https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-52-section-3-question-25/

Can someone please explain this question to me? It's the principle question and mentions distant periods etc. The correct answer choice is A and I literally have no idea how it is correct. Help

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!

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?

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!!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-2-question-20/

Why exactly are C and E incorrect? After mulling over this question for nearly half an hour I can't seem to figure it out.

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")

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!!

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!

Im having problems eliminating answer A for this question. Can anyone explain why it is wrong?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-4-question-22

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 :)

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,

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.

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."

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! :)

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.

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.

Hopefully, this makes some sense. Keep in mind, I am using the term math very loosely.

Basically, I am wondering if anyone is aware of a resource that gets into numbers/maths issues in LR. Some examples would be percentages versus numbers [fairly frequent], greater than or equal to vs. less than, etc. One I saw recently was that the stimulus establishes that revenues were equal to fees and other revenues. If costs exceed the sum both [A>B+C], costs must be greater than either individual component. Now, I get that it is relatively obvious math, but, when doing LR questions, these kind of make me fumble more than they should. I am trying to find any resources that sort of do an overview of frequent math/number related issues on LR.

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?

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/

If there is anyone that would like to study with me, I am located in Paris, France. We can meet up during the week and weekends to this studying down. Please be serious, because I am enroute to law school next year and I need and will make an excellent score. So please again be about the business at hand of being prepared and diligent in your pursuit of achieving this goal!

I am booked for the December test here in Paris.

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,

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-2-question-21/

Hi, I was wondering whether anyone could explain why E is correct.

I was not sure about E because it says more than half of the students received a grade of B-or higher, but I thought it's not nec, true because there might be other factors influenced their grades, such as test score etc. Even though some students attend all classes, they might have done poorly on exams and it might result in receiving grades lower than B-, so I thought E cannot be inferred from the stimuli, especially the part "more than half..." at least some, maybe, but more than half is too much.

Could anyone explain this question?:(

Hi all, I am currently registered to take the September 2016 LSAT and I have been studying but I just don't know if I will be ready to meet my maximum potential score by this time. I plan to attend law school in the Fall of 2017 and I was wondering if, even after taking the September test, it will be too late for me to apply to schools with my December score?

I don't want to take the exam twice, however, I think this is the best way to maximize my score and allow myself enough time but I also don't want to postpone until December and end up regretting not taking it twice.

Is the December 2016 test too late to use to apply to law schools?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-4-question-12/

Hi, I am struggling between B and C...

I thought B is wrong because they might be able to get water from other regions if they run out their water...

Why are we not allowed to think in this way in this question? because it's not practical in real world?

Also for C...I thought it's correct because if they do not adopt water conservation methods in the near future, some regions may run out water. (but then it sounds like it suggests the same issue as B...maybe then can get water from other regions)

Is C wrong because in the conclusion it says "unless pop. growth trends change are simply mistaken" so adopting water conservation methods or not does not matter?

Thank you in advance!

I've been studying for the September LSAT since June and all you 7Sagers have provided me with invaluable advice. I'm hitting a bit of a block, so I'm hoping for some more of that great advice. My situation requires a little background:

I started studying for the LSAT at the beginning of June. I've made substantial progress since then, but I'm still not where I want to be.

I used PrepTests 29-40 for drilling sections of the test. Initially not timed, but as I got better I started timing. I got to the point where I was able to complete each LR section in just under the requisite time, with only -2 to -4 MAX on each section.

"Great," I thought. My LG skills are great, RC isn't great, but hey, my close to perfect LR score will get me where I want to be.

Well, I was wrong.

I just took a full-timed PrepTest 52 and LR tanked due to timing issues and I'm not really sure why. I've since also taken a full-timed PrepTest 53 and am experiencing the same issue.

For some reason, I'm not able to finish in the required period of time, which I don't understand because previously this hasn't been a problem. Either I go over by 5ish minutes and get a good score,or I rush, get 6 wrong in a row and come in under.

If I get these sections done in time, I'd be PTing at around 165. Which would make me very happy. But time is killing me.

What gives? Is LR harder in later PrepTests? I am finding that some questions (no pattern) require me to read the question stem multiple times to properly understand - I have to do this more-so than in earlier tests.

I thought BR was supposed to help this problem. I expected that the more BR I did, the better I'd get at solving the problems in a shorter amount of time. Is this not the case? Because I've BR'd a LOT of LR sections and I'm still finding that I'll come across 1 to 2 problems each section that I have absolutely no idea what to even think.

I'm confused, and very disappointed. Thoughts?