something like that, it was easier to see it's the correct answer I think.

In the stimulus, it says "Most of our best sales....no experience."

How can we use B to weaken the "Most" in the stimulus?

I chose E, I know the word "some" is kind of weak, but I remember in some PTs I took before the correct answers included "some" (because other answers were not good compared to the ones).

Could anyone explain why B is good enough to weaken the "most" part in the stimulus and if there are other reasons, besides the "some" part in E, why E is wrong?

Thank you in advance,

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?