https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-09/

I could really use some help on this one.

First, here's a quick breakdown of the stimulus:

P: Nesting female leatherbacks have declined by more than 2/3.

P: Any species whose population declines by more than 2/3 is in danger of extinction.

C: Leatherback turtles are in danger of extinction.

Even though I quickly realized the gap between nesting females and the entire population of leatherbacks, I still don't see how answer A passes the negation rule (that the correct answer choice to all necessary assumption questions must pass).

A says: "The decline in the population of nesting female leatherbacks is proportional to the decline in the leatherback population as a whole."

When I negate answer choice A, I read it as "the decline in the population of nesting female leatherbacks IS NOT proportional to the decline in the leatherback population as a whole." While I see how this can be problematic for the conclusion, it doesn't necessarily make it false. Let's assume that the decline being referred to in the stimulus in the nesting female subpopulation is 70% (greater than 2/3). If we are applying the negation of A, then decline in the entire population of leatherbacks is NOT PROPORTIONAL to the 70% decline in nesting females. However, it still can be true that the entire population of leatherback turtles is declining by more than 2/3 (they're declining by 85%). So the conclusion can still be true that leatherbacks as a whole are in danger of extinction.

So while A would be the perfect sufficient assumption answer choice, it doesn't seem like it's playing by the LSAT's rules for necessary assumption questions.

Recognizing this problem, during blind review I chose answer choice D, because I assumed that "nesting" meant not living in captivity. So by negating D, it reads "Not very few leatherback turtles exist in captivity." And since "few" = "some, but not most," in plain English, D translates to: either none or most (>50%) of the turtleback population lives in captivity. So if most of these turtles do in fact live in captivity (let's just assume 51% of them do), then a 2/3 decline in the nesting females can constitute only a maximum overall decline of ~34% in the entire population of leatherbacks, which is obviously less than 2/3, and means we cannot make the conclusion that they're in danger of extinction. So isn't this assumption the necessary one?

Please help. My brain hurts...

I just started 7sage course last week. I took the June 2007 prep test, and saw a 6pt increase from my diagnostic and 9pt increase on BR. The one thing that is KILLING my score is RC. I get anywhere from -10 to even -15. JUST AWFUL. I was wondering has 7sage helped anyone with RC. I need a dramatic increase. Also, if you have any advice or tips that have worked for you please share. Thank you!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-1-question-21/

I was watching the PSA webinar and I had a question about answer choice C. I initially eliminated C because of "every". I was looking for something closer to what was mentioned in the stimulus. I was thinking "the opponent's argument" instead of "every". I eliminated because it seemed too general or broad. I didn't see how "every" was specifically referring to the opponent's argument but then I thought about "soft" sufficient assumptions that Jimmy mentions in the webinar. Does "every" make this a PSA, thus the right answer? Whereas "the opponent's argument" would've been more of a SA? Am I thinking this out correctly?

Can anyone please tell me if there are key words that indicate the rule is a biconditional rule? for some reason I thought it was only "if and only if"

Thanks in advance

from he lecture i understand that to find out the right answer choice for weaken question, i need to keep two thing in my mind

1. the ans choice is that , which is an assumption and not seen in the premise which is missing from the premise,

2. the ans choice is that which if we add in premise the conclusion will fail.

if I am right, then may be I understand this part otherwise i might need help

Hey guys I am almost done with bundle but I notice for CBT questions when the correct answer is A I cannot choose it and move on I have to check at least B and sometimes C and only then I move on, wasting a lot of time. Anyone else had the same problem? How should I tackle it? Do you think redoing the bundle in sections with reduced time (30 min/section) could help?

can anyone suggest the more relevant game to go over I'm taking the June 2016 test and really want to focus on what it might be on the test versus all of the games

Thanks

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-2-question-10/

I have a quick question regarding #10 from PT72, S2 (the Parliamentary Procedure question), specifically answer D. I bounced back and forth between C and D, and even though I knew D is wrong, I couldn't eliminate it.

Question is reproduced below (it's a Weaken question):

"The traditional code of parliamentary procedure contains a large number of obscure, unnecessary rules, which cause us to quibble interminably over procedural details and so to appear unworthy of public confidence. Admittedly, the code is entrenched and widely accepted. But success in our endeavors depends on the public's having confidence in our effectiveness. Therefore, it is imperative that we adopt the alternative code, which has been in successful use elsewhere for several years."

D: It is not always reasonable to adopt a different code in order to maintain the public's confidence.

The argument is: given X (traditional code, quibble, unworthy of public confidence), thus Y (adopt alternative code). D sounds as though it's slightly weakening the argument by pointing out that it's not always reasonable to do Y given X (to adopt alternative code given the goal of public confidence). What am I missing here?

Obviously, I realized that I am assuming "if X is not always reasonable, then don't do it." Is that the rub? Thanks!

I'm preparing to take the June LSAT, and have noticed a change in the scoring of my LR sections. I used to get relatively the same score on both, but on the past couple of tests, I've scored really well on one (usually the first) and very poorly on the other. This has not necessarily impacted my overall score (I've been close to 160 on the past few tests), but I'd like to know if you have any tips for maintaining stamina for both sections, since obviously it would be ideal to score well on both and not have to rely on a good LG or RC score to make up for a poor second LR section. Any thoughts or tips?

I obviously don't want to risk being late to my test center, but I don't want to be so early that I'm left pacing around with nothing but my thoughts and a gallon-sized Ziploc bag as that could lead to jitters. Past test-takers, how early do you think I should get to the test center?

Hey guys,

I am taking the June LSAT in a couple of weeks and I am very close to perfecting my LR scores (around -3 or -2 each time, usually because I skip the last couple of parallel/parallel flaw questions to be able to pocket the faster points) and I have noticed that disagree questions have constantly been giving me trouble. 7sage has helped me improve pretty much every aspect of my LSAT studies but for some reason I just don't find the disagree lessons that helpful :/ can anyone give me any additional tips so that I can nip this in the bud before I take the real thing? Thanks in advance!

Hi 7Sagers. Relatively new to this community, but I've been thankful for your help these past few months. :) Now that we're a couple weeks away from the June LSAT, do you have any tips for what to do? I've seen a lot of general "rest, relax, review but nothing too serious" advice but I was hoping for more of a specific day-to-day breakdown based on your past experience.

Thanks for your help! Happy studying, and best of luck to all of you. You'll kill it!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-1-question-09/

If this question were a Must Be True type and an answer choice said “Most people think the government policy is not one of appeasement,” would that be something that must be true?

My understanding of the stimulus is that there is some room for the people to disagree with the “assessment” but not necessarily disagree with the conclusion of the political commentators. Furthermore, the author’s conclusion that “this view” is mistaken, seems to suggest that the view of the political commentators is not proper. Assessment and view seem to encompass the idea of reasoning as well as just simply truth value, i.e. a conclusion. All of this is to say that the disagreement might well be over reasoning to reach the conclusion by the political commentators, rather than their conclusion itself.

Reading the stimulus in this way doesn’t prevent the flaw from being described as it is in this flaw question, because it is wrong to use what most people think as a premise in this circumstance.

Just wondering if reading the “this view,” “mistaken,” and “assessment” as leaving room for the issue to be one of reasoning rather than outcome is correct.

Hello all, I am taking the June LSAT and I was looking for any advice on reading comp? It's the only section that I can't get consistently good at. Usually I do well on LR and LG but RC keeps me out of the 170s. Thanks in advance for the help!

Hi, there! I'm what some universities call a "mature student". I have a full time job, I have two small kids, a house to take care of. So my "free" time, even before deciding to take the LSAT, is close to nothing. Main point is: I need to make sure the time I actually have to study is used very effectively.

I've been watching all the lessons, but, at this point, I'm questioning if all the logic lessons are worthy it. I like them (in what now feels like a previous time, I briefly went to "Math School", so I really like numbers, logic and all that), I understand them and I even see how I can apply them to solve LR questions IF I don't have the time limitation imposed by the LSAT. Maybe if I were able to take and retake the tests a hundred times I would start to see all that "structure" coming naturally, but I don't. I barely have one hour a day to study, including the weekends.

Adding to my doubts, I took a LR session this week in a more relaxed, go with my guts way. Results were not great (they never are for me at this point), but they were much better than when I try to highlight the conclusion, identify the premises, do some logic "board" and so on.

Conclusion: I'm not sure if I should keep investing my time in watching the logic lessons or if I should skip to another part of the curriculum, or maybe just take test after test.

I would love to "hear" your opinion. I guess my other, more direct question is: if you had just one hour a day until your test (I'm taking the September one), how would you use your time?

Thank you in advance! :-)

I know it might sound obvious but I want to know your take on the fact that when a question states "If J in two..." we can take J2 at the very least as a CBT; I write them down in corner of my paper so they might come handy in answering rest of question and sometimes they helped eliminating answer choices in other questions in games from bundle (PT 1-35).

Do you think writing them down is a wise use of time? Have you seen such instances in recent games or this just happens in old games?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-2-question-12/

Hey 7Sagers, I just did this question and did almost everything right, but ultimately chose (E). I understood there to be 2 gaps,the first between: ~being able to tell ulterior motive——>~possible to tell whether an action is moral/ and the second gap being: ~being able to tell an action is moral——> should evaluate the consequences > morality. I took the last link in this chain (should evaluate the consequences) as the major conclusion. So I pre-phrased my answer to anticipate some iteration on the second link (or it’s contrapositive), thinking that what I wanted to build towards with the selection of a principle is something that would allow the major conclusion to properly stand.

Like several other 7Sagers, I usually write down why I am eliminating answer choices. I recognized (A) as the contrapositive of the first gap and didn’t eliminate it at first. B-D introduced new ideas or something we didn’t need. I eliminated (E) with my notes reading “Not what I need.” I recognized (E) as wrong, but (A) as simply something restated, So opted (with reservations) for (E). I now know a glimpse of what it must feel like to score 40 points but lose the game hahaha. I did almost everything correct and understood what was going on, but didn’t get the correct answer. :(

My questions about this question are the following: If we are asked to find something to “justify the reasoning,” wouldn’t any choice that leaves one of the 2 gaps unfilled not really “justify” much? I mean, I get that it says “most,” but aren’t we at least looking for something that justifies the Major Conclusion rather than some subsidiary minor premise/major premise link? Are there any sufficient assumption/pseudo sufficient assumption questions (that you are aware of) in which we will be forced to choose between bridging the gap between a minor premise/major premise at the behest of bridging the gap between a major premise/major conclusion? Are there questions in which adding a sufficient assumption or principle to the wrong gap nets the wrong answer?

I'm curious if anyone has a good way to handle group 3 indicators "unless" or "until." In English these are often used to heavily imply an EXCLUSIVE or relationship, but in logic they only give us an inclusive or.

Example: I will go golfing (G) unless it rains (R).

Applying our group 3 translation rules strictly, we arrive at: "/R --> G" and the contrapositive "/G-->R"

Translating the above statements back into English,

"If it is not raining, I will go golfing," and "If I am not golfing then it is raining."

That is fine. The trouble comes when you try to reason from the fact that it is raining. In our common understanding of the above original statement if we knew it was raining, then we would be inclined to say the person is not golfing. However, that is not correct based on our translations.

More frustrating is the idea that this person could be golfing in the rain as nothing prevents R AND G from being together. That is the essence of inclusive or and is the possibility that is implicitly ruled out in our natural reading of the statement. Obviously, we can't apply a conversational implicature on the LSAT and we have to obey a strict logical understanding. I can easily imagine a question giving us the original statement and then supplying an answer choice that says "It is raining, therefore you are not golfing."

I would be grateful if anyone has a way to explain the possibility of the inclusive or outcome in the original statement by giving an example in which this person could be golfing in the rain and such outcome is acceptable.

Logically I understand the possibility, but making it more intuitive by having an example in mind would greatly help.

--

It's interesting to note that the implicature of exclusive or seems to be most strong in statements of "until" involving time and "unless" involving things such as the weather. The possibility of an inclusive outcome is easier to understand on a different example.

I will be angry (A) with you unless you clean your room (CR).

/A --> CR "If I am not angry with you, then you cleaned your room"

/CR-->A "If you did not clean your room, then I am angry"

I believe we all still see the possibility that I could be angry with you and you cleaned your room. Maybe you didn't do your homework, etc. That makes it fairly obvious that we can't conclude the condition of your room from my anger. I'm wondering what that "other 'cause'" might be for the golfing example.

Thanks!

Listen to this as background music for this post:

Hey guys,

I want to share a method that I use in RC and that I have been teaching several of my students recently. RC is at least in certain instances designed to test your short term memory. To that end, there's a question type that seems to be designed to do exactly that. I've collected a few examples and have a method to recommend for approaching these questions.

Here's what I do with these questions.

Most of the time, only one AC rings a bell. And that's the right answer (barring hallucinations/clear over-inferences/reasons to eliminate an AC. I don't think I've ever had an AC that truly rang a bell that ended up being wrong).

Try this out for this QT and see where you end up. By focusing on what LSAC is testing on these QT's, you avoid the pitfalls of wasting time and misdirecting energy.

Hi guys.

This is my first post and I was hoping I could get some feedback as the June 2016 exam is approaching.

My background: I've take the LSAT officially three times. Yes, I know. The first two times were December 2013 and February 2014, both soon after I graduated college in May of 2013 and I was desperate to start law school right away. I took a course and just wasn't prepared. I held off and took the June 2015 exam and didn't do any better even after so much studying so I decided to put it off again for the following year.

Now, I've been studying for this upcoming exam for about six months and finally got my score into the mid 150s; my goal is 160. One day it just clicked and I became super motivated to simply practice and perfect the last few areas I could to attain my desired score. I was even able to figure out how to get a higher score than 160. However, I took an exam a few days ago and scored 147. Granted I was tired from a long day of work and days of studying but this has completely killed my motivation.

I've put this exam off way too many times I simply want to get it over. Putting this exam off for October will delay starting school for another full year.

So my question is, should I take this exam in June as planned being as though I am so near by desired score and if so, how do I regain my confidence?

Thanks to everyone who took the time to read and to those who take the time to reply. Best of luck!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-1-question-24/

I ran into some issues with a LR question on PT 70 S1 and would love some inputs from other students here. I chose E, which is the wrong answer, but I'm not at all sure why I am wrong.

For #24 (the Macro/Micronutrients question), the last sentence reads:

"To remain healthy in the long run, soils for lawns require the presence of these macronutrients and also trace amounts of micronutrients...which are depleted when grass clippings are raked up..."

Isn't this a conditional claim?

Healthy --> Macro + Micro, and

Grass Clips Raked --> Micro Depleted

Assuming that IF micronutrients are there, THEN it's NOT depleted (which is very reasonable to me), then taking the contrapositive, we can connect the two:

Healthy --> Macro + (Micro --> /MicroDepleted --> /GrassClipsRaked)

(Sorry for the visual representation. Couldn't get the format to look right. But Healthy is connected to Macro AND Micro, and Micro is itself connected to the rest of the chain).

So if you deny the last necessary condition, then you should be able to work your way back. So if Grass Clips are raked, then Micro Depleted, then /Micro (micronutrients are gone), then /Healthy.

I thought E communicated exactly this: "Homeowners who rake up their grass clippings are unable to maintain the long-term health of the soils in their lawns and gardens," which in lawgic is

Grass Clips Raked --> /Healthy

which to me is exactly as above. Where am I wrong?

I am having some difficulty on strengthening questions that do not use causal reasoning. I am getting nearly all the weakening questions right because I am in the mindset of contradicting the assumptions made in the argument. However, for strengthening questions, should I look for an answer choice that strengthens the underlying assumption? Alternatively, will an answer choice that only states the assumption strengthen the argument?

Looking to confirm my thinking on the below. Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/or-but-not-both/

From this lesson:

Alan or Chris go to the park. (/A-->C)

And

Alan and Chris cannot both go to the park. (A-->/C)

I'm interested in diagramming these statements in relation to the third idea in the sentence, in this case "go to the park," as (P).

With "A or C go to the park" I would diagram as follows:

A-->P

C-->P

With "A and C cannot both go to the park" I would diagram as follows:

P --> /A or /C which can be diagrammed as P-->(A-->/C)

Now to link up the two statements:

A-->P-->(A-->/C)

I'm getting "If Alan goes to the park, then Chris does not go to the park."

Alternatively:

C-->P-->(C-->/A)

I'm getting "If Chris goes to the park, then Alan does not go to to the park."

"Diagramming on Gameboard: Two ‘not both’ Conditional Statements with Common Necessary Cond."

Hi 7Sagers,

In this game: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-3-game-2/

We have N ---> to both R and S

Why, when J.Y. fills up one of the ‘out group’ slots on the gameboard, does he say that "it doesn’t matter" of you fill the slot with N/R or N/S? I’m not sure I understand how these two conditional statements with a common necessary condition interact with each other. One of N/S AND one of N/R have to be in the out group, yes?

Thanks!

Bonus question: I’m also wondering why it’s best to solve this game by filling in the game board as J.Y. does, as opposed to filling in three slots for the L/M/R variables (two in, one out), or even splitting into three game boards, each with a single of those three variables out.

As I've finished the curriculum, I'm beginning to heavily invest my time in fool-proofing. My big question is: should I drill extensively on categorized games (i.e. grouping, sequencing, in-out) or should I take a broader random game approach?

I worry that I'd lose some of the practice I'd gained in grouping games if I spend a few weeks on sequencing games specifically. It also just seems easier to start with PT 1 and go in order rather than sorting through all my PT PDFs for the right game at the right time.

I plan to first work by way through all LGs from 1-36 and then move onto more recent LG's once I've taken the clean PT.

Thank you for your thoughts on this! :)