Hi, I am confused as to why the correct answer is C? I felt C was a different argument since the final conclusion was " wise investors will conclude that the expansion will continue for some time"

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

Hi, I'm looking for a study buddy in the riverside/moreno valley area. Taking the LSAT in March.

Can someone please explain the stimulus here? I was lost reading this tbh.

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

I chose (E) as my answer because "Selfish individualism" which was suggested as a menace to the integrity of society is not necessarily equivalent to the concept of selfishness, a fundamental motivator of human actions throughout the history (at least in this passage). There is a missing link which remains unexplained to bridge the gap between these two. I thought it was a snake-oil seller tactic switching terms in the vicinity with no proper justification. (A) is improper as there would have been no reason to defy the relevance of that argument in this passage iff he/she had offered us a coherent concept of excessive self-interest. Instead of reducing one of the social ills that epitomized the decade to "Selfish individualism", the author could have said "selfishness". Then, the whole passage can adhere to one particular theme with congruity. (B) is not germane to the argument because no numeric data is demanded whose absence can dismantle the validity of the argument entirely. It could undermine or weaken its cogency at best. (C) is the opposite of the argument. The writer perceives it as a chronic condition ailing our humanity from Day one. (D) is a nut job since we do not need to look into the case of other species to beef up the case against our unconditional/uncalculating benevolence. If humans are born to be driven by their own lust and lucre as part of basic instincts, then any author should channel all of one's efforts to cull out instances related to that hypothesis. The rest would be a dog-and-pony show. Thus, I opted for (E) as my final answer choice. According to the first half of the passage, the innate desire of humans to reveal their true blood even at the cost of damaging others was a culprit putting our society's harmony in jeopardy in the 1980s. Then, the second half of it has a different selling pitch: selfishness in the human history. This ever-lasting character lets him/her question the nature of good will by mankind in general. What I failed to see was the connection between them. What do you think about this? Do you mind sharing the rationale behind ur decision?

Hi all,

So I have withdrawn from April test and plan to take in June -- but my April LSAT writing is still live.

Anyone know if I will need to cancel this separately, or if I can just take it whenever I want between now and June? I'll reach out to LSAC on monday but wondering if anyone has encountered similar thing for Flex. Thnx

I am completely underwater with this section, I don't get it at all. I have review the lessons and still don't understand and now looking online. Any tips? Please help

I understand in-person study groups may not be recommended by 7sage for different reasons.

In my humble opinion there is nothing like in-person college-like cramming where different people may come together and assist in what others find difficult to comprehend & vice-versa.

I was wondering if there are any in-person study groups near SouthbBay area in a public, quiet place (I.E. a Library's study room). If not, would there be people willing to participate in one?Alternatively a Zoom Group would be good enough. LMK!

I have created a survey to get something concrete going on person or through ZOOM, as I've not been contacted by authors of other discussions. Feel Free to Complete Interested, since I haven't been contacted -I've done a survey for those interested. If so feel free to complete so that there's something concrete going. https://forms.gle/kZLjU8VVny6Nrv4w7

According to the stimulus, the club president has disallowed Jeffrey to vote. Thomas is arguing that that was in violation of club rules.

(Structure)

Premise 1: Rule: Vote --> Good standing member

Premise 2: Jeffrey is a good standing member

Conclusion: The president’s action of disallowing Jeffrey to vote was in violation of club rules.

Here are club rules: only good standing members may vote. (vote—> good standing member)

Jeffrey paid his dues on time and therefore he is a good standing member. Necessary condition is satisfied, therefore we don’t know if he is allowed to vote or not allowed to vote. There could be other criteria to qualify to vote that Jeffrey does not meet, in which case he is not allowed to vote. Or Jeffrey meets all the criteria to vote, in which case he is allowed to vote. We have no information about it.

But, Thomas concludes that the president’s action of disallowing Jeffrey to vote was in violation of club rules. Disallowing Jeff's vote could or could not be in violation of the rules. In spite of this possibility that it may not be in violation, Thomas made a determination that it is in violation. This is the flaw. He is saying that allowing him to vote is in compliance with (authorized by) the rule. (In other words, to be in compliance, Jeffrey should be allowed to vote.)

And that is what answer choice (A) is saying. His argument fails to take into account the distinction between something not being prohibited (allowing Jeffrey to vote) and its being authorized (in compliance with the rule). He is saying that allowing to vote is in compliance with (authorized by) the rule. At the end of the answer choice A, words “by the rule” is omitted. “Authorized” here does not mean his being authorized to vote, but rather, it means being authorized by the rule.

We can also view it as sufficient condition, necessary condition confusion flaw. Because in reaching the conclusion, Thomas mistakenly assumed the club rule as: good standing member —> vote. But this is not in any of the answer choices.

(A) is the correct answer.

(B) There is no character attack here.

(C) There is no such statement being denied or regarded as true here.

(D) What they were voting about is irrelevant.

(E) Whether Althea is authority in club rules or not is irrelevant.

Answer choice (A) was written very tricky that it was difficult to recognize it was the right answer.

After having took 5 practice tests and done probably 50 different logic games, I have come across my number 1 enemy: drawing the initial board. Not even figuring inferences, but simply figuring out if it’s sequence or grouping and drawing a board accordingly. Does anyone have any tips for figuring out the kind of board to draw?

I am averaging -6 on LR after 7 practice sections (not doing full length tests yet) but consistently miss 1 or 2 of the first 10 questions (i.e., level 1s and 2s) and taking a long time to do so while breezing through the middle 10 questions of the test (then losing more points in the end, partially due to time lost in the beginning and partially because they are hard questions.)

Obviously, I’m planning to incorporate more drilling/reviewing CC to overcome this, but I was wondering if anyone had tips to warmup before a practice section or anything else to avoid brain fog in the beginning of the section. My goal is eventually getting to a 0 to a -1 wrong, but would probably be okay with a -2 depending on how the rest of the test went. Thanks!

I get that we are concerned about comparing the people that fall outside the weight bracket and people that fall inside the weight bracket, but I am still confused about (D). From the data collected from policyholders, we make a generalization, which looks like a flaw to me. I thought (D) acts as a flaw/gap protector by increasing the likelihood that holders are proper representatives of the population.

Help is appreciated! Thank you in advance!

Hi! I'm currently reliably able to get Strengthening and Weakening questions correct when they are marked as Easiest/Easier/Medium level questions, but I seem to be only getting half of any given set of Harder/Hardest level Strengthening and Weakening questions. I also have the same problem with Flaw questions with about the same ratio of accuracy for the same difficulty levels.

Is there any different strategy I can adopt for sake of improvement? I really think nailing these types of questions in particular along with Flaw questions seems to be the key for me to getting a -3 or less on LR from my current score analytics, and from there my chances at a 170+ would greatly improve.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Hi Guys I was wondering if you guys thought it was worth it to buy the score preview for the 2nd LSAT I have taken. I did not buy it for my first LSAT

So I decided no to take the July LSAT even though the accommodation was appealing (still turns out we cant register for the September test with the freebie) So my question is, now that I dont have to rush.. I am currently halfway through the LG CC, should I full proof during the CC or after I finish the LG section of the CC?

#help I have improved my score since starting 7sage but Sufficient Assumption questions give me a lot of trouble. They are my worst question type by far and I was wondering if anyone had any advice on how they approach these questions. If anyone could offer advice or their strategy that would be amazing! Thank you!

I have a question about what you guys do after a PT in regards to your wrong LR answers. I know a lot of people do wrong answer journals which seems like a great idea, but I was wondering what exactly those who do that write down for each wrong question. Do you go over each answer choice and write out an explanation? What made you pick that specific wrong answer? etc. A lot of people have said this led to lots of improvement and I am hoping someone could explain what has worked and helped them. Thanks!

I marked this as a time-change flaw because it seems as though the author is using the past to predict the future. Does anyone else feel like it would be fair/correct to call it a time-change flaw? Obviously E is also an attractive answer since you cannot fully isolate the variables involved in preventing nuclear war, but aren't you simply supposed to assume that the information in the stimuli is correct and mostly valid when dealing with flaw questions?

Just really strruggling to understand the stimulus of this question; could someone explain the stimulus and go through the answer choices?

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Flaw Type: Equivocation flaw

Premise:

P. Comparing health benefits with potential risk.

P. Benefits of "enjoyment" of drinking outweighs allergic reaction risk.

C: Therefore, do not ban.

Anticipate: the author is falsely equivocating "enjoyment" = "health related benefits". This argument is flawed because they mischaracterized as enjoyment with something health related. Maybe if the dye helps 100% cure flu than 2% of allergic reaction, don't ban it.

Could someone help me with this question? I find the stimulus itself really confusing, and would really appreciate it if someone could explain the stimulus and answer choices. Thanks so much!

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Hey everyone, so I'm at that stage were I'm spamming practice tests/reviewing them afterwords. and I've really hit an issue with reviewing my answers for logical reasoning. My problem is every time I go to review the questions and try to re-solve them, I noticed that I already have the answer memorized before I even finish the stimulus and what's worse is I have the reason it was correct memorized too so I don't feel like I'm able to learn how to solve it properly for a similar question. Even for PTs I did weeks ago same issue. What do I do...

Also while you're still here bonus here, any tips on reviewing wrong answers on LR when there's no particular pattern to which types I get wrong?

Can I infer some are -P from the statement that most people are P? I think saying most people are mortal does not mean some people are immortal, but the correct AC of this question seems to suggest the otherwise. Is this a bad LR question?

Just some late words of encouragement for those taking the January exam. I tested in November and during the first section (LG) I was interrupted by the proctor 3 separate times, and not once did she pause my time. Because of this, I was unable to answer the final two Qs of the section. I was very frustrated because I was PTing at -0 to -1 on LG and believed I needed to match that on the exam to have any hope of achieving my goal score. As the next section began, I tried my best to put the disappointment behind me and focus on the rest of the exam. I’m glad I did because I remember feeling very good about how I did on the remainder of the test. And lo and behold, when the scores were released, I receive my exact goal score. Obviously, if you encounter some major issues, you are likely going to want to appeal for a retest. But if you hit some obstacles along the way, just try your best to put it behind you and focus on what’s still ahead. You never know, things might just work out in the end. Good luck!

1- Is it still a good idea to do the classic LG bundle (1-35) or should I mix some games from PT 50-60 into the bundle?

2- Also another question, while doing the LG bundle I will do the RC CC as well. After I am done with the RC but still in the process of doing the LG bundle, should I incorporate timed sections of LR and RC or just wait and do a full timed PT?

Of all the questions in RC, I ironically have the most difficulty with the first one - the main point/author's purpose question. I almost always can narrow the choices down to two, which are typically factually correct but focus on slightly different points of the passage. For example, in PrepTest 60, there is a passage involving Luis Valdez and the Teatro Campesino. Both C and D focus on Valdez's contributions to the Teatro, but I incorrectly chose D because I believed the information presented in the last paragraph countered a claim made in C. Despite racking my head about this question, I still cannot figure out why D was incorrect, and I certainly wouldn't have this time to devote to a main point question on the real test.

What is the best way to identify and keep track of the main point when reading a passage? I find JY's method of reflecting after every paragraph very helpful, but I find myself struggling to combine these summaries into a main point that the test writers would agree with. This especially occurs when the last paragraph introduces a new idea, or a counterexample, and I'm stuck wondering if the correct answer needs to specifically address this. How can I identify information that is given time in the passage but does not need to be included in the answer choice?

Thanks in advance!