Hi All,

So I'm still struggling to identify exactly when certain arguments could be strengthened or weakened by the total number of samples (or any sort of number play for that matter) and when they cannot be. I remember seeing a few questions in the past where certain group was seeing a particular pattern or a phenomenon while the other group didn't and the discrepancy was due to some problems related to the size of the sample in one group (either their total number of participants were not counted properly, thereby inflating the trend) etc.

PT 77 Section 2 #19: A recent study examined the daytime and nighttime activity patterns of two populations of tree-dwelling lemurs - the first living in a rain forest, where tree canopy cover is consistent year0round, and the second living in a deciduous forest, where many trees lose their leaves during the winter months. Both groups of lemurs were found to be more nocturnal during winter months than they were the rest of the year. However, the winter increase in nocturnal activity was significantly more pronounced for the population living in the deciduous forest than it was for the population living in the forest.

For the question above, none of the answer choices really stood out for me initially and when I looked through them again, I noticed how the AC (D) was talking about the bird population in these forests are different, in fact, the lemur population in the rain forest is twice the size of the population in the deciduous forest... I thought that if that's the case, couldn't it be possible that the nocturnal activity looks more pronounced in the deciduous forest even though the two forests had the same number of birds that are both just as active at night? The correct answer turned out to be (B) which talked about the high-flying bird predators who hunt their prey during daylight...

So my question is, how are we supposed to know when these numbers actually come in play and exactly what the question means in this case - whether there are more % of these birds in each forest (in which case the population size matters) or it could be that the entire bird population is following a certain trend?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-77-section-2-question-19/

I did not like any choices in this question at first...am I only the one who feel PT 61's LR is kind of different/harder??

Anyway,

In the principle it does not say it should hire a candidate who would be fully qualified when none of the fully qualified candidates for a new position at AC currently works for the company. It only tell to hire the candidate who would be most productive in that position.

Why in the application it says Delarcuz is fully qualified? Is it necassary? SInce it is not appeared in the principle I thougtht the correct answer will include that, saying something like "XXX+hire the candidate who is fully qualified"

Why is E correct even though it does not include this?

Thank you

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-61-section-4-question-19/

I agree it's easier to see the questions with game elements as initials rather than as the (often bizarre) spelled-out names that appear on the test. But as time is my big hurdle, I'm skeptical that the time it takes to rewrite the questions is worth it. As best I can tell by introspection it takes me little time to do the mental translation. Does anyone want to make an argument that I ought to rewrite the questions?

Hi All,

So the stimulus in #20 reads,

"If one does not criticize a form of behavior in oneself or vow to stop it, then one should not criticize that form of behavior in another."

Would this sentence translate to

1. ~Criticize one's own behaviour AND ~Vow to stop it --> ~ Criticize other's behavior or

2. ~Criticize one's own behaviour OR ~ Vow to stop it --> ~ Criticize other's behavor?

I initially thought that the latter was the case but not sure about it anymore... Any feedback will be greatly appreciated!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-77-section-2-question-20/

In PT 67 S3 G1 Q4, JY determines that "(A)" is correct for a "which one must be false?" question, and then says, "and you can check the rest; you should check the rest [my emphasis]." Now as we fans of JY know, he very often does not check the rest in order to save -- shall I say not to waste? -- time. What criterion should I use in deciding whether to check the rest?

Hello everyone,

I'm sort of cramming law school apps, since July is when I decided that I wanted to apply. I started using 7Sage in August.

In the beginning, I was about -3 or -4 per LR section, even with flexible timing. With JY's videos, he has helped me to master LR. On my last PT (I think it was # 61) I went -0 and -1 on the two LR sections, with time left over to spare.

I actually enjoy doing LR now. Every question is like a mini word puzzle :)

Thanks 7sage,

Steve

Suppose that you're choosing a hypothetical board where A, B, and C MUST be in the group. But D floats, and need not be in the group. Since we're asking for what COULD be a complete and accurate list, would answer choice {A, B, C} suffice? Or need we include floater D, who does not out of necessity need to be in the set ?

Hey All,

Can someone explain this question to me? I got to E by POE, but I am not completely seeing why E is correct.

Conclusion: "There is no genuinely altruistic behavior."

The reason for this (the conclusion) is because behavior that appears to be altruistic is actually self-interested. Shouldn't E read: "takes for granted that any behavior that can be interpreted as altruistic is in fact self-interested"? Where does "interpretation of self-interested behavior come in?"

This implies that we are supposed to treat altruistic behavior and self-interested behavior as synonymous, but isn't that out of the scope? Or at least premature with the information we are given? All this argument establishes in terms of the relationship between altruism and self interest is that altruistic behavior implies self-interested behavior. We're not saying self-interested behavior implies altruistic behavior, correct? I'm confused why E treats them as synonymous terms of the argument.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-32-section-1-question-19/

I got this question correct but really don't know why. I look at the answers and they just look like gibberish. I try to break the words down and make the answer sound similar, but I still have no clue what most those answers are saying. I went through the lessons on weakening questions but it didn't seem to help for this type of super wordy question at all. Anyone else struggle with the real wordy weaken questions? Any tips or advice?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-4-question-21/

I'm having trouble determining when to split game boards. For some games splitting the game boards is extremely advantageous and if I do so then I am able to get the game done very quickly well under the target time as was the case with PT26.S1.G3. However other times if I split the game board, I find myself taking too much time with setting up/splitting the game boards and I end up going way over the target time, as was the case with PT19.S1.G.4. What do you guys look for in games to decide whether you will split your master diagram into sub game boards?

J.Y has said in some of his videos that if you have more game boards then questions then not to split them, however for PT.26.S1.G3, I had just as much game boards as questions and I was able to fly through the questions.

For those of you that sent in documentation requesting accommodations did you get a decision in line with the 14 day deadline? Is it normal for LSAC to go over 14 days because I am hearing from others that submitted weeks ago that they haven't gotten any news. I am still waiting to hear back and despite repeated calls and emails to follow-up I have gotten ZERO clarity on a decision or when it will be made.

Really confused by this question, I chose the right answer and I can see how it is correct, but is it just me or is this very different than the mechanical SA questions we are used to seeing? Is this common in the modern LSAT?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-76-section-4-question-14/

Hi,

So I'm not sure about the correct answer C...

Why do we have to assume or compare the ancestors to Neanderthals? Why it's required?

Even though we know homo sapiens ancestors of contemporary humans was not significantly more similar to that of Neanderthals than is the DNA of people today, that only means people today was more similar to Homo sapiens when we compared to Neanderthals.

It could be true there are some similarities between ppl and Neanderthals, just not as much as with homo sapiense.

In that case, we cannot conclude homo sapiens did not interbred with Neanderthals (and it could be true both neanderthals and homo sapiens were ancestors of humans).

I'm really confused with C and do not understand why it's required to make the conclusion in the argument (which is they did not "interbreed")

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-1-question-19/

I downloaded it from website. But it requires a password. any idea?

(For newbies: this refers to Lesson 18 of Introduction to Logic Games & Sequencing Games)

Does "in time" refer to JY's estimate of the time required as shown with, and stated in, his explanation of the game? I can't think of any other time criterion to use, so:

Is there any reason I shouldn't use that estimate as a hard-and-fast rule, meaning that if I exceed it at all then I should re-do the game? I guess another and totally nerdy way of asking this is: are these estimates the mean of JY's subjective distribution of the time a -0 LG section scorer would take, or are they generous such they are comfortably to the right of that mean? If the former I could chalk up a minor exceedance to variance and move on; if the former I'd have to re-do.

I know this seems a nitpicking question, but I think it might make some difference to me as I'm just starting a rigorous 20-day push featuring 84 games of LG practice.

I've recently ordered Kaplan for LR but I feel like I need to practice LR much more. I've read here before that powerscore bibles aren't that good. But I want to know how the workbooks are. Are they helpful if I just want to practice LR more?

It is officially about 3 months away from the February LSAT and I am extremely stoked but still a little nervous. People have suggested three months as the best amount of time one should spend in studying. But I find that despite this effort, one might still fall short of one's intended goal due to a number of different factors. One factor which I believe is crucial for progress is the ability to study efficiently.

When it comes to standardized testing, I suck at studying efficiently. I sometimes find myself spending enormous amount of time studying but never breaking the "plateau". With that being said, I would like to get some insights on how you all study. Outside of the 7sage curriculum, how do you all fine tune the skills needed (e.g. speed etc). For example, as a philosophy major I try to spend time really understanding the subtleties embedded in arguments in the readings that I'm assigned as a helping tool. What else do you all recommend?

Also, I know it can be hard to study for the LSAT while one is still in school but this is a reality for many of us. In school, I work best when I follow a routine that I've set for myself, otherwise I'll procrastinate my whole life away. I've been thinking of ways to fuse these two into my schedule but I would also like to hear other thoughts as well.

Hi guys I would appreciate it if someone could review my reasoning for this question and let me know if this is correct. When BRing I realized that I made a mistake and chose A rather than E which is correct.

Basically if negated, A says something along the lines of less than 51% of those people who abandon the use of chemical fertilizers will periodically grow alfalfa. Now this may be tempting but it doesn`t really do much, our argument doesn`t say that every person needs to make this switch, just that in order to improve the soil structure we need to ditch chemical fertilizers and begin growing green manure crops.

E is a much better answer because it tells us that we can`t use chemical fertilizers AND grown green manure crops, so we have to ditch chemical fertilizers as stated in the argument

When negated it sounds somewhat like, some farmers in the region will grow green manure even if they do not abandon the use of chemical fertilizers, suggesting that we do not need to ditch the fertilizers in order to grow green manure, and ruining our argument.

I also struggled a little with answer choice D, but here`s my reasoning

I think its incorrect because when negated it just says chemical fertilizers themselves do not have a destructive effect on soil, this can be true because the argument is assuming that its the switch from green manure to chemicals that has deteriorated the soil structure, it doesn`t need to be that the chemicals themselves are destructive.

Let me know what you think!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-2-question-20/

Hello 7sagers,

I was wondering if anyone had any tips on how to increase your speed on the logic reasoning test portion. I have been studying this section rigorously for months and it is my favorite section . However, even though I understand and can get the correct answer each time untimed I still have yet to master getting 15 correct on the timed section . Any advice ? I'm not sure if I'm nervous or if there is something I can do to help bridge the gap between me taking forever to realize I know the steps .

What are the types of logic games called in the 7sage syllabus...Sequence, Grouping, and what else?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-1-question-06/

I had gone over this question during Saturday's BR call and I got some great feedback, but this isn't quite clicking with me yet. I just need help eliminating answer choice E.

So the argument is as follows:

CTX: Teaching students calc before they attend university may significantly benefit them.

P1: If students are taught calc before they are ready for the level of abstraction involved, they may abandon the study of math altogether.

C: If we are going to teach pre-university student calc, we must make sure they can handle the level of abstraction involved.

I chose A, but during my personal BR I changed it to E.

A says: "Only those who, without losing motivation, can meet the cognitive challenges that new intellectual work involves should be introduced to it."

At first, I second guessed this answer choice because I did not interpret the stimulus to say that the students need to "meet the cognitive challenges," only that they need to be able to handle calculus to a point where they don't lose motivation in mathematics. I thought it was possible for a student to take calculus, not do so well (and not meet the cognitive challenges), but still be able to "handle the level of abstraction" in the sense that they did not lose interest in math as a result of the level of abstraction. I interpreted "handle level of abstraction" to mean "not being psychologically deterred from math." I didn't take it to mean that they had to achieve a certain level of performance.

E says: "The level of abstraction involved in a topic should not be considered in determining whether that topic is appropriate for pre-university students."

I am really struggling with this answer choice. The premise says "before they are ready for the level of abstraction" and the conclusion says that we must "make sure they can handle the level of abstraction." In this entire argument, the actual level of abstraction is unchallenged. The only thing we are challenging is the student's capability of handling it. The conclusion is claiming that, if we are going to teach pre-university students calculus, we need to evaluate THEM and make sure THEY can handle it. I chose E because I don't see why the level of abstraction couldn't be what is considered before teaching them. Maybe the level of abstraction should be reduced for some students or maybe it should be reduced in general for all pre-university students. It could just be that the level of abstraction is just generally too high. Why couldn't the conclusion instead be "If we are going to teach pre-university students calculus, we must reduce the level of abstraction to meet their "handling capacity." E eliminates this alternate conclusion.

I was told that I am approaching this question like a sufficient assumption question and not a pseudo-sufficient assumption (which is why I lost faith in answer A-- I was focusing too closely on the logical structure of the argument to my detriment). That's most likely the case, but I still don't feel confident in eliminating option E. Any insight is greatly appreciated.

I got a 164 on my first LSAT after scoring between 169-172 on scored PTs. However, the testing conditions were less than optimal and I filed a complaint. Is it possible for me to get in the 170's with a little over a month of additional studying? If yes, how can I accomplish this goal?

N.A Defender Type Answer Choices and Strengthen Eliminating the Weakness Answer Choices

I somehow feel that those two answer choices are very similar. Does anyone here have opinion on how those two answer choices differ? Those question types are both assumption type questions, and I assume that is why I feel those two are from similar (not the same) grounds.

For example, this is an made up argument but...

Assumption: This september, there are more people coming to watch movie in theatre A.

Conclusion: Therefore, theatre A would collect more profit this month.

Strengthen (Eliminating the Weakness AC) and NA AC could be both something like the theatre did not offer large price discount this September.

Fellow 7Sagers,

I have not struggled with an LG section in such a long time. I just retook the LG section from PT 57 (Which I did first time around so long ago), and I struggled with the time allotted. I am used to finishing LG in 25-30 minutes at most. I am wondering whether it was the product of me just feeling tired today, or is the section more difficult than average? I found the section a bit more difficult than the usual.

All input is much appreciated.

Ok so I'm doing my blind review, and when I initially did the test I chose the correct answer even though I wasn't happy with it because it seemed more like a sufficient assumption to me. I don't have the ultimate package so I don't have the explanation for this so if someone could help me out that would be much appreciated.

When I read this question I immediately found the gap between choose more wisely and emotions unchanged

I was hoping for an answer that bridged the gap ever so slightly without being obnoxious and of course E bridged that gap but the only if really annoyed me

I interpreted E as an SA in my BR because I diagrammed the following:

human emotions unchanged --> humans unable to choose more wisely

contrapositive: humans able to choose more wisely --> humans emotions have changed

This is precisely what E does and so I went with D thinking it was a little better (now I see why it fails)

I guess D when put to the negation test says something along the lines of "humans do not always choose on the basis of their emotions" and in the conclusion it says: "humans are GENERALLY unable to choose more wisely" so the not always wouldn't really be good enough because the conclusion isn't always saying that it's the case that people do not choose more wisely today, it just needs to be true in at least one case.

When E was put to the negation test it seems like it would be something similar to: it's not the case that humans would now be able to make wiser choices than in centuries past only if an essential change had taken place in their emotions, so we can choose wisely without a change in emotions

Overall, really annoyed by this question...would appreciate any input/feedback on what I mentioned above

Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-2-question-12/