For question 19 of section 3 on the october 2008 test, the stimulus reads: "Bureaucrat: The primary, constant goal of an ideal bureaucracy is to define and classify all possible problems and set out regulations regarding each eventuality. Also, an ideal bureaucracy provides an appeal procedure for any complaint. If a complaint reveals an unanticipated problem, the regulations are expanded to cover the new issue, and for this reason an ideal bureaucracy will have an ever-expanding system of regulations."

Answer choice A reads "An ideal bureaucracy will provide an appeal procedure for complaints even after it has defined and classified all possible problems and set out regulations regarding each eventuality."

In negating this answer choice, I believe that the clause "even after it has defined..." all the way to the end remains constant in both the answer choice and its negation. If this is the case, how does it not break the conclusion of the argument that "an ideal bureaucracy will have an ever-expanding system of regulations."?

If you are in the middle of filling in your answer sheet can you finish bubbling or do they disqualify you for filling in the bubble once they say to stop? How Nazi are they?

Hey guys,

Been on here and studying for the October LSAT since late July. It's been quite the journey to say the least! After completing all the material, and now taking 4-5 PT a week since late August, I have seen little improvement. Some days are tough. At times it's difficult to keep my chin up when I have an off day. However, I think it's really important at the end of each day to be positive.

I glance at my calendar…19 days left. 19 days to learn, improve, and focus. Although I have seen little progress in my scores and I am well below my target score, there are 19 days to get it together and make it happen. It is possible. The LSAT is challenging, yes. This entire admissions process is as well, yes. But, it is extremely important for all of us to remain positive and understand that this is simply part of the process. Since I first got on 7sage and started reading posts in the feed, I managed to find comfort in knowing I am not alone out there in my quest to tackle this exam and get into law school. Although this is obvious, a nice reminder here and there goes a long way.

I wish everyone the best for the exam on the 3rd. Remain positive, work hard, and be accountable for your work. Know that in the highs and lows of the next few weeks and months, there is someone right there with you chugging along. Improvements can be made, and life is good.

Cheers to 7sage, and cheers to all of us kicking ass.

Is it possible to post an explanation for 19/2/9?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-2-question-19/

I do not understand how the answer choice C is supported at all. What part of the premise supports answer C? Thank you.

I am signed up for Oct 2015 *freaks out* what happens if I chicken out and decide to change my date to December? What looks worse... Taking in October and get a shitty score and retake it in December or withdrawing from October and taking it in December

Hey 7Sagers! Here's a question from a student I thought you could help out with:

I am looking for someone to critique my attempted negations for necessary assumption question Dec 2009, s3,q25. Thank you so much.

My negations:-

A. Scientists ...always have biases...

B. ...biases...are shared among all scientists.

C. Biases ...are likely to impair...

D. Interpretation of data is not the only part...

E. ? (I am clueless in this one)

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-59-section-3-question-25/

If you would like to join just send me a msg with your Skype handle.

I completely missed this question. I thought B was very unattractive, and I confidently eliminated it during the test and during BR. I would appreciate it if someone just completely dismantled my reasoning because I don't understand how my reasoning is wrong on this:

Some people think that highway speed limits should be increased to reflect the actual speeds of drivers (which are higher than current speed limits). This increase would greatly decrease saftey since higher average speeds would result. Most violators would obey the new law and almost all of the people that obey the current speed limit would increase their speed.

What I am looking for: This is a very hard passage to understand. The support for the conclusion is that higher average speeds would result since most violators would obey the new law (either increase, decrease, or stay the same speed depending on how much the speed was increased) and current law abiding drivers would increase their speed. The argument is flawed because we don’t know the magnitude of the change. What if the speed limit is increased by 1 MPH? Almost all law abiding citizens could increase by 1 MPH and the most fast drivers could decrease by 15 MPH (if you assume that they were driving very fast). So, it is possible that the average speed actually decreases!

Answer A: This is consistent with the argument since “almost all” (in other words “some won’t) increase their speed.

Answer B: IDK, I still am very skeptical that this weakens the argument. Where does the argument imply or give evidence that uniformity of speed is important? I have a feeling that the author would just say “so what?” to this. Also, the argument doesn’t talk about what a “low speed” is. The argument is talking about “higher vs. lower” speeds. This answer choice seems to making a “relative vs. absolute” flaw that we talked about during the 7sage course. The argument says that some of the drivers (“almost all” idea like in answer choice A) are not going to increase their speed, so there won’t be “uniformity” of speed because some are still going to be below the speed limit. I just feel like the author would respond by saying “dude, you just helped my argument! The speeds aren’t going to be uniform!” Additionally, I don’t see how JY assumes that a shift in the distribution now becomes a narrower distribution. Can someone break this one down?

Answer C: So what? Just because you haven’t been involved in an accident doesn’t mean your danger level has decreased.

Answer D: This is consistent with the argument, so it is not a weakener. The author says that most will obey the law, which could imply that some will still not.

Answer E: Is believing what is safe the same as actual saftey? What if the violators are very risk loving?

Can someone explain answer choice E for me and why it is not a good answer?

I remain unconvinced, and still think (C) is a better answer!

Answer (C) does not say that the nesting boxes are smaller, but just that they provide less space for eggs (because they get overcrowded). In my view, the given statements support this conclusion [that the boxes are smaller than the natural nests] because they seem to link the ducks' failed reproductive efforts to the fact that the boxes become overcrowded. If, by negating this conclusion, the natural nesting sites had just as much, or less, space for eggs, then this reproductive practice would seem to be disadvantageous from the start. Therefore, (C) seems to me to be the right answer.

Answer (D), on the other hand, makes less sense in my view. Why would the ducks' reproductive efforts be more successful when the boxes are hidden? Is the assumption that those nests, though hidden, could still be found by some and thus the practice would become less rare?

I don't really understand the argument, which is why I am having a tough time deciding between D and E. Can someone break the argument down and discuss those two answer choices?

After multiple starts and stops due to family, I have covered the basics to prepare. I still have weaknesses in a few areas but feel confident in others. I would really like to expose all weaknesses under time constraints while not burning thru PT's while I am still learning through the BR process.

I started the LSAT journey haphazardly so I do not have a diagnostic, but the few PT's I have taken are 155-160, but no blind review as of yet for optimal knowledge of where I stand or as JY would say that it could have been "blind luck":)

My plan is 2 per week with thorough BR - thanks to everyone sharing their experiences to not burn-out. I am not sure that going sequentially is the best plan given the shifts in the later PT's (not harder, but different - thx again for all of the input). But, I am not sure it is wise to use more current PT's during this stage.

Fortunately, I started studying before PDF ban and have all PT's and JY's videos to make the process easier. My plan is to join as many BR group sessions as I can that do not conflict with family obligations.

For you that have been there - done that - what sequence would you advise to begin serious PT'ing?

While I've seen my LG and LR improve a lot over time, I'm afraid I've plateaued a bit in RC. On average I make -4. I've already done the whole 7sage curriculum (twice) and I'm reading the LSAT Trainer for the second time. Does anyone recommend the RC Manhattan Prep for RC? I saw it's $10 on Amazon, but I was just wondering if it was worth my time to read through it. Any thoughts or advice on this question and more generally the RC section would be appreciated :)

I got this question correct, but I marked it for BR because I like analyzing parallel questions for practice. During BR, I am having a ton of trouble eliminating B.

Specifically, the flaw in the argument is your typical invalid argument form: A-->B. B. Therefore A. The argument invalidly uses the converse of the premise as the conclusion.

Answer choice A clearly does that, and this is the correct answer. However, doesn't answer choice B technically do this as well?

Here is my breakdown of B:

Discover something new-->Examined all possible solutions. Fran -Discover something new. Therefore, -Examine all possible solutions. This answer choice invalidly uses the inverse of the premise. Nevertheless, if you take the contrapositive of the conclusion, Examine all possible solutions-->Discover something new, isn't this logically identical to the flaw in the passage? In other words, am I misreading something in this answer choice, or is the "form" better than the "substance?"

Thanks.

This reminds me of taking college algebra three times untill i finally got it ..... ahhhh I am so discouraged.

HI Folks!

I am looking for the previous post(s) that had a compilation of the hardest passages.

I am especially looking for hardest RC and LR.

Thanks a lot!

hi everyone,

for those of you using the trainer and 7sage together, i was wondering what you thought of learning/using the "complex or rules drill" (pg 196)? I don't really remember having learned something like this in the 7sage curriculum (correct me if I'm wrong) and I'm kind of feeling that it might just confuse me. Is the alternative making more sub gameboards?

Help would be much appreciated. Thanks! Trying to pick out of this book what works/doesn't work with 7sage, and I've found the LR to be pretty good.

Hi everyone, I'm taking the October test and needed some advice on if i should be doing the PT's in numerical order or if I should jump to the later years? I've read in some of the discussion forums that the later PTs are harder. Do you think I should just keep continuing in order or make the jump to the late 50s or 60s?

Can someone explain 29/4/5? (B) seems like it has the relationship backwards. In order for it to be the correct answer, shouldn’t it say that mainstream opinions are generally in the bland and innocuous ones? Because the other way around tells me nothing of what the mainstream opinion is likely composed. For all we know, the mainstream opinion is mostly composed of striking, insidious views. This is consistent with bland and innocuous opinions being generally in the mainstream– these opinions may compose a very small portion of the mainstream opinion.

Even with the negation test, I cannot understand this answer. So what if bland, innocuous opinions are NOT generally in the mainstream? What if they are generally in the violent anarchist view? That tells me nothing about how much of the mainstream is composed of bland and innocuous opinions. It could still be the case that mainstream opinions are composed ENTIRELY of bland and innocuous opinions.

I have never felt this frustrated with a questioN!!

I chose (E) because if we negate this, then surely, the argument that the opinions on television are the result of market forces comes into question. Of course, who knows, maybe the executives’ opinions just happen to be reflected in market-directed opinions, but considering how much weaker (B) is, I chose (E).

What am I doing wrong?

Hi everybody,

I am in desperate need of help with the RC section. The interesting thing about my progress is that it is getting continuously worse. Back when I first started reading comprehension passages, I didn't follow a specific method. I just read through the passage, underlined some important things, and moved straight to the questions. I would get between 2 and 3 wrong. I have subsequently tried the Memory Method and another methodology, similar to the Memory Method, but I would add the extra step of quickly skimming over the passage one more time before moving on to the questions. Unfortunately, both methods have not worked so well for me. On RC sections, I can get anywhere from 5 to 9 wrong.

I am not sure what is wrong, perhaps it is burnout or simply a loss of confidence, but no matter which of these three methods I try now, I end up doing poorly. Time is also an issue for me; I am a rather slow reader and it takes some time for me to process the ideas, especially in the times when my mind is not focusing optimally.

If anybody has been in a similar situation and has found a way out, or if you can offer any specific advice, I would really really appreciate it. The October LSAT is coming so fast, and I am in great need of finding the best method for me, even if it doesn't guarantee a perfect score on the RC section.

Thanks!

-Nastassia

I continue to BR PT 39, and I got my ass handed to me on this one (seriously, did other people think PT 39 was much harder than 38)? I BR'd 9 points lower on this exam compared to PT 38, and I used a blank exam to BR.

Anyway, I don't understand at all how A is the correct answer for this one. I picked E (during the exam and during BR), and here was my reasoning (this is from my comment on the video):

I don’t understand question 25 at all. In line 3, it states that Internet users believe that access to information should be free. How would charging people for information (answer choice A) be a compromise? This seems to go against the core principle of the Internet users as established in the passage. Also, wouldn’t charging people further promote the idea that the information is a commodity (line 60)? To me, this answer choice is no compromise, but a full rejection of the Internet community and full acceptance of the publishing community's ideals.

Additionally, how is E not a better answer choice? Research is already exempted under the current laws, so current copyright holders are presumably familiar with this idea. Also, this keeps with the tradition of the free access to information. Yes, the free information wouldn’t be to everyone (only those conducting research), but it’s a compromise! I fail to see how A works at all, let alone is better than this answer. It seems to me that both sides would agree to this.

Man, I got murdered on this PT (after completely destroying PT 38). I thought the RC and LR were nightmares on this PT. Anyway, I cannot figure out how C is better than A for this question. Here is my reasoning for this question:

This is a flaw/descriptive weaken question (specifically in S's argument).

R: If you are more diverse in experience, then the more you will understand the need for compromise. Therefore, to become a politician, a person should have a diversity of experience.

S: To be worthy of public trust, it's not enough to only have diverse experience. Such a person wouldn't necessarily be worthy of public trust.

What I am looking for: I know we only want S's flaw, but R is missing the link between compromise and becoming a politician. For S, she doesn't actually say anything. She pretty much goes "no, diverse experience isn't enough because it isn't enough." S also equivocates "becoming a politician" with "worthiness of public trust."

Answer A: How is this not it? S gives an opposite point of view (you don't need a diversity of experience) and she gives no reason for it (S gives absolutely no evidence; in my mind, S's second sentence is completely redundant of the first).

Answer B: S never talks about what is beneficial.

Answer C: How is possibly the credited answer? Yes, S attributes a view to R ("as you suggest"), but how is the second part of this answer choice correct? Where does S explicitly or implicitly say that the view is more vulnerable than what is actually expressed? I don't see anywhere where S remotely says something like "R, your belief about diverse experience is very vulnerable to critics."

Answer D: Personal vs. relevant? S doesn't mention this.

Answer E: Flexibility? S doesn't talk about this. Also, S doesn't actually talk about politics, only "worthiness of public trust."

Help much appreciated.

I couldn't pick between A and D and finally chose A. But the answer is D.

I kept trying to find out why A is wrong, but I still don't understand why A can't be an answer.

If A is an assumption, I think it all makes sense at all just like D.

Why A is wrong and D should be an answer?

Please someone explain me.

Thanks!

I'm having trouble with the following question from Superprep, A:

L: People's intentions cannot be, on the whole, more bad than good. Were we to believe otherwise, we would inevitably cease to trust each other, and no society can survive without mutual trust among its members.

Stem: Most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?

A (correct) - It fails to rule out the possibility that a true belief can have deleterious (harmful) conseuqences

My analysis:

The author claims that if we believe that intentions are more good than bad, we would cease to trust one another and as a result without this mutual trust we would not survive. We are surviving, so we must not have the belief that that intentions are more good than bad.

There is clearly a gap between believing and the truth of a statement, but I cant put my finger on the flaw. I would normally say that the flaw is that just because a belief can't be true, doesn't mean that the underlying element can't be true. This, however, doesn't line up with the flaw stated in A.