For the past couple weeks now I have been doing timed LR sections and I noticed that I have been going too fast, completing all 25 questions within the 35 minutes, leading to a score always in the -9 - -11 range. The only recommendation I ever got into how to remedy this problem was from my Princeton Review instructor, who told me to "slow down" (obviously).

So for my last 3 timed LR sections I have been doing just that. I've been guessing on 5 - 6 questions, yet I still get the same -9 - -11 score. I don't have any problem with the BR process - I just feel like my brain doesn't want to cooperate under timed conditions.

Does anyone have any advice on how I can improve and break past this?

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation. I am not sure about my explanations for "B" and "D"

*The kind of question this is:* Weaken

*CTX:* Post office must be replaced with a larger one.

*Premise(s):*

• The present one cannot be replaced.

• Land near the present (center of town) location is more expensive.

• Cost of acquiring a site is a significant part of the total construction cost.

*Conclusion:* Post office can be built more cheaply on the outskirts of town.

*What I am looking for:* A reason, that outweighs the burden of cost, in favour of the office to being built near the present (center of town) location, rather than on the outskirts.

*Answer A:* No. That is just information. Irrelevant. The building code is not a stated obstacle.

*Answer B:* Yes. The office on the outskirts will need a parking lot that is more expensive than not having one.

*Answer C:* No. That’s an issue that the new post office would not need to worry about. It is not mentioned how this would be a problem.

*Answer D:* No. So what if they have to deliver mail to home. The mail will still arrive to the costumers. The post office on the outskirts will still be in business.

*Answer E:* No. That’s not a problem. That’s just the process that will be taken to build the office in the center of town.

Perfect LG section on Oct test (finally -- 3 tries!). Wouldn't have been possible without JY's awesome videos!

Did you guys all get your scores?

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

*The kind of question this is:* Weaken

*CTX:* Local agricultural official gave fruit growers of District 10 a new pesticide that they applied for three years to their pear orchards in place of the pesticides they had used before.

*Premise(s):* during the three years, the proportion of pears lost to insects was significantly less than it had been during the previous three years period.

*Conclusion:* based on the results, the official concluded that the new pesticide was more effective than the old pesticide, at least in the short term. In limiting the loss of certain fruit to insects.

*What I am looking for:* Just looking for answer choices that weaken the argument. Maybe an alternative explanation as to why the pears lost to insects were significantly less than it had been during the previous three years period.

*Answer A:* Yes, this is the right answer. This is irrelevant and does not weaken the argument. There were less fruit being produced because the number of mature trees has declined of the past 8 years. Who cares. The argument is talking about the “proportion of pears lost to insects.” So, it doesn’t matter how many pears we started with, it’s how many of those that were lost to insects with the new pesticide.

*Answer B:* Not the right answer. This weakens the argument. Insect abatement programs were used in the last 5 years, and were successful. That explains why the pears lost to insects were significantly less than it had been during the previous three years period.

*Answer C:* Not the right answer. Over the past 5 years, the birds that prey on the insects that feed on the pears have spent more time in the district 10 region. Weakens.

*Answer D:* Not the right answer. Insects in district 10 that infest pear trees are water breeders, and access to water for them is shrinking. This means the insects did not get to the pear trees. Weakens.

*Answer E:* Not the right answer. It is saying the old pesticide is still in effect after it has stopped being used, so it may not be the new pesticide that is credited with eliminating many pear eating insects. Weakens.

Can anyone explain the incorrect answer choice "B" because I'm having trouble getting through the convoluted way it's written?

The answer should be D, as the other answers all call for too much. There is no apparent need for real strength. 'To be believed' is the key phrase.

I am still confused why the conclusion is adequate productivity --> high- tech technology. I negated the high tech technology part because of the "not" present in the sentence. I tried reviewing my notes and I can't find where he explains in the negation of conditional logic that this is viable.

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

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

*The kind of question this is:* Weaken

*Premise(s):* Marijuana has THC → THC has been found to inactivate herpesvirus (IH) → IH can convert healthy cells into cancer cells.

*Conclusion:* Marijuana can cause cancer.

*What I am looking for:* extra information that we didn’t know about marijuana and its correlation with THC.

*Answer A:* No. That strengthens the argument by showing that scientists had a consensus and the same results.

*Answer B:* Yes. There is information we did not know about marijuana and how it neutralizes THC.

*Answer C:* No. That strengthens the conclusion.

*Answer D:* No. Great, but that is only an “IF.” It would still stand that marijuana causes cancer.

*Answer E:* No. Marijuana is beneficial to cancer patients, but it would still cause cancer for none cancer patients.

I got this question correct by POE, but I don't have any clue why C is something the author would most likely to agree with. Can someone point to where this idea is supported in the passage? Also, why is answer choice D explicitly incorrect?

LSAT Prep Test 28 (June 1999) - S2 - Logic Game 3

As explained in the video, there are so many probabilities on where to put the entities that attempting to make all of the inferences at the beginning becomes an hindrance because too much time is taken up.

I am getting a lot better at games because I attempt to make as many inferences as possible at the beginning.

My question is, what should I look for when a game is designed, such as LSAT Prep Test 28 (June 1999) - S2 - Logic Game 3, to make a person waste a lot of time making inferences?

Skipping making inferences/ not splitting up boards seems to be very dangerous!

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

*The kind of question this is:* Weaken

*Premise(s):* There are several unsuccessful immature works by Renoir and Cezanne that should be sold because they are inferior quality and add nothing to the overall quality of the museum’s collection.

*Conclusion:* The board’s action (to sell some works from its collection in order to raise the funds necessary to refurbish its galleries) will not detract form the quality of the museum’s collection.

*What I am looking for:* The benefit of keeping the unsuccessful immature works?

*Answer A:* No. This is attacking the premise, so I am skeptical. This answer talks about directors of art museums in general, and how they can raise funds through other ways. The Federici Art Museum may have its own reason why it cannot do that, we don’t know. This answer would have been right if it said Federici Art Museum can raise funds through other ways, but it talks about directors of art museums in general.

*Answer B:* Yes, quality is subjective, so selling these art pieces may detract form the quality of the museum’s collection.

*Answer C:* No. This is just a history lesson on the art pieces. This extra information does nothing to the argument.

*Answer D:* No. This is other information that is irrelevant to the argument. The issue at hand is not whether or not inflation happens.

*Answer E:* No. Yet again, this is information we don’t need. This answer is talking about what the artist demands in the art market.

I thought I diagrammed this correctly, but I can't figure out how E is "properly concluded" or must be true.

Here is my diagram:

Explanation--->Must Distinguish from justification

Human action--->potentially has an explanation-->Can give an accurate description of the causes of the action (I don't think you can link these up to the first sentence)

Action justified--->person performing has sufficient reason to act

Action justified SOME justification forms no part of the explanation (These you can link together).

Generally, rational--->justification/reasons form an essential part of the explanation

What I was looking for: Since the only thing I could link up were those two middle statements, I thought the answer was going to be Person performing has sufficient reason to act SOME justification forms no part of the explanation. This isn't an answer choice though.

Answer A: This isn't in any of my chains.

Answer B: This isn't in any of my chains.

Answer C: I ended up picking this one even though I didn't see any support/I had eliminated all of the other answer choices. It was the "closest" to what what I was looking for, but it still wasn't in any of my chains. Explanation isn't part of the linked up middle statements.

Answer D: Discovered? Totally irrelevant idea.

Answer E: This is the answer choice, but where is the support? The only time "cause" is mentioned is in the second conditional statement. But even then, it is only talking about giving a "description of the cause." Rationality does imply reasons forming an essential part of the explanation (last conditional statement), but why must they be causes? Shouldn't this answer choice be "If any human actions are rational, then the reasons must be given an accurate description of the causes of the action?" I don't see how this is the same thing as what answer choice E states.

But I was under the impression that conditional statements are not comparisons. I read the first sentence as a comparison and therefore ignored it since I did not read it as a conditional statement. How should I have broken down the first sentence to see the conditional?

So for questions where they ask you to refer to a given statement in the question stem, are we looking for a subtle answer that's not too specific in general?

How is answer A incorrect and E correct? First, where in the passage is E supported? I can't find it. Next, doesn't A capture not only the main point of the passage but also Goodrich's prescription in lines 40-43 and line 45? Goodrich doesn't think that common law should be looked at as a set of rules (a legal code). Also, line 45 states that common law is a text with history and tradition, and in line 46, studying common law historically is really important. How does this not capture the idea of "a relic of the history of the English people?"

I didn't like any of the answer choices, but I comfortably eliminated D. I still fail to see how D is even remotely parallel to the stimulus. Additionally, what makes A incorrect? Isn't the general point of the argument that you shouldn't do things too quickly? Doesn't A do this? How does the reasoning in D capture this idea?

I've looked at a several games in this type. Are there common inferences that we usually see in this set of categorized game? Most seem like rule driven games for the most part

The first section of the PT59's logical reasoning is quite killing me.

Anyway, I was stuck between B and C and then chose C. But the answer is A.

I thought B or C can block another possibility which can weaken the argument and enhance the argument that nutritious breakfasts can the only reason to increase productivity of Plant A.

So I still have no idea why B or C can't be an answer and why A is correct.

Can someone explain me A, B and C?

Thanks in advance!

As far as I remember about conditional reasoning, if:

1. A-> B

2. C-> ~A

I can combine 1 and 2 (~B-> ~A: Contrapositive #1 and C-> ~A) and turn out C-> ~B.

So the diagram about the stimulus I thought was:

1: B-> A

2: L-> ~B

So contrapositive #1: ~A-> ~B

And I combined 1+2 and turned out L-> ~A, so that's why I chose E, but the answer is C.

So I have no idea why E is wrong. Am I missing something?

And why is C an answer?

Please someone explain me.

Thanks!

I processed POE, chose B and know why it is an answer, but I can't entirely understand why E is wrong. E kept bugging me.

If more people choose cheddar cheese more than ice cream just as the stimulus said and which means people choose cheese over ice cream, can E be an answer too?

Why can't E be an answer?

Please someone enlighten me.

Thanks!

Hi Everyone! This is my first time writing in the forums. I am totally struggling with understanding Law passages in Reading Comprehension and I'm not sure what to do. I am taking the October LSAT and I am trying to clean up some of the areas that are hard for me. Any suggestions?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-2-question-14/

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

*The kind of question this is:* Strengthen

*Paraphrased question:*

Kim:

During eighteenth century, northern Europe had a change of attitude on expression both in adoption of less solemn and elaborate death rites by the pop. at large and in a more optimistic view of the human condition as articulated by philosophers. This change is because of a result of dramatic increase in life expectancy that occurred in northern Europe early in the eighteenth century.

Lee:

Your explanation that “this change is because of a result of dramatic increase in life expectancy that occurred in northern Europe early in the eighteenth century,” could not be correct unless the ppl of the time were aware their life expectancy had increased.

*What I am looking for:* Something to prove strengthen the relationship between “change of attitude on expression both in adoption of less solemn and elaborate death rites” and “this change being because of a result of dramatic increase in life expectancy that occurred in northern Europe early in the eighteenth century.”

*Answer A:* Yes, this strengthens Kim’s arguments because it directly addresses a relationship between “increase in life expectancy in a population,” “rise to economic changes,” and “influence on people’s attitudes.” I circled this one, but reviewed the other ones just incase.

*Answer B:* No, but this is tricky for me because it gave an explanation of why ppl’s attitudes toward life change in response to information about their life expectancy. This answer seems to strengthen Lee’s argument rather than Kim’s because Lee argues “change is because of a result of dramatic increase in life expectancy that occurred in northern Europe early in the eighteenth century,” could not be correct unless the ppl of the time were aware their life expectancy had increased. That is what Answer B is saying.

*Answer C:* No, this has nothing to do with Kim’s argument. Philosophers making conjectures that did not affect the ideas of the population does not strengthen or even do anything to Kim’s conclusion.

*Answer D:* No, but thanks for information. This weakens Lee’s argument, but does not strengthen Kim’s.

*Answer E:* No. We are talking about strengthening Kim’s idea that “change is because of a result of dramatic increase in life expectancy that occurred in northern Europe early in the eighteenth century.” The influence of religious teaching vs demographic phenomena on attitudes of Northern Europeans is broad and does not focus on Kim’s conclusion.

I didn't mark this for BR, so I was pretty surprised I missed it. I still don't see how E doesn't strengthen the argument. Here is my breakdown:

Public health dudes have waged a long term education campaign to get people to eat their vegetables. The campaign isn't working since people haven't changed their diet. This is probably due to the fact that vegetables taste terrible. Thus, the campaign would be more successful if included ways to make vegetables more appetizing.

What I am looking for: We want to strengthen the argument. The argument is pretty prescriptive, so any evidence that making vegetables appetizing would lead to people eating more vegetables would strengthen the argument.

Answer A: Who cares about the people who already love vegetables? This isn't the group the conclusion is concerning itself with.

Answer B: This would weaken the argument I think since making the vegetables appetizing would defeat a purpose of the campaign.

Answer C: I think this weakens the argument as well since it suggests that making the vegetables appetizing wouldn't do anything.

Answer D: This is apparently the correct answer, but I take issue with the word "how." The conclusion/prescription isn't talking about the PEOPLE making the vegetables more appetizing, but the CAMPAIGN making the vegetables appear more appetizing. I don't see how this shift allows you to conclude that this is the correct answer.

Answer E: I just don't see what is wrong with this one. If the only way to make the campaign more effective is to ensure that ALL people (which would encompass the people in line 5-6 since it is a "many"/some statement) who dislike the taste of certain vegetables learns to find those vegetables appealing, then wouldn't this hugely strengthen the prescription? This to me is an obvious answer choice.

I think I am making this one way harder than it needs to be, but I have been spinning my wheels for a half hour on this one. I don't understand how B weakens the argument? The conclusion only states that "it is clear why humans have some diseases in common with cats." So what if B is true? What about the some diseases that humans have in common with cats that do have a genetic basis? B to me is completely consistent with the argument. The argument isn't concluding that ALL diseases or MOST of the diseases are common. I have watched the video on this one 2-3 times, and I am still dumbfounded how B even slightly weakens the argument.