Purpose of proving grounds: Designed to be so demanding that only those students most committed to being science majors will receive passing grades in these courses.

C: Designing introductory science courses to serve as proving grounds has not served its intended purpose

Premise: Studies show that some of the students in these very demanding intro courses who are least enthusiastic about science receive passing grades in these courses.

There is a gap here between "most committed to being majors" and "least enthusiastic about science."

What if those who are least enthusiastic are most committed to being science majors and passed the course? That would destroy the author's argument because the sole premise now becomes irrelevant.

However, I feel D is more like a sufficient assumption rather than necessary assumption. Let's negate D : some of the students who are least enthusiastic are among the students most committed to being science majors. However, with this negation, there are still two possibilities: (1) least enthusiastic +most committed + passed the course; (2) least enthusiastic + most committed+ not passed the course. So if all the students mentioned in D fall within the second the possibility, the conclusion still stands. So could anyone explain why D is a necessary one as it is broader than what we need.

Hi all, could someone help me see why B is not supported? The way I see it, the scientist shouldn't be allowed to profit from his technology... But if he isn't ALLOWED to do something, isn't that a restriction? And doesn't that go against the statement "Society should not restrict the performance... except to prevent negative effects" ?

His profiting wouldn't cause negative effects; it just wouldn't spread the benefits around. The second part of answer B says that allowing others to profit wouldn't diminish the scientist's own profits. But that's irrelevant, isn't it? Either way, it's still limiting/restricting the scientist. This seems inconsistent to me.

Thank you so much! I feel like I'm missing something very obvious here.

Hey all, can someone explain to me why BOTH X and Y don’t have to be before Z?

For example, for question number 8, JY said for answer choice C, X can go before Z as long as Y goes after Z. I am having trouble with my fundamentals, please help, thanks!

When I do games, does not matter which type, I prefer to make as any boards as possible because this decreases the probability that I will get answers wrong. However, on some games, there are many probabilities and it takes more time than I want to spend on creating new boards. But, when I attempt not to make as many boards, it seems that I get more answers wrong.

Any advice on how I can come to a happy medium?????

Could anyone explain why D rather than C is correct?

P: (1) most of the new shows produced last year by WW were canceled;

(2) this year's new shows are all police dramas, and few police dramas have been popular in recent years

C: most of this year's new shows will be canceled

To strengthen, we want to make last year and this year more similar. So it is better to find sth like last year's police dramas were cancelled.

C： police drama --> cancelled

D: cancelled --> police drama

I feel both C and D could fulfill the gap.

Hey everyone. I have a problem with this question because of the wording in answer choice D). While it could explain why recovery is better for those in small hospitals, it explicitly talks about medical procedures in larger hospitals. Is that not inherently different from illnesses, which is what is referred to in the stimulus?

Just wondering what others think?

Hi, I would appreciate if anyone could explain why E is correct as now I am confused when could we make assumption in the Lsat.

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Hey everyone. After much contemplation, I needed some clarification for this one.

(E) says the “province could keep its workers and use them more effectively, with a resulting savings of $600 million in its out-of-province expenditures.”  I get the concept of paying for the workers by using them more effectively. 

JY says the money to pay for the workers is coming from  “$600 million in cost savings.” 

So does the cost savings refer to the “$600 million in its out-of-province expenditures?” 

Does this mean that after the government has refunded the $600 million to the taxpayers- they still have another $600 million left in their budget and they’re going to be very thrifty with that money by cutting down certain expenses? 

Thanks.

Hello, I am having a trouble understanding this rule:

H occupies the aisle seat immediately behind G's aisle seat. Why are we putting G in the aisle seat? What about this:

3 _ H

2 G _

1 _ _

Isn't H still immediately behind G's aisle seat?

Thank you

I've studied for the LSAT for the past 8 months and have written the LSAT before so it won't be my first (or even second) sitting. I've been writing a PT most, if not every, weekend for as long as I remember. I'm scoring in a range on my timed PTs that if I were to get the average of those scores on test day I could close this chapter of my life and be happy (again, if I score closer to my BR scores I'll be even happier!).

Despite all this and feeling confident I have some nerves that are starting to build as we inch closer to the exam. I find that meditation (love that 24 minute one on the site) is helping a lot but still sometimes late at night my mind begins to wander. Anyone else feeling the same?

Maybe when that happens I should go for a midnight jog.

Can someone name a few games that require a lot of brute force. These seems to be the one that trip me up the most during LG sections and I want to drill them before the Dec. exam.

I didn't circle this during BR, and I am really struggling to justify D over B. Here is my breakdown:

This is a weaken/descriptive flaw question.

Sites are needed for disposal of this thing (whatever it is). However, the approach you want would hurt the fishing business. Evidence of this is a petition that was signed by over 20,000 people opposing your approach and favoring this other approach (sand capped pits).

What I am looking for: I think the argument is pretty simple enough to understand. Is the petition really evidence that the other guy's approach would actually hurt the fishing business? What if all the people who signed the petition were corporate shills or fisherman lobbyists? Also, the argument implies that the other approach (sand capped pits) would not hurt the fishing business. We know nothing about this other approach.

Answer A: The author doesn't straw man the editor. The author is using evidence to support his claim (even though it is weak evidence).

Answer B: This is what I picked, and I was 100% confident. Doesn't the argument do this? Doesn't the argument just throw in this random other approach (sand capped pits) without establishing that it could work? We have no evidence that it actually fits the needs of disposing the spoils. Viable means "capable of working successfully; feasible." The idea of "one indication" to me introduces evidence/premise for the conclusion. Wouldn't the "indication"/evidence/support given be completely irrelevant if their proposed alternate approach wasn't viable?

Answer C: The author doesn't indicate what his interests are.

Answer D: I am having a very tough time understanding how this one is correct. I eliminated this over the word "testimony." How is signing a petition testimony? According to Google, testimony means "a formal written or spoken statement, especially one given in a court of law." A petition is "a formal written request, typically one signed by many people, appealing to authority with respect to a particular cause." How are these two the same thing? Specifically, the idea that a "written statement" is the same thing as a "written request" seems extremely dubious to me. If the word "testimony" were replaced with "appeal," then I could better understand what this was going for. Testimony seems such a bad synonym for what the evidence actually is in the argument.

Answer E: No third option? We don't care. We only care about the two options in the argument.

I cannot make heads are tails of this argument/figure out what it is talking about. I had no idea what any of the answer choices were doing since I couldn't understand the argument. Can someone break it down for me? This is my best paraphrase (which isn't much):

After an oil spill, rehab centers were set up to clean the oil off sea otters. The effort wasn't worth it. This is where I just flat out can't figure out what is going on. What is the rest of the argument trying to even say?

Hello All:

Quick preface:

1. I am taking the Dec. 2015 LSAT.

2. I started at 132

3. average PT score is 152/154

4. Target Score: ANYTHING over 160. Must apply this cycle for a reason in which i can't disclose (too personal), and although i wish it was, it is by no means flexible (i'll give ya a small hint... Uncle Sam isn't too happy with the delayed student visa).

5. Any tips would be greatly appreciated!

EDIT: "The online tutor that gave me this RC advice was NOT @nicole.hopkins . His name is D*****

I was on a Skype tutoring session earlier this week with a tutor i met from Reddit, his name is D****, and the tutor advised me to slow down and attempt less questions, and work on accuracy... i'm still trying to find my sweet spot.

On the RC section, instead of attempting all 4 passages, I only attempted 2 and worked on accuracy. It felt kind of weird, but based on the last 2 PT's iv'e taken and employed this strategy, It looks good so far.. only missed 2 on this PT (PT67)

On the LG section, I didn't slow down.. you either know it or you don't. i came out -4 because they were all time sinks.

On both LR sections, i attempted as many as i could, but slowed down a bit and tried to internalize every single word i read. Again, it feels a little weird not gunning for the whole section, but i did as many as i could, as fast as i could, just 20 miles-per hour slower, also making sure I was hitting at the minimum 17

Here's the breakdown:

Section 1 (RC) - 13/27 (-14). Did the first 2 passages only. got -2 on all questions attempted. the rest were guesses, and i only got 1 guess right.

Section 2 (LR1) - 11/25 (-14)- Guessed 6 (-6), -8 for questions attempted. -8 = -2 Sufficient assumption, -1weaken, -2flaw, -1 Disagree (crazy one!), -1 Main Conc. , -1 Most strongly supported.

**all questions skipped were in the end except for #17 (parallel)

Section 3 (LG) - 18/22 (-4) 2 questions were those "rule substitute" prompt (takes too long, guessed and moved on) and the other 2 were diagram errors. will fix that.

Section 4 (LR2)- 16/26 (-10) -6 were guesses and -4 were incorrect ones: -1 Main Conc., -2 Resolve, -1 Sufficient Assumption.

by the way... my BR's are still not going over 160. What is REALLY weird is that when i drill sections or drill sets, i go between -4 and -8, which is what i wish i was.

Thank you for taking the time to help a fellow 7sager out.

for all taking the Dec LSAT, I'd wish you good luck... BUT WE DON'T NEED IT! we are going to crush it!

Soooo I just took the PT with the dinosaur game and it's freaking me out because I'm worried I'll face something this crazy on the real thing. Do you guys have any advice on preparing for hybrids?

Sometimes when I'm doing the games, I take too long to decide when to split the game boards. Any rule of thumb? Thanks!

Hello, I took the LSAT twice already so I really need help to understand if I should take the Dec 2015 test or Feb 2016 test for Fall 2016 entry into law school. I cancelled my first score, and my second score is in the mid 150s. I really need a 167 to get into my top choice. I've been studying everyday for the last month but I still feel unprepared. I've been scoring 162-164 on my PT exams, with 167-170s on my BR. I noticed that on the test day, I had to reread many stims and paragraphs, which delayed me significantly. I am trying to get better at that.

I have 18 more days of prep left for the Dec. 2015 test, which I am registered for. Please let me know if you have any tips for how I can achieve at least a 167 on the test day and if you think I should take the Feb 2016 exam instead. I also plan on applying ED to the school because I do not plan on taking financial aid.

I appreciate your help during these very stressful times!

Hi guys, I'm a pretty average test taker with scores that are placing me right in the middle of the pack after several months of training. Most recently, I hit 155 while only getting 8 questions correct in the games section. It is my biggest impediment by far.

Here are my questions:

1. I recall JY said something along the lines that "at some point" logic games will just click for you." Has anyone with more studying under their belt been consistently bad at this and then finally broken through?

2. Is it normal to have so many problems with games? My performance on the games in the analytics dashboard is pretty bad when compared against the other students.

3. I'm assuming the only remediation here is to continue re-doing copies of games. If this is the case, have you found it true that this whole process takes an actual year?

In essence, I feel like I'm spinning my wheels when it comes to games.

quick, whats the rule of thumb as to which you should use?

I see why A, C,D, and E are incorrect, but I cannot figure out how B doesn't resolve the paradox. Here is the video explanation: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-4-question-26/

Smoking in bed is the main cause of home fires. Fewer people smoke now than did twenty years ago. But, the number of people killed in home fires hasn't declined.

What I am looking for: What if fewer people smoking decreased smoking related home fires, but another cause increased over that time? What if former smokers substitute smoking for playing with all of their extra matches? Also, there is a difference between people who smoke in bed and smokers in general.

Answer A: This is what I chose, but it is pretty subtle why it is wrong. This is suggesting that smoking related home fires aren't actually deadly, so it's actually not a paradox that the number of deaths didn't decline. It never was a big deal to begin with.

Answer B: If you see what A was doing, then this is the answer you are left with after POE, but I am really struggling to see how this doesn't resolve the paradox. JY is certainty correct in saying that this answer choice presents smoking in bed as a very risky thing: you might fall asleep when the fire starts and die. But, doesn't JY's explanation resolve the paradox? If smoking in bed is an inherently riskier activity, then doesn't it make sense that the number of deaths didn't decline?

Answer C: This definitely resolves the paradox. Just because there are fewer smokers doesn't mean that the right type of smoker has stopped smoking. What if none of those that are most susceptible for starting a fire didn't quit?

Answer D: This addresses the thing that I anticipated. What if another cause of fires increased?

Answer E: This definitely resolves the paradox. If there are more people living together, which can increase the cause of death, then sure, the there hasn't been a decrease in deaths.

Hi all, I'm trying to better understand Flaw-Descriptive Weakening Questions and this one stumped me. After listening to the explanation, I better understand why AC C is correct. However, I am wondering if AC C would still hold up if the wording was changed to "neglects the possibility that there might be widespread disagreement among connoisseurs.." instead of "neglects the possibility that there may be widespread agreement among connoisseurs.."

Any thoughts/clarification/tips would be greatly appreciated on this question?

I don't really see how B is supported in the situation nor how D does not. Can someone evaluate my reasoning?

The question stem is pretty weird. My best guess is that this is a MSS question or a principle question. According to Google, proposition means "a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion."

Industrialists address problems by simplifying them. In farming, this tends to lead to oversimplification. To illustrate, industrialists think water retention and drainage are two independent/unrelated things. That isn't true. Thus, more farming farming problems are created than solved when industrialist get involved in farming.

What I am looking for: My best guess for a principle would be that farmers shouldn't listen to industrialists when they suggest things about farming issues.

Answer A: Most important? No.

Answer B: This is the correct answer choice, but I don't understand how the passage illustrates this proposition. Viewed in all of their complexity? Where is this idea in the passage?

Answer C: Anyone else? No.

Answer D: I I felt pretty good about this one during the exam, and I kept it during BR. Isn't this pretty much verbatim stated in the final sentence of the passage?

Answer E: This was difficult to eliminate, but it is too broad. We know that industrialists oversimplify things, but we only know that it creates problems in the realm of farming, not everything. Plus, you would have to assume that oversimplifying something is fundamentally flawed. Maybe it is or maybe it isn't.

Only poetry cannot be translated well.

Why is it diagrammed /TW-->P?

I thought that with cannot we pick one idea, negate it and make it the necessary. So if I chose poetry to be negated, why can it not be TW-->/P. Some help would be great. Thank you!

I am pretty clueless on this one. I had the answer down to C or D, and I chose D (kept it during BR). I am completely lost as to how E is the weakener, so help would be greatly appreciated. Here is my breakdown:

This is a weaken question.

Few graduate students are aware of the attempt to unionize (some are aware; most are not aware). From there, I diagrammed the rest:

Grad students MOST not aware

Grad students SOME aware‑m→believe union would not represent their interest or do a bad job pursuing those interests

Therefore, grad students‑m→disapprove. Therefore, grad students shouldn't unionize.

What I am looking for: A lot wrong with this one. First, the argument assumes that if most of a group disapprove of something, then that thing shouldn't be done; this is sort of like an appeal to the crowd fallacy. What if it is in everyone's best interest for everyone eat their vegetables, but most people don't want to do it? Second, the argument makes an invalid inference. We don't know if MOST grad students disapprove. We only know that SOME of them are aware and Most are not aware (does no awareness mean disapproval? What if they are just ignorant?) Along the same lines, the argument is assuming that believing the union would not represent their interests/believing that the union wouldn't effectively pursue their interests is the same thing as disapproval. Lastly, the argument seems to be making a pro vs. con flaw by ignoring the potential benefits/pros of unionizing. The argument only talks about the possibility that the union won't have some people's interests in mind or won't be effective. What if there are things that outweigh those potential cons? The argument doesn't even address that relevant concern.

Answer A: What long standing practice?

Answer B: Fails to exclude alternative explanations? Why does the argument need to do this? We presumably have a few reasons why the students don't like the idea.

Answer C: I had it down to this one and D. I eliminated this one because something not being a good idea isn't mentioned in the passage. Just because something "shouldn't be done" doesn't necessarily imply that that thing isn't a good idea. I think this answer choice would have been better if "not a good idea" were substituted for "not be done."

Answer D: I was pretty confident with this answer choice, and I kept it during BR. Doesn't the argument do this? The argument is limiting it self to the potential cons of unionizing: it might not represent the interests of people or it might do a bad job representing the interest of people. What if there are other reasons to unionize that outweigh those concerns?

Answer E: This is the correct answer, but I felt 100% confident eliminating it. Does the argument equivocate on active disapproval and lack of approval? I don't see where it does this. Sure, it blurs the distinction between active disapproval (assuming that those who are aware of the union and believe that the union won't have their interests at heart/think the union won't do an effective job disapprove) and lack of awareness, but I don't see where the argument conflates active disapproval and mere lack of approval.

I'm just getting started with this and I would like to know what is the difference between the Law, Humanities, Social Science and Natural Science passages, especially if the sole purpose ti for structure and reasoning. Is it important to make a distinction between them, if so why? Is there a difference between the types of questions asked, if so why? Is there a difference in the type of reading or style per passage. The test is not suppose to favor any particular major, however, the jargon and background knowledge makes it difficult and seems to favor or reward those in certain fields of study. For example, I would expect a criminal justice major to do well on the law passage, a biology major to breeze through the science passage, and an english major to thoroughly enjoy the literature humanities passage. Please comment. I need all the help and the advice I can get. Thank you