This question is very difficult because I just cannnot understand the stimulus. Could I please get an explanation of this question stem and answer choices?

Hi, I come across this problem in argument part questions: is a hypothesis the same thing as a statement?

I usually eliminate the wrong answer choices by matching them up to the stimulus (Ex. I eliminate the answer choice starts with "it is a premise " because I id'ed the statement as a conclusion). But some argument part questions describes statements differently (A) "This is a statement" or B) "this is a hypothesis for which the author supports." Should we eliminate answer choices that call it a hypothesis when it is a statement? Is there even a difference.

Ex: Is a "Fetuses develop fingernails in the third week of development" a statement?

Is " Scientists say fetuses develop fingernails in the third week" a hypothesis?

I've noticed that in some LR questions, there would be sentences that start off like "Even though","although". These sentences are qualifying the the argument a bit more correct? I remember in one particular video something about this, I think it was acknowledging something so as to prevent the reader from using it against the argument or something like that...

What are your opinions on this?

Hello there. Question on point of issue questions - which is better? doing the list method or reading through and determining the disagreement/agreement?

Fumbling between methods made me lose time on my recent PTs. I either start list method and then find the POI is easy to see and lose time or try reading and have to do list method because POI is not too clear cut.

Advice appreciated. Thanks 7sagers!

I took the LSAT earlier this year and scored in the low-170s. Concerned about the September LSAT due to how I felt on the test and a variety of personal factors. Should I purchase score preview so I can cancel?

7Sage:

Some recent additions to 7Sage are great, like the games and AI. But I would love to know why you felt the need to change the interface. The previous interface was a lot more straight forward. Now I spend several minutes trying to figure out which combination of the following buttons I need to have to cross out an answer or highlight it yellow. This was not necessary. Please don't change things just for the sake of changing things.

I honestly wouldn't recommend this course, I began with an 145, I am about to take a prep test and I know for a fact that the instructors have confused me more than help me, just tell me why and which answer is correct not make me think why the other answers might be correct is annoying, I hightly regret taking this course

I'm still kinda on the sidelines about the enitre "going to law school" thing, and I just took my first full PrepTest with no practice/knowledge about the LSAT. I got a score of 163, and I was wondering if it would be worth for me to spend my time and energy on studying for the LSAT... I don't really want to take the exam multiple times, and I would preferably take the June 2026 exam.

Would it be unreasonable for me to shoot for a mid-170s for the June 2026 exam based on what I have right now?

I know that 176 is a great score, however before the test in June I had got 3/4 180s on PTs. I am a splitter for the T-14s (3.6 gpa, math major). I graduated back in 2021, so I think I count as non-traditional. I looked on the admissions predictor and a 180 vs a 176 could raise my chances by 10-20% at top schools. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

I can't understand why C is the right answer.

I mean if Stilgoe's case would have been stronger if he used these sources then would that it indicate that their view was more negative towards the railroad then the other writers?

Based on this reason, that's why I chose E, but it turns out E is wrong.

I'm stuck in this question.

Can anyone tell me how C is right and E can't be an answer?

Thanks!

Can someone explain how they were able to tease out the conditional elements in this stimulus?

I'm having trouble seeing how the second sentence fits into the conditional framework. It doesn't seem like it plays a role there.

All I can see with this, and it leads you straight to the answer, is:

Sentence 1: PPS-->MA

Conclusion: SA-->MA

Answer A: SA-->PPS

The negation didn't help me here since I didn't understand the conditional language at first, which is why I picked the wrong answer. If someone can explain why the negation would hurt the conclusion here, I'd be very grateful. Thank you.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-52-section-3-question-07/

Looking for a study partner. I've been studying for quite sometime and this will be my first sitting for the test. Will be going hard until test day.Let me know if interested!

I live in Indiana

I'm trying to working on my LG weaknesses using the LSAT analytic feature and one area that could use improvement is "Sequencing w/ conditional rules." Is there a list anywhere the groups Sequencing games by whether or not they have conditional rules? I've gone through all of the LG offered in my syllabus and I only see them listed as "Sequencing," "Spatial Sequencing," "Sequencing with a Twist" and "Sequencing and Grouping." Thanks in advance for any suggestions!

Hey guys!

I was wondering if any of you have a technique to identify cookie cutter questions and answer choices? I really can't tell unless JY mentions it in an explanation video to the question.

Thanks!

Can somebody explain to me why the answer is (d) and not (b)? This one seems to be very difficult for me to figure out on my own.

Thanks a lot!

Admin note: edited title

Hi ya'll.

Does anyone have a breakdown explanation of this question?

It's a "main conclusion" question and I just can't quite figure out how the correct answer is E or the breakdown of the conclusion.

Thank you thank you!

Chloe

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-2-question-16/

Hi,

I'm always confused about these questions. I don't understand if the question is asking you all the potential objects that can belong in the group, or the potential objects in the group in one instance.

For example (Prep Test 43, Question 18): "Which of the following could be a complete and accurate list of each of the office buildings that the falafel tuck serves?"

A. X

B. X, Z

C. X,Y,Z

D. Y,Z

E. Z

A, B, and E can be eliminated based on the fact that the stimulus provides that F must serve Y. The answer is D because the question meant "in one scenario". However, I read it as "all the potential trucks" the Falafel truck could serve. In one possibility, F serves Y,X and in another Y,Z. So potentially, F could serve all 3 leading me to answer choice C.

I'm definitely reading this question wrong. Can someone please explain to me the wording difference between when they ask for all potentials vs. in one possibility?

Thanks a lot to whomever responds.

I chose D as an answer based on the whole passage (It talks about literary techniques, right?), but the right answer is A. I couldn't find which part of the passage makes A is a right answer.

I have no idea why D is wrong and A is the right answer.

Can anyone explain me?

Thanks!

@mkang89

Correct answers in MSS questions are almost always one of two types: restatement of an idea from the stimulus or the conclusion of the stimulus (which was left unsaid in the stimulus).

But I've noticed a slight variant of the latter where the right answer choice asks us to identify a sub-conclusion -- slight more complex since we need to account for the premises and the conclusion stated in the stimulus. As a result, these operate a lot like a bridging question.

In 52.3.23, the stimulus gives us two survival benefits of HS and concludes from that support that a dense colony could survive indefinitely. That conclusion isn’t supported very strongly at all. There is so much we don’t know. But we need to accept the stimulus as true: these premises support that conclusion. It feels a lot like a bridge which means we are likely pushing out a sub-conclusion from the stimulus.

A. "If there was a dense colony then that colony would be capable of carrying out the two benefits indefinitely" (paraphrase). This is perfect -- it connects the survival benefits in the premises to the indefinite time horizon in the conclusion and in that way receives support.

B. This gives us a little more info about how one of those survival benefits operates but that's not supported by anything in the stimulus.

C. We don't know anything about "most organisms"

D. "If this bacteria thrives indefinitely, then HS has removed all oxygen and killed some organisms". There are two big problems here. First, it says these HS survival benefits are necessary for indefinite thriving. That's just not supported. What if we put the bacteria in a highly controlled lab environment with no oxygen and plenty of food which didin't need to be killed? Second, the stimulus doesn't say that all oxygen has to be removed.

E. Any colony? Ensures? Not supported in the least.

46.4.09 is another example of such a MSS although I think it is much more difficult.

Admin note: edited title for formatting

So I decided no to take the July LSAT even though the accommodation was appealing (still turns out we cant register for the September test with the freebie) So my question is, now that I dont have to rush.. I am currently halfway through the LG CC, should I full proof during the CC or after I finish the LG section of the CC?

#help I have improved my score since starting 7sage but Sufficient Assumption questions give me a lot of trouble. They are my worst question type by far and I was wondering if anyone had any advice on how they approach these questions. If anyone could offer advice or their strategy that would be amazing! Thank you!

Hi, I'm looking for a study buddy in the riverside/moreno valley area. Taking the LSAT in March.

PT8 S1 Q5

I got the answer right by process of elmination, but didn't understand the argument, more specifically, I don't see where the premise and conclusion are.

I thought the conclusion was: adolescence the percentage of boys with asthma is about he same as the percentage of girls with asthma.

And the premise being: because a larger number of girls develop asthma in early adolescence. (Doesn't "because" indicate premise)?

According to others, apperently the argument is saying:

Support: the percentage of adolescent boys with asthma is about the same as the percentage of adolescents girls with asthma.

Conclusion: number of adolescent boys with asthma is equal to number the number of adolescent girls with asthma

Where does it talk about about numbers of boys and girls hacing asthma being the same? Why is the conclusion not about percentages.

Can someone clear up why this is?

I just scored a 162 on PT128.

I am very confused with a specific relationship between universal quantifiers and existential quantifiers. This confusion becomes annoying in Assumption Questions. Please help! So, basically this is it:

1. "A-->C + A -->B"

2. "A-->C + A -most->B"

3. "A-->C + A some B"

For each of three given premises, we can conclude the same "B some C" relationship. Though the first part is the same "A-->C", the second part is different. I thought that this difference is understandable, because "A-->B" implies "A-most->B" and "A some B". So, we should have the same conclusion for "B some C". But the problem often arises.

For example, PT 24, LR2, Section 3, Question 19. Sufficient Assumption.

"Every student who walks to school goes home for lunch. It follows that some students who have part-time jobs do not walk to school."

The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

Premise: Walks to schools-->Goes home for lunch.

Conclusion: Part-time jobs (some) Do not walk to school.

Take the contrapositive of the premise, we have "Do not go home for Lunch--> Do not walk to School"

Now, it becomes clear that he Sufficient Assumption to bridge the gap could be:

1. "Do not go home for lunch (some) Part-time jobs". This is the correct answer choice (d).

(d). Some students who do not go home for lunch have part-time jobs.

2. Do not go home for lunch -most-> Part-time jobs.

3. Do not go home for lunch --> Part-time jobs. (conditional)

If we take the contrapositive of 3, we have "No part-time jobs-->Go home for lunch". The contrapostive is logically equivalent to the original. Now, "No part-time jobs-->Go home for lunch" implies

"No part-time jobs -most-> Go home for lunch." and also implies

"No part-time jobs (some) go home for lunch." (This is exactly what the wrong answer choice A says.)

(a). some students who do not have part-time jobs go home for lunch.

Please help me clear this confusion. Is there anything I misunderstood? I really appreciate your help.