Hi everyone! I am trying to do a big u-haul of how I approach LR questions. I am trying to have a heightened focus on accuracy and process over speed and results. I'd really, REALLY, appreciate it if someone could give me feedback on how I analyzed/broke down this question and the answer choices (I got it wrong the first time). Thanks a bunch!

Conclusion: Herniated disks and bulging disks could not be the cause of serious back pain for back pain sufferers.

Why?

P: Half of group 1 had these herniate disks and bulging disks, yet they did not experience back pain.

The argument fails to consider something.

Flaws I can see:

These are two groups of people, how can we conclude something based off of two groups with distinct differences (back pain sufferers vs non back pain sufferers)?

Perhaps there are other key differences that cause the herniated disks or bulging disks to cause back pain for actual back pain sufferers.

Answer Choices: The doctor's argument fails to consider the possibility that...

A) This has it really wrong. To make it work, I needs to say the following:

A factor that is in the presence of a certain effect (HD or BG and no pain) may nonetheless be sufficient for a different effect (HD or BG may be enough to produce serious back pain).

This is not what the answer choice says, though. Also, how do we know that HD and BD do not NEED to be present in the circumstance where back pain is present?

B ) Yes, though worded in a way I did not expect, perhaps a third factor and herniated disks and bulging disks all cause serious back pain. This matches the flaw #2 I have above.

C) . This AC has the argument flipped and is assuming the error in the argument- that is the fact that perhaps the herniated disks are present and contribute causally to back pain.

D) This is not the flaw. So what if herniated disks might not occur in half the entire population? The flaw is that they are erroneously concluding something about two different sets of people (back pain vs non back pain and what causally contributes to both).

E- The error is not in the comparative likelihood of herniated or bulged disks' presence when there is pain vs when there is no pain. The flaw is that nevertheless, they are assuming that even if (imo) there are herniated disks present when pain is present, the pain is not caused by the herniated disks. Perhaps herniated or bulging disks and a third factor all together cause back pain.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-4-question-19/

Wondering if anybody on here has just taken the Sept 2017 LSAT in Australia? It is different from the US version and hoping to gain any insight into the experimental sections/any general thoughts you had !

I had 3 LR so i know that my LG and RC were real.

From what i can remember:

LG1: One layer sequencing game

Had a Condition that M-W.

R either first or 6th

LG2: Something with artefacts

LG3:[completely skipped as pressed for time]

LG4: Double layer sequencing game

Buildings being erected either Upper or Lower (Buildings FGHI)

RC:

-reading about kente woven fabric

-reading about whether chemistry and physics are linked

-reading about law systems in UK and technology

Any info about how many questions were in each of your LRs would be super helpful!

Thanks :))))

So phenomenon - El Niño - is expected to increase in coming years and this thing causes HEAVY WINTER RAINFALL in T.

Conclusion: Average rodent population in T will increase in the coming years.

WHY: Because rodent populations normally increase during LONG periods of suatainsmd rain.

Hope this layout helps you see that the author is probably either assuming that long periods of rain will occur with heavy winter rainfall or that heavy winter rainfall will cause these long periods of rain.

A. UM ok? this doesn't really appear to do anything to the argument

B. Ok but we know there is going to be heavy rain doesn't really hurt the argument.

C. Ok so I think you can't take other situations which are clearly not the same as T to be indicative of what is going to happen in T. Maybe to have more rodents you need the perfect variables which T is going to have thus our argument still stands.

D*. In T winters marked by HEAVY rainfall (the one that's going to be caused by El Niño normally does not mean that LONG periods of rain occur. This hurts the argument a lot, because it pretty much says "yea we are going to see a lot of heavy rain with this phenomenon but it actually rarely occurs for long periods meaning it probably (rains and stops....) which means we probably won't see an increase of rodents.

E. (Was very confused with this one) But this just requires to many assumptions

The global warming caused by air pollution (the same sufficient conditions for El Niño) is going to produce a large number of effects that could affect rodent populations.

Ok for E to weaken you need to assume that these effects are going to affect our rodents in T, also you need to assume they are going to be bad effects and not let them increase the average of rodents. What if the effects make them super human NYC type rodents, what if its a positive affect for rodents and actually increases them more.

Hello all! Who else is taking the JAN2024LSAT? How we feelin?

B is definitely a flaw in the argument, but can someone analyze my breakdown of D? Here is my breakdown:

50% of people in the survey believe that politician indicted----->politician resign.

35% believe that that politician resign----->politician convicted.

Therefore, more people think politician indicted----->politician resign than those that believe politician convicted---->politician resign.

What I am looking for: First, the conclusion is about "people" in general, but we are using a survey/poll. This introduces the possibility that the poll was biased/unrepresentative. Second, the conclusion makes a sufficiency/necessity conflation in the second comparative statement (about conviction). I didn't see this at first since, and I caught this flaw during BR.

Answer A: This is OK statistical/inductive reasoning. This would describe the flaw if the answer choice put the words "potentially biased" in front of sample.

Answer B: This is the correct answer since the 35% think resign--->convicted. But, the conclusion is about convicted--->resign. Pretty obvious answer choice if you read the last sentence carefully.

Answer C: What term is ambiguous? At best, the argument assumes that "politicians" and "elected officials" are the same thing, but that is an OK assumption.

Answer D: This is what I chose since I failed to see the sufficiency/necessity conflation originally. Would this be correct if the conclusion was correctly stated (if the comparative statement stated resign---->convicted)? Since the two responses convey different beliefs and since the argument is drawing a conclusion/comparison between them, is that a flaw? I am not so sure since the conclusion is about there being "more people" believing X than Y. Since both question were part of the same poll (and presumably same sample size) and since 50% is larger than 35% of that same sample size, would the argument have been valid (assuming there was not sample bias as well)?

Answer E: Why can't the premises all be true?

Any tips for MSS/Inference questions for RC please.

Especially, when there is a Passage A and Passage B.

Thank you.

Hey folks. I always seem to struggle with the analogy questions on RC passages. Does anyone have any tips/tricks?

PT 48, S3, P2, Q9 is the latest one I've come across.

Thanks!

Hi folks,

I'm wondering what to do after I do blind review specifically for RC. For LR and LG, I watch JY's videos for questions I missed even after BR. I usually learn a lot from watching JY's videos and see the error of my logic from when I BR'd. But with RC, I watch JY's videos and don't really learn much. I understand why I got the question wrong, but it doesn't inform how I do on the next RC section. I feel like I'm not getting from it what I need to.

Anyone have advice/tips on what they do for RC review?

Thanks!

Listen and subscribe:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify

In this episode, Nicole and ZeSean take a look at a breakdown of each LR question type's frequency in a given section, providing insights on the ways this information might impact the way you study for the LSAT. Join us this week for a fun episode looking at the numbers!

hi! (fair warning, this a question from is the genuinely tragic mirrors passage btw): for the life of me, i cannot figure out why c is the right choice for this one. i think it's largely because i literally just don't understand what the answer choice means. like genuinely word-wise.

i get that the idea of "separating observers from scientific phenomenon" as it's discussed in the text + how this informs the tendency of scientists to prefer certain explanations for phenomena. but i don't understand how that idea is conveyed by answer choice c. answer c reads: "One explanation of what mirrors do reveals the traditional tendency of physicists to separate a phenomenon to be explained from the observer of a phenomenon."

i've been racking my head trying to parse the bolded part word-by-word but i genuinely can't figure it out. isn't the point the text is making that science ppl prefer explanations that don't rely on the observer? how does "separating a phenomenon •••to be explained••• from the observer of a phenomenon" do that?? if someone could even just help break down what this part means that would be useful lol. ty in advance (3(/p)

Hey guys, I’m going to be taking the November LSAT in a couple weeks and I keep missing fill questions. What is the best strategy to tackle these?

Can someone break this down in terms of approaching a stimulus.

For some reason I get these kind of questions correct. Even on the hardest LR questions, I'll resort to POE and somehow get it right. How? I don't know. They are extremely confusing in approaching a stimulus. Thanks.

We need to connect the assumption that the appreciation of the play and the attention, and thats AC B

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

I am confused by question 8. I was down to C and E, ultimately chose E, but only due to pure luck.

I don't know why C is supported but E is not.

The potential support for C is in line 23, where it says "one problem in studying the effects of drilling waste discharges..." But it just says there is a problem in studying. It doesn't say that the study is done. Perhaps the study wasn't done due to the problem. Who knows? Another potential support is just the whole second and third paragraphs of Passage B. They tell us that WBM is less harmful than OBM to the environment. That potentially implies that a study was done?

The potential support for E is in line 32, where it says that Drilling mud is normally released during the drilling phase of a well's existence. We know that the mud is discharged, although we don't know if it is continuously discharged into the sea.

To me, C and E both have weak support. I don't know why C is more supported than E.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-1-passage-2-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-1-passage-2-questions/

So the Foundation course in core curriculum is "Let's Dive In", "Arguments" and "Grammar" etc.

They contained number of hours required and finished.

After finishing them the hours disappear. I wanted to look at the predicted hours by 7sage and compare it with my own progress to gauge a better understanding of how long it would take to complete a section. Appreciate any help.

Does anyone know why B is not right for q11? Thanks :)

Hi guys, I've been struggling with this question. I chose E. I know that JY explains this by saying we don't know if this use of parathion happens in real world or is it just in our experiment. But doesn't the last paragraph explicitly say that the experiment results are "similar in field planting of strawberries"? Doesn't this show that it indeed happens in real world, that some people indeed used parathion to eliminate T and eventually caused C to reach a damaging level?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-4-passage-4-questions/

Can someone explain what claim does AC E imply? Is "claim stated earlier" is subsidiary conclusion (1st sentence), or "since dog breeders try to maintain.....) Thank you!

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

Hello, I am interested in connecting with individuals who plan to take the LSAT in February at the University of Louisville or will be studying for the test in the Greater Louisville-Area. Contact me if you may be interested in creating a study group or would like to partner with me till the testing day February 2015

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DMGpofJgfvP/

I can no longer un-see sufficiency/necessity....

Looking for clarity re: the curve on this one. From what I can gather (from PowerScore podcast), the curve for April's LSAT is much tougher than how the PrepTests here have been curved.

Am I staring down the barrel of a lower score than all of my PTs?

I am a week into LSAT studying, about halfway through the “Causation and Phenomenon-Hypothesis Questions” section, and am wondering when I should start seeing close to 5/5 with BR on drills and quizzes? For the most part, I do well on the videos J.Y. goes over with us as part of the curriculum, but am being absolutely wrecked during drills, even with BR. I have months before taking my first official LSAT (June probably), but am curious whether I should be absolutely nailing these sections before moving on any further, or if I should continue through the syllabus as it will all fall together later on. Thanks in advance!

I really need help with answer choice A because it seems perfectly fine to me. Is this answer choice incorrect because the argument against internal relations in paragraph 4 stated that "to truly know an entity, we must know all of its relationships?" Is this not the same thing as "defining the entities of which the system is composed?" I thought they were the same thing because if scientists had to define each and every relationship the entities in the system had, wouldn't that mean all entities would have to ultimately be identified and that was why the author had an issue with internal relations? but if I am wrong, I would like to know. And is A supported by the passage even if it is the incorrect answer choice for this particular question?

And this is more of a general question but are organicism and internal relations two separate, but related concepts?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-1-passage-4-questions/

Hey everyone!

In conditional-heavy games, when a question stem introduces a new temporary conditional, I have trouble linking this to the master chain, especially if it's already completed.

Anyone know any good video lessons or resources that could help me out with this?

Thanks!

To prepare for study abroad, exactly five students- M, N, P, R, and T- will learn at least one of four languages: French, Hindi, Italian, and Spanish. No student learns any other language. The following conditions apply:

No student learns all four languages.

At least two of the students learn French.

Any language that is learned by R is not learned by N.

If French is learned by any student, then that student learns Italian.

If Hindi is learned by any student, then that student learns Spanish.

P learns French.

5.) Which one of the following is a pair of languages that CANNOT both be learned by student R?

a. French and Italian

b. French and Spanish

c. Hindi and Italian

d. Italian and Spanish

e. Hindi and Spanish

Book says D. I say B and C are also possible. The only way those answers don't work is if R no longer has to learn the accompanying language with N still does. It DOES say pair which may mean the rules for him can be broken. If true, this is a thinly veiled modifier that I would probably have gotten wrong, possibly i just have to familiarize myself with this test more.