Hi All,

I'm interested in how other people feel about this topic, especially from LG vets.

I'm practicing LG with the assumption that, as I do more of these, I'll eventually begin to recognize patterns (similar keyboards, rules, conditionals, etc.). Is this true? I was talking to my roommate (who killed the October LSAT with 170+), and he told me that after 100 LG games, "I have never seen one that's similar."

Just making sure "sufficient" follows "the only" below and is "true wisdom"? How you diagram this with contrapositive?

"The only true wisdom is in knowning you know nothing "--Socrates

17.4.2 #15 The author is primarily concerned with…

So this is what I got from the passage.

Paragraph 1 presents as intro about the law’s completeness or its lack thereof when it comes to had cases.

Paragraph 2 details Hart’s model.

Paragraph 3 is about Dworkin’s view that’s contrary to Hart’s.

Paragraph 4 refutes Dworkin’s views and reiterates why hart’s theory of hard cases is still the most persuasive.

After hearing JY’s explanation, it’s become quite clear why the answer is E; my guess is the point of the whole passage is to convince the reader that Hart’s model is still worthy of respect and refute an argument(dworkin’s) that attacks it; “It would be a mistake, though, to dispute Hart’s

theory of hard cases on this basis alone.”

So, where I went wrong it seems was with the way I understood the question stem. How do you tend to interpret :”The author is primarily concerned with?” For the sake of simplicity, could we rephrase it and understand it as “what is the purpose of the author writing this passage? Why did he/she write it?” “what is his/her objective or goal?” “what is he/she trying to convince us of?”

For this question, I chose D. When I looked at E- I did want to choose it because I got the author’s position; siding with Hart and not Dworkin. I went with D because, the amount of “real estate” -if you will- occupying the passage is bigger for Hart. (silly reason, I know. It reflects my difficulty in distinguishing the way I go about doing main point/idea questions from this kind of question) I also figured “ critiquing” means to evaluate objectively in this context and not necessarily to take a critical stance on a view. By mentioning Dworkin’s views, could we say the author technically does (D) but it’s not what he’s primarily concerned with? That is, he does (D) in order to do (E)? Also, does he in fact do (D) ?

Thanks.

Hey guys,

I was going through Advanced Logic: Quiz on Mixed Conditionals and got mixed up on #20. Hopefully someone could help me out here.

Except for the days where there is a zombie apocalypse, every day is a good day to study for the LSAT.

JY diagrammed it as

GSLSAT ↔ /ZA

Contrapositive: (/GSLSAT ↔ ZA)

However, I thought that "every day is a good day to study for the LSAT" is a conditional statement (embedded conditional), so you would instead diagram it as

(D→GDS) ↔ /ZA

Contrapositive: /(D→GDS) ↔ ZA = (D←s→/GDS) ↔ ZA

When I translated my diagram back to English it still makes sense to me.

Please let me know what I'm doing wrong. Thanks!

I don’t get this problem. Please tell me where my logic flawed.

JY's explanation is here FYI, http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-24/ and yet I still don't get this.

So according to the explanation,

X—Y= Z

X= the amount that’s been mined.

Y= the amount consumed

Z= the remainder , that is what was mined but not consumed

I plugged in some random numbers and I couldn’t get the logic to follow satisfactorily.

So if we say the Z is 1990 is 50 and the Z in 1991 is 30, then couldn’t the following scenario be possible?

X in ’90= 70

Y in ’90= 20

Z in ’90= 50

Let’s say

X in ‘91= 200

Y in ’91= 170

Z in ‘91= 30

It doesn’t seem 170 is greater than 200. My set up must be wrong.

What I am missing here? Is there something in the "Furthermore, Country Q has not imported or exported coal since 1970" that I am not picking up on? Thanks in advance.

Hi all,

I guess I'm looking for some encouragement, but I'll gladly take advice too :)

I've gone through the LG curriculum on Sage, and proofed ~70 games (mostly the ones in the curriculum and problem sets plus some extras from the first 35 PT's). I can do the games I proofed and new "normal" games with very good speed and accuracy. I've now started going through the rest of the games sections in PT's 1-35, by section, and while I do OK on games similar to what I have done before, I freeze badly on games that have an unexpected twist. It's like my mind goes into panic mode and everything just jumbles in my head. I usually end up -4/5 for the section because the freeze up and subsequent brute forcing causes me to run over time. The thing is, once I'm finished, before looking up anything, I go back and redo the whole section, timed, and get -0/-1 with time to spare. It's like a veil lifts from my brain when I look at the game a second time, and the setup and inferences become clear. Anyone else feel like this, and do you think it's curable with practice? Any tips on achieving the "clarity" at first sight?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-59-section-1-game-3/

I don't understand what is the difference between the biconditional used in the video G(-) /W and when you write the conditional G-> /W? If the biconditional means never together and always apart why can't we use the conditional. The conditional is going from positive to negative, which means you can't have both, and can only have one or the other.

For example:

if N or M is selected, S is out.

Since or is in the sufficient condition, N and M are INDEPENDENTLY sufficient for S. So does that mean we can have just N selected, just M selected or both selected?

Also another example:

If S is out, N or M is selected.

Since or is in the necessary condition, N and M and JOINTLY necessary for S. What does that mean? Does that mean we need N and M BOTH to be selected? We can't have just N or just M selected? I'm so confused about this concept when applying to logic games... Please help, thanks!

From the stimulus, I got two conditional statements:

1) knowingly brings about misfortune --> should be blamed

2) not knowingly brings about misfortune --> should not be blamed

But because of the "for example" part, am I supposed to add "could not have reasonably have foreseen it" to the sufficient part of the 2nd cond'l statement I wrote above?

Also, Can anyone please explain why (A) is wrong?

Can I interpret "it did not occur to Riley" in (A) as "not knowingly brings about misfortune?"

I need a word of encouragement and/or advice. This is embarrassing to me. I passed reading comprehension in elementary school and I took a course in Humanities at both the high school and college levels whereby I passed both classes with ease. However, for both Humanities classes high school and college, reading comprehension was not tested like test questions on the LSAT. I talked to a librarian who informed me that reading comprehension is can be highly opinionated. Furthermore, for inference questions, the answer is usually something that I would have never thought of - way out there in left field. I've tried GRE reading comprehension study guides and have been able to go through the questions with ease all answers correct. However, on a different day in a different mood, I've tried other non-LSAT practice test from other sources whose name I will not mention by means of embarrassment and was not able to get a single answer right. What's happening and what needs to change besides my attitude toward LSAT reading comprehension. I feel totally embarrassed by this, but I am encouraged to know that in reading the discussions that I am not the only person totally upset, frustrated and having problems or issues with reading comprehension. Please help. In my opinion, the basic concept or idea of RC comes from the basic elementary school theory of RC, how well did you understand the material of what you read, "Reading for understanding". For a person who has been speaking and reading the English language for quite some time, several, many years; elementary, high school and college and has passed elementary school, high school and college; how can this be; difficult with wrong answers...??? !!! Again PLEASE HELP or explain.

Hello-JY mentioned these games are rare. Wondering if there have been any on the more recent administrations of the the LSAT. Thanks

Could anyone explain why D rather than C is correct?

P: (1) most of the new shows produced last year by WW were canceled;

(2) this year's new shows are all police dramas, and few police dramas have been popular in recent years

C: most of this year's new shows will be canceled

To strengthen, we want to make last year and this year more similar. So it is better to find sth like last year's police dramas were cancelled.

C： police drama --> cancelled

D: cancelled --> police drama

I feel both C and D could fulfill the gap.

Purpose of proving grounds: Designed to be so demanding that only those students most committed to being science majors will receive passing grades in these courses.

C: Designing introductory science courses to serve as proving grounds has not served its intended purpose

Premise: Studies show that some of the students in these very demanding intro courses who are least enthusiastic about science receive passing grades in these courses.

There is a gap here between "most committed to being majors" and "least enthusiastic about science."

What if those who are least enthusiastic are most committed to being science majors and passed the course? That would destroy the author's argument because the sole premise now becomes irrelevant.

However, I feel D is more like a sufficient assumption rather than necessary assumption. Let's negate D : some of the students who are least enthusiastic are among the students most committed to being science majors. However, with this negation, there are still two possibilities: (1) least enthusiastic +most committed + passed the course; (2) least enthusiastic + most committed+ not passed the course. So if all the students mentioned in D fall within the second the possibility, the conclusion still stands. So could anyone explain why D is a necessary one as it is broader than what we need.

Hi, I would appreciate if anyone could explain why E is correct as now I am confused when could we make assumption in the Lsat.

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

For those 7Sagers taking the February LSAT, I just want to encourage you to stay strong and never let go of your dream. I'm 57 and will be retaking the LSAT in February as my prior performances in September and December were well below par, but in the meantime today I received my first law school acceptance ahead of the February re-re-take! I didn't even know that any law school would be reviewing my application prior to the February test score being available! Better still, UC Irvine is right up there among my top choices, so I'm thrilled. Perhaps with this acceptance in hand, nerves won't get the better of me on test day and I can help my chances of a healthy scholarship :-) Truly, fellow 7Sagers, if this dream can come true for me with persistence, it can happen for you too (and thanks to 7Sage for all that I've learned and enjoyed learning with you!).

Do any other LSAT retakers have a tale of encouragement to share?

For question 17, I can't differentiate between D and E. For question 18, I got the correct answer via POE, but I don't know what "merely in a matter of degree" means in answer choice C. Can someone translate what that is talking about? Does it mean "quantitatively?" That seems like a weird definition.

Question 17 essentially wants us to support Maritain using something in Passage A. In Passage B, Maritain thinks that animal communication is a conditional reflex and not conscious intent.

Answer D: I see how this answer supports him. Calling causes females to approach and males to retreat. There is no evidence that the frogs do it in order to rely the calling frog's desire/intent to mate nor influence the other frog's behavior. This seems to suggest it is pretty reflexive.

Answer E: But, doesn't this equally support Maritain? The primates don't adjust their call depending on who is there/rely knowledge. Thus, there appears to be no goal/conscious intent either. Doesn't this also suggest that the primate coos and calls as a reflex when it sees food or predators, respectively?

Hi all,

I hope someone may be able to clue me in as to what I'm doing wrong with this problem. This is a MBT.

Special kinds of cotton that grow fibers of green or brown have been around since the 1930s but only recently became commercially feasible when a long-fibered variety that can be spun by machine was finally bred. Since the cotton need not be dyed, processing plants avoid the expense of dyeing and the ecological hazards of getting rid of leftover dye and by-products.

So I understood how to diagram the stimulus. "Spun by machine --> commercially viable"

When I looked at answer choice (B): Green and brown cottons that can be spun only by hand are not commercially viable" I diagrammed it as "Spun by hand --> /commercially viable". In order to get to answer choice (B), you would need to negate the sufficient and necessary which gives "/Spun by machine --> /commercially viable" which is an invalid argument form (mistake in negation).

What am I doing wrong? I am having a hard time seeing how answer choice (B) can be diagrammed as "/commercially viable -->spun by hand" Thanks!

Changed my answer during the exam from D to A, but only because of POE. I still don't really understand how D is a sufficient assumption.

This is a PSA question.

Although we have learned a lot, we are ignorant of a lot of things dealing with organisms. Allowing species that we are indifferent about to die would hurt the viability of other species. Therefore, if we have an interest in preserving any species, we should try to preserve the maximum number of species.

What I am looking for: If allowing a species that we are indifferent about to perish might undermine the viability of other species→we should preserve the max number of species.

Answer A: I fell for this bullshit answer. This just affirms the sufficient condition in the conclusion. It does nothing to address the relationship between the premise and conclusion.

Answer B: I think the passage implies the opposite. If we held action to this high of a standard, then how would prevent the death of a species that we are indifferent about?

Answer C: Human populations? Totally irrelevant.

Answer D: I was pretty iffy with this one, even when I changed it during BR. This states Allow change→Change won't jeopardize anything important to us. I am really having a tough time seeing how this paraphrases what I was looking for, though. How are these ideas relevant to the stimulus? Where is the idea of something being important mentioned in the stimulus?

Answer E: Best consequence for immediate future? Irrelevant idea.

Hi everyone!

I'm new here. I've been studying for the LSAT since August 2015 with the intension of taking October. I enrolled in a TestMasters course in August but I just couldn't get my score above 145 before October's exam. I decided to postpone and registered for December using The LSAT Trainer and Prep Tests 62-71.

Unfortunately, I only improved a few points (my highest score 152 and my average usually 148-149.) With a week away from the test, I am close to accepting that I have to swallow my pride and withdraw from December. Sitting out the cycle sucks but I know in the long haul a stronger score can get me into a top school with scholarship.

If I take this route, I will register for June and most likely enroll in 7sage's Ultimate package giving myself 5-6 months of prep. I am aiming for the early 160s and quite possibly the mid-160s.

Just to give a brief synopsis of my habits for the past four months. For the most part, I conceptually understand a good amount of the material. I understand conditional logic, quantifiers, etc. For LG, making deductions, overlapping rules, etc. However, I do think I have great test anxiety and preform poorly on my PTs by re-reading questions, losing focus and not being able to apply my skills under timed conditions. My strongest section is LG (-6 to -8) followed by LR (-10 to -12) and worst RC (-15 to -17).

If you can help me with some advice, that would be great!

1) Is it best if I withdraw next week and keep my record clean with no re-takes?

2) Is it possible to jump from 148-152 to 160-165 with 7sage in 5-6 months?

Please let me know what you think. Thank you!

Ethan

Pretty clueless on this one. I narrowed the answer to B or C during the exam, and I couldn't do any better during BR. Turns out, the answer is E :/ Can someone break down all of the answer choices? Even though I got rid of A and D, I'm not convinced that I got rid of them with good reasoning.

Stranger is same age- MOST feel comfortable approaching that stranger. Long term friendship start MOST someone felt comfortable approaching a stranger. Therefore, long term friends probably the same age.

What I am looking for: No clue. I don't really understand the argument with this one. Can any of the diagrams link up (not that it really matters)? JY does it in the videos, but I don't see how the approaching the stranger ideas are the same thing. Here is the video: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-61-section-4-question-24/

I missed this one during the timed exam, and I didn't change it during BR since I didn't see how A fully explained the facts.

Over the past five years, the number of car thefts has decreased while the likelihood of someone being convicted of stealing a car has increased.

What I am looking for: What if the technology to catch someone has increased so much that people are deterred from stealing a car and those that do get caught easily/have a lot of evidence against them? What if all of the "good" car thieves have been caught, and just a few really bad/easy to catch car thieves try to steal cars?

Answer A: The first part definitely explains the fact that the number of thefts have decreased: there are fewer thieves. I don't really see how the second part has anything to do with the conviction rate, though. So what if they abandon the car later? What does that have to do with conviction? Not sure about the LSAT's logic with this one...

Answer B: I picked this originally, but when I read it during BR, I really didn't like it all that much. Since I still didn't like A, I kept this during BR. The car alarm idea might explain the lack of car thefts superficially, but if people ignore them, why are there fewer thefts? The thieves probably wouldn't be dissuaded.

Answer C: This might make the situation weirder. If police resources are not used on car thefts, then how has the conviction rate increased? Wouldn't thieves try to steal more cars often if the police don't spend their time on such crimes?

Answer D: This also makes the situation weirder. This suggests that stealing cars is very profitable, so why would there be a decrease in the number of thefts?

Answer E: It's hard to see how there being more young car thieves helps explain the idea that car thefts have decreased in frequency. Also, the fact that they are given short sentences suggests that they will come right out and steal cars again.

Hi,

I've looked at lot of explanations (I have starter so I don't have access to 7Sage explanation) and I'm still not able to understand this one. I figured out the conditionals during the test, but I still don't fully understand how to approach/figure out this problem

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-59-section-3-question-19/

Hey all, can someone explain to me why BOTH X and Y don’t have to be before Z?

For example, for question number 8, JY said for answer choice C, X can go before Z as long as Y goes after Z. I am having trouble with my fundamentals, please help, thanks!

Hello all!

I have but 8 day till the December Lsat's and I am at a terrible position. I am doing poor on all 3 sections. I can only get 3/4 passages on RC section and 3/4 games in LGs. My LR section results are terrible as well. Iv decided to focus only on 3 passages for RCs, and work on improving my LG and LR sections.

I would like some suggestions how to best spend the next 8 days. Should I focus on doing mix of lr and lgs? Should I devote one day to LR and one to LG'S? Or spend the next 8 days doing as much Full tests as possible?

Any suggestions, criticisms, ha ha's welcomed! Thanks

I'm confused to when to diagram. some inference Q are obvious with logical indicators. Some are hidden or have causation in the argument and qualifiers (maybe, could etc). When do you diagram? what's the general rule?