Hello,

I don't understand why E is correct. I chose B. Could someone please explain why the right answer is right and the wrong answers are wrong? Thank you in advance.

I had a very hard time differentiating D and C, I chose C since I thought D was descriptively inaccurate.

Parents who want to give their kids a good foundation in music should give them a good musical education. Formal instruction is sometimes apart of a good musical education. Therefore, a strong foundation needs to have formal instruction.

What I am looking for: Just because formal instruction sometimes works, it doesn't mean that it is necessary.

Answer A: So what?

Answer B: Who cares about if the kid is interested.

Answer C: This is what I chose after I eliminated D. This says, some people who have formal instruction don't have good musical ability. Knowing that D is correct, I think this would have worked if "ability" were substituted with "education." This would have made this answer choice exactly like D, but my problem with D is stated below.

Answer D: I don't see how this is the answer since it is descriptively inaccurate. The question stem asks us to point out something that the argument "fails to consider." Doesn't the argument consider the fact that formal education isn't sufficient for a good musical education? Isn't this what sentence 2 (the premise) explicitly states? How does the argument fail to consider this? I understand that the conclusion is way too strong given the premise (the premise is a SOME statement and the conclusion is conditional), but that to me is a totally separate flaw than simply "failing to consider" what answer D states.

Answer E: Good musicians is a totally irrelevant idea.

When will video explanations of the Oct. 2015 test be available on 7sage?

Hi,

On this question I narrowed it down to C and D. But even though I've read a couple explanations on it, I don't see why D is glaringly wrong. I feel like C isn't fair enough because it has words like "chance" and "try to identify" which means that either way, some people will probably be left out and it still won't be fair. But in D, if everyone gets denied the rebate, then no one gets it, which means no one has an unfair opportunity.

I just couldn't find a helpful explanation because everyone just rules D off as "obviously unfair," and I guess I'm feeling kind of blind right now!!!!

I'm looking at PT44-S2-Q20 and the explanation for why A) and D) are wrong raised a question for me. In the explanation, it sounds to me that just because A causes B, A can happen sometimes without B happening.

JY gives the example that smoking causes lung cancer. But just because you smoke doesn't mean that you get lung cancer. Normally if B is a necessary condition of A, then A always guarantees B. But from what he's saying it sounds like for a causal relationship, B does not always have to happen when A happens? Is it because there is a distinction between "tends to cause" and "cause" ?

Thanks!

Julia

Hello,

I chose E and can't really understand why it is wrong whereas C is correct. Can someone please break down the logic or reasoning behind this argument? Thanks in advance

Hello,

I'm having a hard time understanding why B is incorrect but A is. I chose B because it though it was implying that the children's preexisting condition made them more vulnerable to OPV than kids who don't have that. And I eliminated A because of the phrase "at least a few" because that sounds like a weak defense given they're only taking about "some"

So can someone please explain why B is wrong but A is right? Thank you

How is A a sufficient assumption? I didn't like any of the answer choices, so I pretty much guessed on this one. I thought A was the least attractive answer choice because it lacks the conditional nature that is typical for sufficient assumptions. My understanding of the argument is this:

We can't figure out how effective a certain model cleans simply be looking at how powerful the motor is. This is because the efficiency varies a lot, even with identical motors.

The sufficient assumption I was looking for was this: if efficiency varies (even with identical motor power), then we can't determine how effective the model cleans.

How does A paraphrase this?

Really struggled with this on the exam, and I still missed it during BR. Specifically, I had a really tough time differentiating answers A, B, C, and D. Can someone help me out with those answer choices? Here is my breakdown:

TV show MOST depend on ad funding

TV show MOST cancelled with no ad funding

Ad funding----->Some people watching buy the advertised products

Most people don't buy the advertised products------>Shows cancelled soon

Thus, person who thinks a show is worth preserving------>should buy the stuff advertised during the show.

What I am looking for: I need something that concludes that people should buy the advertised stuff.

Answer A: This is what I chose, but it doesn't fit the facts of the passage. All we know is that MOST TV shows would be cancelled with no ad funding, and that if MOST people don't buy the products, the show sill be cancelled. This answer choice is too certain about the inevitability of cancellation.

Answer B: I don't understand how this answer choice is that different from A. How do we know about the certainty of cancellation?

Answer C: We don't know if the TV show is ACTUALLY worth preserving, only that someone "feels"/believes that it is.

Answer D: What makes this one incorrect? If B is correct, how is this one incorrect?

Answer E: "Feel most strongly?" This was the only one I could confidently eliminate since we don't care about the degree of caring.

Can't understand this question for the life of me. Might be because I don't have a good science background.

The author says explicitly in lines 34-42 that because the "magnetic fields of basalts in NA are aligned quite differently from rocks formed in the same epoch in Europe" this supports the theory of continental drift.

Doesn't (C) undermine this since it talks about some being the same magnetic field alignment? And how is (A) the answer? The seafloor spreading supports contintental drift since it shows that the plates move. Isn't (A) just something additional that we were able to figure out?

A and E were easy to eliminate, would appreciate an explanation for why A is right and C and D are wrong. TIA.

I don't understand how B is the answer. In the lessons regarding weakening, I was under the impression that we were to look for ways to weaken the connection between the Premises and the Conclusion. If the question states that "many human diseases are genetically based," then how does B not just attack the Premises? I mapped out ... human diseases (HD) are genetically based (GB)... HD -> GB. Then some of Cat's (CG) genetics are the same to humans (HG). ... CG(--s--) HG. Then I said Some of Primates (PG) genetics are the same as Humans .... PG (--s--) HG... the conclusion is humans have many diseases (HD) in common with Cats (CD) ...HD --m-->CD

I figured (albeit I now see that it was an incorrect conclusion... I just dont know why) that the question was trying to jump from some cats and some primates genes are the same as humans so therefore Humans have diseases in common with Cats. Answer C could provide a weaker link with the premise/conclusion connection by pointing out that a some correlation does not imply a most correlation.

Any help or guidance would be appreciated.

When I read the question I assumed that the debris hurled into the atmosphere causing the blocking of the sun and extinction of the dinosaurs was only in the Yucatan Peninsula. Which is why answer choice B was attractive and I picked it rather than answer choice E. I understand why E is correct, but can somebody explain why or how I should have assumed the debris from the asteroid was around the world versus just affecting the Yucatan Peninsula?

Did anyone else find these games sections more difficult than usual? I am a pretty consistent -0 to -2 on the games sections, but damn the A, B, and C games sections are brutal. For example, games 3 and 4 on PT A each ate up like 12-13 minutes. I will definitely be redoing these sections in a few weeks. Did anyone else feel the same way about these games?

Hello,

I don't understand why A is the correct answer. I chose C. Could someone please explain why the right answer is right and the wrong answers are wrong? Thank you

Anyone from the Chicago area interested in getting a group together for mock LSAT exam?

Hello,

I don't understand why D is the correct answer. I chose C. Could someone please explain why the right answer is right and the wrong answers are wrong? Thank you

1. People with long legs make good runners. Everyone in Ashley's family has long legs. Therefore, Ashley would make a good runner. (I think it's a bad argument because just because Ashley's family has long legs doesn't necessarily mean she does, right?)

2.In Los Angeles everyone over the age of 18 who drinks also smoke. But not everyone in Los Angeles over the age of 18 who smokes are drinks. It follows tear among people over the age of 18 in Los Angeles there are more who drink than there are who smoke. (this felt like a bad argument to me)

3. All of the painting in the Janet Collection will be put up for auction next week. Since the paintings to be auctioned next week are by a wide variety if artists, it follows that the paintings in the Janet collection are by a wide variety of artists (This felt like a bad argument to me)

4. A writer's first book will become a best-seller only if it has a romantic setting and a suspenseful plot. Since many author's first novels have neither, it follows that not many first novels become best-sellers. (I thought this was a good argument)

5. Some short poems are thematically pluralistic, since some sonnets are characterized by such pluralistic, and all sonnets are short poems. (I thought this was a bad argument, because I couldn't diagram it)

6. Most of the people in Los Angeles buys gasoline on Mondays only. But almost everyone in Los Angeles buys groceries on Tuesday only. It follows that fewer than half of the people in Los Angeles buy gasoline on the same day on which they buy groceries.

Can someone explain how A is the correct answer? I got this question correct by POE, but during BR, I just can't figure out how A is explicitly correct.

Stats guy: Changes in the sun’s brightness correlate with land temperatures on Earth. Clearly, and contrary to what meteorologists think, the sun’s brightness is the main cause of land temperature.

Meteorologist: You are wrong, dude! Any professional meteorologist will tell you that climate is really complicated. There is no significant part that is controlled by one thing.

What I am looking for: The stats guy makes the typical causation/correlation flaw. Plus, even if the sun were to be a causal factor, the stats guy hasn’t given any evidence that the sun is the MAIN cause. The meteorologist is making an appeal to professionals, but it is actually pretty weird that he is doing this. The stats guy says that meteorologists can’t be trusted, so the meteorologist citing other meteorologists won’t do anything to convince the stat guy. I was expecting that the correct answer was going to talk about this idea (an irrelevant appeal to authority).

Answer A: This is it simply by POE. That’s really all I got because I don’t see the “specific case” nor the “invoking of a relevant generalization” in the meteorologist’s retort.

Answer B: What single counterexample? What generalization is false?

Answer C: I think this must be false. The meteorologist seems to be arguing the opposite of this idea: there is no single cause because climate is very complicated.

Answer D: Experimentally tested? He doesn’t bring this idea up.

Answer E: What unfavorable evidence? Systematically neglected? This just isn’t done.

A tall tulip is not a tall plant. (eg. compare a tulip with an apple tree or pine)

no (only tall tulips) does not equal (only tall plants.)

It is not necessary to know for the question, but gorillas are very large, three times or more the size of a human, monkey or chimpanzee.

(C is correct). All the Gorillas are small, but it is flawed to saw that they would all be small primates.

[only small gorillas] does not equal [only small primates]

even a small gorilla is massive compared to a lemur or monkey.

E is the answer.

This conclusion is: CPUE number same -> shark numbers are same

To weakedn the conclusion, we need to establish that the way to reach CPUE somehow has changed since 1973.

This question defines the CPUE carefully.

E is the only answer that could address catches 'per hour' and the other answers are not relevant.

E: (Technology improvement -> sharks still easy to find EVEN THOUGH numbers have dropped -> maybe shark numbers not equal)

Hi, I was looking at PT27 and found out that question 17 in Game 3 seemed quite odd. The answer is "E" here but I did not understand why it is so. The question asks " which of the following must be true" and "E" i think is only "partially" correct... Although it is true that G and L gets to see different films, L and M COULD see the same film. Thus, it's wrong to say that G, L, and M do not all see the same film.

Any thoughts here??? Help me!

PT31.2.10 "Nothing that one should not have desired in the first place fails to be a pleasure"

If I shouldn't have desired it in the first place ----> it is a pleasure?

If I desire it in the first place-----> fails to be a pleasure?

Dear lord this is frustrating haha

During the exam, A just seemed right, but during BR, I am having a ton of time justifying it. I'd also like some further analysis on answer C.

The government increased the minimum wage. The minimum wage increases the museum's operating expenses, which now are less than the revenues (so the museum is profitable). Thus, the museum will either raise admission fees or decrease services; these hurt the museum going people.

What I am looking for: I couldn't think of a good necessary assumption. All I could think of was raising admission fees or decreasing services is bad for museum goers. I kept thinking to myself "no shit."

Answer A: I was turned off by this due to the word "significantly," but the other answer choices were clearly incorrect. If it is not true that some of the museum's employees are not paid significantly more than the minimum wage, then what does this mean? I take it to mean that the employees are either paid slightly higher than minimum wage, at minimum wage, or below minimum wage. How does this actually wreck the argument?

Answer B: What if the revenue fluctuated? It doesn't matter.

Answer C: I am sure some are, but so what? If you negate this: no one is paid more than the current minimum wage, then this might strengthen the argument since it would suggest that the increase in the minimum wage is going to impact the operating expenses further.

Answer D: So what about the annual number of visitors?

Answer E: So what?

EDIT: I initially mistyped the part of the summary dealing with profit.

I don't see how D is incorrect. E is obviously correct, but how is D wrong?

Professor V's book is getting people riled up over the origins of glassblowing (really exciting stuff). If V is right, then there would be not enough evidence to conclude that glassblowing started in Egypt (which is what most historians think). This traditional view is still accepted by the majority of historians. If V is right, we must conclude that glassblowing started elsewhere.

Answer A: So what? This doesn't even describe a type of flaw to begin with.

Answer B: The argument isn't circular.

Answer C: We don't need the criteria.

Answer D: Doesn't the argument do this? Isn't what "most historians" claim (line 6) conflated with the "traditional view" in line 8? How is this not the flaw?

Answer E: This is definitely the flaw of the argument, but I can't figure out how it is better than D.

HI All,

I've been studying since for almost a year now for the december lsat. Completed the trainer and 7sage course thoroughly. Around august i started feeling a little worn out so took a break for 3 weeks. Now I am back and cranking on those Practice tests. My reason for concern is that just before i left my prep i was scoring 164-168 and 170-172 BR, however, now i started of with 154 actual and 160 BR. Should i be worried?