Discussions

LSAT

New post

101 posts in the last 30 days

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-61-section-4-question-14/

I simply had no clue for this one. And the correct AC seems to be making a huge assumption so I didn't choose it. Can we really reasonably infer that thieves who do not abandon cars before their owners notice that they have been stolen are more likely to get arrested and convicted? This just seem to be way too big of a gap, and frankly an unreasonable one, to be made.

Why do car thieves steal cars? To sell them or to keep them. So it's totally reasonable to assume that thieves DO NOT abandon the car right after stealing it. And I simply don't see how this makes them more likely to get caught as they could have driven really fast and got far away before the cops could do something.

Has anyone else had trouble with this question? What do you think?

0

Can someone explain why B is the right answer? The stem states that it is unknown why people purchased broadsides, or how their beliefs related to the broadsides. If these statements are true, why does having having crime and adultery in the broadsides show that people may not have been serious about moral values? Aren't the two given statements proof that the broadsides don't have to be truly moral for the 17th century people to be moral?

0

Correct: D

Incorrect: E

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-08/

Explanation: "D" makes it where we can't say that the effects go away with age. By saying that the 2nd and 3rd studies were flawed, we can take away the conclusion that is based on those results. "E" doesn't specify how many children slept with nightlights and weren't nearsighted. "E" could have 5 children that were nearsighted and slept with nightlights along with 95 children that slept with nightlights and were not nearsighted. Because we don't know if the other children were nearsighted even though they didn't sleep with nightlights, or slept with nightlights and weren't nearsighted, or not nearsighted and didn't sleep with nightlights, we can't form a conclusion on partial results. It just talks about several older children that were nearsighted and slept with nightlights. That's not enough say that nearsightedness caused by nightlights goes away with age.

0

Hi All,

I'm hoping to find the section where J.Y introduces the idea of piecemeal analysis. I kept hearing him talking about it during the flaw section but I can't remember where he introduced the idea of peicemeal analysis. He suggested that he introduced it in Method of Reasoning.

If anyone has the lesson, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you

0

So I got sucked into the words when I was doing this. This is a clear necessary/sufficient question.

The logic structure, however, was fairly simple. IF retail store has Revenue decrease (RD), that means EITHER Attitde changed or P risen. IF P risen, salaries not Kept Pace. RD--> A or P, and then P --> /SKP.

Question stem shows that salaries kept pace, so SKP contrapositive of P --> /SKP is SKP-->/P. In English: SKP means that Price not risen. Then we go into the answer choice. When I was doing it, I saw D and thought hey if the other condition happened, that means the Revenues does not decrease, Chose D, but no. Both P and and A are necessary condition for RD. Satisfying RD leads to either A or P, but satisfying A or P means nothing to RD, and /P does not lead to A as the sufficient condition RD has not been met. The decrease revenues can still happen, or it would not. Basic lawgic lesson here. AC A is a popular choice, but /P in the condition chain of RD--> A or P doesn't do anything; so /P does not lead to A being satisfied.

Takeaway: be very sensitive to conditional words like IF, and remember the foundational lawgic. IF introduces sufficient condition, and satisfying necessary condition is not enough.

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

0

I have been studying on and off for 3 months, I am not sure how to go about studying more seriously. This week I have been working on Necessary Assumption questions (not doing too hot on them) but should I get a good grasp on NA questions and then go into studying for another question type and continue that cycle on one question type at a time? If you have any words of wised regarding this, I will be eternally grateful.

0

There is no explanation for this question on 7sage, so I'll just post a discussion that includes my reasoning on how I got this wrong in timed conditions and later right in BR. If anyone finds it useful, great!

P: The evidence for this explosion is that 45 of the 70 active opera companies were founded in the last 30 years.

C: There has been an explosion of public interest in opera over the last three decades.

<><><><><>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

The author makes this assumption.

The fact that 45 opera companies were founded = an explosion of public interest in opera.

Now, the conclusion seems a lot weaker right? If you could give an alternate explanation to why these new opera companies were founded that contradicts the idea that there has been an explosion of public interest in opera, then that weakens the conclusion, which in a NA question means it is right.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

AC B.- If denied, this weakens the argument which is correct. What if the 45 opera companies that opened did so because some other opera companies shut down? Then that shows that there has not been necessarily an explosion of public interest, but rather a replacement of opera companies in the same market.

AC D.- The premise and conclusion still stand as they have nothing to do with average audience.

AC E.- This does not have to be true for the argument to stand on its own. It could still be the case that not all 45 of the opera companies that opened. The explosion of public interest could have still happened as at least some of these opera companies opened because of an explosion in public interest for opera.

0

Listen and subscribe:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify

Ever wonder which LSAT questions are really the toughest? In this episode, we dig into the data behind the hardest LSAT questions—breaking down the overall proportions of different question types and then zooming in on how those proportions shift within the notorious Harder and Hardest difficulty levels. You’ll get a clearer picture of which question types dominate the hardest tiers, how that compares to the test overall, and what that means for your study strategy.

1

Does anyone have any tips regarding familiarizing oneself with law passages (e.g., reading materials, websites)? When I am unfamiliar with a topic whether in RC or LR, I end up re-reading a lot even though I have a fair grasp on the logic. Any tips and tricks would be appreciated!

0

I'm one of the 35% people that chose (B) and still am not fully convinced that (E) is better. To compare the two ACs, I'll list all potential objections/flaws they each have for them to work:

(B) says, salt is not the only dietary factors associated with high blood pressure. It takes for granted that the people in the question actually were consuming these other foods, and the intake of such foods in combination needs to be significant enough, not only to offset the effects of their high salt intake, but also to bring their blood pressure down to very low.

(E) says, some people have abnormally low blood pressure and they have heightened cravings for salt to maintain a blood pressure that's not too low. It assumes without justification that these people are in fact the people talked about in the stimulus, and their high salt intake was in fact the result of their heightened cravings.

I'll admit that (B) makes a lot of unwarranted assumptions. But the "cravings" in (E) really trips me up because I think the assumption of "heightened cravings for salt" implying "high salt intake" is the exact kind of bad assumptions that LSAT usually punishes us for making. My only justification for choosing (E) over (B) is that it makes fewer assumptions. Can someone please help me out on this one? This question is bothering me so much and I don't know what I need to do differently to avoid similar mistakes in the future. Any help is hugely appreciated!

0

For #2, we can affirm from the first paragraph that MLK was influenced by at least one work from a transcendentalist, namely MLK was influenced by David Thoreau's essay "Civil Disobedience"; the correct answer choice says as much and yet the correct answer for #7 states MLK was not at all affected by transcendentalist thought. But you can't be influenced by a transcendentalist essay (and presumably by the ideas in said essay) and then turn around and say you actually weren't impacted by transcendentalist thought. And both were talking about civil disobedience too. Isn't that a contradiction in the passage/video explanation? I was under the impression that MLK was influenced by transcendentalists, just not as much as writers previously thought.

As for answer choice C, are morality and ethics the same thing on the LSAT?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-11-section-3-passage-1-questions/

0

I got 4 out of 5 right in this drill but got this particular questions drastically wrong. I selected B and on blind review selected C. I never felt E was correct during the drill or blind review. I do not know what I am not seeing on this particular question. I do not understand why C is incorrect. If 40% in the first group reported awaking paralyzed with a strange presence in the room, wouldn't it be correct to say 60% had not? Or is C wrong, because it only mentioned "strange presence" and excluded "paralyzed" as part of the answer? #help

0

Wrong Answer (D) and Right Answer (E). I can't seem to reach the understanding on how E is relevant, e.g. doesn't contain information introduced in the passage on whether or not zebra mussels can transform hazardous waste and why they would be considered hazardous waste. I chose (D) because out of all the answers it seemed like the closest to being supported, as it mentions one of the 'redeeming qualities' of zebra mussels.

0

ive been studying lsat for a year already (approximately 1-2 hrs a day). My initial pt score is 153, and after 3-4 months I got around 160. However the score just doesn't go up anymore. I about to take the test on dec. 6th so I have literally 2 months left. My target in dec is 165+. Is that reasonable?

I just purchased this course 5 days ago and I found this course really useful but, I've already wasted all the pts (40-75). So I don't know how to follow the schedule of this course in a smarter way in this case.

I quit my job few days ago so now I have 8 hrs ago (!!!)

Anybody who got similar experience or anybody who has any idea about what should I do now?

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?