what do you do when you run out of drills? I have done so many method of reasoning drills that I have run out of new questions. what should I do?

Hello!

I was wondering if we took the LSAT this June and submitted a writing sample, will we have to write a new writing sample for the August 2024 exam? (Since the format is changing a little bit)

I am slightly confused as to how Q22 = AC: C?

Doesn't C leave the possibility of

1.) Network to U to P to T to S to T to R to Q

or

2.) Network to T to S to U to P to T to R to Q

?

I write on Saturday, someone please let me know ASAPPP!#help

For example if in the stimulus the conditional statement is A->B can the right answer be /B->/A? or does it need to take the original form?

I never really fully understood what understanding how to approach the question means could someone clarify this for me?

Here is my analysis of the answer choices. Grateful for commenting on my thoughts, please! Thank you!

(A): Both disagreed. Cynthia - the reason to be funded by Gov is to further theoretical knowledge not unforeseen practical applications. Luis - the "expected" to yield practical applications in the stimulus is more definite that "may have unforeseen.." in AC.

(B): Luis disagrees; Cynthia - not known because we don't know what project does she think the Gov should not fund. In the stimulus, we only know Cynthia would agree that the government should fund researches that further the theoretical knowledge, but that does not mean the Gov should not fund projects that have practical application.

(C): Luis - not known because the only thing we know from stimulus is "Gov fund projects --> research that is expected to yield practical applications" (ie. every gov funded research should have practical application), but that does not mean that every research that has practical application should be funded by Gov. As for Cynthia, I am confused because I am not sure if "research project in theoretical science" in AC is equivalent to "research project seeks to further theoretical knowledge of nature" in the stimulus. But in either way, the AC should be eliminated.

(D) Not known because we don't know if the new technologies will help further theoretical knowledge of nature or yield practical applications

(E) Cynthia agrees and Luis disagrees.

Are my interpretations correct?

Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-2-question-14/

Admin edit: title and link

Hi everyone. I have noticed significant improvement over the course of my studies with LG due to foolproofing, especially with my initial set ups, nailing inferences as well as my confidence!

However, I am still making stupid mistakes here and there on the actual questions, especially during timed practice.

Will more foolproofing help out or is that more relevant for finding inferences?

I assume I will get more accurate consistently by drilling, which I am currently doing, but any advice would be helpful!

I'm adding my explanation to this question since it doesn't currently exist on 7sage. Feel free to critique my reasoning.

This is a necessary assumption question. We know this because the question stem says the argument above makes which one of the following assumptions? The correct AC must be an assumption we know the argument makes. Therefore, it is a necessary assumption.

P: R bacteria provide nitrogen to bean plants and other legumes. Nitrogen is an essential plant nutrient. Wheat must normally be supplied nitrogen by nitrogen fertilizer.

C: If technology produces wheat strains that will host R bacteria, the need for fertilizers will be reduced.

Flaw: I originally thought but what if nitrogen is not the only essential plant nutrient for plants to grow? Might the need for fertilizer remain? B plays on this erroneous understanding. This isn't the actual flaw.

A. 'should' is irrelevant. This is not about what should happen it's about what is/will happen.

B. This was temping and it the trap answer choice. The conclusion says the need for artificial fertilizers will be reduced if biotech succeeds in producing wheat strains who host R bacteria. What about other reasons growers need to add fertilizer? Can we conclude from no longer needing nitrogen that fertilizer demand in general will be reduced? Even if nitrogen only comprises a small subset of all fertilizer use, if we eliminate the nitrogen need, then yes, the fertilizer demand will be reduced. This is true even if nitrogen is not the only soil nutrient that must be supplied. The key word to not falling for this trap answer choice is "reduced." Perhaps I was temped because I was thinking "eliminated." If the conclusion said the demand would be eliminated then yes nitrogen would have to be the only reason growers use fertilizer.

C. This is not necessary. It talks about other grasses but even if it didn't, even if there are strains of wheat that do have R naturally, we know there are some that aren't. That's what the whole argument is about so this is irrelevant.

D. Similar reasoning to C. We don't need legumes to be the only crops that produce nitrogen. We know some wheats don't and we know there is an existing need for nitrogen based fertilizer. The argument is simply saying the need will go down if wheat is modified to host R bacteria.

E. This is absolutely necessary. If the R bacteria did not produce nitrogen in the wheat roots then it wouldn't reduce the need for artificial fertilizer. This is the true flaw. Just because the plant will host the bacteria doesn't mean that it will necessarily have the desired effect.

Looking for a group of motivated individuals who want to learn, progress, and prioritize the LSAT. People who can forge together and keep each other accountable on studying and practicing. I graduated from U of M -Dearborn with a BA in English Literature and double Minor in Criminal Justice and Writing. I'd be willing to help with personal statements in our study group as well.

Hi, 7Sage, it's been a wonderful time having used your service, but I want to know what your opinion of adding written out answers to old LR questions is. I have been drilling the old questions, but I cannot help but notice that among the PTs before 16-17, the LR explanations are scant, with exceptions of video explanations. However, the problem with posting videos is that it just takes too much time to review the question: you have to find the explanation of the answer choice that you were curious about. It would be much better if videos plus written out answers are added. Thanks always, 7Sage!

Hello!! I am running out of grouping game drill questions. what do I do!! i definitely need more practice

So, like many of my fellow 7Sage friends out there I took the September 2018 test and probably went -2 or -3 lower than my average PT score. I already decided to retake weather or not by some chance my actual LSAT score is around my average or even possibly above (by some miraculous act of god). Being entirely open, I suck at RC and my LR is below average. My LG is solid and I feel most confident in this section. My "general" plan is to take about two solid weeks to only do RC. I want to try to do 50-60 RC passages a week during this time and review each thoroughly. After I plan to drill LR for another two weeks and do some RC during this time frame also. I will be around three to four weeks out from test day at this point and plan to PT a few exams and do thorough review generally. I have taken roughly 28-30 PT's already at this point and know how to "flow" through a test and how to handle all the different "situations" that the LSAT can throw; I really am just trying to gather a deeper comprehension at this point. I'm really just trying to see if anyone has any opinions they could throw my way ! Thank you, and good luck to all :)

Hey all,

I was kicked out of the virtual exam room eight (8) times during the exam, twice during each section, at roughly 15-20 minute intervals. After the eighth time, the Prometric system said that if I 'abandoned' the test again, I wouldn't be allowed to rejoin and finish it. As a result, I had to rush through the final section and guess on half of the questions just to guarantee that I finished before getting kicked again. I have no idea why it happened. It could have been connectivity issues, but I work from home twice a week with no issues and even upgraded my home internet to 5G before the test specifically for this reason. Regardless of the cause, I was kicked out of the test midsection, forced to rejoin the test, and go through the security/screening process 8 times, which obviously wasn't ideal for doing well. 

It's a long shot, but do you know if I have any options regarding whether I can get this test expunged, retake it, or even take the issue up with LSAC or Prometric? I'm not hopeful of anything, but I'd appreciate any help or advice you all could have. 

The correct choice was B, I selected D. I found this statement really difficult to understand and even my BR took a while to do so if anyone can offer helpful tips on how they approached this question that would be greatly appreciated.

My reason for selecting the answer choice I did was because I made an assumption in the archaeologist's argument, I also confused myself with the grammar inside the stimulus.

This is how I am now understanding the question:

Treasure Hunter: Because of the rule, treasure hunters are entitled to what they retrieve since they are risking their lives. Since the rule applies, the ship is in peril. This condition must be met for the rule to apply.

Archeologist: They are not entitled to what they retrieve, the shipwrecks are stablized, the only danger they are exposed to is that of previous archaeologists and therefore are not in peril (implicitly stated). They are not in peril because for the rule to be met this condition must also be met, in this case it is not.

What they disagree about is whether or not the ship is in peril (B)

TH says this rule can be applied to a sunken ship. Implicitly saying that it is still in peril

A says nothing about the rule and only speaks about whether the treasure hunters are actually entitled to the artifacts or not. But since they are not entitled to the artifacts, the ship is not in peril.

(D) is incorrect because:

TH: agrees with the statement by saying even though they have sunk, treasure hunters are still entitled to what they discover because they risk their lives

A: Though they still risk their lives, they are only risking their lives because of other treasure hunters, not because the ship is in peril. But they make no mention about whether maritime law can be applied

Prep Test A Section 1 Question 21

I was stuck between answer choices C and E for this question but am having a hard time fully understanding why C is the correct answer. Would appreciate an explanation! #help #feedback

Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

Talks about a reserve price paradoxically to the highest bidder and making money for a desirable item

Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

Hey is anyone coming across an issue where their videos are not loading for the lectures and it says due to their server?

Hi Guys,

I am going through the parallel thing and I think I have to look at the advanced logic first in order to do them.

Do you guys felt the same thing?

I just finished the principle reasoning section, and I'm wondering if I should go back and redo the lawgic lessons. I still find myself really struggling with the forms (and wanting to use them when I attempt to answer the questions). Has anyone had the same problem? Or has anyone gone back and redone the lessons?

BTW I plan to take the LSAT for the first time in April

Listen and subscribe:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify

Bailey is joined by 7Sage admissions consultant Jake Baska to discuss the shifting landscape in law school admissions. Listen in to hear advice on when to apply, when it might be to late, when you may want to kick into gear on other parts of your application, whether you should retest for a higher score, and more.

I just scored a 171 on PT127.

Antidepressants are an example of how the brain is affected by neurotransmitters to relieve depression

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question

Good Afternoon everyone!

I have my LR down to -4 on average but am not confident in SA and NA questions no matter how much I practice. Any tips on how to do them without diagramming? I get more confused when I diagram and do not find it helpful in the least.

Thanks!

Based on an examination of three types of rates (small, average size, and large), a recent study found that in rats, SIZE↑ correlates with HEART PROBLEMS↓. In other words, the study found that the greater a rat is, the less likely it is to have heart problems.

RRE EXCEPT. Four of the answer choices must be able to CONTRIBUTE to an explanation of this correlation; one does not. I did not do a pre-phrase here and went straight to the answers.

(A) Compared to large rats, smaller rats are more likely to have fatal diseases that strike earlier than heart problems. Under timed conditions, I took this to suggest: Small rats generally are more likely to die before heart disease strikes, so that heart disease will be overrepresented among the surviving small rats. However, this inference does not follow. If small rats tend to die young, the total NUMBER of surviving small rats that gets heart disease might be smaller, but there is no indication that there would be a corresponding increase in the PROPORTION of small rats that gets heart disease. This answer choice thus does not contribute to an explanation the observed correlation and thus must be right.

(B) Small rats are more likely to have blood vessel issues that causally contribute to heart disease. This helps to explain the correlation.

(C) Larger rats have less stress than smaller ones. If you assume that stress is causally related to heart disease, this contributes to an explanation. Under timed conditions, I thought that this assumption was too big of a jump, but compared to (A) this answer choice still is better. (A) does not contribute to an explanation at all, (C) does so if we make an additional assumption that seems fairly plausible from a common-sense perspective.

(D) The most common cause of heart disease in rats also causes them to be small. This explains the observed correlation by identifying a joint cause of small size and heart disease among rats.

(E) Larger rats do more exercises than smaller rats that causally contribute to heart health. This contributes to an explanation.

(C) is right, (A) is wrong. Under timed conditions, I had taken (A) to lead to a sampling bias making smaller rats not afflicted by heart disease less likely to survive such that heart disease becomes overrepresented among the surviving small rats. However, this inference is false. Just because small rats might be more likely to die for reasons other than heart disease, heart disease does not have to afflict a greater proportion of the surviving rats. I made a mistake here in assessing the implications of this answer choice and then switched to (C) because (C) requires an additional assumption to be explanatory ('Stress causes heart disease').

Takeaways: I originally had chosen the right answer (A) but then switched to (C) after mistakenly making the above-described inference. I likely was overthinking (A). I need to keep an open eye for the distinction between NUMBERS and PROPORTIONs. If unsure, close my eyes for a couple of seconds, do some deep breaths, calm down and reflect. I definitely felt uncomfortable in selecting my answer but could not quite identify what went wrong. NUMBERS vs. PROPORTIONs is a crucial distinction here, similar to e.g. POSSIBILITY vs. ACTUALITY, INATE vs. ACQUIRED, or MENTAL STATE vs. REALITY. Be vigilant, stay alert to these commonly used distinctions.

If a collective effort is needed, one person/idea will not significantly change that affect