http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-4-question-07/

I'm confused as to why the answer can't be C.

If supply goes down, and halibut is NOT replaced by other fish, then that means that supply has gone down, and even if demand stays the same the price will go up according to the law of supply and demand. There is nothing to suggest that demand will decrease in this scenario.

Hello I am taking the January LSAT next week and I have two questions. I am struggling with flaw questions when its not one of the common flaws listed. I have tried using the piecewise analysis when looking at answer choices, or trying to see if its descriptively accurate and weakens but I am still struggling to get them right. I think I also have issues because I am trying to not negate the premises and conclusions, but some of the correct answer choices does negate them? I think its hard for me to recognize a flaw because I get overwhelmed that there is so many ways to destroy an argument.

I feel like i am missing easy points if anyone has any tips

i got this answer choice correct but im not sure why successful is negated ; i think its because initially successful is necessary and to make it sufficient yoiu have to negate; i know why prime purchasers is negated

Hi, I am confused on LSAT 29 – Section 1 – Question 16. I don’t understand why we don’t have to assume PIE falls into the group of languages that lacks words for prominent elements. In comparison to LSAT 20 – Section 4 – Question 25, which has a similar structure to this problem, answer choice C would force us to assume that Marianne’s involuntary humming is something that she is aware of, which would undermine the premise, but that assumption makes the answer choice incorrect. Why in this problem can we make the assumption, but the other problem, we cannot?

Thank you!

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.

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.

Hi everyone,

I am having difficulties finding an approach for detail-heavy passages, i.e. that don't have much of an argument to them but instead a lot of facts and details (For example Passage #1 - Burning Forests of LSAT 38/114 Section III). Since I usually focus on finding the argument and author's tone in each passage, I often lose of a lot of time going back to the details to answer the questions for this kind of passage.

Does anyone have any tips or strategy?

Thank you!

What is the contrapositive of a biconditional like this: A (--) B and C

Would it be: /B or /C (--) /A

How do y'all review for RC like untimed/timed sections for wrong and flagged questions?

During the problem set, this game really stumped me, because it doesn't use any typical gameboard setup and I had a really hard time finding an effective way to successfully visualize and toggle all the variables. JY's explanation (https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-31-section-1-game-4/) had an okay game setup, but I still didn't like how it didn't represent the 2 vs 3-day possibilities or the distribution of the tasks over the days.

While I did only mediocre during my timed take of this game, during blind review I went back to the beginning and brainstormed ways to set up the board to fully and effectively represent all the variables, and I came up with this: (not sure the imgur embed is working so pls copy and paste this link into your browser) www.imgur.com/a/DKBdjxB https://imgur.com/a/DKBdjxB

This setup accounts for all possible gameboards (since the boards are determined by the Day and Task divisions) and there are only 5 (I realized the 5th possibility after I made the imgur link and cant be bothered to do it again, but it's a Day 1: FWT, Day 2: S, Day 3: P gameboard). I wrote the possible Crew Members next to each task in subscript, and kept rule 3b (Max 1 task/CM/Day) HEAVILY in mind. With this visualization of the game, the questions don't take much time at all!

For Q'S 19 and 21, I went down my second column and eliminated any answers that didn't have either I or K, then elim any without L or O, then any without L or G, etc. Made these Q's way faster than when I did the set timed, and with this info setup these questions took only 20-30 seconds each.

For the other 3 questions, you have to kind of blunt force them, but because you have all possible game boards you can kind of blunt force them in your head if you choose. This is where you want to keep rule 3b heavily in your mind, but be aware it can get jumbled in your head bc you're trying to track so many things.

Just wanted to share my game board set up because it made this game a thousand times easier, and I hope other people can benefit from this.

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?

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.

Hello!

I am currently progressing through the LR section and I am finding that I am understanding each section OK but I am very confused as to how to more overall identify when I am dealing with an argument versus when I am not. The causality arguments in the WSE section are also confusing me, as JY talks about how there are different kinds of them and I am also finding it hard to differentiate between an Alternative Cause Argument and the Basic One-Off Causal Argument among others. Can someone help summarize these in a way thats easy to understand?? Thanks so much!

How can I properly drill my LR. Should I go up in difficulty as time goes on, or should I mix the difficulty up? Should I focus on one question type at a time, or should I again mix up the question types. When should I do full sections timed? For context, I have been studying for over a year now and have already taken the exam with LG games, Now trying one last time either September or October.

Hello! Was working on this obsolete exam RC as practice and unfortunately only got 2/6 correct. Was wondering if anyone could please explain questions 16, 17, 18, and 20. Thank you!

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 always have a difficult time answering these kinds of questions because

A: I'm not sure how to graph these kinds of questions, and

B: The clock is ticking down, so I wouldn't have time to graph anyway.

The assumption is obvious in both questions, it's just that when I get to eliminating all but 2 answer choices, I often pick the falsely negated AC. Is there a way I can improve my ability to spot the incorrect answer in this situation without spending 3+ minutes graphing? Any helpful tips/techniques? Thank you very much!

I am confused about how to classify the different question types into formal logic vs. those that use informal logic. For example, would you classify MBT as formal logic because it uses conditionals, but WSE as informal because it uses primarily the spectrum of support? Would other types fall in the middle, like SA, which some answers/questions involve conditionals and the spectrum of support?

Just a recommendation, I think it would be great if you can create random problem sets using sets of PT's. For example, using PT 1-35, all of its LR questions, to randomly throw at you. After answering the question the correct answer as well as the solution is presented. Very much how the LSAT Demon works, I think its a useful design for casual practice.

Parallel questions have been a huge flaw of mine in PT and drilling, does any1 have any tips that will help me not be utterly confused?

Do you guys scan the answers or just jump right in and try out games?

I realize this is very game dependent. I usually scan the answers choices quickly, but if nothing jumps out I force myself to jump right into trying out all the answers. I found myself wasting time on open ended game boards trying to think about why an answer choice could be correct, and coming up with nothing for all my "thinking" time. So know I try to just jump right into testing the answers.

Today I came across a game, LSAT 10, Game 4 http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-10-section-2-game-4/, that has me rethinking my strategy. I didn't make the inference at the start that Y must be in, though I DID make the difference that at least one of X/Z must be out. When I got to question 23, I quickly looked at my master game board didn't come up with any that must be in, so just jumped right in to trying out the possibilities. I got through A and B, before scanning the remainder of the choices and quickly realized that Y must be in.

The game took way too long in general, not just because of this question, but still interested in how you guys handle "thinking" about correct answer choices, or just jumping in and trying possibilities.

Hey all, I've heard various things about RC becoming increasingly difficult over recent tests and wondered if anyone who has recently taken an official test can attest to this? Do the 156+ (previously 90s) tests or the 148-155 (previously the 80s) mirror the current test?

Anybody in the Phoenix area down to form a study group?

Hey all, I'm struggling to understand why AC A in PT 119, Section 1, Question 14, is incorrect. I've reviewed the video explanation, online forums, and comments, but the best explanation I could come up with is below. Help on understanding this would be much appreciated - I've thought through this for several days but am still confused. I've never been this stumped after reviewing a wrong RC answer.

Q14: I understand why AC C is correct but am still struggling to eliminate A, especially since A seemed supported by lines 37-40 "personal and cultural screens of silence and secretiveness that have enshrouded her past". Here are a few things that I believe discredit A as a viable answer choice:

Although this might be a subtle distinction, in this context "history" means a a factual record of historical facts, where Naomi "reconciles" history - in other words uncovers or accepts difficult truths about her personal history and the historical context in which she lived.

Heritage, as JY alludes to, refers to cultural or ancestral legacy, including cultural traditions.

In this case, being discouraged from exploring heritage is not supported(?). I would still argue that if AC A references history (not heritage) it might be supported by lines 37-40. Even with the distinction between history and heritage, I'm not fully convinced that A is not supported. These in-text lines refer to cultural secretiveness. Does this mean that Naomi was discouraged from seeking her heritage? Secretiveness of the past does seem to refer to a form of discouragement.

I chose D but the right answer was B. Looking back at it, now it makes sense.