http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-3-question-06/

I had some reservations in choosing answer choice C. I was able to eliminate all the others so answer choice C seemed most likely to be correct, but I wasn't 100% sure. The reason is that the premise states "The purse of a trader in the city "would probably" have contained a more diverse set of coins." and the C uses more definitive word, "had been brought". I think we don't know for a fact that it 'had been' brought by the pilgrims. It is a speculation. Since it is only a speculation that the purse would probably have contained a more diverse set of coins. I would think the correct answer would say "The purse... was probably brought . . . by a pilgrim."

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-2-passage-4-passage/

I am a long-time lurker that is gearing up for the October exam.

I really love 7Sage and the Sage community discussion threads. I follow all the threads related to preparation of the exam.

I have a question regarding RC section of PT 35, section 2 passage 4 - Dworkin and Legal Positivism.

How to approach this? How did you go about answering it? Any and all suggestions would be appreciated!!

I went (-2), but found myself struggling with it more than I think I should have. I just wasn't quick or crisp in this passage.

Thanks!

JGirl

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-1-question-08/

I was trying to find out what's the difference between C and D, but I still don't understand why C can't be an answer.

If there're no predators which pose a danger to the monkeys and attack both from land and the air just like C said, can C be an answer too because it can also explain why the monkeys use different alarm calls?

Why C can't be an answer and D is right?

What's the difference between them?

Please someone explain me.

Thanks!

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-4-question-09/

While I was solving this, I narrowed the choices to B or D.

B because it provides an alternate explanation for why Uranus is being pulled away;

D because if the Sun exerts less of a pull on Uranus, maybe even the little mass that Neptune and Pluto have can pull Uranus towards them? Hence, an alternative to the existence of another planet.

Please explain to me what the correct thought process for eliminating D is.

Thank you :)

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-4-question-03/

Hi! Please find below the way I solved the question:

Opponents Conclusion: triple trailer trucks (ttt) are more dangerous than other commercial vehicles

Premise: Where ttt are permitted, for these vehicles the rate of road accident fatalities per mile is lower than the national rate for other commercial vehicles

Conclusion: ttt are safer than other commerical vehicles

A) Irrelevant

B) Provides an alternate explanation for why the rate of accident fatalities is lower, thus, weakens

C) So what if they oppose everything

D) In some way supports our argument as it says they require a special license thus even safer drivers drive ttt

E) Irrelevant fact

Is my trail of thought correct?

Thanks for your help!

http://www.techinsider.io/how-to-solve-einsteins-riddle-video-2015-9

This is the grouping/sequencing combo game from hell. I'm going to try it tonight.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-3-question-02/

I'm little confused about B.

The stimulus said Samantha likes both oolong and green tea and none of her friends likes both.

Doesn't it mean none of her friends like both oolong and green tea?

Since none of her friends likes oolong and green tea, shouldn't B be Must be false?

How is it possible B is could be true? What am I missing?

And if the stimulus said Samantha likes EITHER oolong OR green tea and none of her friends likes both, can B be Must be false?

Please someone explain me.

Thanks!

Hi everyone,

Just finished the 7sage instruction curriculum. Now onto PTing: for the Dec exam, my plan was to go PT 36-75 every other day, and review some material on the days in between (or look at stuff like Trainer drills/flaw section). My diagnostic was not very high, 148, but I got a 154 the other day (yay for me...) anyways I was wondering if you guys think I should try to start at the lower pts, (before 36) ? I know JY says they're not really a good representation of the current exam but maybe it could help if I start a little lower and did a PT every day? What do you guys think? I'd appreciate the advice. And thanks everyone for the advice you've given so far. As you can tell I'm kind of an LSAT noob.

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-59-section-3-question-24/

Answer is E. What does this even mean? :O

E) "presumes,without providing justification, that 18 century European aesthetics is as encompassing as an aesthetic theory can be"

So we are 6 months away and I am registered for the December LSAT. I am about 3 weeks into the 7Sage curriculum and feeling great so far. How is everyone else doing? have you started preparing for December?

Hey Everyone,

I remember someone on TLS who recommended reading Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" and it was not only fantastic but also helped me get acquainted with different topics in the sciences. Looking for a BOOK suggestion related to humanities/law that I can read in my spare time. Thanks!

Hi JY! I don't quite understand this answer choice as I eliminated option A and B as they mention water levels - which aren't specifically addressed by the passage. Could you please help me out with an explanation for this?

Hi All,

With the October test fast approaching, I've been doing the PTs in the late 60s (think 65-69). Before that I had done every test from 35-55. While these later PTs been in my normal range for the most part (low to mid 160s), the past couple have been awful (158/159-awful in the sense that my scores haven't been this low in a long time).

I've noticed that while I'm able to take my time and understand the questions in BR (last BR I got a 171), I feel rushed and find myself stumbling through the test under timed conditions. This hadn't been such a major problem in the past and I'm not sure what I can do to remain accurate while also maintaining a good pace. During the last PT I took, I actually got distracted during the end of the RC section and had to rush through the last passage :(

Do you think this is just that the PTs are harder or that I'm psyching myself out by thinking that this is what the October test will be like? Is it burnout? What can I do to make sure my score doesn't stay at this level?

Thanks for your help!

I have a question on negation. On prep test 58 section 1 question 25. the line Handmade foundations are never found on wigs that do not use human hair. Is diagrammed as HF------>HH. Shouldn't it be ~HF ------> HH. It is group 4. So you pick an idea ~HH, you negate it ~HH --->HH AND MAKe it necessary. The other idea is the sufficient. So how do we end up with HF INSTEAD OF -HF?

Shouldn't it be

~HF ---> HH?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-58-section-1-question-25/

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-1-question-09/

Hi, while solving MSS questions, I often confront the situation in which whether I should use logical translation or not.

For example, in this question,

as the passage states "technological improvements will enable food production to increase as population increase," I translate it to TI --> FPI.

Then, according to the statement "increases in food production will be negligible unless societies become more centralized..." I translate it into FPI --> SC.

Thus, I got TI --> FPI --> SC.

This is why I chose the answer choice (E) which I thought as TI --> SC.

Perhaps this type of logical translation might not be appropriate for this question, so could you point out what was a problem in my reasoning and further explain when is the time I should use logical translation or not?

Thanks!

Can we please discuss why the answer is C instead of A? :o boggles my mind. I checked out the manhattan prep forum for their explanations but i didn't like them.

From this link :) its the second to last questions. Thnx so much guys.

http://classic.7sage.com/lesson/necessary-assumptions-questions-problem-set-8

Also here:

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-26-section-3-question-09/

I would like some suggestions about how to BR reading comp. I just started the practice exams today (#36), and I am wondering what other people typically do with this section.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-4-question-07/

in my timed approach I was confident w answer choice E however in the blind review changed my response to D. During blind review I thought I was making an assumption about the bones having been examined. Where as D focused more on what was evident just by excavating the tomb. Help explaining why D is wrong is appreciated.

I am taking the LSAT in October, but I am still struggling with the logic games. What are the best advice on how to get better in this section. I am not doing well at all.

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

I got this question correct since C was obviously not relevant to the argument, but during BR, I can't seem to eliminate B or E. Why are these necessary assumptions? Here is my breakdown so far:

This is a necessary assumption EXCEPT question. Specifically, we are looking at the skeptic's argument.

Some people have been promoting some herbs to help treat colds. The herbs have a whole bunch of colorful sounding stuff in them: purple coneflower and goldenseal. This dude with a cold doesn't think that the herbs help. He argues, "Say that the herbs actually did work. Most people want to get better quickly. Therefore, almost everybody with a cold would already be using. Since there are many who have colds but don't use it, herbs aren't effective."

What I am looking for: I know we are looking for a NA, but I always like to break down the flaws in the argument if there are any. The skeptic is all over the place. He conflates "most" with "almost everybody." Certainly "most" includes "almost everybody," but 51% is "most" but would probably not be considered "almost everybody." Additionally, so what of "many" people still have colds? The proponents of herbs never said that herbs have a 100% effectiveness rate. Even worse, the skeptic's conclusion is borderline circular as well. The skeptic says that "almost everybody would be using it." He did NOT say that everyone would use it; there could be "many" or "some" people that don't use the herbs in the skeptic's hypothetical world. Anyway, we are looking for an answer that is a necessary assumption.

Answer A: This is a NA. If this answer was not true, then how could almost everyone be using it? There wouldn't be enough.

Answer B: I don't see how this is a NA. If you negate it: the mixture does have side effects severe enough to make many people with colds avoid it, then how does this wreck the argument? Wouldn't this strengthen the argument's conclusion that the herbs are not effective? The negation seems to do the opposite of wreck the argument.

Answer C: This is what I correctly chose because the argument does not concern itself with anything preventative. This answer does nothing to the argument, and it is totally irrelevant.

Answer D: This is similar to A, and it is a NA. If you negate it: if the herbs are not widely known, then how would people know to use it?

Answer E: This is like answer choice B for me. I don't see how this is a NA. What if there are effective cold remedies that people prefer? Does this mean that the herbs are not effective? I don't see how this affects the argument.

Hi all,

I am looking for a Skype partner(s) to BR Preptests with for the December test. Ideally, I want to have a call at least twice a week, once on either Tues or Wed night and once on Saturday night. I should add that I am looking for serious and disciplined partner(s) who are committed to calling every week. I would like to start with PT 36 next week.

Please message me if you are interested!

Hi guys, I wanted to share an idea that may be helpful in improving RC. One of my biggest stumbling blocks in RC is freezing when I run into topics I'm unfamiliar with (science and economics, mostly). Reading articles on Scientific American and the Economist have been very helpful to increase my familiarity with certain terms. Another tool that came to mind this morning is Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has a "Random Article" link on the left sidebar, and sends you to a completely random Wikipedia article. I feel like this could also be helpful as a means to gaining familiarity with unfamiliar topics. For example, a few that came up were a description of birds in Yemen, an English journalist and publicist named Derek Taylor, and Secretary of State for Scotland. You may have to click a couple times to find something that could be useful, but some of the topics are really out there... like LSAT RC passages.

Obviously, this can't replace any of the main RC study tools like doing actual RC sections, reading dense articles, etc., but it could be useful if you just have a few minutes here or there.

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.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-2-question-06/

I know this is early on in the section, but it's very tricky. None of the explanations I find online are satisfying.

For justify principle questions, the premises should connect with the conclusion, and this doesn't happen here.

First, a discussion of the stimulus:

Premise: The styling of characters in Quirks is not problematic because the film is funny, and that is necessary for a comedy.

Conclusion: The criticism of Quirks is misguided.

I would prephrase if a film is successful within their genre, actions that lead to that film's success as part of that genre is not warranted. (something along those lines)

The correct answer is as follows: D. "Films are successful if they succeed within their genre"

"if they succeed within their genre" = the film is funny, that is the most important thing for comedy

"films are successful" = ?

How can we conclude that "films are successful" = "criticism is misguided"? To me, that is still a big gap, that is not justified from the principle.

I don't think I have ever encountered a difficult LR sections as PT73. Please help!