EDIT: I had the wrong question in the title

I have a huge bone to pick with this one. I don't see how any of the answer choices "must be true."

Here is the law:

Greater than $100 AND made by nonresident AND nonresident isn't former resident--->Register

The campaign complied with the law (so it complied with the contrapositive as well). The campaign accepted contributions only from residents and former residents.

What I am looking for: I thought this was a pretty weird passage since the final clause only denies the sufficient condition, which tells us nothing about if those contributions needed to be registered. Thus, I thought an answer choice was going to specifically reaffirm this premise.

Answer A: This is what I chose, even though I was confident it was wrong. I chose it since I thought all of the answer choices didn't work. This answer is incorrect because the dollar amount of the people that donated to the campaign is irrelevant. The nonresident in this answer choice MUST have been former resident, and if this were what this had said, it would have been correct. However, the dollar amount could have been anything since our conditional rule is irrelevant.

Answer B: This could be true, but it doesn't have to be true. We only know one sufficient condition for registration; there could be multiple sufficient conditions for registration.

Answer C: This is the correct answer??? How must this be true? We only know one rule/sufficient condition for registration. Why can't there be other rules? The passage never indicates that the rule given is the only rule. What if all contributions from residents and former residents must be registered? How this is even close to being a correct answer is beyond my understanding.

Answer D: Again, this doesn't have to be true. We know nothing about donations by the residents and former residents. They each could have given the campaign $1 or something.

Answer E: Again, we only have one sufficiency condition for registration, so this could be true.

I am beginning to PT since i last took a Kaplan course. They suggested that at 12 or 15 you skip to 26 and work backward basically skipping the 2nd to last full page and working back to middle. Does anyone else do this ? is it silly or good advice?

What is the best method to program yourself to look for incorrect answers, as opposed to correct answers, during the LR section?

I was told that this is the most effective approach to do very well within this section. What do you think?

I fully completed the 7sage course and wrote practice tests 59-74 scoring between 158-160 constantly, however, I wrote the October test and failed miserably ( less than 150). while I was writing the October exam I managed to finish all the sections and felt pretty good about the majority of the sections, so the score I received didn't make sense to me, I'm not sure if getting 158-160 was just a fluke or if it is something about test day, Can you give me some tips on how to prepare for December and how I can score better.

Hello 7sagers,

I just signed up a while ago and thought I'd give this forum a shot. I was wondering on logic games, when do you create a table between the game pieces and the base set like in the Feb 1993, Logic Game #4? Sometimes I'll create a table when it is not needed. Thanks for all the help!

Help!! Can't do more than 16 LR Q with 80% accuracy. Tips?? I want to touch 20

I've been through the Logical Reasoning curriculum - and feel like I need to print it all out, and even just get access to JY's organisational charts... just so that I can read over it and commit it to memory when I'm not at a computer. I've printed out all the cheat sheets - but things like the flash cards are only digital. Does anyone else feel the same way? What's the best solution? Copy and paste?

Im currently stuck in the low to mid 160's and determined to get to 170 by test day. I would love to find people who would like to skype in the coming weeks to take PT's together even if we are taking different ones. I think having someone else there will keep me from stopping like i sometimes do.

Can someone help me diagram the stimulus and find the sufficient assumption?

What I have is:

P: art criticism most /satisfy

----

C: art criticism most /greatest works of art

SA answer: /satisfy most or some /greatest works of art

I was wondering, I thought we can't make contrapositives for most statements but the answer E does? Let me know if I am understanding this incorrectly, thanks!

I really didn’t like any of the answer choices, so I pretty much guessed on this one.

These psychologists surveyed 100 entrepreneurs and 100 business managers. The questions asked about different topics and the level of certainty was also recorded. Each groups were overconfident, but the E were more so than the BMs. Thus, people who are overconfident are more likely to start a business than those less confident.

What I am looking for: A lot wrong with this argument. First, all of the survey stuff. Was the sample representative of Es and BMs? Second, do the BMs accurately reflect people that are less confident? The conclusion makes too broad a claim; it should have limited it to more likely than than BMs, not less confident people in general. Lastly, the argument assumes that overconfidence and gauging success are the same thing. Are they? Not so sure.

Answer A: So what? Were these questions unbiased? You have to assume they were. Skip.

Answer B: This, if anything, might weaken the argument. We want to strengthen the argument. This suggests that some people can start businesses with accurate levels of confidence. Skip.

Answer C: This is irrelevant. Was the other survey good? Also, how would a correlation between confidence and success be relevant? We need a correlation between confidence and likelihood of starting a business.

Answer D: I guess it strengthens the argument, but I am still not that sure why. Does it show that there might be some support for there being a correlation between overconfidence (the ones that are the “most”) and odds of starting a business. I am still pretty wishy washy on this one.

Answer E: This is what I chose, but like I said before, I really didn’t like it. This is saying that the degree of overconfidence in the answered questions corresponded with the degree of overconfidence in business acumen. I think this would have been a pretty decent strengthener if “business acumen” were substituted for “likelihood of successfully starting a business.” Maybe not, though. If the phrase “confidence in his or her business acumen” were substituted for “likelihood for starting a business,” that would most assuredly strengthen the argument. Nevertheless, we don’t know if business acumen has anything to do with starting a business.

This might be one of the more frustrating questions I have come across! Can someone breakdown the answer choices (specifically why A is better than B)?

R (is Rifka a common name? I looked it up; it's apparently a variant of Rebecca: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca): Anyway, Stop or Ask for directions--->Lost. Therefore, Not stop.

C: We are lost. Therefore, we must stop.

What I am looking for: Craig is denying R's conclusion by contradicting R's conditional statement. In other words, Craig thinks being lost is sufficient for stopping while R thinks it is necessary.

Answer A: I confidently chose this one during the exam, and I can't figure out what's wrong with it. Doesn't C contradict R's conclusion (he says we should stop while R disagrees) and doesn't he give no reason to reject R's implicit premise. The implicit premise referred to is R's assumption that they are Not lost. C simply flat out denies that, but he doesn't give any evidence/ reason why R's assumption is wrong. I don't really see how this doesn't perfectly capture C's rebuttal.

Answer B: This is really good as well, but what makes this better than A? C does deny the implicit premise that they are not lost and he does arrive at a different conclusion (that they should stop). I chose A over this since A captured the idea that C didn't give any evidence/reason why R's implicit premise was incorrect. Thus, I though A better captured the essence of the argument.

Answer C: This is a pretty popular choice according to the statistics, but it is way wrong. C doesn't call R's argument invalid and C doesn't accept the truth of the premise.

Answer D: What counterexample?

Answer E: Noncommittal? Way wrong. C contradicts R's conclusion explicitly.

LSAT Prep Test 9 (October 1993) - S3 - Logic Game 2

Can someone please help me how to split this game into 4 boards?

Hey guys,

In this weakening situation I heard JY say that answer choice D is a rare one that attacks the premise (5:04). Just wanted to know when is it ok or acceptable in a weakening situation to attack the premise.

Thanks

I understand that C is true and is a flaw in the argument, but I still don't understand how you can eliminate A. Here is my breakdown:

Generally, professors grew up in economically advantaged homes (MP). Evidence of this is the fact that professors grew up in communities with average household incomes that were higher than the national average.

What I am looking for: The argument makes a whole to part flaw. Did the professors actually live in the higher income households in the community? What if they only lived in the low income households? This could be true since we are only given an average of the income in the communities. Also, does household income being higher than the national average mean economically advantaged? I am not so sure. High household income is just one part of "economic advantage;" there could be other economic things such as government policies towards rich people that can nullify the high income advantage. In other words, there are a ton of factors that go into defining "economic advantage," not just income.

Answer A: I don't see how this is incorrect. Isn't this pointing out the flaw that "high household income" might not actually mean "economic advantage?"

Answer B: This is consistent with the argument due to the word "generally" in the passage.

Answer C: This is definitely a flaw in the argument since it points out the assumption that the professors actually lived in the "good" households in the community.

Answer D: Who cares about the private sector?

Answer E: Who cares about where they live now. We only care about where/how they grew up.

Hi,

I started studying for my December LSAT in early October. That is when i also wrote my diagnostic test and had 75% in LR, and much worse in LG and RC. I got a tutor for LG and now I consistently score ~90% in LG, BUT... I am pretty much getting 13 questions wrong in each LR section... My score is barely any different than my diagnostic test. I practiced from Pt 41-50 and I did timed sections from pt 51,52,53 and im just doing HORRIBLE! I have one month left and I have no idea what to do. I have all the tests up to PT 70, but I dont even see the point of doing more practice. It's like my brain doesnt comprehend common sense anymore. What should I do :(

Hello,

I don't understand why D is correct. I chose B. Could someone please explain why the right answer is right and the wrong answers are wrong? Thank you in advance.

Hello,

I don't understand why E is correct. I chose B. Could someone please explain why the right answer is right and the wrong answers are wrong? Thank you in advance.

I had a very hard time differentiating D and C, I chose C since I thought D was descriptively inaccurate.

Parents who want to give their kids a good foundation in music should give them a good musical education. Formal instruction is sometimes apart of a good musical education. Therefore, a strong foundation needs to have formal instruction.

What I am looking for: Just because formal instruction sometimes works, it doesn't mean that it is necessary.

Answer A: So what?

Answer B: Who cares about if the kid is interested.

Answer C: This is what I chose after I eliminated D. This says, some people who have formal instruction don't have good musical ability. Knowing that D is correct, I think this would have worked if "ability" were substituted with "education." This would have made this answer choice exactly like D, but my problem with D is stated below.

Answer D: I don't see how this is the answer since it is descriptively inaccurate. The question stem asks us to point out something that the argument "fails to consider." Doesn't the argument consider the fact that formal education isn't sufficient for a good musical education? Isn't this what sentence 2 (the premise) explicitly states? How does the argument fail to consider this? I understand that the conclusion is way too strong given the premise (the premise is a SOME statement and the conclusion is conditional), but that to me is a totally separate flaw than simply "failing to consider" what answer D states.

Answer E: Good musicians is a totally irrelevant idea.

When will video explanations of the Oct. 2015 test be available on 7sage?

Hi,

On this question I narrowed it down to C and D. But even though I've read a couple explanations on it, I don't see why D is glaringly wrong. I feel like C isn't fair enough because it has words like "chance" and "try to identify" which means that either way, some people will probably be left out and it still won't be fair. But in D, if everyone gets denied the rebate, then no one gets it, which means no one has an unfair opportunity.

I just couldn't find a helpful explanation because everyone just rules D off as "obviously unfair," and I guess I'm feeling kind of blind right now!!!!

I'm looking at PT44-S2-Q20 and the explanation for why A) and D) are wrong raised a question for me. In the explanation, it sounds to me that just because A causes B, A can happen sometimes without B happening.

JY gives the example that smoking causes lung cancer. But just because you smoke doesn't mean that you get lung cancer. Normally if B is a necessary condition of A, then A always guarantees B. But from what he's saying it sounds like for a causal relationship, B does not always have to happen when A happens? Is it because there is a distinction between "tends to cause" and "cause" ?

Thanks!

Julia

Hello,

I chose E and can't really understand why it is wrong whereas C is correct. Can someone please break down the logic or reasoning behind this argument? Thanks in advance

Hello,

I'm having a hard time understanding why B is incorrect but A is. I chose B because it though it was implying that the children's preexisting condition made them more vulnerable to OPV than kids who don't have that. And I eliminated A because of the phrase "at least a few" because that sounds like a weak defense given they're only taking about "some"

So can someone please explain why B is wrong but A is right? Thank you

How is A a sufficient assumption? I didn't like any of the answer choices, so I pretty much guessed on this one. I thought A was the least attractive answer choice because it lacks the conditional nature that is typical for sufficient assumptions. My understanding of the argument is this:

We can't figure out how effective a certain model cleans simply be looking at how powerful the motor is. This is because the efficiency varies a lot, even with identical motors.

The sufficient assumption I was looking for was this: if efficiency varies (even with identical motor power), then we can't determine how effective the model cleans.

How does A paraphrase this?

Really struggled with this on the exam, and I still missed it during BR. Specifically, I had a really tough time differentiating answers A, B, C, and D. Can someone help me out with those answer choices? Here is my breakdown:

TV show MOST depend on ad funding

TV show MOST cancelled with no ad funding

Ad funding----->Some people watching buy the advertised products

Most people don't buy the advertised products------>Shows cancelled soon

Thus, person who thinks a show is worth preserving------>should buy the stuff advertised during the show.

What I am looking for: I need something that concludes that people should buy the advertised stuff.

Answer A: This is what I chose, but it doesn't fit the facts of the passage. All we know is that MOST TV shows would be cancelled with no ad funding, and that if MOST people don't buy the products, the show sill be cancelled. This answer choice is too certain about the inevitability of cancellation.

Answer B: I don't understand how this answer choice is that different from A. How do we know about the certainty of cancellation?

Answer C: We don't know if the TV show is ACTUALLY worth preserving, only that someone "feels"/believes that it is.

Answer D: What makes this one incorrect? If B is correct, how is this one incorrect?

Answer E: "Feel most strongly?" This was the only one I could confidently eliminate since we don't care about the degree of caring.