Is there any quick way to diagram the following sentence during the exam? It takes me a lot of time to figure it out during PT.

If a sentient being on another planet cannot communicate with us, then the only way to detect its existence is by sending a spacecraft to its planet.

So I'm still going through the 7Sage curriculum and I'm sure (or at least hoping) that I'll get much better at Logic Games (before enrolling when I just tried them out a few times I was like -15) and as I'm slowly going through the practice and what not, I'm noticing the one MAIN and basically only issue I have with games.

I am horrible at figuring out / visualizing in my mind how to set up games if they are not simple 1 to 1 sequencing.

Diagramming the rules, coming up with inferences, all of that is coming to me fairly quickly, but reading the stimulus and figuring out how to draw the setup what rows/charts/etc to use is where I seem to get stuck at.

Any tips on how to overcome this?

I have been working on my LG for the last few days, in preparation for the December test. I am now getting to the point where I can get all the questions right on a standard linear game, but it's taking me a minimum of 12 to 13 minutes, and sometimes as much as 15 minutes per game.

I have a hard time seeing how I can increase my speed. For me, the games just require a lot of thought and that takes some time.

Anyone else faced this issue? Right now, 8 minutes per game seems almost impossible. Is it just a matter of practice, and that taking a lot of tests will increase speed?

Absolutely clueless on this one. I've probably watched the video 5 times, and I just don't see how B weakens the argument that is in the passage. Also, can someone look at my reasoning for A?

Win democratic elections not fully subsidized--->poor candidates supported by rich. As a result, it could be true that the poor candidates will compromise their positions to win the rich guy's support. However, the proportion of rich people in all of the political parties is the same as their proportion in the population. Thus, the belief that it could be true that poor candidates will compromise their position to win the rich people's support is wrong.

What I am looking for: The premise doesn't support the conclusion at all since we don't know whether being proportionally equal nullifies the pressure to conform to the rich guy's opinion. For example, say that rich people are 1% of the population in all political parties; they must then be 1% of the total population. It might be reasonable to say that the rich don't have that big of an influence on policy. Now, what if the proportion was 99%? The rich might have a huge say in policy! Thus, the premise could go both ways in either providing support for the conclusion or not.

Answer A: This is what I chose, but I still am very unsure why it is wrong. I think the argument does fail to address this answer choice. Maybe it is wrong because of the word "primary?" I'm not so sure though since we are usually supposed to accept the answer choices as true. If it is the case that the "primary" function of a party still may not negate the influence of wealth, then doesn't this paraphrase the flaw very well? To me, this is hinting at the idea that the proportion of the wealthy might be so high (or so influential) in political parties that it doesn't matter which one the poor candidate choose, they will have to conform to the wealthy point of view's party.

Say that the word "primary" is the reason why this is wrong (which I am not really sure why it would be), what if this answer choice said "a function of political parties...?" Would it be correct then?

Answer B: Like I said earlier, I just don't see how this weakens the argument. I do think it weakens an argument, just not the one in the passage. Here is my breakdown of this answer choice: say the poor candidate believes, "Every person who takes the LSAT should get a 180 and full ride to Yale" but the Democrats and Republicans both think "absolutely not" (the positions of the parties is way less varied than the position of the candidate). Then sure, joining a political party would compromise the poor candidate's views. But, that isn't the argument in the passage. The argument is that the "possibility of a poor candidate compromising his views to win the support OF THE RICH [not the political party] is not true." How are these two the same argument? In other words, if this is true, isn't the LSAT equivocating between the views of the "political parties" and the views of the "wealthy patrons?"

Answer C: We don't care about government subsidized elections.

Answer D: We don't care about wealthy candidates.

Answer E: We don't care about other flaws.

I am just not seeing this one. I understand the gist of what answer B is saying, but I don't understand how the assumptions you need to make in the other answer choices are necessarily better than the assumption needed for B to be the correct answer.

The question is a must be false question, so 4 answer choices could be true.

Taxi drivers earn income based on the fares they get. The decide their working hours by setting an income target, and they stop working when they hit the target. Thus, they typically work fewer hours on busy days than on slow days.

What I am looking for: Essentially, the drivers at the start of the day say, "I will stop once I make $100." Once they hit that, they stop working. How does this suggest they stop working earlier on busy days? Couldn't they set their target higher on those days (assuming busy days are predictable)?

Answer A: Ya, I guess the argument supports this idea. The driver himself sets the target, so unless the driver isn't rational, he sets the target based on his needs. This could be true.

Answer B: I still really don't like this answer choice. It is true that if you set the target for $100 and you work 1 hour on busy days, the EHW is $100/hour. On slow days, say you work 10 hours, your EHW would be $10/hour. Thus, the passage seems to suggest that the opposite of this answer choice is true: you work less when your EHW is high (on busy days). But, what if they change their income targets on busy days to even out their EHW? You have to assume the drivers don't do this. Given that answer choices C-E also need assumptions, how do we value this assumption over the others? For this reason couldn't this answer choice also be true? I just don't see how we have enough information to say it must be false.

Answer C: It's true that the drivers get to set their own schedule, so I guess it could be true they accept a lower wage.

Answer D: Same as D. You have to assume that the drivers take into account their standard of living when they set their target. This could be true.

Answer E: We don't know anything about people with fixed hourly wages, so any comparison could be true.

Hello 7sagers,

I just signed up a while ago and thought I'd give this forum a shot. I was wondering on logic games, when do you create a table between the game pieces and the base set like in the Feb 1993, Logic Game #4? Sometimes I'll create a table when it is not needed. Thanks for all the help!

EDIT: I had the wrong question in the title

I have a huge bone to pick with this one. I don't see how any of the answer choices "must be true."

Here is the law:

Greater than $100 AND made by nonresident AND nonresident isn't former resident--->Register

The campaign complied with the law (so it complied with the contrapositive as well). The campaign accepted contributions only from residents and former residents.

What I am looking for: I thought this was a pretty weird passage since the final clause only denies the sufficient condition, which tells us nothing about if those contributions needed to be registered. Thus, I thought an answer choice was going to specifically reaffirm this premise.

Answer A: This is what I chose, even though I was confident it was wrong. I chose it since I thought all of the answer choices didn't work. This answer is incorrect because the dollar amount of the people that donated to the campaign is irrelevant. The nonresident in this answer choice MUST have been former resident, and if this were what this had said, it would have been correct. However, the dollar amount could have been anything since our conditional rule is irrelevant.

Answer B: This could be true, but it doesn't have to be true. We only know one sufficient condition for registration; there could be multiple sufficient conditions for registration.

Answer C: This is the correct answer??? How must this be true? We only know one rule/sufficient condition for registration. Why can't there be other rules? The passage never indicates that the rule given is the only rule. What if all contributions from residents and former residents must be registered? How this is even close to being a correct answer is beyond my understanding.

Answer D: Again, this doesn't have to be true. We know nothing about donations by the residents and former residents. They each could have given the campaign $1 or something.

Answer E: Again, we only have one sufficiency condition for registration, so this could be true.

What is the best method to program yourself to look for incorrect answers, as opposed to correct answers, during the LR section?

I was told that this is the most effective approach to do very well within this section. What do you think?

Why is answer choice C correct? I thought this is a Most Strongly Supported question. I picked answer choice D thinking it is most supported since back then those who learned about natural processes through active learning where the only ones who learned at that time. So when compared to nonagricultural societies, they had learned how to grow plants. But I guess that is assuming too much. But that still doesn't explain to me why answer choice C is correct.

I've been through the Logical Reasoning curriculum - and feel like I need to print it all out, and even just get access to JY's organisational charts... just so that I can read over it and commit it to memory when I'm not at a computer. I've printed out all the cheat sheets - but things like the flash cards are only digital. Does anyone else feel the same way? What's the best solution? Copy and paste?

B is definitely a flaw in the argument, but can someone analyze my breakdown of D? Here is my breakdown:

50% of people in the survey believe that politician indicted----->politician resign.

35% believe that that politician resign----->politician convicted.

Therefore, more people think politician indicted----->politician resign than those that believe politician convicted---->politician resign.

What I am looking for: First, the conclusion is about "people" in general, but we are using a survey/poll. This introduces the possibility that the poll was biased/unrepresentative. Second, the conclusion makes a sufficiency/necessity conflation in the second comparative statement (about conviction). I didn't see this at first since, and I caught this flaw during BR.

Answer A: This is OK statistical/inductive reasoning. This would describe the flaw if the answer choice put the words "potentially biased" in front of sample.

Answer B: This is the correct answer since the 35% think resign--->convicted. But, the conclusion is about convicted--->resign. Pretty obvious answer choice if you read the last sentence carefully.

Answer C: What term is ambiguous? At best, the argument assumes that "politicians" and "elected officials" are the same thing, but that is an OK assumption.

Answer D: This is what I chose since I failed to see the sufficiency/necessity conflation originally. Would this be correct if the conclusion was correctly stated (if the comparative statement stated resign---->convicted)? Since the two responses convey different beliefs and since the argument is drawing a conclusion/comparison between them, is that a flaw? I am not so sure since the conclusion is about there being "more people" believing X than Y. Since both question were part of the same poll (and presumably same sample size) and since 50% is larger than 35% of that same sample size, would the argument have been valid (assuming there was not sample bias as well)?

Answer E: Why can't the premises all be true?

Can someone help me diagram the stimulus and find the sufficient assumption?

What I have is:

P: art criticism most /satisfy

----

C: art criticism most /greatest works of art

SA answer: /satisfy most or some /greatest works of art

I was wondering, I thought we can't make contrapositives for most statements but the answer E does? Let me know if I am understanding this incorrectly, thanks!

I really didn’t like any of the answer choices, so I pretty much guessed on this one.

These psychologists surveyed 100 entrepreneurs and 100 business managers. The questions asked about different topics and the level of certainty was also recorded. Each groups were overconfident, but the E were more so than the BMs. Thus, people who are overconfident are more likely to start a business than those less confident.

What I am looking for: A lot wrong with this argument. First, all of the survey stuff. Was the sample representative of Es and BMs? Second, do the BMs accurately reflect people that are less confident? The conclusion makes too broad a claim; it should have limited it to more likely than than BMs, not less confident people in general. Lastly, the argument assumes that overconfidence and gauging success are the same thing. Are they? Not so sure.

Answer A: So what? Were these questions unbiased? You have to assume they were. Skip.

Answer B: This, if anything, might weaken the argument. We want to strengthen the argument. This suggests that some people can start businesses with accurate levels of confidence. Skip.

Answer C: This is irrelevant. Was the other survey good? Also, how would a correlation between confidence and success be relevant? We need a correlation between confidence and likelihood of starting a business.

Answer D: I guess it strengthens the argument, but I am still not that sure why. Does it show that there might be some support for there being a correlation between overconfidence (the ones that are the “most”) and odds of starting a business. I am still pretty wishy washy on this one.

Answer E: This is what I chose, but like I said before, I really didn’t like it. This is saying that the degree of overconfidence in the answered questions corresponded with the degree of overconfidence in business acumen. I think this would have been a pretty decent strengthener if “business acumen” were substituted for “likelihood of successfully starting a business.” Maybe not, though. If the phrase “confidence in his or her business acumen” were substituted for “likelihood for starting a business,” that would most assuredly strengthen the argument. Nevertheless, we don’t know if business acumen has anything to do with starting a business.

This might be one of the more frustrating questions I have come across! Can someone breakdown the answer choices (specifically why A is better than B)?

R (is Rifka a common name? I looked it up; it's apparently a variant of Rebecca: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca): Anyway, Stop or Ask for directions--->Lost. Therefore, Not stop.

C: We are lost. Therefore, we must stop.

What I am looking for: Craig is denying R's conclusion by contradicting R's conditional statement. In other words, Craig thinks being lost is sufficient for stopping while R thinks it is necessary.

Answer A: I confidently chose this one during the exam, and I can't figure out what's wrong with it. Doesn't C contradict R's conclusion (he says we should stop while R disagrees) and doesn't he give no reason to reject R's implicit premise. The implicit premise referred to is R's assumption that they are Not lost. C simply flat out denies that, but he doesn't give any evidence/ reason why R's assumption is wrong. I don't really see how this doesn't perfectly capture C's rebuttal.

Answer B: This is really good as well, but what makes this better than A? C does deny the implicit premise that they are not lost and he does arrive at a different conclusion (that they should stop). I chose A over this since A captured the idea that C didn't give any evidence/reason why R's implicit premise was incorrect. Thus, I though A better captured the essence of the argument.

Answer C: This is a pretty popular choice according to the statistics, but it is way wrong. C doesn't call R's argument invalid and C doesn't accept the truth of the premise.

Answer D: What counterexample?

Answer E: Noncommittal? Way wrong. C contradicts R's conclusion explicitly.

LSAT Prep Test 9 (October 1993) - S3 - Logic Game 2

Can someone please help me how to split this game into 4 boards?

Hey guys,

In this weakening situation I heard JY say that answer choice D is a rare one that attacks the premise (5:04). Just wanted to know when is it ok or acceptable in a weakening situation to attack the premise.

Thanks

I understand that C is true and is a flaw in the argument, but I still don't understand how you can eliminate A. Here is my breakdown:

Generally, professors grew up in economically advantaged homes (MP). Evidence of this is the fact that professors grew up in communities with average household incomes that were higher than the national average.

What I am looking for: The argument makes a whole to part flaw. Did the professors actually live in the higher income households in the community? What if they only lived in the low income households? This could be true since we are only given an average of the income in the communities. Also, does household income being higher than the national average mean economically advantaged? I am not so sure. High household income is just one part of "economic advantage;" there could be other economic things such as government policies towards rich people that can nullify the high income advantage. In other words, there are a ton of factors that go into defining "economic advantage," not just income.

Answer A: I don't see how this is incorrect. Isn't this pointing out the flaw that "high household income" might not actually mean "economic advantage?"

Answer B: This is consistent with the argument due to the word "generally" in the passage.

Answer C: This is definitely a flaw in the argument since it points out the assumption that the professors actually lived in the "good" households in the community.

Answer D: Who cares about the private sector?

Answer E: Who cares about where they live now. We only care about where/how they grew up.

Hi,

I started studying for my December LSAT in early October. That is when i also wrote my diagnostic test and had 75% in LR, and much worse in LG and RC. I got a tutor for LG and now I consistently score ~90% in LG, BUT... I am pretty much getting 13 questions wrong in each LR section... My score is barely any different than my diagnostic test. I practiced from Pt 41-50 and I did timed sections from pt 51,52,53 and im just doing HORRIBLE! I have one month left and I have no idea what to do. I have all the tests up to PT 70, but I dont even see the point of doing more practice. It's like my brain doesnt comprehend common sense anymore. What should I do :(

When will video explanations of the Oct. 2015 test be available on 7sage?

I had a very hard time differentiating D and C, I chose C since I thought D was descriptively inaccurate.

Parents who want to give their kids a good foundation in music should give them a good musical education. Formal instruction is sometimes apart of a good musical education. Therefore, a strong foundation needs to have formal instruction.

What I am looking for: Just because formal instruction sometimes works, it doesn't mean that it is necessary.

Answer A: So what?

Answer B: Who cares about if the kid is interested.

Answer C: This is what I chose after I eliminated D. This says, some people who have formal instruction don't have good musical ability. Knowing that D is correct, I think this would have worked if "ability" were substituted with "education." This would have made this answer choice exactly like D, but my problem with D is stated below.

Answer D: I don't see how this is the answer since it is descriptively inaccurate. The question stem asks us to point out something that the argument "fails to consider." Doesn't the argument consider the fact that formal education isn't sufficient for a good musical education? Isn't this what sentence 2 (the premise) explicitly states? How does the argument fail to consider this? I understand that the conclusion is way too strong given the premise (the premise is a SOME statement and the conclusion is conditional), but that to me is a totally separate flaw than simply "failing to consider" what answer D states.

Answer E: Good musicians is a totally irrelevant idea.

Hello,

I don't understand why E is correct. I chose B. Could someone please explain why the right answer is right and the wrong answers are wrong? Thank you in advance.

Hello,

I don't understand why D is correct. I chose B. Could someone please explain why the right answer is right and the wrong answers are wrong? Thank you in advance.

I had a really hard time understanding the answer choices, which is why I missed this one. I don't understand how D is the flaw.

Determinism is the belief that everything has a preceding cause sufficient for its occurrence. This belief is wrong since we cannot know the complete state at any given time since we cannot accurately measure both the position and velocity of a subatomic particle at the same time.

What I am looking for: Is knowing the complete state relevant? Why can't a complete understanding of the state of the universe be beyond our understating and determinism still be correct? Next, is not accurately measuring position/velocity of subatomic particles evidence for not knowing the complete state of the universe?

Answer A: This isn't the flaw in the reasoning. Just because we can't know at the same time doesn't mean we can't know them independently.

Answer B: This is what I chose, and I chose it because I couldn't figure out what D actually said. I guess this isn't the flaw since the argument isn't saying "since we can't know the complete state of the universe we can't know the states of the particles." I think this statement is backwards since the lack of knowing the states of the particles is used to support the idea that we don't know the state of the universe.

Answer C: Isn't this exactly the same idea as A? Skip.

Answer D: I don't understand how this is the flaw. Where does the argument claim that there is "no complete state of the universe?" The argument only says "it's impossible to know the complete state of the universe" because we don't know the complete state of the subatomic particles. The point of the argument is that determinism is incorrect, but I don't see how saying determinism is false means that there is no complete state of the universe. Why can't determinism be wrong since the preceding cause isn't sufficient for the occurrence, or for some type of negation of the necessary conditions provided in the first 2 sentences?

Answer E: I don't really know why this is wrong other than it just "feels" wrong.

I'm looking at PT44-S2-Q20 and the explanation for why A) and D) are wrong raised a question for me. In the explanation, it sounds to me that just because A causes B, A can happen sometimes without B happening.

JY gives the example that smoking causes lung cancer. But just because you smoke doesn't mean that you get lung cancer. Normally if B is a necessary condition of A, then A always guarantees B. But from what he's saying it sounds like for a causal relationship, B does not always have to happen when A happens? Is it because there is a distinction between "tends to cause" and "cause" ?

Thanks!

Julia

Hi,

On this question I narrowed it down to C and D. But even though I've read a couple explanations on it, I don't see why D is glaringly wrong. I feel like C isn't fair enough because it has words like "chance" and "try to identify" which means that either way, some people will probably be left out and it still won't be fair. But in D, if everyone gets denied the rebate, then no one gets it, which means no one has an unfair opportunity.

I just couldn't find a helpful explanation because everyone just rules D off as "obviously unfair," and I guess I'm feeling kind of blind right now!!!!