I got this one right, and I was able to easily eliminate C-E, but I don't understand how to eliminate B.

I spent a lot of time debating between A and B. I chose A as the right answer because if urban populations have doubled in the past decade then it does not indicate an increase deaths but rather indicates the population was the same amount of deaths as before SO it is not an increased amount of deaths proportionate to the death rate.

Can someone please explain B to me!? Thanks!!!

Can someone explain why C is wrong? I don't understand the reasoning for it. I think B is correct because if the amount of child passengers remain the same, then it indicates less deaths.

Hey All,

Can anyone help me with this question (PT27 S4 Q15). This one is confusing and bothering me at the same time.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-4-question-15

The passage says "It is often said that beauty is subjective. But this judgement has to be false..." From what I understand, the author is saying that beauty isn't subjective (meaning, your opinion will be different from my opinion about what we consider to be beautiful). We are asked to weaken this argument where the correct answer is "C" (Our own standard of beauty was strongly influenced by our exposure to works that were considered beautiful in other cultures").

Doesn't that actually strengthen the argument rather than weaken it? If my standard of beautiful art was shaped by what my art teacher thinks is beautiful art, then that means that I am just following her opinion and have no say of my own (therefore, my opinion is not subjective at all), which actually strengthens the argument.

I know I am missing something but am totally confused as to what it is. Any help would be appreciated :)

Been trying for several months to tie down logic games. Hasn't happened yet. I'm averaging about -3 on my last several preptests, but that belies big swings. For example, PT 60 crushed me, PT 61 was -0, and PT 62 was -6.

I don't know if I'm very good at diagnosing my own problems. The only trend I can maybe see -- and this might just be recency bias -- is that I struggle with open-ended and even slightly nonstandard games. For example, PT 62 game 2 is definitely a grouping game, broadly defined, but it's a weird one. Same with game 3 from that test. I've done literally every game ever published multiple times but I don't have the pattern recognition necessary to adapt on my first time through lots of games.

Is there any specific remedy for this type of thing? Should I just keep "foolproofing?" I don't want to keep banging my head against the wall if there's something more targeted I can do, because time is becoming precious for us June takers.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-2-passage-1-passage

Hi everyone -

I'm currently working on Reading Comprehension and am working through The LSAT Trainer. In Lesson 35, an art passage from PT 29 is dissected.

My question is about question #6. Though I understand that the author did not agree that the work of pre-World War I painters had the power to predict social changes (and therefore why this is the correct answer choice), I do not see how answer choice D can be said to have been shown in the passage. Mike Kim writes in his explanation that the author did say that artists had the power to anticipate later artists in the second paragraph, but I don't see how this was stated or can even be inferred. "Developments in the arts" does not equal "anticipation of later artists." Arts ≠ Artists. Maybe he is seeing something that I'm just not seeing, but I would love to understand how he got to this conclusion.

Am I just being too critical of the words here?

Any input is appreciated!

Oh and a PS to anyone who is unsure about buying The LSAT Trainer - it's helped me increase my practice test scores by 16 points but more importantly it's helped me to form better habits for understanding why answer choices are right/wrong and what exactly each question type demands - which none of the other prep books did for me.

So I now have a binder several inches thick that holds all of my games. I try to do AT LEAST 5 games a day on top of the rest of my life and all those sheets have added up. But the real problem is that without me doing some really intense work, I have no way to quickly and easily look at my aggregate games data. I think it would be great if 7sage could add a feature where I could select a game (ex. PT 66, game 2) and then I would enter the time I took to finish the game and my answers. Then 7sage could show me all the stats about that game and all my other games too. I could see past scores/times for certain games. It could even keep track of different question types (new/substitute rule, MBT, MBF, could be true, etc.) so I could even tailor my prep down to the question. I think it wouldn't be too too difficult to implement because 7sage already has all the Q-types in their system. Anyways just a thought.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-1-game-2

I watched the explanation for this game and am struggling with why in the set up you can not assume that HIRED equals INTERVIEWED (i.e., that they are interchangeable terms), since interviewing is a required condition for hiring?

I interpreted the corresponding rules to be just attempting to confuse me and depicted all hires as, by default, interviewed in my rules interpretation, e.g., I interpreted rules 4 and 5 to be combined as: F-K-M (if F then K then M). But clearly this does not work in the execution of the game!!!

Why is this not a valid interpretation?

I realize as I work on my speed in the LR section that it is very important to be able to compartmentalize each part of the stim in your mind to quickly attack the question. But, I find myself having to re-read those pesky convoluted stims which is killing my time on certain questions.

Do any of you map out (basic bracketing) the premises and conclusion on the convoluted stims? My theory is that if I do map on these types of questions I will be able to really hone in on the P and C and if there is weird language it will be out of the way.

Should I try and keep practicing doing it all in the brains lol ?

I just formed a in person BR group with one other person. Given the fact that our meeting are relatively short cannot be extended. Could you tell me how the BR group process can be improved?

We use LR sections from PT 1-35, we take one section together and BR the section after a 5 minutes break; because our meeting are about two hours long we only manage to go through those questions that our answers differ from each other (usually 9 to 10 questions) and leave the other questions untouched.

Hi all,

I'm wondering if you have thoughts and advice for someone who is consistently running out of time on the logic games section of practice tests. On my most recent practice test, I did 3/4 games and got every answer correct on those that I got to, but completely ran out of time on one of the games. In blind review, I was able to get all the correct answers on that 4th game, in under 8 minutes.

Maybe it's partly a confidence thing? I feel like I'm checking answers very carefully and maybe should trust my diagrams more...? I'm not quite sure. Any advice for how to proceed would be greatly appreciated! Thanks so much

I started working through the LG bundle concurrently with LSAT Trainer 20 days ago, I manged to finish PT 1 to PT 11 logic games using Pacifico attack strategy, while trying to push down the time one minute under target time recommended for each game. The problem is that despite the fact I took every logic game from PT 1-35 at least once (nearly four months ago) my first attempt time always is at least 2-3 minutes higher than target time and for some wired games it is much higher.

Any idea how can I solve this problem? I am afraid that I am burning the Bundle without getting much out of it.

Admin edit: Please don't post full course questions! Instead, link to the question:

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/quiz-on-drawing-valid-conclusions-with-translations-4-answers

But what if I change the question into: Geniuses do not date lazy people. Vesper is smart. (skip this useless sentence) Derek is extremely attractive and lazy.

Isn't it incorrect to conclude that Vesper will not date Derek because unlike the original question, you can't automatically equate Vesper being smart as being a genius? In the original question, being genius must mean one is smart, but being smart doesn't guarantee you are genius smart.

I'm trying to flip things around and see how different conclusions can be made and so on. Feedback would be much appreciated! :)

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-2-question-17

Can someone help me to understand answer choice (B)?

I understood it to mean that the criteria of legal responsibility are different from that of moral responsibility, but Jon's explanation says that the criteria of legal responsibility include some of the stuff that moral responsibility does.

Thank you!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-49-section-2-question-21

We are told that Sugared beverages can be helpful in avoiding dehydration AND sugared beverages can delay muscle fatigue.

However, the stimulus denotes this is BEFORE one is dehydrated.Or at least that was my reading.

If you are already dehydrated, we are not told sugared beverages beverages with any level of sugar will help.

Thus for B, if you have problems that have come as a result of being dehydrated, how would taking in lightly sugared beverages be of assistance? If anything, it would seem they would make your problems worse every time for it would be drawing water from the blood to the stomach.

I might be interpreting this incorrectly.

Any and all help is greatly appreciated.

Hey, I was wondering that when we say that A causes B, do we understand it to mean that whenever A will happen B shall follow or does such a causal relationship accommodates some instances wherein A happens but then B does not follow. I had trouble with question 11 in LR Section 1 on PT 58 and I think it was because I wasn't clear on my understanding of causation.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-58-section-1-question-11

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-3-passage-2-questions

Okay, so I really debated between "C" and "D" (the former apparently being a crappy choice), and ended up selecting "C" only because the term "approving" in "D" seemed too strong and altogether inapplicable for describing the author's attitude. "C" to me seemed like a piece of the author's overall attitude, but is this in itself reason to not select "C"?

In other words, do questions regarding one's attitude inherently ask for the overall, holistic viewpoint as opposed to something the author may or may not agree with? I don't think I have ever seen a correct answer choice claiming the author has a particular viewpoint or judgement on the topic discussed when the author seems to have no such voice at all. The author points to evidence supporting the lawyers' claim, yes, but even if the author believes there to be sufficient evidence for the legitimacy of "stealing thunder," there is no indication of his approval of the use of it. By "approving," does the author believe that the use of "stealing thunder" is logical and sound? If "approving" were to take that meaning, I can completely understand why "D" is correct.

Finally, I assume "C" is wrong at least in part because of the term "anecdotal evidence," which doesn't fit at all with the speculation discussed at the end of the paragraph. My two concerns, then, lie with the use of "approving" as well as the inherent meaning of Attitude questions in general.

Thanks in advance for any responses.

Hi all,

Link to the lesson: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/traffic-accident-principle-question?ss_completed_lesson=1135

First of all, C can be eliminated because of sequence: car stolen a week before the suggested actions were published. But I had a different view, below.

I'm looking to get some clarification about why exactly answer choice C is wrong and I think it has to do with translating the scope of "voluntarily" as an adverb as being more important than the positively stated "undertake" versus "not undertake."

Any help appreciated!

Regarding answer choice C, it states that Collen voluntarily did NOT take some action (which one could argue I guess is a form of voluntary action itself), whereas the principle states that the actions are undertaken (affirmatively). The video explanation does just this, stating that Collen's failure to do something was a voluntary action, but this kind of reasoning makes the distinction between undertaking and not undertaking meaningless, if we talk about not undertaking an action in that context, that just ends equating with, oh, you made a choice NOT to do something, so you chose to do something.

Is it possible to rule out C since it is talking about an action that she did NOT undertake when the principle is talking about actions that the person DOES undertake? To me this looks like a failure of the sufficient condition, which means the rule is irrelevant.

I guess we could see the principle as having an AND statement in the sufficient condition:

undertook action AND knew consequences AND did so voluntarily, therefore responsible.

C looks like we fail the first segment of the AND, while satisfying the last two, so the conclusion doesn't follow.

Also, another way to get at this confusion might be looking at producing a contra positive of the principle because it is difficult to determine how to properly negate the original premise.

Contra positive: A person is not responsible for the consequences because NOT(know that actions they voluntarily undertake risk such consequences)

A person is not responsible for the consequences because they did not know the consequences OR did not do so voluntarily Or did NOT undertake an action.

Answer choice D seems to be getting at the idea that not doing an action is part of the negation. Colleen did not undertake the slamming of the door. We know D is wrong because it is trying to conclude she IS responsible for an action she did NOT undertake. In parallel to C, Collen voluntarily did NOT undertake the precautions, here Collen voluntarily(?) did NOT undertake the slamming of the door, just her here brother did it, whereas in answer choice C, no one did it.

The question is as follows:

Admin edit: Please do not post full questions on the discussion forums! Removed the question.

I chose (A), but it was incorrect because the actual correct answer is (B). I understand the reasoning behind why answer choice (B) is correct. However, I am concerned as to the actual fact that we are taught to consider the stimulus truth and to not question the premise, rather we ought to question the conclusions.

As this was an older LSAT - ought test takers still concern themselves with these types of questions (where the premise/speaker of said premise may be questionable)?

Hope to receive word from someone soon.

I am taking the June 2016 LSAT. I am in need of a serious study buddy. My goal is to score a 165. If you are looking for a study buddy please let me know. I can be reached ]via email (Admin edit: Email removed. Please pm for email). I am currently in New York. I hope we can encourage each other in this brutal LSAT journey! Lets beat the LSAT together!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-3-question-23

I understand the reasoning in the video, that just because X is preceded by Y, it doesn’t mean that Y is the necessary condition.

However in the other forums that I have ventured, the instructors would diagram the conditional as

Every Major War in the last 200 years -> Sharp increase in acquisition of weapons.

I understand that “every” introduces a sufficient condition, but if we accept that “is preceded by” is not a necessary condition, then could the conditional statement stated above still be valid?

Thanks!

A stimulus says "A poem is any work of art that exploits some of the musical characteristics of language." (PT27 Sect.1 Q20) I would map that statement with lawgic as follows:

Expl Musical Char of Lang & Work of Art ----> Poem

or Work of Art that Exploits Musical Char of Lang ----> Poem

Now, what if the stimulus said "A poem is a work of art that exploits some of the musical characteristics of language"?

Seems like it should be obvious, but it's not (to me anyway). Is it a bi-conditional?

If something is a poem, then it's a thing that is a work of art that exploits the musical characteristics of language. So Poem ---> WA that EMCL.

Then let's say we come across this mysterious thing that is a work of art that exploits some of the musical characteristics of language. What's that called? Is it necessarily a poem? (WA that EMCL ---> Poem?)

PS: Not sure any of this matters.

So in reviewing the lessons on weakening I came across the one about the Olympics and it made me curious about attacking the support for the Sub Conclusion versus attacking the support for the Main Conclusion from the Sub Conclusion in these types of questions. Does anyone happen to know if on the more challenging questions whether or not it is more common that the correct ACs attack one more frequently than the other? Or is there not really a pattern?

Link here: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/how-to-quickly-react-to-logic-games-question-stems-flashcards

Do the flashcards for reacting to LG question stems and identifying properties of incorrect choices apply to LR question stems as well?

Thanks!

I'm doing games from preptests that were released before LSAC changed the format of the games to allow for much more space over two pages. Is it ok to use blank pieces of 8.5x11 inch paper to do each of these games? I don't want to give myself too much space and discover later on that I've been fomenting bad habits.

In real time, I was down between B and D. I chose D because it "felt" correct.

In regards to actual reasoning, I'm assuming D's appeal to authority is illegitimate because something like smell is so subjective and appealing to an expert wouldn't make sense?

I am not certain on B.

Any help would be appreciated.