https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/introducing-new-drugs-strengthen-question

Looking to get a better idea of the logic on answer choice E, which is an incorrect answer choice.

I understand that A is the correct choice because reasoning from an example which is already the best case compared to alternatives strengthens the argument, given the premises.

Comment from @DumbHollywoodActor was helpful in shedding some light on E's logic:

(E) mixes up the logic. If you take the contrapositive, you can see it more clearly: “if most new drugs shouldn’t be on the market, then the new antihistamine shouldn’t be on the market.” The argument provides the necessary condition, but that doesn’t mean it gets to conclude the sufficient condition.

However, I would like to understand this statement better: The argument provides the necessary condition, but that doesn’t mean it gets to conclude the sufficient condition.

We must accept the premises and the conclusion as true for LSAT questions. I get that if we accept the premise as true, that is affirming the necessary condition of the logic in choice E. But, if we accept the conclusion as true, that also satisfies the sufficient condition of the logic.

Put simply, after reading the argument I am left with these two true pieces of information:

P: antihistamine should not be on the market (A)

C: these new drugs should not be on the market (B)

then E gives me this logic of "these new drugs should not be on the market" --> "antihistamine should not be on the market"

So, I'm left looking at that B--> A statement, and holding A and B in my hands, with no understanding of where to plug them in. If I plug B in, then I get A, but apparently that is not the correct answer.

Is it because the reasoning in this argument is inductive (that is, moving from a specific example to a general rule) and so it isn't helpful to say that "this general rule is the case" therefore "this specific examples is the case," since the argument is not applying a rule, but rather trying to support one?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-3-question-13

I can't see the difference between the flaw in B and the the flaw in the incorrect answer choices....

See here: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/the-embezzler-weaken-question

The Embezzler (weaken EXCEPT question)

This question gave a lot of people trouble, particularly regarding why answer choice (C) weakened the argument. After reflection, I believe I may have unpacked the reason why this is a clear cut wrong answer choice. However, I am wondering how C does not straight up contradict the conclusion of the argument, which we are not supposed to do in weaken questions. I am grateful for any input or feedback on this attempt. Let's begin!

minor premise: embezzler had special knowledge and access

sub-conclusion/major premise 1: embezzler is an accountant or actuary

major premise 2: an accountant would probably not make the mistake which revealed the embezzlement

main conclusion: it is likely that the embezzler is an actuary

Answer choice (C) states that there are 8 accountants and 2 actuaries

This is where things got dicey. Many people felt that the premise that "an accountant would probably not make the mistake" affected the probability that answer choice (C) was hinting at. However,there seem to be two major assumptions made to jump from the premise that "an accountant probably would not make the mistake" to the conclusion that "it is likely an actuary is the embezzler." First, the assumption that, because an accountant probably would not make the mistake, that therefore an actuary probably would make the mistake. Second, and this is a huge unstated assumption, the person who made the mistake is the person who committed the crime.

For example, even if we accept that an actuary has a greater likelihood of making the mistake that led to the discovery of the crime, is it not possible that an actuary could make the mistake but not have committed the crime? Therefore, the likelihood of committing the mistake and the likelihood of committing the crime are separate and distinct from each other. Conflating the two is a major assumption of the argument and a major reason for confusion on answer choice (C).

If we separate the assumption that the person who committed the mistake is the person that committed the crime from the conclusion that an actuary likely committed the crime we can use simple probability in looking at answer choice (C). Granted, this requires us to assume that of all accountant and actuary employees at XYZ Corporation, each person had an equal chance of either committing or not committing the crime. However, this lets us avoid introducing confusion of who was more likely to have committed the crime versus who was more likely to have made the mistake that led to the discover of the crime. Then the answer choice weakens the argument by stating that we would have to concede it seems there is greater probability that an accountant was the person who committed the crime.

That solves it for me.

However, I would really appreciate insight on how this answer choice does not both (1) directly contradict the conclusion and (2) avoids the assumptions that provide the support from premise to conclusion.

Regarding (1), C in English becomes It is likely that an accountant is the embezzler; this is in direct contradiction to the stated conclusion in the stimulus that "it is likely an actuary is the embezzler." Maybe it depends on the definition of "likely?" In other sources, I see it means, possible to be true, but I also see at as being used as probable (that is, in probability we could not say that it is probable if there was actually only a 20% chance, as is the case of actuaries being the culprit in answer choice (C)).

We accept the premises and conclusion as true, as we must for weaken questions. Now if I told you that there is an 80% probability of an accountant being the embezzler, how could you seriously hold on to the truth of your conclusion that "it is likely an actuary is the embezzler?" Unless likely is meant as "could be true?"

Regarding (2), the support provided by the major premise that an accountant would probably not make the mistake ties into the conclusion by (a) assuming the person who commits the mistake also committed the crime and (b) that the actuary is more likely to commit the mistake. Answer choice (C) doesn't go after any of these. It instead focuses on the probability of the person who committed the crime, which seems just attacks the conclusion directly and changes it's outcome.

In other words, looking at the unstated assumption which conflates those who made the mistake with those who committed the crime, the main conclusion really just states a probability that has no relation to the rest of the argument except via extreme assumptions. Then answer choice C directly changes this probability.

After further parsing this, I would actually say the major conclusion does not follow from the premises and that the argument has made the flaw of confusing likelihood of committing the crime with likelihood of making the mistake. The detective spent all his time discussing the likelihood of the mistake but then expressed his conclusion as one of likelihood of committing the crime (which we know nothing about). C introduces information about the likelihood of the occupation for those who could have committed the crime. But this entirely shifts the detective's erroneous conclusion.

Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-02

Hey! Can someone explain to me why for (section 1 Q2) the answer is B? Frederick does not comment on representing genres at all......or did I miss something?

Dear 7sage community,

Could someone please explain to me why answer E is correct? I can justify eliminating answers A,B,C,D, but not picking E. Most of all, I cannot comprehend how to apply the 'can be false' principle to a statement containing 'some' and a negation ('not'). By now my brain hurts from all the theories I tried to convince myself of.

Thanks a lot!

I started taking the course in January and am now two PTs in. The first was on Monday, a 153 which was 6 points higher than my diagnostic, giving me a much needed confidence boost. However, my LG score was -10, definitely a black spot. Yesterday, however, I scored an abysmal 150 mainly because I scored a -15 (!) on the LG section. The worst is that when I watch the video explanations I can immediately tell why I messed up: my diagramming. I simply did not illustrate the rules well, which was disheartening since once I knew how to diagram I can get almost every question right obviously.

I don't know what to do right now. Do I stop my PTing until I have a firm grasp on LG? If so, how exactly do I go about improving? Should I still take my PT next week? My self esteem and confidence have sunk. My goal is to break the 160 barrier by test day, a score that I hope is within my reach. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

"the author assumes one reason when others could be plausible"

Can you tell me the name of this flaw? Thanks in advance!

So I just received my results and ended up with a 163. My gpa is a 3.1 and I've been out of school for about 2 years. Worked for a year right after graduating and then stopped working to study for my LSAT. If I apply now, is there any shot of me getting into Fordham, Brooklyn, Yeshiva, St. Johns or even Iowa (ranked high but lsat and gpa are not as competitive), or should I retake the LSAT again? This was my second time taking the LSAT. the first time i canceled my score cause my nerves on test day interfered with my ability to take the test.

Ok, there has to be a better (more merciful) way for LSAC to release the scores. This is what I mean:

1) It takes more than three weeks to receive your score. Seriously? I know it's a paper-based exam, but come on!

2) Inconsistency. Release dates vary from year to year. It looks like we can expect scores to be released 1-3 business days before the official release date, but there've been cases when scores have been released on the official release date. How helpful is that when you reload your email/LSAC account every 5 minutes?

3) More inconsistency. Score notifications are released in batches. So that means if you hear your friend has received their score already, you can expect to receive yours on the same day (?). There is no inherent order to the release of scores, so go figure if it's going to hit you first thing in the morning or right as you were about to drift into another blissfully clueless LSAT-score-less night.

Anyway. Just some random thoughts as I'm waiting for LSAC to show some mercy. Anyone else want to share their anxieties, fears, hopes as we approach the big moment? I'm pretty sure I will have to retake, but I'm hoping for a score that won't depress me too much.

In the existential quantifiers lessons, JY explains how to negate statements with the universal quantifier "all." The conclusion was that "some are not" was the negation and that the new set contained 0-99 items, whereas the original "all" represented 100 items.

In the comments section there was some confusion about why the "some are not" statement included 0 items in the new set and some contributors suggested the statement encompassed only 1-100 items.

After diagramming the all statement and its negation, I think I see where some (myself included) may have become confused. The important distinction is that the new set of 0 to 99 items is comprised of items with the same property mentioned in the all statement. My reasoning is below and I welcome any input on its accuracy. Thanks!

Example: All cats (C) are pretentious (P)

For simplicity, let us assume that there are only four cats in the world. The total number of cats which are pretentious and not pretentious must add up to 4.

P | /P

4 | 0 <-- every cat is P; the all statement we negate

---- <-- the binary cut

3 | 1 <-- min. condition to contradict our all statement

2 | 2

1 | 3

0 | 4 <-- often thought of as negation of all; "No cats are P"

In the above table we see that in the 5 possible groupings based on our 4 cats, one represents the all statement and the other 4 cases together represent the negation of that all statement. The set which represents 0 through 3 inclusive (comparable to 0 - 99) is the set of pretentious cats. I believe this is where many became confused and thought the set of 0-99 was made up of unpretentious (that is /P) cats. However, above we see that our unpretentious set always contains at least 1 cat and therefore follows our definition of some (it is comprised of one, possibly all cats, but not 0).

As I was reviewing my old notes, I've noticed that I wrote the definition of "few are" as some are/SOME ARE NOT but "few not" as most are/some are not.

Shouldn't "few are" mean some are / MOST ARE NOT?

I can't believe I'm still confused about this concept..wow. English.

Why can we infer that the Antibiotics group cannot have all 3 treatments in from Rule #1?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-4-game-4

Do all method of reasoning questions contain flawed arguments? Or are there some valid arguments out there? I'm getting confused whether I'm suppose to look for the flaw or just how the argument functions as a whole or even BOTH. I'm not sure what kind of mindset to have for attacking method of reasoning questions.

For the purpose of ruminating on my mistakes after reviewing few recent (post 65) PTs before February LSAT this Sunday,

I would like to share my thoughts on some noticeable tendencies in newer reading comprehension questions.

(For the record, I was usually scoring -3~-5 on reading comprehension sections during 40s~lower 60s PT,

and dear God I am scoring -7~-11 in newer PTs.)

1. There is more wiggle room for choices of words in answer choices.

Particularly among those newer suggestion/inference questions,

i found that answer choices that might have been easily regarded as wrong or overstretching inferences

getting to become an answer choice after the process of elimination.

In addition, some answer choices in non-inference questions are sometimes themselves written in a twisted way,

forcing me to take another step to see them as valid answer choices.

2. For reference questions that ask the purpose or meaning of certain parts in a paragraph,

answer choices are starting to make INTRA-passage inferences.

Previously on eariler LSATs, i guess it was safe or generally correct to focus your choices of answer on a specific paragraph for reference questions. However on recent questions there have been few instances where the answer choices were inferences made outside a specific paragraph but made within specific passage, connecting ideas from other paragraphs in a passage.

As a non-native English speaker i have felt that these changes in a more pronounced way, but I have to admit that I may have been wrong since I do not have a firm grasp on every nuance of the language. And some recent passages like Dodo extinction and mirror reflection have been brutal on me regardless of shifts in questions.

Any feedback is welcomed!

"The editorial board of this law journal has written on many legal issues. Tom is on the editorial board, so he has written on many legal issues."

It sounds like a valid reasoning... Why is it flawed?

Thanks in advance!

Hey guys after watching Nicole Hopkins' webinar on RC Methods and Jimmy Quicksilver's webinar on RC Question Types and Tips I thought it would be helpful to start sharing our notes/annotations for each passage because each of us reads a different way and we all see different things. I want to be clear that I’m no expert by any means and this is just the way I personally annotate that is a combination of Nicole Hopkins’s “Toolbox” method and JY’s Memory Method. Also note that I’m doing RC a slightly similar way to Pacifico’s Fool Proof method in that I’m doing the passage 2x one after the other and then once again the following day. While time consuming this definitely is allowing me to read more efficiently for structure and see the similarities in each passage which I know will help me in the long run. This is part two which includes my breakdown of all of the questions in a similar manner to which I did when I was tutored by Nicole Hopkins and how we broke everything down.

I hope it helps and I look forward to seeing what you guys come up with.

Questions:

1) What is the Main Point of the passage

MP Question: “Main Point of the passage”

What we’re looking for:

• We’re looking for something to basically re-phrase the entire first paragraph, something that says “authoritarian rulers are forced to undertake democratic reform, if they want to stay in power, due to various changes and mobilizations in society.

Answer Choices:

A) Wrong: Being this far in the curriculum when you see the word “only” you should remember from your logical indicators that it immediately makes whatever follows the necessary condition. So we can rephrase this answer choice to be read as “If authoritarian rulers undertake democratic reform then the national’s economic and social power bases will slow economic growth and disrupt social order until such reforms are instituted.” For this answer choice to be right there would have to be evidence in the passage of undertaking democratic reform to be a sufficient condition and the only thing that we could infer if authoritarian rulers undertook democratic reform would be that they would be able to hold onto some of their power. This answer choice plays the trap of reversing the sufficient and necessary conditions, if it were reversed then one could argue that if economic and social based slow economic growth and disrupt social order then we will undertake democratic reform.

Why You would accidentally choose this:

• This answer choice holds a lot of the same words that are used in the passage and if you didn’t see the logical indicator or interpreted it the wrong way then this answer choice could seem attractive. However don’t fall for this, know your logical indicators and read the answer choice carefully and you won’t fall into trouble.

B) Wrong: When reading this answer choice it sounds really good to start, because the author does state that these Authoritarian regimes do ensure their own destruction. However, it isn’t for the reason that is listed here, they don’t talk about opposition groups to build support among the wealthy to lead the support away. The reason is in lines (51-57), the more success and stability the authoritarian regime has, the more time it gives for citizens to reflect on the circumstances in which they live which brings about these changes.

Why You would accidentally choose this:

• You could fall for the trap if you assumed that the opposition group referred back to the “privileged people” talked about in the 3rd paragraph. From there you could make a connection that this was talking about the second change that contributed to making it impossible for authoritarian rulers to hold onto their power. However, that still doesn’t actually answer the question that we’re after and even though this seems logical we have to actually answer the question that is asked

C) Wrong: This is similar to “B” in that it sounds really good to start off however it misses the mark when it says “success at generating economic growth and stability will be short lived”. This completely factually inaccurate the only thing that is short lived is the authoritarian regime but none of the reasons given were because the economic growth and stability were going to be short lived. In lines (51-57) you can see that actually the more success the regime has the short lived it will be because it gives citizens more time to reflect on their current situation

Why you would accidentally choose this:

• You would think this is right if you didn’t pick up the distinction that when the answer choice refers to “short lived” it isn’t talking about the regime it’s talking about the economic growth and stability. If you didn’t pick up on that then you could piece together that economic polices did alienate the economic power base, based off of the information in paragraphs 3 and 4. However, you have to read carefully so you don’t fall for the traps that the test makers set for you

D) Wrong: This answer choice is wrong because it says untenable (otherwise known as unattainable) and that is factually inaccurate. The point of the passage is that authoritarian regimes are not SUSTAINABLE however they are attainable. There are lots of traps here in this answer choice. First you need to see that the answer choice talks about authoritarian principles whereas the passage talks about the regimes specifically so that should immediately raise your suspicion. Then we already pointed out that authoritarian regimes are actually attainable and the main point is that they are not sustainable. Then finally if you somehow made it that far there is nothing in the passage that says that the reason why they’re not sustainable is because they require a degree of social and economic stability that only a democratic institution can create. As we’ve seen in lines (51-57) an authoritarian regime can have success and that ultimately leads to its demise.

Why would accidentally choose this:

• If you immediately read sustainable instead of untenable and then circled and moved on. Time is definitely not on your side but make sure you read all of the answer choices and read the rest of the information because many answer choices will have pieces that are true but only one will be true in all aspects.

E) Correct: This is exactly what we’re looking for. Let’s break down this answer choice. “Authoritarian rulers who instituted democratic reforms” lets us know that we’re talking about the same subject matter. Then “are compelled to do so because authoritarian rule tends to bring about various changes in society” refers to the 3 changes that were talked about throughout the passage. Finally, “that eventually necessitate corresponding political changes” refers to undergoing democratic reform.

Why you would accidentally NOT choose this:

• This answer choice isn’t a “sexy” answer choice. It leaves something to be desired because you have to connect the dots on the “various changes in society” referring to the changes talked about in the passage, along with “necessitating corresponding political changes” referring to undergoing democratic reform. This is how a lot of the correct answer choices are going to be written in RC, so don’t not choose an answer choice just because it doesn’t immediately come out and say exactly what you want, you’re going to have to work for it on some of the questions.

2) The author’s attitude toward authoritarian regimes is most accurately described as which of the following:

“Author attitude question”

What we’re looking for:

• The answer choices could go a multitude of ways; we could either say something along the lines as sympathetic because their success brings their own demise (51-57) or something along the lines of confident that authoritarian regimes will undergo democratic reform (56-60).

Answer Choices:

A) Wrong: This is really never talked about in the passage but it doesn’t seem correct when compared to our anticipated answer choices. The author seems to have 2 polar opposite attitudes regarding authoritarian regimes and “uncertain” doesn’t qualify as one of them.

Why would you accidentally choose this:

• If you weren’t looking for the author’s attitude then you could justify this answer choice by bringing in outside information because the author does seem to be neutral towards whether this is progress or not but you have to actually answer the question that is given, and this answer choice doesn’t do that.

B) Wrong: This hints at what we where going after because it does have the elements that authoritarian rulers do bring about their own demise. However, the author doesn’t address the motives of the rulers, he doesn’t explicitly say something like “Based on the past authoritarian regimes success, rulers should reconsider their views”

Why you would accidentally choose this:

• If you just saw “tendency to bring about their own demise” then this answer choice would be extremely attractive. You have to read all of the answer choice and not just parts because parts could be right but if the entirety of the answer choice isn’t right then the answer choice isn’t right.

C) Correct: This is exactly what we’re looking for and it matches out anticipated answer choice. We know that the author is confident that democratic forms of government will replace authoritarian regimes because he says so in the last sentence of the passage. “The more astute authoritarian rulers recognize that their only hope of maintaining some power in the future is with democratic political changes”

Why you would accidentally NOT choose this answer choice:

• If you fell for the trap of answer choice “B” then you wouldn’t have read this answer choice and you could get the question wrong. Also if you didn’t pick up what the last sentence of the passage was saying then you also would miss this answer choice. Read all of the answer choices and read carefully when reading the passage.

D) Wrong: Nowhere in the passage does the author say that authoritarian rule constitutes an “unjust form of government”, and if it’s not in the passage then it can’t be a correct answer choice.

Why you would accidentally choose this answer choice:

• This is one of the oldest tricks in the book for test makers, they want to play with your emotions and make put you in the position to draw off of your outside knowledge and insert your opinion on this information. Based off of the passage it very well could be that you believe that authoritarian rules are an unjust form of government but nothing in the passage states that THE AUTHOR believes that.

E) Wrong: This is extremely factually inaccurate, the author seems to believe that there is no way that authoritarian rulers can retain power without instituting democratic reform. That is the basis of his argument and the main point of the passage.

Why you would accidentally choose this answer choice:

• If you didn’t read this answer choice carefully and read that authoritarian rulers WONT discover ways to retain their power without instituting democratic reforms then you could logically work your way to choose this answer choice. The problem is even if the answer choice were written in that manner I still don’t believe that the author has any “concern” towards the authoritarian rulers I believe he is simply stating an argument but leaves out his personal feelings towards the predicament the authoritarian rulers are in

3) Which of the following titles most completely summarizes the content of the passage?

Title Question: Very similar to MP or a structure question

• Look at how the passage is written and choose the best title that matches the flow of the passage

A) Wrong: The first part of this answer choice is right however the author doesn’t make a dissent against authoritarian regimes. He never uses a paragraph to say that their principles are bad or that they’re crazy because the more success they have the more they dig their own grave, nothing.

Why you would accidentally choose this:

• This would combine a couple traps that you would have when taking the test. Either you didn’t read all of the answer choice because you were trying to save time so you didn’t read, “dissent against” or you did read, “dissent against” and brought in personal information and chose the answer choice. Don’t do either, and don’t fall for the trap.

B) Wrong: Nothing in the passage talks about human rights being abused or anything like that, this one should be an immediate deletion. Also when it says case study I interpret that as an example that is fleshed out throughout multiple paragraphs, the author used multiple different examples but he didn’t have one single overarching example that everything fit under.

Why you would accidentally choose this:

• Again if you brought in outside information that you personally felt towards the authoritarian regimes then you could realistically get to this answer choice but it still doesn’t make it right. Also if you saw authoritarian regimes and just circled it and moved on then you also could choose this, don’t fall for the traps!

C) Wrong: This is a TRAP ANSWER CHOICE because it has all of the right elements. However you have to think about what this is actually saying, this title would be right if the passage was referring to exactly how the democratic reforms were going to be laid out. There would be specific examples of what reforms would be done, maybe examples of democratic reforms in the past. Our passage however is simply saying that democratic reforms are going to happen and why, not exactly what the reforms are going to be.

Why you would accidentally choose this:

• If you fell for the trap of thinking that this was exactly what we were looking for because it had all of the right elements then you’d choose this answer choice. Read all of the answer choice and then ask yourself were their specific strategies/solutions that the passage laid out regarding democratic reform?

D) Correct: This is exactly what we’re looking for. “Why authoritarian regimes compromise” refers to the 3 changes/causes that makes it occur. While “examination of social forces” refers to each paragraph going into detail about each of the changes that are actually causing the reform to occur.

Why you would accidentally NOT choose this:

• If you fell for the trap answer choice “C” then you wouldn’t have gotten this, also if you didn’t feel like this was “strong enough” so you were looking for another answer that was “better” then you might have overlooked this. The answer choices you choose don’t have to jump out right away they just have to be the right answer choice.

E) Wrong: This isn’t the main part of the paragraph because it doesn’t talk about economic instability as the main reason why, as we’ve established throughout the prior questions the more stable the economy and the better the regime is doing, the more likely the regime will fall.

Why you would accidentally choose this:

• If you were running out of time and said that I know the author believes that most of these countries are going to undergo democratic reform, so that makes this subject matter correct. And there were some talks of economics in the passage so this is right. Just because the elements are there doesn’t mean that they’re talked about in the right way. Don’t fall for traps like this because it’s just a mashed potato answer choice.

4) Which of the following most accurately describes the organization of the passage?

Structure Question: “Describes the organization”

What we’re looking for:

• We want an answer choice that states the author states an issue (authoritarian rulers can’t maintain their power unless democratic reform occurs), and then lists the causes of that issue while providing examples, (values and norms shift, economic interests shift, expanding resources, autonomy and self confidence), and then the author reaffirms his position at the end.

Answer Choices:

A) Wrong: Everything in the beginning of this answer choice is right but when it gets to “relative importance” that’s when it’s done. Also afterwards the answer states, “possibility of alternate causes is considered and rejected” which also doesn’t occur.

Why you would accidentally choose this:

• If you didn’t read carefully and just breezed through this. These types of questions, the answer choices are usually extremely similar to one another and so one minor detail is how they differentiate from each other. Read carefully and read the entire answer choice.

B) Correct: This is exactly what we’re looking for. A political phenomenon (authoritarian rulers can’t maintain their power unless democratic reform occurs) is linked to a general set of causes (values and norms shift, economic interests shift, expanding resources, autonomy and self confidence), an explanation of each is given, then the causal relationship is elaborated and confirmed (author reaffirms his position at the end).

Why you would accidentally NOT choose this:

• If you didn’t label the passage for structure then when you get to the answer choices they all will sound similar. So you could miss this because you marked it as a maybe and then fell for another answer choice when you were looking at all of the answer choices. Take the time beforehand to do good annotations and the questions will be a lot easier

C) Wrong: Everything in the beginning of this answer choice is right but when it gets to “one possible cause is preferred over the others” it’s wrong. The first sentence of the last paragraph (line 50) says that all 3 changes are created and nowhere else in the passage does it say one is preferred over the other

Why you would accidentally choose this:

• If you didn’t read carefully and just breezed through this. These types of questions, the answer choices are usually extremely similar to one another and so one minor detail is how they differentiate from each other. Read carefully and read the entire answer choice.

D) Wrong: Everything in the beginning of this answer choice is right but when it gets to “3 similar phenomena” it’s wrong. Nowhere in the passage does it present similar phenomena nor does it discuss the similarities between the 2. Because of this the answer choice is wrong.

Why you would accidentally choose this:

• If you didn’t read carefully and just breezed through this. These types of questions, the answer choices are usually extremely similar to one another and so one minor detail is how they differentiate from each other. Read carefully and read the entire answer choice

E) Wrong: Everything in the beginning of this answer choice is right but when it gets to “3 similar phenomena” it’s wrong. Nowhere in the passage does it present similar phenomena nor does it discuss the differences between the 2. This answer choice is saying almost the same thing that “D” is saying but instead of talking about the similarities it says differences. Nowhere in here was there any other comparison so both of these answer choices are wrong.

Question 5:

It can be most reasonably inferred from the passage that

MBT Question: Inferred

What we’re looking for: Something that can be proven from the passage, there are many different directions this could go so it’s difficult to pre-phrase but the passage MUST be able to prove out the answer choice we choose

Answer Choices:

A) Wrong: We don’t know this the only thing the author claims is that authoritarian rulers are pressured to institute democratic reforms. This is outside the scope and therefore we can’t make any statements about it.

Why you might accidentally choose this:

• If you didn’t understand that the answer choice is referring to a specific situation that the passage doesn’t include. If you read it as “many authoritarian rulers will eventually institute democratic reforms” then yes that would be right, but with the qualifier “even if not pressured to do so” that renders this outside of the scope.

B) Wrong: We don’t know when citizen dissatisfaction is highest, so we can’t conclude anything about this either.

Why you might accidentally choose this:

• If you bring in outside information to answer this question then it could be reasonable to assume that citizen dissatisfaction is highest when it would be first imposed. However, this isn’t our world that we’re talking about, we’re concerned about this fake world so we can’t bring in outside information.

C) Wrong: This is similar to “B” in that we can’t conclude anything about when the support is highest for authoritarian regimes. The only thing we know is that the more success the regime has the more likely the regime is to fail, i.e. popular support is lowest when conditions are high.

Why you might accidentally choose this:

• If you mistake logical opposites with real world opposites. If you try to take the contrapositive of what we know from above you would get “popular support is not lowest when conditions are not high”. Note that this is not saying that popular support is highest when conditions are low. Not low could mean high, medium, average or any other part of the spectrum while not high could mean average, semi-low, or zero it’s just everything that isn’t high. Don’t fall for this TRAP ANSWER CHOICE

D) Correct: This is what we’re looking for because that’s the basis of our author’s argument. The last 2 sentences of the passage hint at this (51-60). It talks about people having more time to reflect on the circumstances in which they live and it causes the regime to end up failing because people realize that they want democratic reforms. So if the society doesn’t want the authoritarian regime then they have the power to change and therefore cause the ruler’s to have to change to maintain their power.

Why you might accidentally NOT chose this:

• This is another answer in which it doesn’t jump out at you because it’s very subtle and if you didn’t read and annotate correctly you wouldn’t have picked up on what it was saying. Read carefully and comprehend not understand what you’re reading and you’ll be fine.

E) Wrong: There is nothing in the passage that talk about human rights abuses being the only objectionable aspect of authoritarian regimes. You can’t add anything to the passage you simply have to use what the passage gave you to push out an answer. This isn’t supported by the passage and therefore it is wrong.

Why you might accidentally choose this answer choice:

• Anytime you get to answer choice E you need to be very careful. Testmakers understand the psychology of test takers and how when they’ve gotten to E they’ve already invested time into the question so don’t think that just because there are some elements of things that you remember that you need to choose that answer choice. Invest your time early on and you won’t waste it later on when you get to answer choice time sinks.

Question 6:

Given the information in the passage, authoritarian rulers who institute democratic reforms decide to do so on the basis of which one of the following principles?

What we’re looking for:

• We want an answer choice that says that rulers are going to do whatever they can to maintain as much power for the longest amount of time.

A) Wrong: The article talks about them wanting to maintain their power and nowhere does it mention that they should make an exception “if the health of the nation requires it”.

Why you might accidentally choose this answer choice:

• This is a “feel good answer”, it’s what we wish the world were like and if you bring that information/mentality to the test you’re going to get burned. Don’t bring in any outside information because you’ll be exploited.

B) Wrong: Nowhere in the passage does it mention rulers really caring about the amount of personal freedom their citizens have. If it’s not in the passage then it’s not a principle that is supported.

Why you might accidentally choose this answer choice:

• This is a “feel good answer”, similar to “A” it’s what we wish the world were like and if you bring that information/mentality to the test you’re going to get burned. Don’t bring in any outside information because you’ll be exploited.

C) Wrong: Nowhere in the passage does it mention the rulers wanting to neither transition to democracy nor does it mention that want to transition quickly or efficiently. They are only doing it to keep as much power for themselves as possible.

Why you might accidentally choose this answer:

• This is a “feel good answer”, similar to “A” and “B” it’s what we wish the world were like and if you bring that information/mentality to the test you’re going to get burned. Don’t bring in any outside information because you’ll be exploited.

D) The ruler’s in this passage aren’t concerned about the long-term health of the nation’s economy only maintaining their power for as long as possible. And even if they were concerned about ensuring the long-term health of the nation’s economy the passage doesn’t leave out the possibility of this regime having economic success. The irony is that in lines (50-60) it elaborates that the more success the authoritarian regime has, the more likely it will fall.

Why you might accidentally choose this answer:

• This is a “feel good answer”, similar to “A”, “B”, and “C”I t’s what we wish the world were like and if you bring that information/mentality to the test you’re going to get burned. Don’t bring in any outside information because you’ll be exploited.

E) Correct: This is exactly what we’re looking for; we wanted an answer choice that allows for the rulers to maintain their power for as long as possible. That is why they’re conceding to undergo democratic reform because at least they maintain as much power as long as possible.

Why you might accidentally NOT choose this answer choice:

• Like we’ve said anytime you get to answer choice “E” you should be fully aware of any traps but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t the right answer. If you fell for one of the “feel good answers above” and didn’t read any other answer choices to try and save time then you would have missed this. Make sure you read all of the answer choices and you’ll be fine.

Most Authoritarian Rulers passage:

Hey guys after watching Nicole Hopkins' webinar on RC Methods and Jimmy Quicksilver's webinar on RC Question Types and Tips I thought it would be helpful to start sharing our notes/annotations for each passage because each of us reads a different way and we all see different things. I want to be clear that I’m no expert by any means and this is just the way I personally annotate that is a combination of Nicole Hopkins’s “Toolbox” method and JY’s Memory Method. Also note that I’m doing RC a slightly similar way to Pacifico’s Fool Proof method in that I’m doing the passage 2x one after the other and then once again the following day. While time consuming this definitely is allowing me to read more efficiently for structure and see the similarities in each passage which I know will help me in the long run. This is part one which will just include my annotations for the passage (Most Authoritarian Rulers) and I'll post one that has analysis of the questions immediately afterwards.

I hope this helps you guys and I look forward to seeing what you guys see in each passage!

Notation Breakdown:

Who: Important Nouns

• Box it along with the quantifier

What: Term or phrase that’s defined or has relevant information afterwards

• Box with a tail

When: Date or time

• Circle it

Where: In what context

• Put brackets around it

Pivots: Switching between viewpoints

• Marked with >

• Also may help if you distinguish which opinions each are

Questions: Questions someone raised that could be answered in the passage

• Mark with a Q or a ? In the margins

Time Breakdown of reading/annotating before going to the questions

• 4:05

Paragraph 1:

I boxed with tail “Most authoritarian rulers” who undertook democratic reforms (The quantifier “most” was important because an answer choice could have said “all authoritarian rulers and would have been out of the scope of the stimulus”)

Underlined “they” for referential phrasing

I put a pivot after the “but” to show that annotate that the real reason why the author believes that many authoritarian rulers undertake democratic reform is because they see that they can’t hold onto their power unless they do so

Boxed changes and mobilizations because I anticipated that was where the passage was going from here

What is the function of this paragraph:

This paragraph is introducing the author’s main point: “Due to the various changes and mobilizations in civil society it makes it impossible for authoritarian rulers to hold onto their power indefinitely so they undertake democratic reform.”

Where do we think the passage is heading from here?

Well the first paragraph mentions “changes and mobilizations but we don’t exactly know what exactly they’re referring to so that might be an indicator of where we’re heading from here

Paragraph 2:

Immediately Box “Three types of changes” because this lets you know that more than likely the author is going to talk about what the 3 changes are.

• Also note that these “Changes” are the changes and mobilizations in civil society that we annotated earlier

Box with a tail “values and norms in the society alter over time” until the end of that sentence. I wanted to box this with a tail because I wanted to get the first type of change along with showing how it changed civil society.

• Also I put a 1 in the margin so that I could quickly see where the values were when I needed to refer back to the passage

In the next sentence I put a bracket along with “Ex” in the margins so that if it asked about that specific example I could find it

• Also I circled 1970’s and 1980’s so if they had other dates as an answer choice I could quickly eliminate it

I underlined the last sentence in the paragraph because it shows another way that the changing of values and norms in society impact an authoritarian rulers’ power

What is the purpose of this paragraph:

This paragraph gives us the first type of changes in civil society that make it impossible for rulers to hold onto their power

• A change in norms and values

How does the change in norms and values contribute?

• Reduces people’s tolerance and stimulates concentration of power thus stimulating their demands for freedom (11-13)

• As people place more value on political freedom and civil liberties they become more inclined to speak out, protest, and organize for democracy, frequently beginning with the denunciation of human rights abuses (17-22)

Do you have an example of either of these points:

• Latin America in the 1970’s, 1980’s (13-17)

Where are we going from here:

We talked about the first value that contributes to society’s no longer condoning the continuation of authoritarian rule so my anticipation would be that the next paragraph would talk about the second change

Paragraph 3:

Box alignment of economic interests in society can shift: This is the second change the author gives

Box scholar: Let’s us know who is saying this

Box with tail and brackets from privileged people to long-term interests:

• We want to box privileged people so we know who we’re talking about and you want to make sure that you read with and without the internal context of who the privileged people were

• All of this is important information because it gives us a way how the economic interests shifting could impact the regime

Box “such a large-scale shift”: This is just so you can remember what type of shift we’re talking about the shifting of changing norms and values

Bracketed and put “Ex” in the margin for the Philippines example, for the exact same reason we did the Latin America example, if we’re asked about it we can easily find it

What is the purpose of this paragraph:

This paragraph gives us the second change that can contribute to a society no longer condoning the continuation of authoritarian rule

• Economic interests in a society can shift

How do the shifting of economic interests in a society contribute to the author’s main point

• A turning point is created when privileged people in society come to the conclusion that the authoritarian regime is dispensable and that its continuation might damage their long-term interests.

• (26-31)

Is there an example of this:

• Transition to democracy in the Philippines

Paragraph 4:

Box “expanding resources, autonomy, and self-confidence of various segments of society and of newly formed organizations both formal and informal”

• This is showing the 3rd and final change that contributes to the author’s main point

Bracket the next 2 sentences and put Ex in the margins

• This gives you visually a clearer point to see two examples of this change

Box this profound development: Referential phrasing to the example above

What is the purpose of this paragraph:

This paragraph gives us the 3rd change that contributes to the shifting from authoritarian society to a democracy

• Expanding resources, autonomy, and self-confidence of various segments of society and of newly formed organizations both formal and informal

Are there any examples of this:

• Students marching in the streets demanding change

• Workers paralyze key industries

• Lawyers refuse to cooperate any longer

• Alternative sources of information pierce and shatter the veil of secrecy

Paragraph 5:

Box “authoritarian rule tends in the long run to generate all 3 types of change

• This helps us understand that we have to deal with all of these problems not just 1 or 2

Box with tail “Ironically” until the end of that sentence: Could be asked about the author’s attitude towards this situation and this gives a glimpse into their tone

Bracket the last sentence of the passage

• Gives lasting thoughts to what the author believes (If you don’t convert to a democratic society then you won’t be able to retain any of your power)

What is the purpose of this paragraph:

This paragraph brings together all of the ideas and hints at the authors tone throughout the passage along with his thoughts moving forward regarding this issue

Overall Analysis:

This passage is pretty straight forward it introduces the issue (Authoritarian rulers are unable hold on to their power indefinitely unless the switch to a democratic society), then uses the following 3 paragraphs to go into detail about each change that contributes to this issue, then the author brings everything together and leaves you with his lasting thought.

Hey gang,

I’ve been working through the Sufficient Assumption question bank, trying to turn my Level 3 and 2 questions into Level 1 questions (for terminology check this out this webinar: https://classic.7sage.com/webinar/timing-and-levels-of-certainty -- props to @c.janson35 and his brilliant Timing Webinar).

This question bothers the you-know-what out of me because the answer doesn’t seem to justify the conclusion. It just seems like it’s like it’s blocking other potential explanations, which would make it a good necessary assumption or strengthening answer. I’d love people’s input on this.

Please commend below or Inbox if interested!

I'm redoing some questions that I marked when I first went through the ciriculum, and I came across this tricky one. I fully see why answer D is correct, but I can't figure out what makes B incorrect. Doesn't answer B deny an alternate cause?

Link: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-3-question-20

This is a strengthen question.

G is a protein in the brain. In an experiment, rats that preferred fatty foods over lean foods had a lot more G in the brain than did the rats that preferred lean foods over fatty foods. Therefore, G causes rats to crave fatty foods.

What I am looking for: This is a cookie cutter causal flaw. In my mind, a plausible weakener would be that eating fatty foods might cause an increase in G. We need to deny this.

Answer A: OK, so sometimes the rats choose lean foods. So what? Our facts say that the rats "consistently" choose fatty foods. Is this answer choice just sort of restatement of one of our facts? I think it is.

Answer B: This is hard to eliminate, and I think it's wrong because it just isn't relevant. We don't care about the fat in the brain, but rather, a protein in the brain. Part of me still thinks this denies an alternate cause though: the rats didn't prefer the fatty foods due to a fatty brain.

Answer C: So what? We only care about G in the brain, not the food. For this to work, I think you need to assume that the G in the food then goes up to the brain, but that's a weird assumption.

Answer D: This is perfect since it tells us that the rats that like fatty food had higher amounts of G in their brain before they ate the food. This denies that reverse cause scenario that I anticipated.

Answer E: So what? We don't know anything about the efficiency of metabolizing fat.

Damn, PT52 has some pretty tough LR sections, and even after a retake, I missed many of the same question again (like this one). I don't see how answer A weakens the argument nor how B doesn't.

Link: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-52-section-3-question-19

One theory that explains dinosaur extinction is that the dinos OD'd. Angiosperms have psychoactive agents in them. Most plant-eating mammals avoid them since they taste bitter. Mammals also have livers that detoxify the drugs. On the other hand, dinos couldn't taste the bitterness nor detoxify the plant. Lastly, this theory explains why so many dinosaurs were found in weird positions in the fossils.

What I am looking for: Did the dinosaurs actually eat the plants? What if some other theory (like an asteroid) explains the sudden extinction better? Also, we don't even know if the plants were bad for the dinosaurs; we know that angiosperms are bad for some mammals, but what if they were net healthy for dinosaurs? Sure, dinosaurs couldn't detoxify the psychoactive agent (which is bad), but what if the angiosperms provided such large amount of nutrients and other good stuff, that it was worth eating still? Also, we have no evidence that the comparison between the mammals and dinosaurs is even a good comparison; what if the two are so different physiologically any comparison doesn't hold? There is so much wrong with this argument.

Answer A: I just don't see how this weakens the argument. First, it's incredibly weak: we found 1 fossil of a large mammal in a contorted position. But so what? What does this have to do with dinosaurs? Even if you take this to the other extreme: 1 million large mammals were found in contorted positions, you still have the same issue. It doesn't shed any light on what happened to the dinosaurs. Second, the passage never even talks about "large mammals," and the comparison to the mammals in the passage is dubious already, so I don't see how adding this potential third group of mammals to the argument weakens anything.

Answer B: This is what I picked (and I chose this during both my takes of this exam, and kept it both times during BR). Doesn't this point out one of the things I anticipated? If angiosperms provide nutrition, then doesn't this mean they may have actually been GOOD for dinosaurs? In my mind, this not only weakens the argument, but it strongly does so.

Answer C: I think this strengthens the theory. This shows that not only vegetarian dinosaurs ate the angiosperms, but also the meat eating dinosaurs indirectly did as well (which could account for the fact that theory explains the extinction of ALL dinosaurs).

Answer D: OK, but we are talking about angiosperms only. So what if poison ivy doesn't have this stuff in it? This is entirely irrelevant.

Answer E: I think this also strengthens the argument. This shows us that it's possible that animals can actually die from eating angiosperms, so it strengthens the idea that maybe the dinosaurs died from the plant as well. This is a pretty weak strengthener, but it strengthens nonetheless.

I'm not sure why 1) negating morally right to mean morally wrong is incorrect and 2) negating right to mean wrong is incorrect. Please explain!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-2-question-23

Please note that the information below will change to reflect the information we get! Contribute if you can via the official June 2016 LSAT discussion without going into too much detail. If you think something is wrong or should be added, please post in the thread and let me know.

Real Sections:

LG:

- Team / Leadership Position

- Things made in 1920s

- Recordings / 2 Being Recorded While The Rest Weren't

- Tables at a Fair / Sundial (Table / Vase / Lamp question)

RC:

- High Art / Elite Classes

- CFCs / Ozone

- Legal Matters / Jury Nullification

- Clay / Cuneiform Tablets

LR:

- Brabblers / Birds

- Warm Sea / Jupiter's Moon Europa

- Oxygen Depletion / Levels

- Mayor / Indifference of Voters

- Iron to Prevent Parkinson's

- CEO / Lawyer

- Chocolate Desserts High Calories / Fatty

- World Literature / National Interest

- Hiring Lawyer to Write Will vs. Doing it Yourself

- Sociology / Psychology

- Movie Technology / Recovering Costs

- City of Troy

Experimental Sections:

LG:

- Bicycle Factories / Parts

- Lead Actor Understudy

- Septic Tank

- Fridges

- Oil Art / Gallery

RC:

- Movies made for TVs

- Blues / Musicians (RC)

- Farming Fish / Overfishing

- Computer Simulation in UK Courtroom

- Musical Iconography (?)

- Chem vs. Physics

LR:

- Heme and Non-Heme Food / Nutritional Value

- Hot Cocoa

UNCONFIRMED:

If you can confirm that these are real / experimental, please do so by PMing me or posting in the main thread.

- Coffee & Water in Water Heater

- Large Mall Bookstores / Sell Magazines

- Cereal / Whole Grains

This thread is closed for discussion. Official post June LSAT discussion here:

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/6922/official-june-lsat-discussion-thread

I've noticed that I've been getting 100% on logic game sets that have a difficulty of 1/5 or perhaps 2. I get 1-2 wrong on anything above 3....

The bright side is that I'm getting sets correct but I'd like to ask what the usual distribution of difficulty is on actual logic game sections? Like... 1 easy, 2 medium and 1 difficult or is it always random?

While working on main point of argument i noticed that some do not have conclusion indicators but i might see counter premise indicators (However is one that i see) i noticed in some videos that but was also a indicator.. are there any videos or can anyone on here help explain what to do when you comes across these types of words.

Thanks!