Hi all,

I hope someone may be able to clue me in as to what I'm doing wrong with this problem. This is a MBT.

Special kinds of cotton that grow fibers of green or brown have been around since the 1930s but only recently became commercially feasible when a long-fibered variety that can be spun by machine was finally bred. Since the cotton need not be dyed, processing plants avoid the expense of dyeing and the ecological hazards of getting rid of leftover dye and by-products.

So I understood how to diagram the stimulus. "Spun by machine --> commercially viable"

When I looked at answer choice (B): Green and brown cottons that can be spun only by hand are not commercially viable" I diagrammed it as "Spun by hand --> /commercially viable". In order to get to answer choice (B), you would need to negate the sufficient and necessary which gives "/Spun by machine --> /commercially viable" which is an invalid argument form (mistake in negation).

What am I doing wrong? I am having a hard time seeing how answer choice (B) can be diagrammed as "/commercially viable -->spun by hand" Thanks!

Pretty clueless on this one. I narrowed the answer to B or C during the exam, and I couldn't do any better during BR. Turns out, the answer is E :/ Can someone break down all of the answer choices? Even though I got rid of A and D, I'm not convinced that I got rid of them with good reasoning.

Stranger is same age- MOST feel comfortable approaching that stranger. Long term friendship start MOST someone felt comfortable approaching a stranger. Therefore, long term friends probably the same age.

What I am looking for: No clue. I don't really understand the argument with this one. Can any of the diagrams link up (not that it really matters)? JY does it in the videos, but I don't see how the approaching the stranger ideas are the same thing. Here is the video: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-61-section-4-question-24/

Changed my answer during the exam from D to A, but only because of POE. I still don't really understand how D is a sufficient assumption.

This is a PSA question.

Although we have learned a lot, we are ignorant of a lot of things dealing with organisms. Allowing species that we are indifferent about to die would hurt the viability of other species. Therefore, if we have an interest in preserving any species, we should try to preserve the maximum number of species.

What I am looking for: If allowing a species that we are indifferent about to perish might undermine the viability of other species→we should preserve the max number of species.

Answer A: I fell for this bullshit answer. This just affirms the sufficient condition in the conclusion. It does nothing to address the relationship between the premise and conclusion.

Answer B: I think the passage implies the opposite. If we held action to this high of a standard, then how would prevent the death of a species that we are indifferent about?

Answer C: Human populations? Totally irrelevant.

Answer D: I was pretty iffy with this one, even when I changed it during BR. This states Allow change→Change won't jeopardize anything important to us. I am really having a tough time seeing how this paraphrases what I was looking for, though. How are these ideas relevant to the stimulus? Where is the idea of something being important mentioned in the stimulus?

Answer E: Best consequence for immediate future? Irrelevant idea.

Hi,

I've looked at lot of explanations (I have starter so I don't have access to 7Sage explanation) and I'm still not able to understand this one. I figured out the conditionals during the test, but I still don't fully understand how to approach/figure out this problem

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-59-section-3-question-19/

I need a word of encouragement and/or advice. This is embarrassing to me. I passed reading comprehension in elementary school and I took a course in Humanities at both the high school and college levels whereby I passed both classes with ease. However, for both Humanities classes high school and college, reading comprehension was not tested like test questions on the LSAT. I talked to a librarian who informed me that reading comprehension is can be highly opinionated. Furthermore, for inference questions, the answer is usually something that I would have never thought of - way out there in left field. I've tried GRE reading comprehension study guides and have been able to go through the questions with ease all answers correct. However, on a different day in a different mood, I've tried other non-LSAT practice test from other sources whose name I will not mention by means of embarrassment and was not able to get a single answer right. What's happening and what needs to change besides my attitude toward LSAT reading comprehension. I feel totally embarrassed by this, but I am encouraged to know that in reading the discussions that I am not the only person totally upset, frustrated and having problems or issues with reading comprehension. Please help. In my opinion, the basic concept or idea of RC comes from the basic elementary school theory of RC, how well did you understand the material of what you read, "Reading for understanding". For a person who has been speaking and reading the English language for quite some time, several, many years; elementary, high school and college and has passed elementary school, high school and college; how can this be; difficult with wrong answers...??? !!! Again PLEASE HELP or explain.

Hi everyone!

I'm new here. I've been studying for the LSAT since August 2015 with the intension of taking October. I enrolled in a TestMasters course in August but I just couldn't get my score above 145 before October's exam. I decided to postpone and registered for December using The LSAT Trainer and Prep Tests 62-71.

Unfortunately, I only improved a few points (my highest score 152 and my average usually 148-149.) With a week away from the test, I am close to accepting that I have to swallow my pride and withdraw from December. Sitting out the cycle sucks but I know in the long haul a stronger score can get me into a top school with scholarship.

If I take this route, I will register for June and most likely enroll in 7sage's Ultimate package giving myself 5-6 months of prep. I am aiming for the early 160s and quite possibly the mid-160s.

Just to give a brief synopsis of my habits for the past four months. For the most part, I conceptually understand a good amount of the material. I understand conditional logic, quantifiers, etc. For LG, making deductions, overlapping rules, etc. However, I do think I have great test anxiety and preform poorly on my PTs by re-reading questions, losing focus and not being able to apply my skills under timed conditions. My strongest section is LG (-6 to -8) followed by LR (-10 to -12) and worst RC (-15 to -17).

If you can help me with some advice, that would be great!

1) Is it best if I withdraw next week and keep my record clean with no re-takes?

2) Is it possible to jump from 148-152 to 160-165 with 7sage in 5-6 months?

Please let me know what you think. Thank you!

Ethan

I'm confused to when to diagram. some inference Q are obvious with logical indicators. Some are hidden or have causation in the argument and qualifiers (maybe, could etc). When do you diagram? what's the general rule?

Hello all!

I have but 8 day till the December Lsat's and I am at a terrible position. I am doing poor on all 3 sections. I can only get 3/4 passages on RC section and 3/4 games in LGs. My LR section results are terrible as well. Iv decided to focus only on 3 passages for RCs, and work on improving my LG and LR sections.

I would like some suggestions how to best spend the next 8 days. Should I focus on doing mix of lr and lgs? Should I devote one day to LR and one to LG'S? Or spend the next 8 days doing as much Full tests as possible?

Any suggestions, criticisms, ha ha's welcomed! Thanks

Hey Everyone!

So, LG and RC have always been my weakest sections. I'm working on RC now, and don't feel like I should post a thread requesting help since I haven't been able to isolate what it is about the section that drives me crazy -probably timing.

However, I've been drilling LGs on and off for the last 4 months, and I've yet to complete an entire section. The most I've completed were 3 games, with a -1 score between the three.

That said, I know my issue with LG is timing and sometimes the initial set-up. It takes me anywhere from 10-15 minutes to complete a game, regardless of how simple the game is. That said, is there any advice you guys and gals can offer? Now that I have another 6-8 months to study, I'm going to implement the "fool proof" method more than I have before.

Also, regarding LG when should we try to draw out all of the possibilities? Often I'll look at my initial set-up and think "Well...there are probably a ton of possibilities...off to the questions!" I then find out from J.Y's video that there were only 6-8 possibilities. After watching the videos, I beat myself up about not realizing that I could have cut my time in half by just writing out/finding all of the possibilities. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess.

My issue with determining whether I can write out all of the possibilities is timing. I worry that I'll waste time only to find out that there are more possibilities than I assumed, and that my now-random hypotheticals won't apply to any of the questions.

I had a hard time distinguishing the actual flawed reasoning here. I initially chose A because the logic matched perfectly, but changed my answer to E because E was more obviously flawed. My question is: when in doubt like this, is it best to just match the logic perfectly without worrying too much about identifying the flaw itself and just move on?

Here's JY's explanation: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-69-section-1-question-14/

Purpose of proving grounds: Designed to be so demanding that only those students most committed to being science majors will receive passing grades in these courses.

C: Designing introductory science courses to serve as proving grounds has not served its intended purpose

Premise: Studies show that some of the students in these very demanding intro courses who are least enthusiastic about science receive passing grades in these courses.

There is a gap here between "most committed to being majors" and "least enthusiastic about science."

What if those who are least enthusiastic are most committed to being science majors and passed the course? That would destroy the author's argument because the sole premise now becomes irrelevant.

However, I feel D is more like a sufficient assumption rather than necessary assumption. Let's negate D : some of the students who are least enthusiastic are among the students most committed to being science majors. However, with this negation, there are still two possibilities: (1) least enthusiastic +most committed + passed the course; (2) least enthusiastic + most committed+ not passed the course. So if all the students mentioned in D fall within the second the possibility, the conclusion still stands. So could anyone explain why D is a necessary one as it is broader than what we need.

Hi all, could someone help me see why B is not supported? The way I see it, the scientist shouldn't be allowed to profit from his technology... But if he isn't ALLOWED to do something, isn't that a restriction? And doesn't that go against the statement "Society should not restrict the performance... except to prevent negative effects" ?

His profiting wouldn't cause negative effects; it just wouldn't spread the benefits around. The second part of answer B says that allowing others to profit wouldn't diminish the scientist's own profits. But that's irrelevant, isn't it? Either way, it's still limiting/restricting the scientist. This seems inconsistent to me.

Thank you so much! I feel like I'm missing something very obvious here.

Hey all, can someone explain to me why BOTH X and Y don’t have to be before Z?

For example, for question number 8, JY said for answer choice C, X can go before Z as long as Y goes after Z. I am having trouble with my fundamentals, please help, thanks!

When I do games, does not matter which type, I prefer to make as any boards as possible because this decreases the probability that I will get answers wrong. However, on some games, there are many probabilities and it takes more time than I want to spend on creating new boards. But, when I attempt not to make as many boards, it seems that I get more answers wrong.

Any advice on how I can come to a happy medium?????

Could anyone explain why D rather than C is correct?

P: (1) most of the new shows produced last year by WW were canceled;

(2) this year's new shows are all police dramas, and few police dramas have been popular in recent years

C: most of this year's new shows will be canceled

To strengthen, we want to make last year and this year more similar. So it is better to find sth like last year's police dramas were cancelled.

C： police drama --> cancelled

D: cancelled --> police drama

I feel both C and D could fulfill the gap.

Hey everyone. I have a problem with this question because of the wording in answer choice D). While it could explain why recovery is better for those in small hospitals, it explicitly talks about medical procedures in larger hospitals. Is that not inherently different from illnesses, which is what is referred to in the stimulus?

Just wondering what others think?

Hi, I would appreciate if anyone could explain why E is correct as now I am confused when could we make assumption in the Lsat.

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

Hey everyone. After much contemplation, I needed some clarification for this one.

(E) says the “province could keep its workers and use them more effectively, with a resulting savings of $600 million in its out-of-province expenditures.”  I get the concept of paying for the workers by using them more effectively. 

JY says the money to pay for the workers is coming from  “$600 million in cost savings.” 

So does the cost savings refer to the “$600 million in its out-of-province expenditures?” 

Does this mean that after the government has refunded the $600 million to the taxpayers- they still have another $600 million left in their budget and they’re going to be very thrifty with that money by cutting down certain expenses? 

Thanks.

Hello, I am having a trouble understanding this rule:

H occupies the aisle seat immediately behind G's aisle seat. Why are we putting G in the aisle seat? What about this:

3 _ H

2 G _

1 _ _

Isn't H still immediately behind G's aisle seat?

Thank you

I've studied for the LSAT for the past 8 months and have written the LSAT before so it won't be my first (or even second) sitting. I've been writing a PT most, if not every, weekend for as long as I remember. I'm scoring in a range on my timed PTs that if I were to get the average of those scores on test day I could close this chapter of my life and be happy (again, if I score closer to my BR scores I'll be even happier!).

Despite all this and feeling confident I have some nerves that are starting to build as we inch closer to the exam. I find that meditation (love that 24 minute one on the site) is helping a lot but still sometimes late at night my mind begins to wander. Anyone else feeling the same?

Maybe when that happens I should go for a midnight jog.

Can someone name a few games that require a lot of brute force. These seems to be the one that trip me up the most during LG sections and I want to drill them before the Dec. exam.

I didn't circle this during BR, and I am really struggling to justify D over B. Here is my breakdown:

This is a weaken/descriptive flaw question.

Sites are needed for disposal of this thing (whatever it is). However, the approach you want would hurt the fishing business. Evidence of this is a petition that was signed by over 20,000 people opposing your approach and favoring this other approach (sand capped pits).

What I am looking for: I think the argument is pretty simple enough to understand. Is the petition really evidence that the other guy's approach would actually hurt the fishing business? What if all the people who signed the petition were corporate shills or fisherman lobbyists? Also, the argument implies that the other approach (sand capped pits) would not hurt the fishing business. We know nothing about this other approach.

Answer A: The author doesn't straw man the editor. The author is using evidence to support his claim (even though it is weak evidence).

Answer B: This is what I picked, and I was 100% confident. Doesn't the argument do this? Doesn't the argument just throw in this random other approach (sand capped pits) without establishing that it could work? We have no evidence that it actually fits the needs of disposing the spoils. Viable means "capable of working successfully; feasible." The idea of "one indication" to me introduces evidence/premise for the conclusion. Wouldn't the "indication"/evidence/support given be completely irrelevant if their proposed alternate approach wasn't viable?

Answer C: The author doesn't indicate what his interests are.

Answer D: I am having a very tough time understanding how this one is correct. I eliminated this over the word "testimony." How is signing a petition testimony? According to Google, testimony means "a formal written or spoken statement, especially one given in a court of law." A petition is "a formal written request, typically one signed by many people, appealing to authority with respect to a particular cause." How are these two the same thing? Specifically, the idea that a "written statement" is the same thing as a "written request" seems extremely dubious to me. If the word "testimony" were replaced with "appeal," then I could better understand what this was going for. Testimony seems such a bad synonym for what the evidence actually is in the argument.

Answer E: No third option? We don't care. We only care about the two options in the argument.

I cannot make heads are tails of this argument/figure out what it is talking about. I had no idea what any of the answer choices were doing since I couldn't understand the argument. Can someone break it down for me? This is my best paraphrase (which isn't much):

After an oil spill, rehab centers were set up to clean the oil off sea otters. The effort wasn't worth it. This is where I just flat out can't figure out what is going on. What is the rest of the argument trying to even say?

Hello All:

Quick preface:

1. I am taking the Dec. 2015 LSAT.

2. I started at 132

3. average PT score is 152/154

4. Target Score: ANYTHING over 160. Must apply this cycle for a reason in which i can't disclose (too personal), and although i wish it was, it is by no means flexible (i'll give ya a small hint... Uncle Sam isn't too happy with the delayed student visa).

5. Any tips would be greatly appreciated!

EDIT: "The online tutor that gave me this RC advice was NOT @nicole.hopkins . His name is D*****

I was on a Skype tutoring session earlier this week with a tutor i met from Reddit, his name is D****, and the tutor advised me to slow down and attempt less questions, and work on accuracy... i'm still trying to find my sweet spot.

On the RC section, instead of attempting all 4 passages, I only attempted 2 and worked on accuracy. It felt kind of weird, but based on the last 2 PT's iv'e taken and employed this strategy, It looks good so far.. only missed 2 on this PT (PT67)

On the LG section, I didn't slow down.. you either know it or you don't. i came out -4 because they were all time sinks.

On both LR sections, i attempted as many as i could, but slowed down a bit and tried to internalize every single word i read. Again, it feels a little weird not gunning for the whole section, but i did as many as i could, as fast as i could, just 20 miles-per hour slower, also making sure I was hitting at the minimum 17

Here's the breakdown:

Section 1 (RC) - 13/27 (-14). Did the first 2 passages only. got -2 on all questions attempted. the rest were guesses, and i only got 1 guess right.

Section 2 (LR1) - 11/25 (-14)- Guessed 6 (-6), -8 for questions attempted. -8 = -2 Sufficient assumption, -1weaken, -2flaw, -1 Disagree (crazy one!), -1 Main Conc. , -1 Most strongly supported.

**all questions skipped were in the end except for #17 (parallel)

Section 3 (LG) - 18/22 (-4) 2 questions were those "rule substitute" prompt (takes too long, guessed and moved on) and the other 2 were diagram errors. will fix that.

Section 4 (LR2)- 16/26 (-10) -6 were guesses and -4 were incorrect ones: -1 Main Conc., -2 Resolve, -1 Sufficient Assumption.

by the way... my BR's are still not going over 160. What is REALLY weird is that when i drill sections or drill sets, i go between -4 and -8, which is what i wish i was.

Thank you for taking the time to help a fellow 7sager out.

for all taking the Dec LSAT, I'd wish you good luck... BUT WE DON'T NEED IT! we are going to crush it!

Soooo I just took the PT with the dinosaur game and it's freaking me out because I'm worried I'll face something this crazy on the real thing. Do you guys have any advice on preparing for hybrids?