Well I knew I messed up on the Oct. LSAT but not as badly as I actually did.... I scored about 10 points lower than what I was consistently scoring on PTs and now I am a little shell shocked on how to proceed for the Dec. test. I just joined 7sage however I have already done every PT in preparation for the Oct. test. I haven't gone over the actual test yet to see where I messed up, but considering I went from scoring in the upper 160s on practice tests to an upper 150 on the actual test, I'm guessing I just messed up everywhere and would like to chalk it up to just nerves. Does anyone know if its common to just perform poorly on the first LSAT you take? If anyone is/has been in a similar situation or just has any advice at all on how I should proceed I would greatly appreciate it. I've learned that I'm what's known as a "splitter", so I am heavily depending on obtaining the score that I know I can get. Appreciate it

I studied on my own while working a full-time job using the PowerScore Bibles, and I felt fairly confident. I had been doing well on PTs (around 160), but the night before the test I had a lot of unexpected things happen in my personal life and I was definitely distraught the morning of the October 2015 test. I just got my scores back yesterday and I made a 147. So now I'm going to try a different mode of study, 7Sage, and retake the LSAT in February. Any advice or tips? I would be thrilled with a 165, but now that I've done so poorly on the test I'm afraid of making the same mistakes twice.

Can someone please be so kind to read my notes from the particular lessons listed below? I do not know which definitions are correct. Different lessons are contradicting each other. Please help!

Logical Reasoning (Lesson 25 of 40, 9m)

Or (3 options) = A is selected, B is selected or both A and B are selected.

Logical Reasoning (Lesson 27 of 40, 5m)

Not both – negate the Necessary, then contropose. In short, 1, A or B must be selected.

Advanced Logical Reasoning (Lesson 2 of 15, 5m)

Or is different because it has (2 options) = A is selected or B is selected. A and B are not selected together.

In-Out Games (Lesson 1 of 20, 5m)

Or is back to the original lesson, (3 options) = A is selected, B is selected or both A and B are selected.

Not both is different because 1, A or B can be is selected or nothing has to be selected.

I have spent about 30 minutes on this one, and I just don't see how A is correct or how C is incorrect.

Context: lines were crossed between the Jacksons and Sara.

Here was the sufficient assumption I was looking for; I used this to pick out the PSA:

Helpful to Sara and Not difficult for Jacksons to to pass on correct number----->Laudable action by Jacksons

Jacksons do not pass on correct number/Jacksons only tell caller that they dialed wrong number--->Action not wrong by Jacksons

Answer A: Helpful---->Laudable. Wrong----->Led person to believe . How is this the correct answer? Isn't the first condition missing the idea of something not being difficult? Also, -Led person to believe----> Not wrong? Where does the stimulus imply that this isn't wrong? To me, the passage doesn't link this idea.

Answer B: Completely wrong.

Answer C: This is what I chose. Helpful and Easy-----> Laudable and not wrong. Isn't this really good? Sure, easy isn't necessarily "not difficult," but this is a PSA question, not a SA question.

Answer D: Laudable--->Blah blah blah. Laudable should be the necessary condition.

Answer E: Laudable---> Blah blah blah. Same as D.

I really don't understand how the correct answer choice addresses the paradox.

After some people witnessed a fake crime, two lawyers questioned the witnesses. The first lawyer tried top mess them up and the second lawyer tried to correct the inaccuracies. The witnesses who gave testimony that had FEWER inaccuracies during lawyer one's interrogation had the greatest NUMBER of inaccuracies than most of the other witnesses when questioned by lawyer two.

What I am looking for: I was convinced during the exam that the correct answer choice was going to be some bias the accurate witnesses had over the other witnesses. Or, that the second lawyer phrased questions that confused the accurate witnesses/asked questions about different topics than lawyer one. These were not answer choices, so I ended up spinning my wheels a lot on this.

Answer A: This explains possibly why they were more accurate at the start, but why did they have more inaccuracies later?

Answer B: This is a lot like A. If they had better memory, why did they all of a sudden have inaccurate testimony? This makes it weirder, I think.

Answer C: I don't see how this helps resolve the problem. I eliminated it during the exam and during BR since I thought it made the problem even weirder. I think it does explains why they were so accurate to begin with: they were not swayed by lawyer one's bullshit. But how does it explain the fact that they were more inaccurate later? To get this to work, don't you need to assume that either these witnesses became less confident after lawyer one's questioning (which seems bizarre since this sort of contradicts this answer choice's entire point) or that the second lawyer's line of questioning focused on the stuff that these witnesses didn't remember? But how do we assume that this latter case is true? Additionally, wouldn't the "most of the other witnesses" also be inclined to increase their inaccuracy as well? I just don't understand how this makes the paradox anything but weirder, let alone resolve it.

Answer D: This definitely makes the paradox weirder. If they were unsure to begin with, then how were they so accurate?

Answer E: This is what I chose during the exam/BR since it was POE. I didn't really understand how it actually resolved the paradox (which was flag one/the reason why I marked it for BR). I think to get this to work, you have to assume that they gave so many more details, that they got a lot of stuff accurate since they were spewing details out left and right (this would explain the accuracy part). To resolve the other part, you have to assume that the "most other people" started remembering things more accurately, so those people improved over the originally accurate people. This was my line of reasoning during the exam and BR, but I knew I was making way too many assumptions. However, since I could at least think of a plausible reason for this one, I picked it.

Perfect LG section on Oct test (finally -- 3 tries!). Wouldn't have been possible without JY's awesome videos!

Did you guys all get your scores?

Can anyone explain the incorrect answer choice "B" because I'm having trouble getting through the convoluted way it's written?

For the past couple weeks now I have been doing timed LR sections and I noticed that I have been going too fast, completing all 25 questions within the 35 minutes, leading to a score always in the -9 - -11 range. The only recommendation I ever got into how to remedy this problem was from my Princeton Review instructor, who told me to "slow down" (obviously).

So for my last 3 timed LR sections I have been doing just that. I've been guessing on 5 - 6 questions, yet I still get the same -9 - -11 score. I don't have any problem with the BR process - I just feel like my brain doesn't want to cooperate under timed conditions.

Does anyone have any advice on how I can improve and break past this?

Can someone please explain WHY the answer to this question is "C" instead of "A"?

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

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

*The kind of question this is:* Weaken

*Premise(s):* There are several unsuccessful immature works by Renoir and Cezanne that should be sold because they are inferior quality and add nothing to the overall quality of the museum’s collection.

*Conclusion:* The board’s action (to sell some works from its collection in order to raise the funds necessary to refurbish its galleries) will not detract form the quality of the museum’s collection.

*What I am looking for:* The benefit of keeping the unsuccessful immature works?

*Answer A:* No. This is attacking the premise, so I am skeptical. This answer talks about directors of art museums in general, and how they can raise funds through other ways. The Federici Art Museum may have its own reason why it cannot do that, we don’t know. This answer would have been right if it said Federici Art Museum can raise funds through other ways, but it talks about directors of art museums in general.

*Answer B:* Yes, quality is subjective, so selling these art pieces may detract form the quality of the museum’s collection.

*Answer C:* No. This is just a history lesson on the art pieces. This extra information does nothing to the argument.

*Answer D:* No. This is other information that is irrelevant to the argument. The issue at hand is not whether or not inflation happens.

*Answer E:* No. Yet again, this is information we don’t need. This answer is talking about what the artist demands in the art market.

So for questions where they ask you to refer to a given statement in the question stem, are we looking for a subtle answer that's not too specific in general?

I am still confused why the conclusion is adequate productivity --> high- tech technology. I negated the high tech technology part because of the "not" present in the sentence. I tried reviewing my notes and I can't find where he explains in the negation of conditional logic that this is viable.

LSAT Prep Test 28 (June 1999) - S2 - Logic Game 3

As explained in the video, there are so many probabilities on where to put the entities that attempting to make all of the inferences at the beginning becomes an hindrance because too much time is taken up.

I am getting a lot better at games because I attempt to make as many inferences as possible at the beginning.

My question is, what should I look for when a game is designed, such as LSAT Prep Test 28 (June 1999) - S2 - Logic Game 3, to make a person waste a lot of time making inferences?

Skipping making inferences/ not splitting up boards seems to be very dangerous!

I didn't like any of the answer choices, but I comfortably eliminated D. I still fail to see how D is even remotely parallel to the stimulus. Additionally, what makes A incorrect? Isn't the general point of the argument that you shouldn't do things too quickly? Doesn't A do this? How does the reasoning in D capture this idea?

I've looked at a several games in this type. Are there common inferences that we usually see in this set of categorized game? Most seem like rule driven games for the most part

The first section of the PT59's logical reasoning is quite killing me.

Anyway, I was stuck between B and C and then chose C. But the answer is A.

I thought B or C can block another possibility which can weaken the argument and enhance the argument that nutritious breakfasts can the only reason to increase productivity of Plant A.

So I still have no idea why B or C can't be an answer and why A is correct.

Can someone explain me A, B and C?

Thanks in advance!

As far as I remember about conditional reasoning, if:

1. A-> B

2. C-> ~A

I can combine 1 and 2 (~B-> ~A: Contrapositive #1 and C-> ~A) and turn out C-> ~B.

So the diagram about the stimulus I thought was:

1: B-> A

2: L-> ~B

So contrapositive #1: ~A-> ~B

And I combined 1+2 and turned out L-> ~A, so that's why I chose E, but the answer is C.

So I have no idea why E is wrong. Am I missing something?

And why is C an answer?

Please someone explain me.

Thanks!

I processed POE, chose B and know why it is an answer, but I can't entirely understand why E is wrong. E kept bugging me.

If more people choose cheddar cheese more than ice cream just as the stimulus said and which means people choose cheese over ice cream, can E be an answer too?

Why can't E be an answer?

Please someone enlighten me.

Thanks!

Can someone please explain and map out the logic for this question, and explain why (E) is the correct answer? The last sentence of the stimulus is tripping me up. Greatly appreciated!

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-2-question-21/

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-2-question-14/

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

*The kind of question this is:* Strengthen

*Paraphrased question:*

Kim:

During eighteenth century, northern Europe had a change of attitude on expression both in adoption of less solemn and elaborate death rites by the pop. at large and in a more optimistic view of the human condition as articulated by philosophers. This change is because of a result of dramatic increase in life expectancy that occurred in northern Europe early in the eighteenth century.

Lee:

Your explanation that “this change is because of a result of dramatic increase in life expectancy that occurred in northern Europe early in the eighteenth century,” could not be correct unless the ppl of the time were aware their life expectancy had increased.

*What I am looking for:* Something to prove strengthen the relationship between “change of attitude on expression both in adoption of less solemn and elaborate death rites” and “this change being because of a result of dramatic increase in life expectancy that occurred in northern Europe early in the eighteenth century.”

*Answer A:* Yes, this strengthens Kim’s arguments because it directly addresses a relationship between “increase in life expectancy in a population,” “rise to economic changes,” and “influence on people’s attitudes.” I circled this one, but reviewed the other ones just incase.

*Answer B:* No, but this is tricky for me because it gave an explanation of why ppl’s attitudes toward life change in response to information about their life expectancy. This answer seems to strengthen Lee’s argument rather than Kim’s because Lee argues “change is because of a result of dramatic increase in life expectancy that occurred in northern Europe early in the eighteenth century,” could not be correct unless the ppl of the time were aware their life expectancy had increased. That is what Answer B is saying.

*Answer C:* No, this has nothing to do with Kim’s argument. Philosophers making conjectures that did not affect the ideas of the population does not strengthen or even do anything to Kim’s conclusion.

*Answer D:* No, but thanks for information. This weakens Lee’s argument, but does not strengthen Kim’s.

*Answer E:* No. We are talking about strengthening Kim’s idea that “change is because of a result of dramatic increase in life expectancy that occurred in northern Europe early in the eighteenth century.” The influence of religious teaching vs demographic phenomena on attitudes of Northern Europeans is broad and does not focus on Kim’s conclusion.

I didn't mark this for BR, so I was pretty surprised I missed it. I still don't see how E doesn't strengthen the argument. Here is my breakdown:

Public health dudes have waged a long term education campaign to get people to eat their vegetables. The campaign isn't working since people haven't changed their diet. This is probably due to the fact that vegetables taste terrible. Thus, the campaign would be more successful if included ways to make vegetables more appetizing.

What I am looking for: We want to strengthen the argument. The argument is pretty prescriptive, so any evidence that making vegetables appetizing would lead to people eating more vegetables would strengthen the argument.

Answer A: Who cares about the people who already love vegetables? This isn't the group the conclusion is concerning itself with.

Answer B: This would weaken the argument I think since making the vegetables appetizing would defeat a purpose of the campaign.

Answer C: I think this weakens the argument as well since it suggests that making the vegetables appetizing wouldn't do anything.

Answer D: This is apparently the correct answer, but I take issue with the word "how." The conclusion/prescription isn't talking about the PEOPLE making the vegetables more appetizing, but the CAMPAIGN making the vegetables appear more appetizing. I don't see how this shift allows you to conclude that this is the correct answer.

Answer E: I just don't see what is wrong with this one. If the only way to make the campaign more effective is to ensure that ALL people (which would encompass the people in line 5-6 since it is a "many"/some statement) who dislike the taste of certain vegetables learns to find those vegetables appealing, then wouldn't this hugely strengthen the prescription? This to me is an obvious answer choice.

Hi all!

I'm registered for the December LSAT but im thinking of pushing it back to February. Any thoughts on applying and then just sending in my February score. Most schools that i'm looking into have March/April deadlines. So I'm not sure if i'll still be ok.

I took a year off, and I just really don't want to take another one.

Thanks!

I think I am making this one way harder than it needs to be, but I have been spinning my wheels for a half hour on this one. I don't understand how B weakens the argument? The conclusion only states that "it is clear why humans have some diseases in common with cats." So what if B is true? What about the some diseases that humans have in common with cats that do have a genetic basis? B to me is completely consistent with the argument. The argument isn't concluding that ALL diseases or MOST of the diseases are common. I have watched the video on this one 2-3 times, and I am still dumbfounded how B even slightly weakens the argument.

I picked E but the answer is C. And I still don't understand why E is wrong.

I think E also can weaken the conclusion since it says "The physical effort~~~~does not stimulate circulation enough to warm your hands."

So Why can't E be an answer? And why is C right?

What's the difference between them?

Please someone explain me.

Thanks!