Discussions

LSAT

New post

327 posts in the last 30 days

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!

0

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/

0

Hello,

How did you guys translate question 9 in the quiz to lawgic? I read the sentence like this "without a will testifying the transferal (WTT), the state of California will auction the properties (AP)." /WTT --------> AP

I am bit confused about the translation in the lesson. The two ideas selected in the video are "will testifying transferal (WTT)" and "California has no choice (/CC) ." /WTT --------> /CC or CC --------------> WTT. If I were to approach this question mechanically, this makes sense. But what is the sentence actually saying? The confusing bit for me is what the CC here means when you take the contrapositive (California has choice---- to do what?).

Any thoughts? Thanks

Admin edit: This is the link:

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/quiz-on-group-3-translations-to-lawgic/

0
User Avatar
•

Wednesday, Jan 1, 2020

31496

Newer RC Struggle

Wanted to see if anyone had advice on tackling the "newer" RC. I used to average -3/4 for the section, but since I have been taking the more modern exams, I have been getting 7-9 wrong.

With ~2 weeks left till the exam, anyone have any advice they would recommend for adjusting to the harder RC?

Thank you!

0

Hello! So I’m doing the Premium course and I just completed the weakening and strengthen question types. I got the majority of questions wrong during the explanation portion where there’s a sample question and JY goes through it. Usually I pause the video, try to answer it, then look to see why I got it right or why I got it wrong. The problem is on these W/S questions I got the majority of all of them wrong.

My question is, should I start to do the timed questions at the end of the chapter to complete the portion or should I go over it all over again from the beginning or should I try to use a different method to attack these question types? I keep trying to use this Goku method where you don’t attack the premise or conclusion and you try to focus on the support but I feel like that method is arbitrary and ambiguous because the support can imply many different options. Or should I just give up since I have been studying for 6 months now (Khan Academy and powerscore) and should find a new career choice... lol I’m kidding.

Thanks!

0

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

0

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!

0

Hi all!

I had a question on answer choice E with this one. To me, the reasoning of flaw in answer choice E was the same as that of answer choice D of the same PT same section question 20.

Looking at the explanation of question 20 (Morton: In order to succeed (...)) in other forums on answer choice D, the explanations state that Morton actually DOES consider the counterexamples stated by the skeptics (which is why D is incorrect); the problem was that he just did it through a flawed way. The structure of this passage was:

  • Skeptics have objected (...) by providing counterexamples (context)

  • However, this success is only apparent (Main conclusion)

  • This is BECAUSE (...) (Premise)

    • So, in actuality, this argument DOES consider the skeptics counterexamples.

    Now coming back to question 22, in my line of thinking, the author of the passage does the exact same thing as that of question 20.

  • Jerome refused Melvin's suggestion claiming that he could not afford the money (Context)

  • However, cost cannot be the real reason (Main conclusion)

  • This is BECAUSE he makes the same excuse all the time (Premise)

    • So, in line with the thinking of question 20, I thought that the author DOES in fact consider that it can be the real reason; its just that he supports it though a flawed way. Yet answer choice E (Does not examine the possibility (...)) goes against the line of reasoning of answer choice D in question 20....

    Thanks in advance!

    https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-3-question-22/

    https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-3-question-20/

    0

    Does anyone else find themselves mistakenly solving flaw questions as weaken questions when considering certain answer choices?

    What I will find myself doing when evaluating certain answer choices is saying to myself, "Well if this were true, it wouldn't necessary weaken the argument, so it isn't the flaw of the argument"

    I think this is incorrect because the best method for answering those two question types are different, but I don't actually know on a deeper level why the two methods don't sometimes overlap. Or maybe they do and I'm not always wrong in doing that.

    Instead, I just accept that that is the wrong way to go about answering the question and try to catch myself when I do it and revert back to the correct method to answering a flaw question.

    I know this is a bit abstract, but if someone could help explain more clearly why those two methods don't overlap sometimes when considering certain answer choices that would be helpful.

    0

    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.

    0

    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!

    0

    Hey guys, so my LR score finally has been improved (well sort of), I have been doing some times LR sections from prep tests 1-15 and I usually spend about an hour or an hour and a half on each LR section, I've been scoring either 14/26 or 16/26.

    In general, for each question type I am not consistent in my scoring (for example, the test could have 3 or 4 Resolve Reconcile Explain questions and I'll get 1 or 2 right and the rest wrong). Another example, for MC questions if there is a sub conclusion and I noticed that LR timed sections have these, I won't be able to figure out which is the exact main conclusion (see question 4 on prep test 15 as an example).

    There is no one question type I am good at, but I notice that the harder the level of difficulty the more likely I get it wrong.

    How can I improve my score to at least a 20 and should I be doing timed sections? I am not really sure what to do next.

    Oh and if anyone PLEASE has or knows of any resources that can help me improve on Weakening, Flaw and Necessary Assumption Questions that would be great because they are my biggest nightmare.

    Thanks! :)

    0

    I've been finishing up each LR section with usually 5-8 min to go back and review in real time. At that point, I'm reviewing the questions I've been stumped on within a real time frame. So when I go to finish the PT and it tells me to go back and look at those questions again - I don't really see the point? PLUS sometimes the BR is for qs I got right so that's just a mind warp. Am I the only one who thinks this way?

    0

    Confirm action

    Are you sure?