Discussions

LSAT

New post

316 posts in the last 30 days

I'm redoing some questions that I marked when I first went through the ciriculum, and I came across this tricky one. I fully see why answer D is correct, but I can't figure out what makes B incorrect. Doesn't answer B deny an alternate cause?

Link: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-3-question-20

This is a strengthen question.

G is a protein in the brain. In an experiment, rats that preferred fatty foods over lean foods had a lot more G in the brain than did the rats that preferred lean foods over fatty foods. Therefore, G causes rats to crave fatty foods.

What I am looking for: This is a cookie cutter causal flaw. In my mind, a plausible weakener would be that eating fatty foods might cause an increase in G. We need to deny this.

Answer A: OK, so sometimes the rats choose lean foods. So what? Our facts say that the rats "consistently" choose fatty foods. Is this answer choice just sort of restatement of one of our facts? I think it is.

Answer B: This is hard to eliminate, and I think it's wrong because it just isn't relevant. We don't care about the fat in the brain, but rather, a protein in the brain. Part of me still thinks this denies an alternate cause though: the rats didn't prefer the fatty foods due to a fatty brain.

Answer C: So what? We only care about G in the brain, not the food. For this to work, I think you need to assume that the G in the food then goes up to the brain, but that's a weird assumption.

Answer D: This is perfect since it tells us that the rats that like fatty food had higher amounts of G in their brain before they ate the food. This denies that reverse cause scenario that I anticipated.

Answer E: So what? We don't know anything about the efficiency of metabolizing fat.

0

Hey guys! Here's the official June LSAT Discussion Thread. Please keep all discussions of the June 2016 LSAT here!

Here's some ground rules, taken from my usual sticky:

We know that everyone will be excited to discuss what was on the June '16 LSAT, but mentioning specifics about the test (e.g., "I got B for question 6" or "the 3rd LG was sequencing") can get both us and you in a lot of trouble with LSAC. Saying that the test was hard/easy without going into detail is okay, but anything more specific is not okay. LSAC monitors this forum.

If you're unsure what may be too specific, feel free to PM me with what you'd like to post.

The only exception is you can say which sections were real or experimental. For example, the LG with "flowers" was experimental. That's okay.

TL;DR: PLEASE don't talk specifics about June's LSAT!

Here's where you can see the current Real/Experimental Sections:

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/6923/june-2016-lsat-real-experimental-sections-keywords

Have fun discussing!

6

Hey gang,

I’ve been working through the Sufficient Assumption question bank, trying to turn my Level 3 and 2 questions into Level 1 questions (for terminology check this out this webinar: https://classic.7sage.com/webinar/timing-and-levels-of-certainty -- props to @c.janson35 and his brilliant Timing Webinar).

This question bothers the you-know-what out of me because the answer doesn’t seem to justify the conclusion. It just seems like it’s like it’s blocking other potential explanations, which would make it a good necessary assumption or strengthening answer. I’d love people’s input on this.

0

Damn, PT52 has some pretty tough LR sections, and even after a retake, I missed many of the same question again (like this one). I don't see how answer A weakens the argument nor how B doesn't.

Link: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-52-section-3-question-19

One theory that explains dinosaur extinction is that the dinos OD'd. Angiosperms have psychoactive agents in them. Most plant-eating mammals avoid them since they taste bitter. Mammals also have livers that detoxify the drugs. On the other hand, dinos couldn't taste the bitterness nor detoxify the plant. Lastly, this theory explains why so many dinosaurs were found in weird positions in the fossils.

What I am looking for: Did the dinosaurs actually eat the plants? What if some other theory (like an asteroid) explains the sudden extinction better? Also, we don't even know if the plants were bad for the dinosaurs; we know that angiosperms are bad for some mammals, but what if they were net healthy for dinosaurs? Sure, dinosaurs couldn't detoxify the psychoactive agent (which is bad), but what if the angiosperms provided such large amount of nutrients and other good stuff, that it was worth eating still? Also, we have no evidence that the comparison between the mammals and dinosaurs is even a good comparison; what if the two are so different physiologically any comparison doesn't hold? There is so much wrong with this argument.

Answer A: I just don't see how this weakens the argument. First, it's incredibly weak: we found 1 fossil of a large mammal in a contorted position. But so what? What does this have to do with dinosaurs? Even if you take this to the other extreme: 1 million large mammals were found in contorted positions, you still have the same issue. It doesn't shed any light on what happened to the dinosaurs. Second, the passage never even talks about "large mammals," and the comparison to the mammals in the passage is dubious already, so I don't see how adding this potential third group of mammals to the argument weakens anything.

Answer B: This is what I picked (and I chose this during both my takes of this exam, and kept it both times during BR). Doesn't this point out one of the things I anticipated? If angiosperms provide nutrition, then doesn't this mean they may have actually been GOOD for dinosaurs? In my mind, this not only weakens the argument, but it strongly does so.

Answer C: I think this strengthens the theory. This shows that not only vegetarian dinosaurs ate the angiosperms, but also the meat eating dinosaurs indirectly did as well (which could account for the fact that theory explains the extinction of ALL dinosaurs).

Answer D: OK, but we are talking about angiosperms only. So what if poison ivy doesn't have this stuff in it? This is entirely irrelevant.

Answer E: I think this also strengthens the argument. This shows us that it's possible that animals can actually die from eating angiosperms, so it strengthens the idea that maybe the dinosaurs died from the plant as well. This is a pretty weak strengthener, but it strengthens nonetheless.

0

I've noticed that I've been getting 100% on logic game sets that have a difficulty of 1/5 or perhaps 2. I get 1-2 wrong on anything above 3....

The bright side is that I'm getting sets correct but I'd like to ask what the usual distribution of difficulty is on actual logic game sections? Like... 1 easy, 2 medium and 1 difficult or is it always random?

0

While working on main point of argument i noticed that some do not have conclusion indicators but i might see counter premise indicators (However is one that i see) i noticed in some videos that but was also a indicator.. are there any videos or can anyone on here help explain what to do when you comes across these types of words.

Thanks!

0

I chose B because I thought it weakened the argument showing that it does not matter the amount a person digesting the fiber thus weakening Kyra's claim.

Can someone explain A and B to me?

C) being economical and readily available does not affect Kyra's argument and thus is irrelevant, we only care about how absorption affects mineral absorption

D) calcium intake is discussing new information, bone mass and osteoporosis is irrelevant because it's not even discussed about in the argument/recommendation

E) Strengthens. People are getting fiber from other places which supports Kyra's claim that with the amount recommended people would be more likely to have fiber that is significantly above the recommended intake and affect mineral absorption

0

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-56-section-3-question-21

I understand Jon's explanation on this question, but I was tricked by the question's word choice "revival" in the answer choice (D).

Doesn't "revival" imply that the ballroom dancing had been once popular before?

The passage doesn't mention anything about this.

Probably, I was too nitpicking, but could you clarify this?

Thanks!

0

Hi guys I am trying the Fool proof method and doing like 3 copy of one game back to back, when I reach 6th try it feels like not only I memorized the inferences but I also memorized questions' already. I will write out all the inferences under timed condition and eliminate all answer choices before reaching the correct answer. But when hit target time (normally one minute less than that) I feel its more memorizing than learning. Am I doing something wrong?

Please advise me to how to get the most out of Fool Proof Method.

0

Hello 7sages,

I'm confused about such rules as shown in the title, and I will use some of the examples from the PTs

(Spoiler Alert)

1. Exactly twice as many of the film buffs see the Hitchcock film as see the Fellini film

2. At least many French novels as Russian novels are selected.

3. At least twice as many roses as orchids must be used.

I'm quite confused which one is more, hope you can give me some advice, thank you!

0

PT16-S1-G1, trying to setup the rules with conditionals and having a bit of an issue trying to figure out why Rule 3 " Neither S nor W can be added to the same class as Y" is a biconditional for S-Y and S-W instead of just a single conditional. Biconditionals are either/or/but not both and I cannot for the the life of me back that out from this conditional statement. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I can work out S-->/Y based on group 4 negate necessary but that's all........

0

Link to question and explanation:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-56-section-2-question-24/

I watched J.Y.s explanation and he says that we're presuming the documents were in fact opened. But, is it really a presumption when the author explicitly says "WHEN the document was opened"? The author says when (in other words "if") the document is opened, then Y results. And then with (A), we're just confirming the sufficient condition, saying yes it was opened. Is that considered an assumption?

0

I am looking at the LSAT Prep book distributed by Kaplan and I am already confused about the material. (I have not purchased a 7Sage course yet as I'm on the trial, so I hope it is okay that I am already asking questions). The first chapter is about LSAT Reasoning and Levels of Truth (true, false, and possible). I know this may sound stupid since we already think about Levels of Truth in our daily lives, but I'm really not understanding the material based on the way they have worded things...

The book says that possible can be described as "could be true" and "could be false". Can a statement possibly be true and possibly be false at the same time, or is it just one or the other? For example, one "question stem" they gave was "Which of the following must be true?" The analysis was the answer must be true and "Therefore, the four wrong answers must be false, or are merely possible (i.e., could be false)." When they said the wrong answers could be "merely possible (i.e., could be false)", why did they not describe "merely possible" as could be false OR could be true? Is it because a could be true statement can be proven to be false?

Another example is when they ask the question, "Which of the following could be true?" The analysis was the answer could be true and that a "must be true" answer would also fit. Why is this? Isn't a "must be true" answer different from "could be true"? It has already been proven that it is true...

In other words, can a statement possibly be false or possibly be true at the same time, or is it just one or the other? Can a statement ALWAYS "possibly be true" and "must be true" at the same time?

I guess if I am getting tripped up on such a simple concept maybe I should just give up now...I really overthink things...

Thank you!

-Amanda

0

I watched the video explanation for this, but I don't think I understood it 100%.

I think the author's logic is simplified as farther=brighter=younger but I don't quite understand how a brighter star is supposed to be younger. Is this true in real life? Ha..

Maybe I'm overthinking this problem..?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-20/

0

For mastering the logic games, from what I've gathered, it's suggested to do JY's method for each game by watching the videos and repeating the inferences on blank copies until a firm understanding of each game is reached. However, in doing so won't my scores be affected on my PTs leading up to the test because I will have already seen the games and know how to do them? I'm worried that on the one hand this wouldn't give me a good indication of where my score would really be than if I hadn't previously seen the games, but I'm also worried that if I wait to drill on those games until after I've taken the PTs to which they belong I won't have enough time since it will be closer to the test date at that point.

Hypothetically speaking, if I plan to take PTs 41- the most recently available one (giving me 30+ PTs), should I drill those games before taking the PTs or wait until I take them?

What's the suggested practice for approaching this? I'm definitely aiming for a near perfect score on the games section come June and just want to make sure that whatever prep I do is as effective as it can be.

1

This is a hard SA question, and I don't see what I am missing. How is answer choice A a sufficient assumption?

My diagram:

(Solution to environmental problem not caused by the government)--->(Major change in consumer habits)--->(Economically Enticing)

Therefore, (Not Economically enticing)--->(Few serious ecological problems solved).

What I am looking for: This is a pretty simply A to B to C argument, and the conclusion as a Not C in it. To link up the chain, say (Not solution to environmental problem not caused by the government)--->(Few serious ecological problems solved).

Answers B-E are way wrong, but I don't see how answer A paraphrases the sufficient assumption at all.

Link: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-2-question-13/

0

One of JY's reading comp explanations really helped me easily mentally compartmentalize 'than' in complex sentences saving me tons of time (eg whatever thing comes before 'than' is the winner). I am not sure if this even makes sense, but wondering if anyone could share a foolproof method for understanding the word 'against' in sentences?

1

I've noticed that one of my big problems with LG (and there are _many_, are maximum/minimum questions. For example, "the maximum number of Bs that can be in group F is___?" These questions are difficult for me because it's tough to know when I'm getting them wrong. In other words, I don't know when I've done all I can to get to the solution. Now, you might just say, "Run down your rules and make sure you haven't failed anything." Right, OK, but sometimes you do that and you still haven't maximized or minimized because there are other valid solutions that contain more or less of the variable in question. Unfortunately, I don't find JY's videos particularly helpful here because it seems like he just sees the best way to do the problem (and/or he has the benefit of hindsight and an answer key). Are there any actual strategies I can use here, or am I at the mercy of my intuition?

0

I am retaking the test for a second time and have just come off an intense run with testmasters, but as you've some people here have pointed out so well, each test prep source has its own strengths/weaknesses. The first time I sat for the test, I was seriously underprepared and scored a 153, which was devastating. After recovering from that, I took up a testmasters tutoring course, and now I'm scoring higher, in the mid to high160's, but my scores on practice tests tend to fluctuate quite a bit and I also tend to struggle with keeping time, so most of these scores are not based on true test taking conditions (I think I'd score much lower in reality because as things are going I rarely tend to finish a section under 35 minutes!). Now I'm tempted to consider pushing back my scheduled test date (February 6th to June 6th) so that I can try out this blind review method... However I should say that I think pushing back the test will only be worth the sacrifice in time if this method is truly likely to help me significantly increase my score (ideally breaking into the low to mid 170's). Do you think I should do it? I would appreciate any thoughts/advice on this!

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?