Currently in middle of LG part of CC. I hear a lot of talk about foolproofing the "LG bundle". What are people on the starter package supposed to foolproof? Any advice appreciated. Thanks!

Any tips for someone who consistently has RC as their worst, avg 8 questions wrong?

Hello,

Here is my analysis for question 17 in section 3 for prep test 72. This is a weaken question; therefore, I wanted to weaken the connection between the premises and the conclusion.

Argument Analysis:

Premises:

Individuals who get injured due to unsafe actions not only cause injury to themselves but also can put financial and emotional burdens on others who they are close with.

Conclusion:

The Government is vindicated in making actions that are considered risky to one’s health illegal, in order to guard other people’s interests.

Prephrase:

Just because something that could be injurious to one individual and that brings pain to their family is not grounds for outlawing it. Think about it this way, just because trampolines can cause you harm and make your family pay your hospital bills doesn’t mean that this is grounds to ban using them.

Answer Choices:

A. This supports the argument because it further justifies why it would feasible to implement the law. The reason is due to the fact that it shows how putting a burden on the people you have close ties to constitutes harm to oneself.

B. This doesn’t weaken because just because we have an obligation to not injure ourselves doesn’t mean that we won’t injure ourselves. For example, one may have an obligation to not eat their sister’s last piece of chocolate cake; however, is that obligation strong enough to prevent us from eating it? Probably not.

C. This strengthens because it meets the necessary condition of posing a financial burden to the family.

D. This weakens it entirely because entirely wipes out the evidence that the argument provided for the conclusion. If the evidence is not sufficient than the conclusion is not entirely justified to be true.

E. Again, just because you have an obligation doesn’t mean that it will guarantee that people won’t do it. The person could easily say, well this law will just affirm this obligation.

Honestly, I wish I hadn’t gotten this question wrong. I had originally picked B because I assumed that because one has an obligation to not do something that they won’t do it. But, how many obligations have we had that we have broken? Conversely, D shows that the evidence that the person gave does not completely bolster the argument for instituting the law.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-3-question-17/

I recently did AP3 RRE1 Exc1 PF1 and didn't get question 10 correct. I chose A because it mentioned synthetic products ... which does not mean that they are natural. However, this choice was incorrect. Can anyone explain how they got the right answer?

Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

I am having some self doubt and would love to hear thoughts!

I have been studying for the LSAT since late September now, and have improved my score from a 152 -> 162 so far. I am hoping that if I keep up my pace I can get to a 168, but truly a 162 isn't bad either.

I am having doubt about if I timed taking the LSAT incorrectly. It's my first go-round, with little guidance on applications and I'm not applying to a t-15 school. Is January LSAT going to be too late to send in my scores with my apps? Should I wait to apply until after my LSAT? It will be the first I have taken.

I really want to apply this cycle, I am just now facing that doubt that I'm sure many do as the time creeps closer and you're doing something that no one near you has done.

Any advice? Tips? Relatability?

Thank you

This question doesn't have an explanation, so I wanted to see if anyone could back up my reasoning.

The flaw of the question stem is that it confuses necessary conditions for sufficient ones. Correctly formatting the script as well as having it be submitted by an agent is necessary for the script to not be discarded, but it does not guarantee that it won't be. There could be another reason, such as that it arrived too late, that it would be discarded.

A is not the correct choice because it is a valid argument.

B is not correct because it's a different flaw. It takes for granted that Jon is a good cook. You can also argue that it's flawed in that the necessary condition "delicious" is subjective.

C is correct, although its a bit tricky. It confuses sufficient conditions for necessary ones. Exercising daily or quitting smoking will improve Bob's health, but he doesn't need to do either one to improve his fitness level. He could lose weight by dieting for example. I think this is what makes this question so difficult (5 circles).

D is incorrect because it's a different flaw. It confuses the sufficient conditions for one argument with another. A car not having a permit or having an expired one are sufficient conditions for police being allowed to ticket. The Police being allowed to ticket does not mean they will ticket; They could give you a warning or maybe do nothing.

E is incorrect because its a different flaw. It takes for granted that because a dog can do advanced tricks it will respond correctly to basic commands. It's possible that a dog could do a backflip but would refuse to sit.

let me know if my reasoning is accurate - thanks!

UPDATE: False alarm - I was in too deep. AC E is a fine conditional statement alone, but it does not fit into the premise chain. Obviously, you can't say exceed budget this year --> renovate next year - we have no way of knowing this is true. This is why the answer choice must be D.

I'm having a hard time with a fundamental principle exposed in PT94 S4 Q13.

premise chain: renovate this year --> renovate next year --> exceed budget next year

conclusion: exceed budget this year --> exceed budget next year

Gap: where does exceed budget this year fit into the premise chain?

AC D (correct): renovate this year --> exceed budget this year

AC E (incorrect): renovate this year --> exceed budget this year

I understand why D is correct. It would create the following chain: exceed budget this year --> renovate this year --> renovate next year --> exceed budget next year. This would allow the conclusion: exceed budget this year --> exceed budget next year to be properly drawn.

I do not understand why E is incorrect primarily because I do not understand why we couldn't formulate a correct premise chain like this: renovate this year --> exceed budget this year --> renovate next year --> exceed budget next year

This still gets me to the correct conclusion. I guess I just don't understand why renovate this year must be necessary to exceed budget this year and cannot be sufficient.

Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

.

I've been doing well on my PTs (in the 170+ range), but every time, i do sooo badly on the experimental section. I'm talking -6 to -9 questions wrong. Should i be concerned?? I dont even get how it's possible for me to go from -1 on one LR section to -8 on the next.

Hey guys! 166 June, wanted 170+. It's nice to say "okay, I'm going to law school," but MAN--I wanted a higher score! I was scoring 170s on PTs, so I'm shook. What can I do to study for August? I've already put 200 hours into this test.

I had 3 LR(I’m unsure as to which we’re real) , 1 RC (the one with lies/mistakes) and 1LG(the one with the flowers)

I feel pretty strong about this test

ive been studying lsat for a year already (approximately 1-2 hrs a day). My initial pt score is 153, and after 3-4 months I got around 160. However the score just doesn't go up anymore. I about to take the test on dec. 6th so I have literally 2 months left. My target in dec is 165+. Is that reasonable?

I just purchased this course 5 days ago and I found this course really useful but, I've already wasted all the pts (40-75). So I don't know how to follow the schedule of this course in a smarter way in this case.

I quit my job few days ago so now I have 8 hrs ago (!!!)

Anybody who got similar experience or anybody who has any idea about what should I do now?

hi all!

first off congrats on all those who sat for the Nov test and completed it in one piece! I feel somewhat accomplished in doing that alone, it being my first official administration. But I am also trying to be somewhat realistic with myself, knowing that I am almost 100% sure that I want to sit for the Jan test and take a shot at getting a higher score!

I had been studying since June before taking the Nov test, so obviously completed all 7sage CC and taken PTs 40-50, so now what?

trying to take into consideration my known weaknesses that I feel in myself, and use those to try and construct a new study plan, I wanted to reach out and see if anyone else in the same/similar situation as myself, have any advice. mainly what you have done in the past or what you will be doing until the Jan test? I'm thinking of more timed sections instead of full PTs to start out & focus more on getting a few extra points from RC (since personally I did not spend much time at all learning RC strategies to begin with), along with getting a constant LR section that I am confident with. what about you?

thanks so much in advance for taking the time to help a girl out :)

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.

This question asks us to find an answer choice that matches the flaw in the stimulus.

The form of the argument in the stimulus and the form of the argument in the correct answer choice are not at all identical, and this is the difficulty of this question.

The argument in the stimulus says:

Stallworth claimed that [A]

A+B --> C

/C

Therefore, /B

A = Stallworth supported the proposal

A+B = Henning also supported the proposal (the "also" was referencing Stallworth's support)

C = proposal received government approval

Answer choice A says:

TV news claimed that [A and B]

A --> /B

Therefore, /B

A = the traffic accident occurred on Aylmer Street

B = Morgan witnessed the accident from his kitchen window

The TV news made two claims (claim A and claimB), then a not both rule (A --> /B) is stated. Since both A and B can't be true at the same time the author concludes that B must not have happened. However, the author is ignoring the possibility that it was A that didn't happen.

Answer choice B says:

City government claimed that [A]

A private institute claimed that [B]

Therefore, the city government is to blame for A

A = 15% of city residents are behind on their property taxes

B = property taxes in the city are higher than average

The flaw here is that the author assumes B caused A, rather than a number of alternative possibilities such as high unemployment or people being distracted by studying for the LSAT every day and forgetting to pay their property taxes. The other unwarranted assumption is that the city government sets the taxes. Maybe the citizens vote to determine the tax rate. It's even possible that the county determines the property tax rate in this city. It would not be logical to blame the city government for something they have no control over.

Answer choice C says:

According to Kapoor [A]

According to Galindo [B]

Therefore, if B --> /A

A = haz waste site does not pose danger to the community

B = haz waste site is on an unsuitable tract of land

Two different ideas (danger and suitability) are discussed but assumed to be the same idea. We don't know why Galindo thinks the land is unsuitable. Maybe it's because this land is really rocky and it's expensive to dig holes in the ground for burying waste. Maybe the hazardous waste just smells bad and Galindo doesn't want to drive by the waste site on the way to work every day.

Answer choice D says:

According to rivals [A]

B --> C

Therefore, Harris is a poor choice for mayor

A = Harris favors the interests of property developers

B = a good mayor

C = willing to stand up to property developers

This argument assumes that Harris is not willing to stand up to property developers. Again, this is an argument that conflates two different ideas (favoring the interests of developers and being willing to stand up to developers). There is no reason Harris can't do both. Also, even if Harris isn't "a good mayor," he could still be a better choice for mayor than anyone else who is willing to do it.

Answer choice E says:

Latest government figures claim [A]

B

Therefore, /A

A = regional unemployment rate declined in the last six months

B = the region lost thousands of manufacturing jobs

The assumption is that the unemployment rate can't go down in a period when manufacturing jobs were lost. However, maybe it was Amazon that bulldozed a factory in the region and put up an office building. The two ideas (regional unemployment and jobs in a specific industry) are not the same.

Admin note: edited title

for those interested: https://harvardlawreview.org/2021/03/turning-neighbors-into-nuisances/

Hello! Wondering if anyone can offer some insight on where the textual basis is for the correct answer "B." I selected "C" as the answer with the assumption that comments about racism by a Communist Party Organizer would implicitly attack white chauvinism and also denote some sort of involvement in African American issue politics. I was not convinced that this was direct enough evidence, so am open to answer B but am curious where the direct support lies. Is the support the "cautiousness" and desire to appeal to moderates referred to by the author? Thank you for the help!

I just finished the first two lessons in the core curriculum on the above subjects. I am liking the explanations and the problem sets they've thrown at me so far. I wanted to ask about two approaches I'm taking that aren't explicitly mentioned in the lessons, but I think are helping me get the questions right:

Am I on the right track here?

I really don’t understand where this rule ” For conditionals, A and B negates to A → /B ” came from or how it would be applicable to the actual exam. This comes from the Negation skill builder in the Logic of Intersecting Sets module. It was never stated beforehand in neither the negating conditional statements or elsewhere, at least to my knowledge. I understand it intuitively as you’re saying that rather than both A and B being true simultaneously, you’re positing that /B is a necessary condition of A and thus can’t exist together. However, we previously learned about negation of the conjunction “and” in conditional relationships as being A and B → C negated to /C → /A or /B as specified by De Morgan’s law. I guess I’m just struggling to see, how to tell the difference or when/how to use this new rule in context with a question on the LSAT. Is the rule just referring to when you have both premises A and B as part of the argument a way to negate it, is by using that rule. Like I don't see how just A and B can exist on their own in question. I feel like there must be either A and B -> C or C -> A and B included when encountering this in a question. Greatly appreciate any comments or help someone could add!

#Help

Just some late words of encouragement for those taking the January exam. I tested in November and during the first section (LG) I was interrupted by the proctor 3 separate times, and not once did she pause my time. Because of this, I was unable to answer the final two Qs of the section. I was very frustrated because I was PTing at -0 to -1 on LG and believed I needed to match that on the exam to have any hope of achieving my goal score. As the next section began, I tried my best to put the disappointment behind me and focus on the rest of the exam. I’m glad I did because I remember feeling very good about how I did on the remainder of the test. And lo and behold, when the scores were released, I receive my exact goal score. Obviously, if you encounter some major issues, you are likely going to want to appeal for a retest. But if you hit some obstacles along the way, just try your best to put it behind you and focus on what’s still ahead. You never know, things might just work out in the end. Good luck!

I was browsing youtube in my daily routine to relax before the test when all of a sudden, I got hit with a deja vu moment. For those who remember the RC passage about the ultraviolet catastrophe:

Enjoy~

Hi Everyone,

I updated my foolproofing notebook for PT's 59-83. Did this a couple years ago with PT's 20-44, but have noticed more unusual games on the newer tests. My hunch is 7sage's foolproofing method and others like it effectively broke the curve on old tests with standard games, hence the higher occurrence of unusual games on newer tests.

In any case, if you have any tablet with stylus support that can run OneNote, this is a great way to take and retake the newer logic games for foolproofing. Also a good simulation for the digital LSAT*

Screenshots below:

https://ibb.co/SmnV063

https://ibb.co/mRR3qy0

https://ibb.co/wppmjNq

(Black boxes only present to hide protected content; not present in actual notebook)

Please reach out to me if you'd like a soft copy of this digital workbook. I'll need you to confirm that you already have legal access to PT's 59-83 & PT 86.

This took a long time to put together. Accordingly while I'm not charging for it, any contribution is appreciated. Took a 3 month hiatus from my career to prep for the August LSAT, and the extra cash would certainly help.

Thanks,

Hari

*I do not recommend this as a standalone for LSATflex prep. I noticed the switching back and forth from scratch paper to a screen in front of you further stresses short-term memory and requires a lot of practice to adjust to.

Does anyone have a good way to explain flaw/descriptive weakening questions and how to approach them? I am still confused after reviewing all the lessons and doing the practice problems. I always fail to identify the flaw made in the argument and end up getting the wrong answer. It just seems like there are many ways to point out the flaw and there are diff types of flaws, so can anyone share some tips on how you identify them/what helps you to understand the flaw in the argument?? thank you!

I want to know why answer E is wrong. In Manhattan Prep. It says "everyday food" is irrelevent to the question. However, couldnt water be part of everyday food? Is this also making assumptions?

Admin note: edited title

Hey guys! This is probably a pretty obvious question, but I'm just confirming something. I took the LSAT for the first time last September and completed a writing sample for it, as it shows on my LSAC account. I am taking the test again next week, and on the LSAC website listed above my previous writing sample it says that for this upcoming LSAT, I need to complete the writing sample "as soon as possible." To my knowledge, we only need to have one writing sample on file, so I don't need to complete this one as well, right? I'm just confirming so I don't have any issues next week. Thanks! :D