Discussions

LSAT

New post

208 posts in the last 30 days

For this question, I was wondering why E is the wrong answer? Passage A and B endorse the same principles that lying is necessary in writing good narrative, but B says later they see it as unethical while A does not. Is it because the principle they are endorsing isn't exactly the same but applied to diff contexts (lying is necessary in historical vs. lying is necessary in autobiographical) and thus D is the right answer?

0

Taking the June 2024 LSAT and I've put up some pretty good scores on each section. I've hit -1 on LG, -2 on RC, and -5 on LR. The only problem is that I've never come remotely close to doing all of that on the same test (for example, when I got a -5 on LR, I got my worst ever score on RC; the very next practice test THE NEXT DAY, I got a -2 on RC and put up my worst ever LR score). I'm done with practice tests before test day, but does anyone have any tips on what I can do to brush up and prevent splitting so dramatically?

0

Will I be penalized if text messages popped up on my screen while taking the official lsat writing portion? None of the messages contained anything about the exam but a good amount of group texts popped up in the right hand corner while I was working. I assumed that the secure browser would silence any notifications from my computer like honorlock and other proctoring sites do but apparently I was wrong. Has this happened to anyone else? Should I be worried?

0

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-2-question-06/

I know this is early on in the section, but it's very tricky. None of the explanations I find online are satisfying.

For justify principle questions, the premises should connect with the conclusion, and this doesn't happen here.

First, a discussion of the stimulus:

Premise: The styling of characters in Quirks is not problematic because the film is funny, and that is necessary for a comedy.

Conclusion: The criticism of Quirks is misguided.

I would prephrase if a film is successful within their genre, actions that lead to that film's success as part of that genre is not warranted. (something along those lines)

The correct answer is as follows: D. "Films are successful if they succeed within their genre"

"if they succeed within their genre" = the film is funny, that is the most important thing for comedy

"films are successful" = ?

How can we conclude that "films are successful" = "criticism is misguided"? To me, that is still a big gap, that is not justified from the principle.

I don't think I have ever encountered a difficult LR sections as PT73. Please help!

0

Hi everyone.

I have been using analytics to try and determine where my weak points are with regards to question types but I have noticed that tricky stimuli seem to trip me up more than the actual question type. Analytics claim that strengthen and weaken questions are ones I need the most improvement on but I have been nailing them in recent PTs and I feel like the questions I do get wrong on both timed and BR differ greatly from one PT to the next. There doesn't seem to be a consistent trend. Has anyone else come across this issue?

Most of the time when I watch JY's explanations, I will have that "ah I get it moment" which usually comes about because I didn't consider something in the argument, but of course there are those very few questions I need to really dive deep to figure out why my AC was incorrect or how a seemingly wrong AC is actually the correct choice.

0

I really struggle with identifying circular reasoning. The definition of circular reasoning is when the premise and conclusion are the same thing, and the author does not provide any other premises to support their conclusion. So, an example would be, "Dogs are the best pets ever. This is because dogs are the best." However, when given a more complex stimuli I really struggle. This particular stimulus gave me a hard time. I would appreciate if someone was able to explain why this particular stimulus is an example of circular reasoning.

0

Sorry this is long and I haven't proof it yet for errors, but if you would like to read my email to LSAC regarding my terrible experience today with the October Flex, here it is. As prospective law students, we deserve SO much better than this.

To whom it may concern,

I took the October LSAT flex today. After months of studying and putting in my best effort, I was positive coming into it. I got set up my dad’s office since it has the fastest internet in my house, I checked that my connection was good (about 300 megabits per second) and logged into ProctorU. Come 9:10, when my exam was set to start, I clicked ‘begin’ and the process of checking my video and microphone connection happened almost immediately, but I was told my lighting did not pass the test. I turned my light on brighter in the room and pressed ‘retry’ to recheck the lighting. This time, it wouldn’t seem to load. I waited 20 minutes, attempted to speak to multiple technicians, but nobody was responding or could help me. I was afraid of exiting out of the window in case I wouldn’t be let back in. After 30 minutes, I took the risk of closing the window and reopened, logged back into ProctorU and after only a minute, I was set up and ready to receive my proctor. I felt a wave of relief when my proctor said I wasn’t too late for the test.

My proctor was very helpful with getting me ready for the test, checking my surrounding, etc. I started the test with the Logic Games section. About 5 minutes into the section my test was interrupted by a screen saying I was disconnected from the proctor, and my test was also stopped. I opened the chat box with my proctor and told them it had disconnected. They helped me get back into the section but before they could, they had me go into the system preferences of my computer and do a lot of troubleshooting, then eventually I had to reboot my computer. This was not by choice, but what my proctor, who had control of my screen, was requesting of me. With nothing else to do, I obliged. My computer screen went black for about 15 seconds then came back on. I was terrified. The proctor then told me I could begin my test again and that my test was paused at the initial disconnect, meaning I wouldn’t lose any time in the test. But as I started the test again, I am almost positive I lost time in the section. At least a few minutes had passed that I did not get back in that games section. I finished the section, regardless, putting in my absolute best effort and trying not to think about what had just occurred.

I began my Logic Reasoning section next. 20 minutes in, I coincidentally check my time and see that I have 15 minutes left. A few seconds later, the same disconnect that happened in the Logic Games section occurs. This time, I tell my proctor I have disconnected yet again and they lead me back into the exam. This was only a detour of about a minute and I did not lose any time in the section but was sufficiently paused at the time of my disconnect. As I am working through the section, suddenly I see a notification bouncing at the bottom of my screen from my proctor, and I think, “why is my proctor messaging me while I am trying to focus on my test?” Of course, I don’t react or respond to the notification and continue, although I am very distracted by the bouncing icon. A little while later a new tab suddenly opens on my browser and disrupts my test. It is not your average pop up, but a ProctorU support page requesting that I submit a survey regarding my technical assistance. Mind you, this was during my Logical Reasoning section with about 10 minutes left while completing the most difficult questions in the section. Stunned and disappointed, I immediately close the window. Again, I see a notification at the bottom of my screen from my proctor. I ignore it and haphazardly finish the section, however the interruptions undoubtably affected my performance negatively.

As soon as the time is called for the Logical Reasoning section, I have 60 seconds before the Reading Comprehension section begins and I check to see what my proctor had said. There was a second chat box opened (I assume it was because I had to re download the zip file that allowed the screen sharing by the proctor) and in the text box it said something along the lines of, “you have left the testing screen” presumably talking about when the tech support survey screen appeared 10 minutes before. To be honest, I don’t remember exactly what the chat box told me, but I was worried my test had been flagged for something completely out of my control. This carried into my performance on the Reading Comprehension section. I remember the chat saying I had been disconnected from my proctor, but the first chat box with my initial proctor was still open. So I messaged them defending myself and saying, “I did not leave the screen, a new tab opened during the test from ProctorU and I closed it within seconds”. I now had 15 seconds left until my Reading Comprehension section began. Petrified that my months of hard work had been for nothing, I finished the third section without any disconnects, and my test was complete.

This experience has left me feeling rather defeated. I went into this test with a great mindset and countless hours of studying under my belt. I find these technical issues to be extremely unfair and unprofessional. The internet speed in my house is impeccable and has never been an issue before, so I am left searching for a reason why my test would disconnect multiple times. Luckily I do not suffer from a diagnosed anxiety disorder, because this would certainly be something to trigger a panic attack during the test. That being said, it it can be reasonable expected for any normal person to be affected negatively by the stress of this type of circumstance. Thankfully, I was able to stay composed and complete my sections, but I did so with fear in the back of my mind rather than the 100% concentrated focus I expect when taking such an important test.

This was one of the most pertinent days of my life and to go through this nightmare is beyond disheartening. I had read about technical difficulties similar to mine since the first flex test in August on the 7sage forum, and I prayed nightly that I would be luckier. Unfortunately, this format of the LSAT does not only favor those with intellect, but those who are lucky enough to not experience a technical difficulty. Where is the justice for those of us who have lost time on our sections, for those of us who have planned out an entire year based on taking a specific LSAT date and have etched out the perfect amount of time to complete applications but are now impeded by uneasiness and worry as we may have to take the exam in January and apply later than the rest of the pool, or even worse, wait another year to apply to law school? As future law students, we deserve a lot better than this system of consistent failure. I sit here, still, in utter shock and I wonder if I will be able to attend a satisfactory law school next fall.

As a reparation for my suffering today I request a full refund that I may use to take a later test, and a confirmation that my test has not be flagged.

I look forward to speaking further about this situation. Until then, have a great day.

-Lucia Izzolo

Admin Note: Related thread is located here: https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/25548/october-lsat-flex-issues

0

When it comes to these harder disagreement type questions, are we supposed to look for what the two speakers explicitly disagree about or is it supposed to be implied? The video explanation seemed to indicate that it was the latter, but I feel that answer choice C points out something the two speakers were disagreeing about explicitly.

Is Answer choice B incorrect because it talks about the possibility of creating art that "people enjoy and support?" I felt that neither of the two authors gave any answer for that.

As for answer choice E, I read it as saying "express" rather than "achieve." If it had said "express," would this have been the correct answer? JY points out a bunch of assumptions you'd have to make for this to be the correct answer in the video, but are those correct assumptions? He never confirms whether they are or not and then the video ends.

I've also read other explanations that state the reason why this choice is wrong is because it talks about what is "wise" while the speakers only talk about what "should be" but how are those two things mutually exclusive? I felt that if someone were to ask either speaker whether it was wise to have public art that helped "express consensus," Laurie would say yes because it's something that public art "should do" and Elsa would say no because it's an impossible goal.

If anyone is going to answer my questions, please watch the video explanation first or you won't know what I'm talking about.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-87-section-3-question-22/

0

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 sentence/word-wise i have no friggin clue.

on a theoretical level, 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 the words of 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)

0

Evening everyone!

I'm Alexandra. I'm looking for serious study buddies for the Feb 2015. I've been studying while working full time but I need accountability and help with logic games (specifically). Any people interested in the study group can email me at alexandra.k.griffiths@gmail.com.

P.S. I live in Queens and work in Brooklyn. Again, serious inquiries ONLY!! Thank you! :)

0

I took the June test and am planning to register for August now in case I'm not happy with my June score. The test date change/refund deadline is July 2 for the August 14 test - why is it so early? When I was originally registered for April I was able to change my date to June for free as late as March 27. It's kind of frustrating because you only get 1 day from when the June scores come out to decide if you want to take August.

0

To attack the premise or not to attack the premise

I keep hearing over and over again that I'm not supposed to attack the premise but this question from the weakening portion of LR seems to do just that. Doesn't answer choice D attack the premise? If the argument concludes that it couldn't be the case that the cave paintings depicted the current diets of the painters since they must have needed to eat sea animals during the long journey there, wouldn't D attack that premise since it's saying maybe not?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-1-question-20/

0

Hello everyone,

I am posting this in LR because LR is something very new and foreign to me and I feel that if I can master LR, RC is going to be a breeze. Now, I know the answer off the bat is going to be "do what feels best for you," focus, and discipline. I completely agree with that sentiment, yet I wanted to see what has worked best for you and why with the entire goal of inspiring others to learn and add new tidbits into their current strategy.

If you do chunking, how many words do you chunk when you read and why does that work for you?

For those of you who don't chunk what works best in your strategy and why?

I have realized that for myself, that I had developed very bad reading habits after leaving college, I've been out a good while so I skim a lot and hardly read as much as I used to. For now, I have gone back to "word by word" reading until I can spot important words while chunking. My goal is to chunk 3-4 words as I read.

Currently, I time out towards question 4/5 leaving me rushing to just pick an answer and pray I got it right. Slowly, I have gone from getting 1 answer right to 3/5 on a good day until I get to the level 4-5 difficulty level questions and then I get 1 or 2 right if I am lucky enough to figure it out, but then time out for questions 3,4,&5.

Looking forward to reading your story.

Thank you for your time,

Alfonso

0

I am trying to figure out how I can better understand negating conditionals. For that I tried to start with truth tables for conditionals. But I found that I am unsure if I understand the truth tables for conditionals.

“Princeville is a city in Quebec. If you live in Princeville (P), then you live in Quebec. (Q).”

In what situation is the conditional relationship P→Q true and in what cases is it false?

In other words when is P sufficient for Q and Q is necessary for P. There are four possible outcomes:

1)  you live in Princeville (P=T),  you live in Quebec (Q=T). (P→Q applies & is true)

2) you live in Princeville(P=T), you do NOT live in Quebec(Q=F). (P→Q is false)

3) you do NOT live in Princeville (P=F), you live in Quebec (Q=T) (P→Q is F?!? why?)

4) If you do NOT live in Princeville (P=F), you do NOT live in Quebec (Q=F). (P→Q is F?!? why?)

A diagram of a circle with a blue and yellow circle AI-generated content may be incorrect.

The last two rows do not seem to be very clear for me if we look at set/subsets.

If I replace the conditional statement with subset symbol P→Q =P⸦Q the truth table does not seem to be very clear.

However, the following (from https://courses.lumenlearning.com/frontrange-mathforliberalartscorequisite1/chapter/1-8-truth-tables-conditionals-and-biconditionals/) makes more sense to me.

p → q where p is I live in an apartment and q is then I pay rent. 

What are the outcomes?

  1. I do live in an apartment and I pay rent, then the situation is true (no eviction!)

  2. I live in an apartment and I don’t pay rent, then the situation is false (eviction, broken promise)

  3. I don’t live in an apartment but I do pay rent, then the situation is true (though why would you do it?)

  4. I don’t live in an apartment and I don’t pay rent, then the situation is true (no promise broken)

 

-

The truth table makes sense if we define and look at conditionals so:

"If P then Q" simply eliminates the possibility that both P is true and Q is false.

P⟹Q  ≡  /(P and /Q)  ≡  /P or Q

 

For the inverse:

It would be nice if there was a clear example of how to do the same for an inverse please. I can do it if /P→/Q = / [/(P and /Q)]  = P and /Q. However is there an easy to understand example for this?

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?