http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-05/

After reading the answers, I think I can see how this one justifies the argument but still a little unsure about how the answer was found.

What were the steps?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-49-section-1-game-1/

Can someone explain question 7 of this game to me?

I get how there are three possible worlds: _ _ N G I N ; N _ G I N _ ; N _ _ G I N

The question asks "...then a film in Norwegian must be shown on". Why is it JUST day 1 and 3. I mean, it could also be shown on day 5 (per the second option above) or day 6 (per the third option above). Why is option "Day 1 and 3" correct as opposed to "Day 1 and 5", which is incorrect?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-2-question-20/

I got this one correct by POE, but I am having a lot of trouble explicitly understanding why E is correct (I was wishy washy with A, but I get why it's wrong). Here is my analysis:

This is a flaw/weaken question.

If it's music, then it has a temporal element since parts of the song are presented over time. However, a painting has no temporal element since parts of the painting are not presented over time. Thus, the viewer's eye has no one path to follow in order to "read" the painting [the "" on read are kind of weird, I think]. As a result, a key difference between listening to music and viewing a painting is that music has a time element while looking at a painting doesn't.

What I am looking for: This argument seemed (at least to me) pretty decent. Temporal order is a necessary condition for music, but it is not for painting. So that seems like an "essential" [necessary] difference between the two. The only flaw that I could see was relating "path" to time. That didn't seem like very good evidence to me.

Answer A: This was my trap answer. I didn't pick it, but I wasted a lot of time eliminating it. The argument doesn't say that you need to be conscious of the passage of time. The passage of time (in and of itself) is the necessary condition for music and not one for a painting. Also, time is an element of the painting and not of the viewer. It is possible that the viewer is looking at his watch the entire time while looking at a painting; that doesn't change the fact that the medium of art (painting) itself doesn't have a temporal element.

Answer B: Who cares about the definition of music/differences between styles.

Answer C: Who cares about their commonalities? Our conclusion is about differences.

Answer D: Is "reading" a metaphor? Maybe. However, the substance of this answer choice is to say that the flaw is circular reasoning. The argument is not. The "reading" analogy is evidence in support of the conclusion, not a restatement of it.

Answer E: This is it by POE. However, I still am having trouble seeing how this actually attacks the relationship between the premise and conclusion. This answer to me juts flat out contradicts the "path" premise and not the substance of the argument.

Hi there,

I was wondering if anybody could clarify (please) why the Substitution and Equivalence section was placed at the end of the PTs ( i have the 2nd package). Is this because these types of questions only appear on later LSATs?

I just started PT-ing so i'm at 37.

Please let me know what you guys think.

Thanks :)

Is there a particular strategy that is recommended for these two types of questions? I feel with MBT questions, it's easier to come up with a more concrete prephase that will resemble an AC closely, whereas this is a lot less likely with MSS. Either way, what's a good mindset to get into in order to consistently answer these types? Is it just absorbing and analyzing the stimulus, trying to prephase, and POE? Are there any tips or insights beyond that?

Mods - is there anyway to access LRs and RCs explanations or are those not prepared?

If anyone is interested in doing proctored mock exams in the GTA-Mississauga/Toronto area contact me!!!

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-4-question-15/

I'm not sure how to understand why the right answer is right. The business student in me says E is the most right but I can understand why it's not 'the' right answer.

I'm trying to figure out why a product who's frequency is not able to be increased means that a rebate isn't ideal.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-04/

I got this one wrong... even after blind review -___- but now I think I know why it's actually B and not C

The explanation I'm giving myself is that the experiments performed take THC on its own and not Marijuana as a whole? Then the conclusion states that all of Marijuana contains THC, thus Marijuana causes cancer. While completely disregarding any other properties Marijuana may have?

Can this be considered a "some" statement? (Some of marijuana --> then cancer)

I hope I'm making sense.

I was wondering if anyone is familiar w/ any subtle differences between the two? (I did my LR through the Trainer, where the 'justify reasoning' questions are known as 'sufficient assumption', while the 'justify conclusion' ones are known 'supporting principle -- they're in the same chapter, and for both types, you're supposed to "fill in the logical gap").

Hi,

I have been studying for the Oct. 2015 LSAT since (essentially) July 1. I work a full-time job, and have recently moved to a new city, and have been adjusting to that.

I had a very high GPA in college, which is why I am putting a lot of pressure on myself to do well this October. I feel like a score under 167 is unrepresentative of myself as a student.

That being said, I have taken 5 practice tests (I realize this is few, I plan to take 30 in total), and have scored two points lower each time I take them (162 down to a 158 yesterday). This have been PT 52-56.

I have been studying on my own, using resources given to me by friends who have scored in the 170s. I just recently found 7Sage, and have done only one BR.

I can't afford to sign up for the entire 7Sage program, and feel at this point, it is too late. I am a month out of the test.

I would really, really appreciate any feedback/reality checks. Because I work a full time job, I would REALLY like to be finished with this test after October, and get my applications in for this year. If December is necessary, so be it. I already feel burned out on studying... which is probably absurd giving how little I've.

Thanks for such a helpful community!

RW

Hey all,

I've been doing pretty well on my PTs, but I'm finding that on the logic games, I'm consistently making 1-2 silly mistakes on the section. I know that test taking anxiety and feeling rushed are causing me to misread questions or answers, and it's painful to see these mistakes when I correct the section. I'm wondering how frequently others are making these kinds of mistakes and what they are doing to fix it. I've been getting better - taking more time reading the questions and answers, but it's still a problem. I'm wondering what your experience has been.

Hello 7Sage!

I have run into a problem. Between Feb 2015 and June 2015 I did every preptest, except for 72, 73, and 74. Since June, in preparation for October, I have already done 72 and 73, and have only 74 left. My problem is that I think that RC is the least-repeatable section on the test, and now I am left with nothing else to practice my RC skills with.

Any advice on anything else that I can use to practice? Is there another test that has similar RC passages? Any nonfiction material? Part of the problem is how distinctively logical LSAT materials are. Even things like The Economist don't feel similar to me.

Thanks!

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-3-question-18/

Ok. The explanation JY wrote is awesome, but I still don't understand why B is correct.

Please save the dummy!

For all of those taking the Dec. LSAT on Sat. evening we will BR PT 43.

Note on all groups

• For the newbies: Please send a PM with your Skype handle.

Annoyingly (worryingly???) I have the most trouble on the law passages in RC. I'm not great with the law vocab and pretty terrible with the history of law. Especially those ones with things like the history the medieval British legal system. I'm like...what? I heard a great recommendation for law podcasts, but I really need something I can read and carry with me. Digital is fine too! Thanks in advance!

Question, while you're BRing with Step 2, after initially timing your work in a section, is there a more effective method of writing out the answer choices? Separate colored pen? Directly on the test versus on a separate sheet of paper? Gradually work to just doing them in your head? I understand the process clearly. I would just like to know if theres a methodology you would recommend for the implementation of Step 2. Thanks!

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-2-question-23/

Can anyone kindly analyze this argument for me?

So I've been studying the LSAT for a little over a year now, and I've got LR and LG down (-0 to -2 on each section)

My real worry is RC. I've been getting -7 to -13 per RC section for PT 56 and above. But when I BR the RC section, I can usually get -0 to -3

When I did the RC for PT 40-56, I finished the RC in time and stayed within -3 to -7/8. Somehow for the new tests, this is a real problem and it's gone downhill. I'm currently working on doing RC from older tests for practice while I work my way up doing full length tests (I'm currently on PT 62... RC-13,LR-3,LG-1,LR-0 ). My time for reading passages varies from 3-5 mins and my timing for the questions also varies quite a bit; overall timing seems to be my real problem where I sometimes spend way too much time especially on the questions and don't even get to answer some of the questions at the end.

The RC section seems to be the main one stopping me from breaking the 170 bound so any advice would be highly appreciated!

Can we start a page within our LR discussion category similar to Manhattan's LR explanations page, or do you guys think it's redundant because of the videos? I only have the starter pkg, which doens't include all the LR questions and explanations, so if I still have questions I normally go to Manhattan's page or ask here in our forum. We could follow the same format as Manhattan: Questions listed in chronological order as they are posted; 32-4-17 (ex. Idk if that's actually an LR section). Thoughts? Of course, if this requires too much for the Admins then I think we're fine just how we are. @"Dillon A. Wright"

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-1-question-22/

The following is my reasoning for why the answer to PT64S1Q22 is D, and is not B. The answer-sheet states that the answer is B, while online explanations for why the answer is B seem to me to be confusing, non sequitor, flawed, and specious. That being said, im likely wrong, and the LSAT writers and expert teachers are likely right, and I simply currently cant see why. PLEASE someone explain to me how my reasoning is flawed, and why B is correct. THANKS!!

....

Summary: The arguments conclusion incorrectly points to a cause (using the word "promoted"), based on a correlation. B indicates a correlation, not a cause, so B doesn't strengthen the argument. D, however, points to a cause (an indirect cause), helping to justify, and thus strengthen, the argument. D is therfore the correct answer.

Argument in Question Stem, presented in syllogistic format:

Sewage sludge concentrated with heavy metals = C

Surviving bacteria of C are resistant to heavy metal poisoning = Rh

Surviving bacteria of C are resistant to antibiotics = Ra

• C

• Rh

• (C --> Rh) (relationship is causal)

• Ra

☆ therfor, (C --> Ra) (relationship causal)

Flaw: The correlation of Ra, C, and (C --> Rh) does not mean there is a causation from C to Ra. The answer which strengthens this argument will show that (Rh --> Ra) (C causes Ra because it causes Rh which causes Ra) or directly that (C --> Ra) (C causes Ra) or some contrapositive to that effect (~Ra --> ~C) or (~Ra --> ~Rh)

Answer choices, presented in syllogistic format:

A) (~Ra --> ~Rh) with a correlative relationship, not causal. Also uses the word "most" further discrediting a potentially causal relationship. Wrong answer.

B) [(~C --> ~Rh) & (~C --> ~Ra)] with correlative relationships. Even if they were causal, it at most only proves the latter relationships contrapositive that (Ra --> C, relationship causal) which in no way strengthens the claim that (C --> Ra) for the existence of a causal relationship in one direction in no way indicates that such a relationship exists in the opposite direction. Wrong answer.

C) (Ra --> Rh), relationship causal. This doesn't tell us that (Rh --> Ra) for the existence of a causal relationship in one direction in no way indicates that such a relationship exists in the opposite direction. Wrong answer.

D) (C --> A), whereas the relationship is correlative and A = the presence of significant concentrations of antibiotics. This isn't the ideal answer, clearly. However, it introduces a new player (A), which in turn offers a prospective causal link. If (C --> A) then it's possible that (A --> Ra) which would obviously mean that (C --> A). Though we don't know to what degree it's possible that (A --> Ra), the existence of this new possibility is real; indeed, it makes sense from outside knowledge that higher levels of antibiotics in a medium likely means that the only bacteria who will survive are those that are resistant to antibiotics (duh). This renders the reasoning in the argument much stronger. Correct answer.

E) [(~Bs --> Rhp) & (~Bs --> Ra)] definitely wrong because it's completely changing the subject matter.

So what's my Achilles heal here?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-2-question-16/

Hello, I was wondering if someone could help me understand why D is incorrect? Thanks! :)

I thought the conclusion should be the natural process study doesn't need plentiful of resources as the study and discoveries started under the condition of drought and hunger

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-2-question-20/

Can someone break this down? I thought B was the least attractive answer, and it turned out to be correct. I am completely clueless on this one; I can't even make heads or tails of the argument. Is it saying that since TV caused music videos to exist, then those that think music videos are art should also think TV gave rise to a type of art? But how is B anything like this? There is no causal indicators in B and there is no comparison in the original passage (like there is in B).

For all of those taking the Dec. LSAT tomorrow evening we will start with PT 42.

If you would like to join please PM me your skype handle. Thanks!

@nicole.hopkins

said:

Note on all groups