Discussions

LSAT

New post

100 posts in the last 30 days

Hi everyone,

Now this was a weird parallel flaw question because I feel like there are so many different answer explanations for the answer choices on this question all over the web, and I am not sure which ones are the most reliable. Thus, I felt maybe listing what I thought here would help clarify stuff, and I want to know what people here think (is my reasoning here look correct or not correct?)

What I thought was the flaw: transferring a non-transferrable trait from X to a reproduction of X

A-- right because it matches the flaw (crossed out A during the actual timed test because the trait isn't the same in wording like we see in the stimulus)

B-- wrong because this is a conditional relationship, not an argument

C-- wrong because this is a conditional relationship, not an argument

D-- wrong because we want to see some trait transfer from Jo to Layne, and we don't see that

E-- wrong because being similar is not the same as imitating/reproducing (chose E during my PT because I didn't realize this)

Any feedback would be very much appreciated!

thanks!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-36-section-1-question-21/

0

Has anyone used the LR Loophole as a study resource in addition to 7Sage? So far I am finding it helpful but I was curious how other 7Sage users have used this in combination with 7Sage.

0

One of the things I hate about taking the test with my laptop is that I had trouble visually following my cursor (harder compared to an index finger over printed text). I've been trying a few prep tests with a customized cursor -- a big blue circle highlight around my regular arrow and wondering if I can take the January test using the same settings. I know this is small issue but I fear getting disqualified. Has anyone tried this? How did it go? Is this even worth trying with all the ProctorU nightmares I've been hearing about?

0

How should I be reviewing logical reasoning questions? I find that just reading the explanation doesn’t seem to help me much? I also go over the questions I am not sure about by reading forums but it hasn’t worked out well

How should I prepare for the lsat? I need some kind of in person interaction, but do not have the funds for private tutoring. I know this is 7sage’s forum, but are there specific courses people could recommend? I tried blueprint and it didn’t work out

0

Okay I had a lot of trouble with these two strengthening questions lol so to see that they are only 2/3 star difficulty is slightly concerning. I ended up getting them both right under timed and BR without understanding fully why they correct. It did throw me off during the section but I'm trying to build confidence in eliminating to get AC's right.

I'm going to include my thoughts on each AC as I'm trying to build a habit of articulating what each answer choice actually does when it interacts with the argument to build my reasoning skills (ie: strengthens, weakens, does nothing). I will include this in my rationale below and would appreciate if someone could take a once over and let me know 1) if the way I am interpreting an AC to interact with an argument is wrong (ie: if I think it does nothing but it actually strengthens) and also 2) if there is anything else you notice in my reasoning. I am really trying to hone in on reasoning skills so don't be shy to critique mine if there is something I am missing or assuming!

PTA S4 Q3

A) Neither strengthens nor weakens; so what if both F and M pit vipers have these sensors while also exhibiting aggressive and defensive behaviour? The hypothesis we are trying to supports that the sensors serve to assist in judging the SIZE and DISTANCE of predators.

B) Strengthens; okay so if pit vipers do not differ in their predatory behaviour from the way non-pit vipers behave (ie: they both act the same way towards prey) but they do differ markedly from non-pit vipers in their strategies of defence against predators; then this would strengthen the claim that the pits assist the viper. Ie: sort of like an experiment, take one with pits and one without pits and see how they act in terms of defending themselves from predators.

C) Neither strengthens nor weakens; this seems totally irrelevant, distinguishing pit vipers based on their pits and other chemical features in no way strengthens the hypothesis about how the pit vipers use pits primarily defend themselves in specific ways.

D) Neither strengthens nor weakens; okay but this still doesn't indicate how they use the pits and if the hypothesis is correct? How can anything supplementary help us when aren't sure about the hypothesis.

E) Neither strengthens nor weakens; at first glance I thought that since this indicates they do have predators it could help, but it's just about another defence mechanism and it still doesn't strengthen, in any way, the hypothesis that the infrared sensors serve a specific purpose (which is to judge the size and distance of predators).

I thought this one was a little tricky because if you don't stay clear on what the hypothesis is, it's a little easy to get lost.

PTA S4 Q5

A) Strengthens; Okay so if official persecutions were preceded by propaganda campaigns in order to vilify the groups being persecuted - this seems to indicate that they were not taken on reluctantly and that it was not their only goal to soothe popular unrest? Because why would they have this propaganda with a distinct purpose if otherwise?

B) Does nothing; The opposing view is geared towards being reluctantly persecuted AND a single purpose of persecution for various minority groups, this seems to miss the point there in terms of the direction for the purpose of persecution and how it reluctantly/not it was carried out. I think it is trying to dispute the fact that various groups were persecuted by telling us that 'they were protected', but either way I don't know anything about protection of official institutions and it doesnt seem fair to assume that because they 'often' existed under direct protection that they couldn't still be persecuted - how strong was this protection? did it stop them from physical harm?

C) Does nothing but if anything weakens (?); okay so this says that SOME groups of people accused of witch craft were victims of mob violence (indicating the hostility) and that they were also occasionally officially persecuted (this seems to cover the soothing popular unrest). But either way I don't know how strong SOME is in terms of this group in order to strengthen the opposing claim, the conclusion is about 'various minority groups' not some or one. Either way, it definitely does not strengthen the argument that the scholar's belief is questionable, I just wanted to analyze what it was doing in terms of the whole stimulus.

D) Does nothing; this seems irrelevant, many leaders didn't authorize spread of information that misrepresented religious practices? So what? How does that tell us anything about why the first belief is questionable.

E) Does nothing; this is about convicted felons being excluded and that being a form of persecution. I don't know what kind of society this is but assuming that convicted felons count as a minority group, the conclusion we are trying to dispute is about VARIOUS minority groups, not solely being persecuted, but how the persecutions were taken on reluctantly and with only one goal in mind.

Thank you for anyone who took the time to read my analysis and I hope there are some valuable points in there! Please don't hesitate to correct me on anything if you see any errors.

0

I took the April test and scored 164, but was PT-ing in the high 160s. My goal is to score in the 168-174 range, but rushed to take the June test under unideal circumstances (I'm studying abroad and was not in an ideal testing environment) because the logic games is my best section. I scored 162 which I'm not happy with, and plan to retake in the fall -- any opinions on whether it would look worse to keep this lower score or cancel it? If I keep it, is it worth writing an addendum at all?

0

This question doesn't have an explanation, so here's my thought process.

Question Stem- Principle Question

Stimulus- Machines and tech alter our choices. (example). Clock altered our choices by allowing synch +. HOWEVER, clock also closed some doors. Living without clock is kinda impossible now.

So Machines and tech that alter our choices can have some downsides as well.

A. This makes sense, however, the use of "enslave" and "liberate" sounds really extreme. Keep for now.

B. No. The stimulus no where says what people should and shouldn't do.

C. That MAY be true, however, not what the stimulus is saying.

D. The stimulus does not weigh the pros and cons, so we don't know if it was worth our dependence or not.

E. "Most"??? We only know about one instance that made our life more synchronized and productive. There MAY be more machines. However, that is not within the scope of the premises, and therefore out.

Only answer remaining- A. Correct.

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

0

Glad I saw this game with the outlier game types cropping up on current tests! Went in with way to cookie cutter of a diagram on the front end. Incredibly thankful for being able to adapt even tho it wasn't as quick as I would have preferred.

(kind of reminded me of assumptions I made on the multi-tiered car dealership game)

0

Hi all! I have been doing well with the concepts behind how to weaken an argument. Don't attack the premise or conclusion, rather thin out and weaken the support structure. However, I seem to get it on the first round but in my BR I end up falling for the trap answers and just changing my course of reasoning. Helppp!!! Any and all tips are welcome!

0

Hey everyone! I am hosting LR Kahoot tonight and LR jeopardy on Sunday night for anyone who wants to come join. We will also be hosting more in the future. Comment your discord and I'll add you to the group.

0

Hi everyone,

Wondering if anyone has run into this issue. I've naturally been doing well with LR and RC. The 7sage courses helped me get to about an average of -1 on each of those sections. The problem is that I can't seem to get to a consistent -1 to -3 on LGs. Its especially frustrating given how everyone always talks about how it is the easiest section to learn.

I have used the foolproof method fairly extensively. Having done and redone every logic game from Tests 1 - 78. I can redo the sections and get -1/-0 when I do. I also made a tracker of harder and hardest games from Tests 1-78 and did and redid these until I could do them quicker than the recommended time. I've also redone the LG syllabus and whizzed through all the sections.

The problem is... I still am struggling to rap my head around new harder/hardest questions that pop on tests I haven't seen before, especially if its a miscellaneous game. Sometimes its due to panic but other times I am just genuinely stumped. This seems to happen on every new PT I take.

I am averaging low 170s with about -4 or -5 (sometimes worse) in the logic games. I recognize that I am fortunate o have a high base-line score but I have poured in 200+ hours into logic games and it remains my biggest obstacle to being a consistent mid 170 scorer.

Anyone have any advice or deal with the same issue? I've always been awful at puzzles!

1

1.By blind reviewing every single question, LSAT students save a lot of time and get their target score faster than students who BR only flags questions, while the latter group of students reviews individual PT quicker and takes more PTs.

Which one of the following, if true, would best reconcile the statement above?

A. Few LSAT students have detailed knowledge of LSAT theories about the relationship between BR and score.

B. By BR every single question, LSAT students are getting a deeper understanding of the material, and reinforce their technic for questions they got right.

D. ... your variant

0

stimulus :

"There can be a known known only if theres a known unknown, but there can never be an unknown unknown without a known unknown. Thus, every unknown unknown which is known is actually a known unknown which is unknown."

the conclusion above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

the content of this question is inspired by the "Rumsfeld Matrix." What would be a sufficient assumption for this question? Is this a hard question or did you find it on the easier end of SA questions?

0

Hello,

Can somebody link me the section in the syllabus for the strategies when taking a "double" reading comprehension section? I'm pretty good at all RC except for those questions that have to do with two passages

0

I chose D as an answer based on the whole passage (It talks about literary techniques, right?), but the right answer is A. I couldn't find which part of the passage makes A is a right answer.

I have no idea why D is wrong and A is the right answer.

Can anyone explain me?

Thanks!

0

I was confused between answer choices A and E for this one.

Is A incorrect because it leaves out the part about researchers being puzzled by how kinglets are able to survive cold winter nights? I was trying to figure out if answer choice A had any descriptive/factual errors, but I couldn't find any, so I'm guessing the problem is that it doesn't address the fact that scientists are trying to figure out the mechanisms behind the birds' survival.

That seems to be the only difference between A and E.

0

Hi,

I'm always confused about these questions. I don't understand if the question is asking you all the potential objects that can belong in the group, or the potential objects in the group in one instance.

For example (Prep Test 43, Question 18): "Which of the following could be a complete and accurate list of each of the office buildings that the falafel tuck serves?"

A. X

B. X, Z

C. X,Y,Z

D. Y,Z

E. Z

A, B, and E can be eliminated based on the fact that the stimulus provides that F must serve Y. The answer is D because the question meant "in one scenario". However, I read it as "all the potential trucks" the Falafel truck could serve. In one possibility, F serves Y,X and in another Y,Z. So potentially, F could serve all 3 leading me to answer choice C.

I'm definitely reading this question wrong. Can someone please explain to me the wording difference between when they ask for all potentials vs. in one possibility?

Thanks a lot to whomever responds.

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?