https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-2-question-06/

I hate that I'm getting stumped by a question this early in the section, but I've gotten this wrong both timed and also during blind review. I keep choosing C, although the answer is B:

(paraphrased stimulus)

Legislator: Your agency is responsible for regulating an industry shaken by scandals. We gave you funds for 500 investigators but you only hired 400. I conclude that you intentionally limited hiring in order to prevent the full extent of the scandals from being revealed.

Regulator: No, we tried hiring the 500 investigators, but the starting salaries were frozen so low by the legislature that it was impossible to attract enough qualified applicants.

Q: The regulator responds to the legislator's criticism by...

B. providing info that challenges the legislator's conclusion

C. claiming that complying with the legislature's mandate would have been an insufficient response

I chose C. because the regulator was saying that complying with the legislature's mandate (the one to hire 500 investigators with low frozen salaries) would have been an insufficient response (in combating the scandals)

I see why B would be the right answer since the regulator introduces new information that suggests an alternative explanation, which challenges the legislator's conclusion. I'm just not sure why C is wrong.

Any help would be much appreciated! I have tried to find this explanation or discussion of this question online elsewhere and haven't been able to.

Hi folks,

I'm struggling with this question in BR. So I figured I'd post my reasoning and see what you all think of it.

Debater:

Premise 1:Because lecturers are superior to students in mastery, lecturing requires hierarchy.

Premise 2: People learn best from peer interaction.

Conclusion: Hierarchy in lecturing is a weakness.

Respondent:

Premise 1: Because teaching/learning requires simple to complex instruction, teaching/learning requires hierarchy.

Illustration of premise: In math, you must learn arithmetic before calculus.

Conclusion: Hierarchy in lecturing is a strength.

What the respondents' reply most vulnerable to criticism for?

There is more than one flaw, so I listed the ones I could see.

Flaw 1: Response does not address what is sufficient for a strength or defend against a weakness, it simply states that it is required.

Flaw 2: Requirement/necessity does not equal strength.

I'm sure there are more, but those were most obvious to me.

A: Initially I thought this was correct because I thought the argument ignored some assumptions of the debater. But it doesn't. When the debater assumes that peer interaction implies not hierarchy, the respondent responds all teaching/learning is hierarchical.

B: We must accept the premises as true so the argument did not assume that methods in math are as effective in other disciplines. It's an illustration of the premise. Eliminated.

C: Irrelevant to Respondent's argument. We are only talking about whether hierarchy is a strength or a weakness.

D: This is correct. They are talking about two different kinds of hierarchy. The first is lecturer to student hierarchy, the second is simple to complex material hierarchy!

E: Again, must accept premises as true.

Found the correct flaw! They're talking about TWO different kinds of hierarchy! Woo.

Wow. In the 30 minute process of typing this post, I figured it out. If this isn't a good advertisement for a damn good blind review process, I don't know what is. I started out defending A was correct, realized it was wrong, and figured out D was correct. Woo!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-1-question-16/

Define, undefined, or partially defined

Can someone help me out with this one? Apparently the correct answer is E, but I'm not particularly able to pin down the argument structure or understand what it is trying to say and why it is flawed in the respect indicated by the correct answer choice.

Thanks!!

I have commented in the past about what I call the "some people say" principle. I have just finished checking every "main conclusion" question in Preptests 62-71, and have found that the "some people say" formula appears in 14 out of 27 MC questions. In every single one of these instances, the "main conclusion" can be easily and accurately determined by taking the "some people say" text and negating it. (In many cases, the stimulus does this for you--the next sentence after a "some people say" formula is often something like, "But these critics are wrong," or "This suggestion is unreliable, because..."

Just curious because at first glance these are a little bit more difficult than regular linear games and grouping games

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-3-question-17/

Any food that is not sterilized and sealed can contain bacteria

JY’s translation: /Sterilized or /Sealed -> can contain bacteria

Jy mentions DeMorgan’s law to reach the translation.

Could somebody explain how the translation works this way?

I initially translated the statement as: /Sterilized and Sealed -> can contain bacteria

Hi all,

Find that I'm having a very difficult time coming to terms with the right answer choice for this question. I find that B makes too large of an assumption (in assuming that the tools didn't come to the possession of prehistoric ancestors who did not stand upright by some other means) to be effective in weakening the argument. I've tried to see the fault in the other answer choices so that I could at least learn to get to the answer by process of elimination and find myself stuck on D. I've watched the video with J.Y.'s explanation, and I don't know if I'm misreading the way that answer choice is framed, but to me "first" doesn't imply they had JUST stood up. I read it as they were the first individuals who managed to do it. Been stuck on this question for a couple days now. I would love to have a discussion about this question with you guys to see it from a different perspective. I can't help but see D as a more effective answer choice than B, and I know there is no point in arguing with the test.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-49-section-2-question-14/

Hello, all!

I have a question about the negation of a particular comparative statement that I encountered in the third quiz on negation in the curriculum. Here is that statement: "Small animals can move more rapidly than large animals can." That statement is, of course, negated as others are: "It's not the case that small animals can move more rapidly than large animals can." But the implications of this negated statement confuse me. The implications of this statement are explained to be that either (1) small and large animals move with equal rapidity or (2) large animals move more rapidly than small animals. But why must the entire group of small animals either move in one of these two ways? Don't these implications only account for the negation of the quality on which the two groups are being compared, yet neglect the quantity? Isn't the original statement quantified?

I have a feeling that I'm not being clear, so let me explain further.

Because the author is talking about these animals as sets - small animals and large animals - can we infer that he or she is talking about all small animals and all large animals? Can we thus read this statement as, "All small animals can move more rapidly than large animals can"? If we can, would not the negation of this statement be, "Some small animals cannot move more rapidly than large animals"? From this statement, we would know that there is at least one small animal (yet possibly all) that cannot move more rapidly than large animals. And because we would know that at least one small animal animal (yet possibly all) cannot move more rapidly than large animals, we would also know that there is at least one small animal (yet possibly all) that moves either equally rapidly or less rapidly than larger animals can. Isn't this all that we need to negate the original statement - merely one small animal that moves equally rapidly or less rapidly as large animals? This would deny the truth of "small animals move more rapidly than large animals," wouldn't it? Wouldn't this account for both the quality on which these groups are being compared and the quantity?

Of course, my entire paragraph above relies on an assumption about which I'm unsure that I can make: I took for granted the we can read the original statement as, "All small animals can move more rapidly than large animals." Perhaps we cannot read that statement as such. If so, why? And if that's the case, are we simply to negate the statement in terms of the quality on which the two groups are being compared, as the answer reflects above? (I.e., the negation of this statement would simply mean that small animals, as a group, can either move equally rapidly or less rapidly than large animals, as a group.)

I hope this is clear. If not, I apologize. I'm confused myself.

Any help on how I am to go about negating this statement would be much appreciated. Thank you all for your time!

(I'll be leaving for work soon, so I'll respond to any posts either later this evening or tomorrow morning!)

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-3-question-11/

I am having a hard time ruling out A. If black water comes into the bay ONLY once every two centuries, how can the conclusion be a comparative statement, saying that it did not reach the same intensity as last years?

I chose D under timed conditions, and because I couldn't really see how A related to the stimulus, but now that I have entertained the above thought, I'm having a hard time crossing off A.

Thanks!

SO I just took Section 1 LR of the Feb 1993 LSAT to help me drill and practice studying. I am going to blind review it this evening and then score it.

First does anyone know where I can watch videos of explanations? I know we are fortunate to have the Game review here... but not LR. The Question stems appeared different & I think I might have misinterpreted some.

Second, I used the proctor app with moderate distractions. I was distracted. SO I am going to continue to use the app with distractions to help me train for that... but please please please give me advice on how you train for that. Every time that guy "yawned" I wanted to hit him. :) I was like dude did you NOT sleep last night we have the LSAT today. ha! So any tips there would be greatly appreciated.

Finally, I know I have read that the tests have changed since 1993, which is why I am using these tests for my lunch time training,just wanted to make sure that was correct. I don't think I did as well as I would have liked in this stage, but I know and felt better than I did on my diagnostic test so that is major improvement.

Thanks guys, I really don't know how I could do this without you :)

I recently took a 2 day break from LR.

I did 2 LR sections today and had much better results. 23/25 and 22/26. I think maybe I needed to just let information and some of the studying I've been doing, sink in. I definitely feel like some of the answers are just "coming" to me now, rather than having to think hard on them. Especially for the first 10 questions.

It's interesting. The questions I circle for blind review are rarely incorrect and sometimes during review I'll second guess myself and actually put the wrong answer down.

Regardless, I'm still finding time to be an issue. The first section I took was 5 minutes over. The second section was 10.

5 I can deal with...10...not so much.

And I know exactly where I'm slowing down as well. It's the harder questions, anywhere from 15 onward. That's also the area I get most of my wrong answers. The first 10 questions I usually complete in 10ish minutes.

I'm wondering if there are any suggestions or time management strategies, specifically for LR, that any of you would recommend?

Can someone help me with this question? I don't know why A is wrong and D is right, they said that you should strengthen the argument that stripes serve as signal for other zebras. Honestly this one kind of pissed me off.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-36-section-1-question-24/

Could someone please explain why C) is incorrect? I understand why B) is correct but after scouring the message boards I can't find anyone who can explain comprehensively why C) is incorrect.

What if 200,000 people read the newspaper, but the survey only accounts for 1,000 of them. Surely then, the conclusion that George Orwell's 1984 influenced a great number of the newspapers readers, would be inaccurate? I mean, isn't "a great number" simply a relative term? If I have 10 of something, 9 would be a great number of them.

Spoilers if you haven't seen the game:)

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

Really should have taken a break before attempting this LG. Too many distractions and too late in the day - but it did provide comedic relief for me...

- First of all, do not diagram a parking deck starting with Floor 1 on the top...

- Second - do not misread the last 2 rules as "There are ""ONLY"" New cars on Floor 1, and "ONLY" Used cars on Floor 3

But here is a Challenge -

Q19: If all the production models in the exhibition are used, then which one of the following statements MBT?

Anyone able to make all of the Production models be "used" in the exhibition... I thought they meant that I had to provide a scenario including all the Production models available.

Completely lost that it was only the USED Production models in exhibition....

At least I ended my study time laughing instead of crying:)

While I am now comfortable with this game after reviewing the video explanation and practicing it a few times, the first time I saw it I had no idea how to diagram it. I thought it was a double layered sequencing/linear game that was unbalanced (underfunded). I thought the fall and variable courses were their own separate variable sets and thus tried to split and stack them on my diagram. How do we know not to diagram it as such and to instead rightly diagram at it as a single layer sequencing game?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-4-game-2/

Hello 7sage, it's been a while, good to see the forum is still bustling with activity and people putting in hard work in pursuit of their LSAT dreams!

It's October 2015, I was 6 months out from convocation, and I knew I had to get started. I thought it would be a good idea, in November, to enrol for the February 2016 sitting. After I signed up, I set out to find the right study materials. I asked a friend who'd just started their first year at Queens, and he recommended 7sage! So, it's November 2015 and I'm signed up for the February 2016 LSAT without a clue what I was doing. DO NOT DO THIS, wow, time and time again people on the forum say this and I wish I had listened, do NOT sign up until you are ready. In hindsight this was a ridiculous amount of pressure to put on myself, I hadn't even finished the curriculum when people sat the Feb '16 test...

A little bit of context, I had moved into my Aunt & Uncle's house with my two cousins in high school, because I knew it was a good environment for learning. Both of my cousins are extremely hard working, excelling academically and athletically. This provided the structure I lacked in University, where I finished with a 2.9 GPA. I found full time work in the construction industry, 7am-3:30pm, roughly 20km from my home, it was physical labour, for a good hourly. When the weather was good, I would cycle to and from work. I studied after work and on weekends, either after a long bus journey or bike ride. It is important to note that I was in a long-distance relationship at the time, so I was often travelling to or hosting my partner on weekends.

Anyhow, first things first, right? I learned about arguments and grammar. My English and Philosophy background helped, but it was eye opening, I was surprised by how much I learned from these sections. Then, it was time for my diagnostic! I ploughed through it, LG -13, LR1 -8, LR2 -11, RC -8, for a150/159 BR after to figuring out the LG section and changing some correct answers for LR and RC.

Because of my GPA, I knew I needed a good score, my initial aim was 90-94th percentile.

One thing I did not do at first was purchase any prep tests... I didn't think I would need them, and I had zero disposable income after paying for the 7sage Ultimate+, the LSAT administration, and maintaining my romantic relationship. I made cue cards as I worked through the syllabus, reviewing them every morning on the bus.

Once I hit the problem sets I spent SO MUCH TIME taking screen shots, rebuilding the worksheets into word documents, and printing them out. I got this down to a science, but still, it was a ridiculous endeavour that I did throughout the entire curriculum; doing it was mentally exhausting.

As I worked through the sets, there were times I blind reviewed really well, but never like any of @"Accounts Playable"'s posts... I highly recommend using hi posts as the blueprint for your BR.

There were times I wanted to quit, I relied heavily on my partner, my family, and this forum to keep me going while battling through the urge to pack it in after a long day of work and the 40km of cycling or the 2 1/2 hours of public transit. That being said, I did fall off... I had a massive addiction to Clash of Clans and Boom Beach, there were a couple weeks where I didn't study at all after work. My diet also took a nose dive, safe to say this was my all-time low. I'm pretty sure this happened from mid December through the beginning of January.

I essentially paid for the test again to push my sitting back to June 2016. But the universe delivered a gift when I dropped my iPhone in a heroic toilet that killed the phone and my CoC and Boom Beach addictions with it! That might be the greatest thing outside of my control that happened during my journey.

My grind through the core curriculum was completed April 5th, 2016. It was a great milestone, I remember my partner tearing up with joy, it was a long process, watching that green circle fill ever so slowly.

After that point I ordered every PT ever published, and patiently awaited the begging on my final phase of prep.

It is important to note that by late April/early May I started doing the guided meditations, cut alcohol out completely (aside from a sherry on my late Nana's birthday, and a shot at my Uncle's wedding), was doing approximately 90mins of cardio 5 days a week, and followed the "Dolce Diet" as best I could.

I developed what routines that I could, did what worked for me, and focused on not stressing about the things I couldn't do. I would often visualize test day, I was talking to people about the LSAT at every possible opportunity, and I kept telling myself and everyone who would listen that I was confident I would score in the 170s, confident in my preparation, and I would succeed.

Part of my routine was a list of positive affirmations, I would say theses to myself every day after my morning meditation. I also discovered "bulletproof coffee" and after the fall/winter where I consumed like 5-8 double doubles a day... cutting down to 32oz of bulletproof coffee was a huge change, but I think it paid dividends for my sleep quality and energy levels.

My first prep test was actually PT 35, not realizing I had "seen" the questions before until afterwards when I realized the syllabus called for 36. I wound up completing 12 PTs before my sitting in June, including the diagnostic. I also watched every webinar that I could find time for, though I must admit, I rarely watched them work through the questions at the end. I took what I needed from the explanations, updated my cue cards, and focused applying those principles during my PTs and especially during my BR.

I did not have the luxury of writing at 1pm during the week, so I tried to do that on the weekends as best I could. That being said, it did not always work out. The only thing I really could control was how strict I was while taking the PT, I added an extra section from the curriculum PTs, and dropped my pencil when the proctor said so.. There was no way I was going to be tagged for a violation during my sitting.

I was diagnosed with ADHD in 2014, and didn't apply for any accommodations because I was told by my learning strategist that the test would involve "draconian measures" to prevent cheating, and I wouldn't be given accommodations because I didn't have them for exams during my undergrad. So it was 5x35mins for me, to be honest I never wrote a single timed writing sample before my sitting, but I reviewed JY's pointers and made sure to review it close to June 6th. I made sure to force myself to BR every PT as best I could, by the end of the whole process, I think I had filled out 2 whole notebooks between the curriculum and the PTs. Sometimes it would take me a week to complete a review, sometimes less.

3 weeks out from my test, my partner decided to end our relationship, she had her reasons, but the next 3 weeks were a blur. I know that I ate the same breakfast, drank the same amount of coffee, would do the 24 min guided meditation before and after work, and was riding my bike like a madman to and from work. I probably averaged 6.5 hours of sleep a night, with my alarm going off at 4:15-4:30, I tried to be in bed between 9-10pm every night.

I did score a 173 on PT 65, the week before my test... so I felt quite confident and encouraged, especially after briefly participating in the June pep rally. Hearing JY and Nicole's advice and feeling the love from everyone in that webinar was amazing.

When I wrote PTs on the weekend, I recorded the time and amount of my water and food intake, along with my bathroom breaks. There was only one PT where I had to run to my bathroom toward the end of S3.

For my last three Weekend PTs, I tried emulating my bike ride to the testing centre, I ate the same meals, I wore the same clothing I planned to wear on test day. I became obsessed with these details.

The day of, I did everything the same as I'd done on my dry run on Saturday the 4th. I woke up, same coffee, breakfast, I warmed up, I biked the 14km to the campus; after completing my undergrad there, I had no issues accessing the room. After arriving I stretched, meditate, I sauna'd a bit in order to ensure any excess water was gone, that wasn't part of the routine but it helped, showered, ate my same meal, sat down and wrote out my game plan for each section, writing out how many minutes I wanted to allot to each RC passage, I think it was a 7,7,9,10, listened to my Eminem pump up playlist, and walked over to the testing area. The game planning wasn't part of my routine either, and in hindsight, I should have warmed up then on top of the game planning, since it had been hours after warming up at home when I finally started by test around 130pm.

After arriving in the registration area, I was relaxed, sat off in a corner by myself, ignoring everyone, waiting for the proctors to take us over the the testing area. I didn't say a word to a single person other than a proctor.

Once I opened that booklet, I went into auto pilot, except S3... It was the second LG section, after opening with LG, I knew that it could be the experimental section AND I SLOWED DOWN once the first two games were ridiculously easy sequencing games... I also knew the first section had rules very similarly worded to the game from PT 76 that I'd warmed up with that morning. THIS IS A TERRIBLE IDEA, DO NOT DO THIS!! I didn't even finish the section in time, guessing the final 3 questions. That is awful, considering I knew I had to go -0 on LG in order to score 170+...

I was extremely lucky to walk away with a 169 (LG -1, LR -3, RC -6, LR -2), if my gamble on that experimental section had gone badly, I could be sitting here telling you about how I'm sitting down again for a re-write, but, I'm not. I had scored bang on my average, despite the break up, despite the 6 years of my life where I was a brutal student and at times never thought I'd pursue academics or even finish the degree. I had a construction job to fall back on, I had grown complacent, at one point using ADHD meds without any of the proper studying habits in place to make proper use of them... but persistence paid off, I didn't give up, and 7sage never gave up on me.

My aim for writing the LSAT was to show law schools that I was capable of working that hard and achieving such a good score, I intend to argue that my ADHD diagnosis late into my undergrad was a big turning point for me, and turning that around couldn't have happened over night, but it has, and I am more than ready to pursue my dream of a legal career.

Thanks to you, 7sage, I will do that with confidence.

Sorry for the length!

Looking back, I would have put way more work into RC, and worked on trusting my gut more... I had changed an answer in the first LR section from the correct one to an incorrect one, and with that my 170 became a 169! Those short cuts with the webinars and BR early on might have made the difference, but in the long run, I never reached @"Nicole Hopkins"'s benchmark of 15 PTs for a 170+... maybe with 4 or 5 more... who knows.

Cheers everyone, thanks for reading, best of luck moving forward! I will lurk around here for a bit but, I'm training for my first sprint distance triathlon in 6 weeks and might be busy sleeping more than ever before!

For this particular question, could someone run me through the process of why whether or not the Ann was offered the fellowship is irrelevant?

I do see how the correct answer makes the conclusion valid but I can also spot a second sufficient assumption: If ann received the offer for fellowship, then the company will not allow her to take a leave of absence. From the stimulus, we know that quitting her job means two things, that she didn't take leave of absence and that she received an offer for a fellowship. Linking this "offer" term with the sufficient condition of the assumption that I had just listed, we then know that the company will not have let her take a leave of absence. And due to the bi-conditional, we know that if she isn't allowed to take leave of absence, that means that the company will find out that she was offered a fellowship. Wouldn't this also make the conclusion valid as well? I just wanted to know if this thought process was also correct and that there are other potential sufficient assumptions for this question.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-2-question-20/

Hi I just started drills on RC and the speed is a huge problem for me. My average time to finish 1 passage is 10 mins! That means I can only finish 3 passages in a timed section :(. The blind review result is relatively good. I normally got -1 on a passage after BR, if I didn't fully understand the passage, I could got -3 sometimes after BR.

Any suggestions on how to improve the speed? Any annotation methods you recommend? Thanks!

Another question is: Unlike most LSAT takers, my big understanding problem lies in the passages of literature, art, history...etc... since my background is science/engineering. I have to read the passages at least 2 times before I can understand! Sadly most RC are about literatures and arts......

What is a good strategy for the drills? I am using 1-35 PTs as drills.

Thanks!

Hey guys, I'm currently in the middle of studying for my first LSAT in September and everyone I know that is currently in law school advised me to use 7sage for the games instead of the Powerscore Logic Games Bible, does this sound true to you?

In other words, can I completely do away with reading the book and attempt to study from the Logic Game Explanations on 7sage? If so, how would I do that, or is there a better way that I should go about studying for these games that anyone advises?

Thanks for the help in advance!!

I suppose the difficulty of any given LR section depends on your strengths and weaknesses, but I'm wondering if there's a general consensus on certain LR sections being much more difficult than others. I'm finding my LR scores are varying greatly.

I'll take one section and get 8 wrong and just be completely utterly stumped. Then I'll take another section and only get 2 wrong.

Anyone else have this experience?

Also wondering which prep-test have LR sections most similar to today's. I know the older one's aren't as similar, but when do they start becoming similar? 35+? 40+?

I understand that E is the correct answer choice, but since this is a sufficient assumption question, isn't E describing a necessary condition? Isn't it too strong? It says New subway cars are REQUIRED. But they're not required. They're sufficient to cause an efficient, attractive subway, which in turn is sufficient to product good economic sense, but neither new subway cars NOR having an efficient and attractive subway system is NECESSARY for good economic sense.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-2-question-02/

I am just not getting these down. Help!!

I really don't like the way answer choice (E) is worded. It's too ambiguous and abstract that I was not able to wrap my head around it during timed conditions and made me go for easier sounding wrong answer choice even though I knew it was descriptively incorrect!

Can someone explain to me what (E) is even saying?

And do recent tests have answers like this?

Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-2-question-22/

I'm having a difficulty accepting D as an answer for this question. Hoping someone can help!

My issue with this answer choice is that it seems to create a further discrepancy. Answer D doesn't specify whether Peacetime refers to before or after the war. It doesn't seem unreasonable to think that since the war has ended there is peace. I mean, absence of war is peace. All this answer provides is the general statement that during Peacetime oil production and transport in the Persian Gulf result in negative environmental effects. Wouldn't this create a discrepancy? If D is correct, how can there be less damage after the war than before?