Hi,

I'm having a lot of trouble eliminating D on this question, and would love some help if possible! My reasoning:

D) Was the species to which the recently discovered [earlier] dinosaur [X] belonged related to T. rex?

If yes, and T. rex descended from X, this seems to strengthen the author's argument as it suggests that the T. rex features evolved in an earlier ancestor that evidently did not require them for its size. In this scenario the features would have just been passed down to the T. rex, offering an alternate explanation to the scientists' hypothesis and strengthening the author's argument.

If no, and the T. rex and X were unrelated, I feel like this would weaken the author's argument as it would make it difficult to compare the two dinosaurs. Even if X did not evolve these features to support its size, T. rex still may have and it's just a coincidence that they are similar. This would leave us back where we started as the author's evidence for calling the scientists' hypothesis into question is now irrelevant.

Any help clearing this up would be greatly appreciated, I've spent way too long on this question :P

I don't understand how you would go about this question because all of the answer choices sound bad. Why would A be the answer? Is it because you're pointing out a potential alternate cause?

yep, as expected, LG3 f-Ed me over. But it's ok because I didn't suck at the other sections. I'm also well within the median for my goal school. But yeah, Game3, how cruel a fate.

Just took PT 84 - wondering if anyone found the LR kind of weird? Not hard per se, but for example PT 84 S2 Q2 (an NA) was more of a soft NA answer? They are usually a lot more clear. Idk maybe I’m just being picky but I found there were a couple questions where the answers were a lot more subtle to me.


Anyways, onto PT 84 S2 Q11

I knew AC was right but crossed it off because I thought it attacked a premise. Looking back it appears I misread the stimulus.

The premise says: “Many features ..." Admin Note: I deleted the premise and Answer Choice C as it is against our Forum Rules to post LSAT questions on the Forum.

And AC C says: "Excessive blinking ..."


I thought that the stimulus read “excessive blinking is not such a feature of confidence” (rather than saying "blink rate is not a feature")

My question is, if it had said what I thought it said, would AC C have been an attack on the premise like I thought it was?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-84-section-2-question-11/

Hello 7 sage, I was trying to find any notation/annotation methods and strategies for RC but unfortunately couldn't find any. Can anyone please provide me with the link to them. I saw references of methods from @Pacifico and Nicole Hopkins but couldn't find them =(

The title says it all but I'd really like to know what exactly do you do when you get questions incorrect for RC, especially confidence errors? I have questions where I literally cite the lines I get my answers from and it still turns out to be...incorrect. My first instinct is to look at the answer key after BR and the 7sage video but I'd like to get any tips on how to improve my protocol because the routine I've been doing isn't getting me beyond the mid-160's.

And as always, if anyone reading this post is exceptional with RC, I am also open to any one-on-one tutoring you could provide. If that is the case, I would like to see your score first and have a trial lesson before I fully commit. I want someone who could teach me some overarching concepts about RC because I've been mainly focused on trying to understand the content of the passages alone and it isn't working. I categorized this post as RC but honestly, it can extend to LR as well. And I will pay you by hour after the session is over before we log off zoom.

A: Hawthorne is unethical because he sold the influence to environmental interest group; there is no justification

M: Nope, he's not unethical because It's environmental interest group preventing pollution doing good to public.

Need help:

I kind of get why AC B is right but do not understand why D is wrong because how I also see the above is:

=>His gaining private benefit by selling unethical vs. His action somehow benefiting the public ethical

Can someone explain?

I've been studying for this test properly for about a year now, meaning that I've been taking practice tests and blind reviewing them. I've been somewhat familiarizing myself with the LSAT material for about two years now but only last year did I start taking practice LSATs. I've taken 20-30 practice tests until now. I was feeling fairly confident until I took my last three LSATs, which are recent. I scored a 164 on two of them and a 163 on one of them. When I blind reviewed those exams my score went up anywhere from a 170 to a177. I'm aiming for one of the top 20 law schools and, therefore, my score of 164 won't cut it. What do you guys think I should do? and do you think that I could potentially achieve my BR score on a timed LSAT?

Thanks for your feedback.

I'm still confused as to how and why Jon's explanation in the video is used to express answer choice A is correct and answer choice C is wrong. I'm not following his logic in the video. Can somebody please explain this? Also there was a comment below the video that there are plenty of old LSAT questions with similar type of errors. I'm not sure, but can somebody point out those questions and the type of error? Thanks.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-1-question-16/

I used Loophole + my own method to make the LR formulaic as much as i could atleast. This method will help with NA, weakness, and strengthening questions for most part. other questions are i think much easier

P1: Infection with vaccine is coincidence

Conclusion: Vaccine is not of any concern

Loophole "what if" method apply leading to negated conclusion to show it can be of concern

"What if" x can be of a concern

What if infection with vaccine has worse outcome then it is of concern.

NA would be: infection with vaccine is same outcome/severity

Weakness: Worse severity

Strengthening: same or lesser severity

What if basically doing it this way helps you pick up the gap to play with. LMK if anyone has any questions. Feel free to put in your inputs thanks!.

I previously chose B and got it wrong. I now see why A is the correct answer.

The question stated "People would not follow a leader if they felt there was nothing they could gain by following that leader. Therefore, even those leaders who are incompetent or evil bring some good to their followers."

In lawgic, this translates to "If they felt there was nothing they could gain by following that leader, people would not follow a leader. Therefore, even those leaders who are incompetent or evil bring some good to their followers."

Nothing to Gain (/GA) --> Not Follow a Leader (/FL). So /GA-->/FL. The contrapositive of this is FL-->GA. (If you follow a leader, then you have something to gain).

Following Incompetent or Evil Leader (FIEL) --> Bring Some Good (BG). So FIEL-->BSG

A most closely matches this.

(Expound upon theories) EUO-->BT (Believe are True)

(Any theory expounded) ATE-->GOT (Grain of Truth)

B talks about worst circumstances and then vicious people. But A sticks with the subject of theories being expounded upon, and the stimulus talks about following leaders.

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

Specific reference questions ("the author mentions X primarily in order to..." and so forth) are the only RC question type I really have not mastered at all and they come up in almost every PT. If anyone has any resources that would be great.

Hi all,

Do any of you have a list of all the strange games?

Please note that the information below will change to reflect the information we get! Contribute if you can via the official September 2017 LSAT discussion (linked at the bottom of this thread) without going into too much detail. If you think something is wrong or should be added, please post in the thread and let me know.

Real Sections:

LG:

-Types of Food/Specials in Different Restaurants

-Students/Assignments

-Investigators/Suspects

-Films/Theatres

RC:

-Forests/Deforestation and Plantations

-Judges/Opinions

-Native American Language/Radio

-Directive/General Theories (Marx/Freud)

LR:

-Cars Sold to Junkyards for Parts

-Moose/Deer

-Jazz

-Crows Divebombing/Masks

-Raven Feeding Experiment

-Cuttlefish

-Acme Automotive

-Cost of Energy Use/Two Towns

-Perimeter Lights/Vandalism

-Nuts/Calories/Weight

-Disease X/Protein/Heart Disease

-Computer/Basic Skills

-Shakespeare Play

-Morally Right/Wrong Criteria/Revealing a Secret

-Gold Artifacts and Mines/China

-Beads Used as Currency

-Homophones

-Tarantula

-Pet Owner's Allergies

Experimental Sections:

LG:

-Violins/Instruments

-People/Cities

-Foresters

RC:

-Astronomy

-WWI Activist

-Louvre

-Pyramids

-Quantum Theory

LR:

Art Critic/Opera

UNCONFIRMED:

If you can confirm that these are real / experimental, please do so by PMing me or posting in the main thread.

LG:

LR:

This thread is closed for discussion. Official post Sept. LSAT discussion stickied!

I’m currently working through the MSS drills in the main curriculum. I’ve been taking my time make sure my accuracy is good, but when should I be concerned about getting the target time? I’m so worried about waisting questions. Is it okay to take 2+ minutes per question while drilling or do I need to pick up the pace?

Having a question about context and details!

While reading third paragraph of this last paragraph, the part "glorification"~ made me make a narrative that nationalists may have exaggerated achievements and there could be questions regarding this point.

Looking into Q22 (C)

Most historians- should be specifically "US" historians

Make the histories of the nations about which they wrote seem more glorious than they actually were

I thought it's correct as glorification could be interpreted as exaggeration. Thus, making it more glorious than they actually were.

Does "glorify" exclude the meaning of exaggeration?

As a non-native speaker, some words are confusing...

Any tips for improving context interpretation is also welcomed:)

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-61-section-1-passage-4-questions/

Hi everyone--just wondering if people have advice on how to improve with these problem types? I've found that I consistently underperform on these games and I'm not sure why--I think my main difficulty is maintaining all the rules and working within time, but generally I find that I get "stuck" with them more consistently than I do with grouping or regular "in/out" games. Thanks so much!

Please help

Lines 7 and 8 are freezing my comprehension, relegate, periphery and antecedents. Any suggestions. The author lost me.

When I get lost, it's hard for me to determine if the big picture of the passage is positive, negative or neutral, agree or disagree.

Please help. Thank you.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-1-passage-4-passage/

I picked the right answer. But I wanna extract as much as possible from this question.

I noticed a nuance in the question stem "an element of". But how this is different from the ordinary question stem which simply ask what the author's attitude is best expressed?

I feel the correct answer would still be credit nicely even tho the question stem has no "an element of". But, given the sneakiness of the test maker, I believe there is something I missed.

Any insights? Thanks for your time.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-1-passage-2-questions/

im taking the exam in person and when i went on lawhub and clicked lsat it said information on scheulding with a proctor has been sent to you, i just wanted to know if you guys see that also or i missed out on an email or something

I saw a question on 90.1.16 that states "Which one of the following is a central purpose according to both passages?"

One answer choice reads "To trace the historical development of an important idea"

Could anyone point me to a specific passage for which this answer is applicable?

Thanks!

I would like to discuss the LSAT maker's rationale under this question and its corresponding sentence (in line 30-31).

It seems obvious that in line 30-31 the reduced clause--"considered by programmers to be unimportant."--is to make the correct answer of Q4 more reasonable and obvious for test-takers.

But it looks to me that (E) still makes sense even if the reduced clause is scratched off.

If so, then what is the test maker's purpose to add the reduced clause? I would find it very surprising if the only purpose is to give us a head-up that soundtrack referred to in line 30 is intentionally emphasized.

How do you think? Any insights or comments would be very appreciated.

thanks.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-87-section-1-passage-1-questions/

I thought that it was irrelevant, and therefore did not "support" additionally the paleontologist's conclusion.

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

So I've noticed that the introduction of the reading comprehension portion of the course does a pretty good job of preparing you for scientific readings. They discuss Phenomena, Hypotheses, readjusting a hypothesis following the observation of a new set of phenomena that rests outside the previously discussed hypothesis, etc. etc. The whole approach allows me to follow the chronological order of the scientific process discussed in the passages with confidence.

Do similar discussions exist for the other passage types like Law and Humanities? I am teasing out certain aspects on my own, like arguments and counterarguments often being in the law passages. But it's less direct than with the science passages. Any tips would be super appreciated!