Hi

So, it seems that these circular reasoning questions are killing me... okay so I have a question on answer choice B. I am not quite sure why this argument is circular reasoning. The structure is:

Okay, so the explanation to this question states that it is circular reasoning with premise 1 (Violent crimes are rare) and the main conclusion (The claim that there is a large number of violent crimes in our society is false. However, the reasoning on why I eliminated this answer choice was:

So if we were to look at this argument structure specifically at the circular reasoning part:

This seems to be good inferencing to me? I recall a lecture in 7sage's logical courses.

Here, to say that it is not the case that all cats cannot bark can mean several things: few cats can bark, many cats can bark, or all cats can bark. Yet, we never question the inference made from this structure...

Even if we were to assume that those two sentences meant the same thing, it is not circular reasoning if you provide additional premises. See https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-2-question-09/ (see from the 2:20 mark). After doing several circular reasoning questions, this advice seems to not stand anymore... Some clarification would be great on this point that the addition of additional premises circumvents the argument from circular reasoning.

Any take on these two points? So in my view, I'm not sure but would like some clarification on this, is that even though we see an answer choice, and from mechanical thinking, identify the answer choice as circular reasoning, there are quite different nuances in each one. For instance, here is another answer choice that can be identified as circular reasoning.

PT17 S2 Q2

E) draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim given in support of that conclusion

If this wording for circular reasoning had been provided, it would definitely miss the mark, as being rare is NOT a restatement of not a large number.

However, if we are to look at the answer choice in question:

PT24 S2 Q8

This wording would be true for this argument. While the conclusion is NOT a restatement of its premise, it still does presuppose the truth of it (If the statement that violent crimes are rare is true, then without a doubt, the conclusion that there are not a large number of violent crimes is true, as "being rare" implies that "it is not a large number").

So my take on this is that:

Any feedback would be great!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-2-question-08/

My problem with MSS seems to be that I usually can't anticipate an answer choice in advance. Only about one out of five or six times does my my "anticipated" answer choice actually appear. And half the time, it turns out to be a trap anyway.

Unlike Main Conclusion, where I can usually predict the answer, I end up going through every single answer choice and crossing out the wrong ones until one seems viable. Needless to say, it is time-consuming and not very helpful.

I was wondering if anyone had a step-by-step process to anticipate the correct answer.

Thanks in advance.

After looking at this question for quite a while, this question still does not click with me.

I am not too sure how answer choice C can effectively close the gap.

Thank you so much for your help!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-4-question-21/

.

Hi all,

I am quite puzzled by the answer to this question altogether. The answer to this is answer choice A (circular reasoning of the first sentence and the last part of the last sentence following "because"), but I am not quite sure why this is circular reasoning. When I saw this question and when I stumbled across answer choice A, I eliminated this by:

seeing the premises as the first sentence and the part of the last sentence that followed "because" which both state "in order to succeed in today's society, one must have a college degree," while seeing the conclusion as "the skeptics objection of counterexamples are only apparent success (the conclusion indicator of however pointed to this)." Thus, the premise and conclusion were different.

even if we were to see the first sentence and the last part of the last sentence to be the conclusion and premise, this wouldn't be circular as the first sentence is a general statement of succeeding in today's society, whereas the last sentence discussed the concepts of : 1. "true" success (a matter of degree in the success), and 2. why a college degree was important (because it showed that a person did not have enough "education").

Again, even if we were to see the first sentence and last part of the last sentence to be the conclusion and premise (and assume that they are stating the same thing), it is not circular reasoning if you provide additional premises. It took me a while to find the 7sage lecture on this but here it is https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-2-question-09/ (see from the 2:20 mark).

So the structure would be like this:

Conclusion: In order to succeed in today's society one must have a college degree

Major Premise: The skeptics version of success is only apparent

Premise: without a college degree a person does not have enough education to be truly successful

The addition of the major premise would, according to J.Y., sidestep this from circular reasoning.

Any take on these three understandings of this question? Any help would be great!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-3-question-20/

Hi all,

I have a question on answer choice C.

I understand the flaw of the survey: how it fails to distinguish the residents who dropped out in its own schools and those who dropped out of schools from somewhere else. But, after contemplating the answer choices, I am reluctant to accept answer choice C as the correct answer (the part where it says: those who had received their schooling elsewhere).

To my understanding, if you "received your schooling elsewhere," this meant that you did NOT dropout. To "receive something" would be to finish in the transaction of getting that something. So, answer choice C would be pointing out a flaw of distinguishing that was incorrect. If the answer choice had said having "attended (which opens up the possibility of dropping out" instead of "received," then I would have no problem with the answer choice.

Any take on this? If my understanding of "received schooling" is incorrect, any explanation (or examples that can show the usage of the word/phrase) would be great!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-15/

I had a hard time understanding why (A) is the right answer. After thinking about it for a day on and off, I came up with this reasoning. Please take a look if my logic behind getting the right answer is correct.

I wonder if this this question can be viewed as Resolve Reconcile type; the premise says the land-dwelling whales needed hind limbs capable of supporting its weight, and conclusion says the fragile limbs of whale found in the fossil is the remnant of whale once lived on land. But I tried to solve it as strengthen question.

This question talks about whales from three different periods; ancient whale (lived before fossilized whale skeleton), fossilized whale, and modern whale.

Premise:

Conclusion: The fragile hind limbs are remnants of limbs that land-dwelling whale once had.

I initially misunderstood the conclusion as the fragile hind limbs found in the fossil is the remains the whale that was living on land. So land-dwelling whale having fragile limbs is contradiction within the premise... but the correct understanding is the fragile hind limbs newly found in fossil is how the ancient whale evolved to be. The key was a correct understanding of the word "remnant."

So, to summarize it... whale evolution is like this chronologically.

Ancient Whale (ones lived before the newly found fossilized skeleton)

Fossilized Whale

Modern Whale

So, we need to strengthen the conclusion that the fossilized whale skeleton that has fragile limbs is the evolved form of whales limbs that lived on land at one point.

(A) is correct. The confirmation that ancient whale had a full pelvis would strengthen that by evolution it became a partial pelvis (as found in fossil) and now only bare remnant of pelvis.

(B) This weakens the conclusion

(C) irrelevant

(D) I initially chose this answer and that was because I misunderstood what the conclusion meant precisely.

(E) irrelevant.

It became a quite long explanation... I wonder if I am overthinking when it is really a simple question. I would appreciate any confirmation or correction on my reasoning. Thanks!!

Prior to my intensive two week study, I was scoring on average -5 on LR & RC and -6 on LG.

After two weeks of intensive study (question banks, review of my weaknesses etc.), I am missing -3 to -5 on LG and on RC.

That is the good news.

BUT

Bad news. I started missing -7 and once -8 on LR. :(

My overall score has dropped as a result.

WHAT IS GOING ON???

So, what I'm understanding about the practicing of the LR questions (MSS specifically) is that you just need to be a 100% sure about your answer choices. The Blind Review applies for the questions that you weren't certain of the answer in order for you to reach that 100% certainty as to why the answer choices are correct/incorrect. Furthermore, the question choices that yield subtle differences that makes you think "hmm... could be.." is definitely wrong because there's an answer choice that is definitely solid with the given premises... Right? I'm curious because I was doing the Preptest29-Section4-Question3 and realized that the answer I chose (D) was the aforementioned "hmmm.... could be..." so during my blind review, before consulting the explanation video, I re did the question and saw that (A) was the correct answer because it did not have the possibility of being countered when I plug it into the stimulus.

I'm making my trek back into LG and while watching JY's LG Fool Proof Method, he says to get the clean copies and all and to focus on making inferences which I totally understand. But he makes no mention of the questions. Should I include those as well or just focus on the inferences?

This is my biggest problem at the moment, and I don't recall this being in the curriculum. Could someone point this lesson out if I'm missing it? Seems like a pretty big part of the test.

I just started the Logic games portion of the CC and I am a bit unsure at how much time I should limit myself to during the timed portions. It was spelled out very easy in the RC where it is 3.5 for the passage and 3.5-4.5 depending on how many questions. What would be the timed goal for LG? I will still deeply review during BR, but I like to get myself used to the optimal time constraints right off the bat.

Thank you!

These are by far the hardest and most difficult type of LR questions for me. As soon as they turn into 3/5 stars in difficulty or greater I start missing them regularly. What is the best technique for tackling these question types? I've gone over the CC multiple times and it still doesn't explain it.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-56-section-2-question-20/

I'm having trouble understanding why (C) is wrong in PT56.S2.Q20.

I negated the statement as follows:

It’s not the case that psychotherapy should never be provided in a context in which there is any chance that the therapy might be of less than high quality.

= Psychotherapy can sometimes (or always) be provided in a context in which there is any chance that the therapy might be of less than high quality.

I thought the negation of (C) wrecked the argument because it indicated that psychotherapy can be provided when there is any chance (1%)....Is my negation wrong?

I understand why (E) is better, but I want to fully understand why (C) is wrong.

I'm on the MSS section and I'm trying to answer the question before the silent video ends (1m24s). Is that a good estimate for about how much time I should be spending on each questions for the real test?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-3-passage-4-questions/

I got all the questions right in the timed portion and in BR, EXCEPT #27.

I found it myself between AC’s B and C..

I did not chose C because I saw an underlying assumption that Amelia Wallace Vernon is a historian. Is that a reasonable assumption to make? The first paragraph said “while historians once” thought this… AWV now has research to say otherwise. I thought C was a trap as it was referencing to the historian’s theories that propagated the wrong myth. Directly from the text, the historians were the ones with the preconceived idea of the theory, not the new theories presented by AWV.

Now, I knew that B was wrong when I chose it, but I could not get myself to satisfy this assumption. Maybe it is just pure stubbornness, I am not sure.

What are your thoughts?

I am really struggling with this question type. It is the most often question I get wrong in LR.

My current scores are

(-3 to -4) RC & LG

(-5 to -6) LR

If I can get 2 more flaw questions right - they are very common and I always miss 1 or 2 - I could increase my average LSAT from a 163/4 to a 166/7.

I watched YJ's video and the two step video. I also have practiced many questions. I keep narrowing down the final two and keep picking the wrong one....

Please help!

Hi All,

Any help with this question would be appreciated. This is a resolve the discrepancy question (arguably a strengthen or PSA).

I'm going to present the stimulus below, accompanied by my train of thought, so someone can point out to me where I am erring in my approach to the stimulus. I am definitely misinterpreting/overthinking something.

P1: Earlier estimates of the distances of certain stars from Earth indicate that these stars are about 1 billion years older than the universe, which is impossible.

P2: My estimates of the distances indicate that these starts are much farther away than previously thought.

Okay so, at this point the discrepancy is introducing itself. Early estimates indicate that the stars are too old, yet the astronomer is now asserting that they are farther/not too old. What changed between early estimates and the astronomer's estimate? My natural assumption is that the farther the star is, the less bright it is. It seems as though the astronomer is about to call that assumption out.

P3: The farther away the stars are, the greater their intrinsic brightness must be, given their appearance to us on Earth.

Okay so this must have been the change. The early estimates probably weren't educated with this new fact, so they were off in their distance estimates.

C: So the new estimates of these stars' distances from Earth help resolve the earlier conflict between the ages of these stars and the age of the universe.

Okay so the stimulus draws a correlation between brightness and distance, and then infers from that that the age discrepancy is therefore resolved. In order for this to be the case, we need an answer choice that creates a correlation between age and distance.

I was able to select C because it was the only answer choice that directly had to do with the stars' age, but I am confused because C draws a correlation between brightness and age. We don't need that correlation...we need a correlation between age and distance. I have learned from much LR practice that if there is an established correlation between A and B, as well as a correlation between B and C, that does not necessarily entail a correlation between A and C. Likewise, we have a correlation between brightness and distance, C gives us a correlation between brightness and age, so how then can we infer the needed correlation between distance and age?

Thanks in advance.

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

/Q-->/D D-->W in the 7sage lesson, the teacher said /Q-->/D and /W-->/D, thus, there's no inference made. However, isn't we also can do it like D-->Q and D-->W, thus, some Q are W?

Hi everyone! Sorry if this is redundant. I have been going at the fool proof method for about 2.5 weeks now and here is what I'm finding and where I am struggling:

Thanks!

Hi All,

Super confused by this question, mostly because I probably don't understand what the correct answer choice is actually saying.

The argument is as follows:

P1: The flagellum is what bacteria uses to swim.

P2: The flagellum needs many parts before it can even propel the bacterium at all.

C: Therefore, any evolutionary ancestor of bacteria who only had a few of these parts would gain no survival advantage from these parts.

The question is asking for a sufficient assumption. I cannot understand what (B) is saying or why it is correct.

This is what I think (B) is saying: "At this point in time, all of the parts used for survival would have had to help the bacteria swim." So say there was Part A, Part B, and Part C. Part A helped the bacteria to eat, Part B to procreate, and Part C to sleep. (B) is essentially saying that, in addition to these functions, Part A, Part B, and Part C also help the bacteria to swim. Again, we are talking about bacteria NOW (not the evolutionary ancestors that the conclusion brings up).

So present day bacteria have Part A, Part B and Part C (as well as others, since there are "many"), each of which help them survive but also are utilized for their swimming abilities.

The conclusion talks about evolutionary ancestors that only had a few of these parts. So lets say that an ancestor only had Part A and Part C (pretend they morphed from being asexual to sexual creatures-- clearly not a scientist, but go with it). From my perspective, we need more information that (B) does not give us. For example, why would the functions of Parts A and C have no "survival advantage"? Parts A and C still allow the bacterium to eat and sleep. Is swimming necessary for survival? We are told that they need many parts to swim, but if they CANNOT swim, why would that render their other parts useless when it comes to "survival advantage"?

We know that there needs to be "many parts" in order for the bacteria to swim. We also know that the ancestors in question had "few parts," so we can infer that they could not swim. But the conclusion is very strong in that it is saying there are NO survival advantage to ANY of its existing parts. I just don't see how (B) gives us the information we need to arrive at this conclusion.

I believe I must just not be understanding what (B) is actually saying.

I chose (C). My thought was that, if all the parts of flagellum are vital to each of its functions, then it makes sense that, if an ancestor didn't have certain parts, they wouldn't be able to do anything. For example, Part A, Part B, and Part C are all necessary for ANY of them to function; therefore, if an older ancestor didn't have Part B, then Part A and Part C would provide no survival advantage because they cannot perform without that third part. So unless all of the parts are present, then none of the parts would provide a "survival advantage". (C) provides a very broad and strong claim, but I am seeing it fill a gap that (B) isn't.

Thanks in advance.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-3-question-18/

I have a question about "almost every Wednesday" in PT55 S1 Q15.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-1-question-15/

When I read this question, I thought the statement "almost every Wednesday" prevented having free poetry readings on every Wednesday.

So I diagrammed like this:

Wednesday --M--> Free Poetry Reading (FPR)

Wednesday (--some--) /FPR

But JY's explanation says:

Wednesday --M--> FPR

Most can include all, so it does not exclude the possibility of having free poetry readings on all Wednesdays.

What does "almost" mean on LSAT?

Got this one right by POE but had a tough time being OK with A. It is definitely something I considered as a flaw in the reasoning. However, the use of "the identity of the practical joker" in the stimulus (which we accept as true and cannot contradict) means we have to accept that there was one single person who was the joker. A tells us there was more than one joker. How does A not contradict the stimulus?

Am I missing some way of reading "the identity of the practical joker" to mean that there could be more than one person?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-40-section-3-question-14/

The Memory Method is introduced in Lesson 2 of Intro to RC. JY seems to suggest practicing this on 6-8, but does he mean for us to complete this practice before moving on to lesson 3? That would be independently. Just looking to nail this detail down before moving on in the course.

Thanks

I find myself frantically scribbling everything down like a doctor and never looking back at my notes during the questions. What should I actually take notes on to make this worthwhile? This is just hogging up time for me right now, but I found it to be very useful when doing sections untimed.