Dear Sir,

I am uncertain about my analysis of this passage. Can you please share yours?

PT9, S2, Q3,

Admin edit: Please do not post full questions.

Context: Balance in particularly important when reporting the background of civil wars and conflicts.

Context: Facts must not be deliberately manipulated to show one party in a favorable light, and the views of each side should be fairly represented

Conclusion: This concept of balance, however, does not justify concealing or glossing over basic injustices in an effort to be even-handed.

Premise: If all the media were to adopt such a perverse interpretation of balanced reporting, the public would be given a picture of a world where each party in every conflict had an equal measure of justice on its side, Premise: contrary to our experience of life and, indeed, our common sense.

Dear Sir,

Here is my question: please take a look at the statement above. Of the 3rd sentence, begins with "Many important...", do you consider the sentence a minor conclusion or a major premise or a rephrase of the (major) conclusion?

And a general question, does the statement, "A major premise" is always a sub-conclusion" stand? if not, can you please explain, thanks.

Admin edit: Please do not post full questions! You can get in trouble with LSAC.

• Conclusion: Such position ignores the lessons of experience Referential phrase “such position” referring to the, “Some legislators refuse to commit public funds for new scientific research if they cannot be assured that the research will contribute to the public welfare”.

• Minor conclusion/major premise/Rephrase of major conclusion: Many important contributions to the public welfare that resulted from scientific research were never predicted as potential outcomes of that research.

• Minor premise/citing example: Suppose that a scientist in the early twentieth century had applied for public funds to study molds: who would have predicted that such research would lead to the discovery of antibiotics—one of the greatest contribution ever made to the public welfare.

I'm having trouble translating "only" statements... can anyone help me out?

For example:

Only the best artworks are beautiful. (PT 49, Section 4, Question 16)

Since "only" is a group 2 indicator (necessary), wouldn't it be the following:

Best Artworks --> Beautiful

Or, is it:

Beautiful --> Best Artworks

Thanks for your help, guys! Much appreciated.

I'm reviewing why I struggled more than I should've on game 3, and JY labeled the in/out differently than I did. He labels "finance" as out and "incentives" as in. I switched mine around and while I was still able to solve the game, I struggled more than I should've have on this simple in/out game. If you linked up the conditional chains with "finance" as in and "incentives" as out, I don't think you get the correct split boards. Has anyone tried this game with the same labels as me? Trying to figure out if I made a logic mistake or if I'm missing something in this game (whyyyyy).

Thanks in advance!!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-2-game-3/

Hi there,

I just started studying LSAT and was wondering how does the team spots conclusions?

Do you use indicator words as from the lecture?

Or

Do you just read an question and always ask why or the assumption method? (assume X is conclusion, whether the passage supports?

Hey Everyone,

Needed some help with this conditional statement.

"Deep empathy is required for full understanding of an individual's actions. Internal empathy will grant partial understanding, but only if the individual is open minded towards the process."

I have: Full Understanding ---> Deep Empathy ; (Internal Empathy --> Partial Understanding) --> Open Minded.

The question asks: Dina has acquired both deep and internal empathy of Barry, who is not open minded towards anything. Relative to Barry, Dina will gain: _________

So I know that it is unknown whether Dina will gain full understanding as she satisfies a necessary condition. But, will she also not gain partial understanding since the necessary condition is deinied (Barry is not open minded)??

How do we translate this statement and it's contrapositive: "Internal empathy will grant partial understanding, but only if the individual is open minded towards the process".

Any help would be great. Thanks for your time.

For anyone who has experience doing the games 1-16 - are these games representative of later games on the LSAT? If I am considering ponying up the money to buy the paper versions of the tests: are these good games to practice on? I have games from PT 17 through 76 - and have done about 30 PT's worth of games now... Obviously in a world where time was an unlimited resource I wouldn't ask this question and would just do them. But there's 3 months until September and I need to do and BR 19 PT's...

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-3-question-20/

Hi guys, having a little bit of trouble with this weakening question. Here's my understanding of it.

(Premise) -> In authoritarian society the metaphor society as a human body governed by it's head is pervasive. (What makes something pervasive? If it has political utility as mentioned in the first sentence)

(Conclusion) -> Therefore, the society as a body metaphor, with its connection between society's proper functioning and governance by a head, promotes greater acceptance of authoritarian repression than do other metaphors, such as likening society to a family.

So-> My guess of the logical jump being made from p -> c is that since in authoritarian regime has great utility in the society as a body metaphor over society as a family metaphor for acceptance of opression/proper function it is therfore more pervasive. S

So the answer choice (A) weakens this by saying that since in an authoritarian society both are as popular, the pervasiveness is not fully determined by utility?

Basically im confused as hell.

I started studying May 15th and will be completing the full 7Sage curriculum by next week. That being said the games are really posing a challenge for me. On my Diagnostic I missed 18/23 on the games but I was also completely clueless on what to do. Now I have gone through sequencing games and feel pretty confident but the Sequencing with a twist seem to be a lot harder for me and I am not even to the grouping games yet. I am shooting for a 168+ come September so that I can comfortably apply for this cycle and even apply ED if needed. I'll be applying with a 4.0 GPA (Finance - if it matters) and am really looking to get into a T14. My RC is going well as I am missing on average 2-4 and LR still needs some work missing about 6/section but I just want to make sure I am not rushing anything. I dedicate about 4 hours/day to this test and would like to be ready for September but I see no point in taking the test if I will not be ready to perform my best.

Did the games just start to come naturally for y'all once you kept doing them over and over and watching the videos 7Sage provides? Was there anything else you did that helped you with the games that JY didn't recommend?

Thanks for any suggestions.

So you didn't own a game and you print out 10 clean copies to practice the inferences. Should you continue to do the remaining of 10 copies if you're easily reproducing the inferences consecutively at copy 3 or 4? (And I mean consecutively in the same session. I'm not talking about never doing them again, such as the following day, a week later, a month...etc. as people have recommended). Is the point to just bank a few smooth and successful completions of the game or is it to just bat things into your "muscle memory" through repetition well after you're able to remember the inferences?

Just a background on my progress: I am taking the LSAT in September and it will be my third attempt. I am currently averaging in the mid 160s for prep tests, coming from a 158 on the Feb. test. RC has always been my best section, LR I've sloooowwwly improved, but I am still averaging -7 on LG. I want to drill and practice LG as if my life depended on it for my final bout, so if anyone has any other advice for mastering LG for someone at this point in the LSAT game it would be more than appreciated! Cheers everyone.

I'm sure there has to be some of you taking the September LSAT, so why aren't we communicating?

Hi, I need some advice about whether to take the June 2016 LSAT (not in the US). As for my current range, I could hit a desired score with a bit of luck, but I would fall short by 1-3 points (or more) under normal circumstances. The test is in 10 days.

In this case, would it still be better to take the June LSAT as a "trial run" so that I will be less anxious and be more comfortable with testing conditions in September? Or should I just take the test in September when I feel ready?

I know schools don't view cancellations as negatively as they used to before, and I don't plan to take the test more than three times so wasting one take would not be so bad, but still I guess it would be ideal to have just one score on the record...

Thankfully, things are starting to click in regards to logical reasoning... I have a long uphill battle but for the most part I am starting to get somewhat comfortable with the type of questions.... I have just made one observation on LR questions however... I have picked up that "extreme words" are often not the correct question choice correct? Meaning.. words like only, never, always...

I am just trying to verify this before I train myself to think this way and then come to find out... I am way wrong. This whole process is cleaning out some serious cobwebs so if my question is weird that is why.

I also found that I was often falling for answers with these words in them, and the choices were wrong. I am constantly getting trapped by the LSAT haha I am just hoping I figure all those traps out prior to taking the actual LSAT :) Thanks guys!

Hi everyone,

So I printed out all my logic games and put them in sheet protectors so I could do the games with a fine-tip dry erase pen. It beats having to print massive amounts of paper for each game..Instead, I just erase everything after each attempt. It's just like having a brand new game. But after a few weeks of doing this, it occurred to me that I may be completely missing something about this method, that it may be inherently flawed. Does anyone have any feedback on using this method? Obviously it's not the same as taking pencil to paper, but it has saved me the trouble of printing...thanks for the feedback!

This is a Necessary Assumption question. Could someone explain how Answer B is incorrect and Answer D is correct?

Answer B speaks to the gap (Detergent formulated for front-load dissolves more readily). Negating Answer B (Detergent formulated for front-load does NOT dissolve more readily) wrecks the conclusion because it removes the salient difference compared to ordinary detergent that the argument makes.

In contrast, Answer D provides a Sufficient Assumption to a Necessary Assumption question. Negating Answer D (It's not true that [detergent gets clothes really clean --> detergent dissolves readily in washer]) does not wreck the conclusion. Perhaps a detergent formulated for FLW simply requires less water to be just as effective as an ordinary detergent in a TLW. Or perhaps a detergent formulated for FLW has a special cleaning agent to compensate for not dissolving as readily. So on and so forth: In all cases, Sufficient does not equal Necessary.

Furthermore, working from wrong-to-right I eliminated Answer D as a trap. Answer D provides a "firmer" (conditional guarantee!) response more appropriate to a SA question. In contrast, Answer B provides a "softer" (comparative) response appropriate to most NA questions.

Thanks in advance for your help!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-1-question-21/

Any advice on how to improve score on RC questions?

Hello everyone! This is my first time posting here on 7Sage. I have been reading a lot of the forum posts, hoping to find an answer to my question but I couldn't, so here it is. I took the June 2016 Administration of the LSAT and I am in need of opinions on whether or not I should cancel my score, as today is the last day to do so.

Some background on my situation:

I first took the LSAT during the middle of my junior year in college, December 2014. I had not prepared at all and knew next to nothing about the test and so just registered and took it. Based on the fact that I knew nearly nothing at all about the LSAT and the rigor it demands, my score was not surprising, and I scored an abysmal 138. I took this as a learning experience, however, and decided to study after I completed my final year of undergrad. I graduated with a 3.86 GPA in May 2015 and I was proud to have earned that, but I knew it was time to buckle down for the LSAT. Beginning during the first week of July, I began to study using the Powerscore LG Bible. It helped me gain a nice foundation for logic games but it didn't put me over the edge, in terms of mastering them. I studied on and off like this for months... signed up for the December 2015 LSAT and I ended up withdrawing because my biggest fear was/is wasting my GPA and accepting a mediocre LSAT score.

I got a tutor during the last week of January 2016 and began to see major improvements in my logic games. It was incredible. I should say also, that I partnered my tutoring with 7Sage's free logic games video explanations and my score sky-rocketed! I had gone from getting only 8 correct in a section, to consistently getting no less than 17 correct in a section and climbing! With this success, I decided to sign up for the June 2016 Administration. As the test got closer, however, I noticed that I was peaking at scores of mid-to-high 150's. This was NOT anywhere near my goal of 170+ but I was convinced to take the test anyway, after I learned that multiple takes were not going to kill me.

I sat for the test and came out of there feeling defeated. I found that the games section was very doable but I found myself running out of time. Then my reasoning sections were touch and go, they truly were a blur to me. My reading comp (my weakest section) was tough but I found myself blanking on my second RC section (which luckily turned out to be the experimental section). Overall, I found myself completely guessing for at least the last 10 questions of every single section, and that being said, I don't think I had good accuracy when it came to the questions I actually got to attempt. This made me feel extremely uneasy, following the test.

Now, ever since this past Tuesday morning, I've been wrestling with the idea of whether or not to cancel. I already have a 138 (December 2014) on file, and then am risking having this other miserable score on file (June 2016). I am without a doubt sitting for the test again and am planning to sign up for 7Sage's curriculum, since they've helped my LG significantly.

My biggest worry is that I'll have to explain 2 miserable scores and then have that third out-of-the-park score. I am aware that most schools will only use my highest score to evaluate me as a candidate, but I can't help but think that 2 bad scores will hurt me, as opposed to having a poor score, a cancel, and then the high score.

What should I do?

Thanks for reading, if you've read this far and I apologize for the long post.

When a problem says: Grace helps move the sofa if but only if Heather helps move the recliner, do I diagram it as: Gs(------)Hr or Hr(----)Gs, or does it matter either way? Also are "if BUT only if" and "if AND only if" diagrammed differently or the same?

Can someone please explain question 5?

How I interpreted the question was the minimum number of salaries would be 8 not 7. The reason for this was that K would always be first, thus leading the other 8 workers being placed in the remaining spots.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-4-section-3-game-1/

Admin edit: Edited title and added link, OP listed wrong game.

Hi there,

I am so confused about this problem and have no idea about whats it talking about.

What does "This fact gives the traditional attribution of a disputed painting special weight" mean and how do we strengthen the opposite of it?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-21/

I understand that few means some are, most are not.

Ex) Few will show up unless there’s free booze.

/FB -> FS If there’s no free booze, then few will show up. (some will, most will not)

contrapostives:

/FS -> FB If not few show up (some will not, most will), then there’s free booze.

JY equated the second translation as 'If most show up, then there's free booze.'

Can the translation of ‘not few' also be ‘none’ as it also means some will not?

Thank you in advance!

I am traveling by train from out of town to my test center, so I will have a backpack with me. Do most test centers have storage lockers/rooms for students with a backpack? I will have my phone and some person items in my backpack.

I'm so lost on this question. It asks which statement would most appropriately continue the discussion at the end of the passage. I ruled out A, because of tone, and selected E. However, apparently A is the right answer. Is anyone able to explain why? I knew the question was a little sketchy, and circled it for my blind review, but I still couldn't find the right answer. Thanks friends!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-09/

I could really use some help on this one.

First, here's a quick breakdown of the stimulus:

P: Nesting female leatherbacks have declined by more than 2/3.

P: Any species whose population declines by more than 2/3 is in danger of extinction.

C: Leatherback turtles are in danger of extinction.

Even though I quickly realized the gap between nesting females and the entire population of leatherbacks, I still don't see how answer A passes the negation rule (that the correct answer choice to all necessary assumption questions must pass).

A says: "The decline in the population of nesting female leatherbacks is proportional to the decline in the leatherback population as a whole."

When I negate answer choice A, I read it as "the decline in the population of nesting female leatherbacks IS NOT proportional to the decline in the leatherback population as a whole." While I see how this can be problematic for the conclusion, it doesn't necessarily make it false. Let's assume that the decline being referred to in the stimulus in the nesting female subpopulation is 70% (greater than 2/3). If we are applying the negation of A, then decline in the entire population of leatherbacks is NOT PROPORTIONAL to the 70% decline in nesting females. However, it still can be true that the entire population of leatherback turtles is declining by more than 2/3 (they're declining by 85%). So the conclusion can still be true that leatherbacks as a whole are in danger of extinction.

So while A would be the perfect sufficient assumption answer choice, it doesn't seem like it's playing by the LSAT's rules for necessary assumption questions.

Recognizing this problem, during blind review I chose answer choice D, because I assumed that "nesting" meant not living in captivity. So by negating D, it reads "Not very few leatherback turtles exist in captivity." And since "few" = "some, but not most," in plain English, D translates to: either none or most (>50%) of the turtleback population lives in captivity. So if most of these turtles do in fact live in captivity (let's just assume 51% of them do), then a 2/3 decline in the nesting females can constitute only a maximum overall decline of ~34% in the entire population of leatherbacks, which is obviously less than 2/3, and means we cannot make the conclusion that they're in danger of extinction. So isn't this assumption the necessary one?

Please help. My brain hurts...

Hello, would anyone care to explain to me how D is the correct answer in this question, when in my opinion, it is so logically wrong? Thank you!