Discussions

LSAT

New post

327 posts in the last 30 days

Hi,

I understand why C is right, but what I have trouble understanding is why D is wrong.

I mean, in terms of D, couldn't it be argued that Politician P is "appealing to wholly irrelevant issues" by talking about taxpayers' happiness to distract from the real issue of whether or not there is an obligation to raise taxes?

Any #help would be appreciated!

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-26-section-2-question-04/

0

help This might be a dumb question.

I get the correct answer (emphasize the degree of unpredictability in S and O model) However, I was hesitant to pick it because I somehow interpreted it to mean that the model itself is unpredictable, not that the ideas in the model are unpredictable. I think it's because I interpreted it to mention degree of unpredictability of the model not in the model. Is there a difference in these 2? How do I differentiate whether they are discusses the model itself or elements of it.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-1-passage-4-questions/

0

@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

0

When the president of the company responds that the number of salespeople passed over has declined, does that mean the total number of salespeople must have declined over the last fifteen years as well? Is that an additional assumption along with C?

0

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?

0

#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!

0

#help# For this question, I eliminated all 5 answers, because I think none of them are right. The right answer is E, but I doubted it. Since E only said the period of Bruno's tenure is just matching exactly to the period when the spy was transmitting information. There could be many people or clergies working in the French embassy at that time, how can this choice exclude this possible alternative and support the argument???

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

0

#help#

Can anyone explain how B is justified in supporting this hypothesis? I didn't see any relevance between strategies of defence and the two functions of infrared sensor.

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

0

Hi,

When I was looking at the answer choices for this question, I noticed that answer choice B states something about "actual legal dilemmas". As a result, I rejected answer choice B because, while I noticed the mention of legal dilemmas in general throughout the passage, I did not see any mention of a single "actual" legal dilemma example. However, when looking at other answer explanations, no one seems to mention this as a reason for rejecting answer choice B. Is my perception of what "_actual_legal dilemma" means correct here or am I just fantasizing? I understand why E is right and why A,C,D are wrong. #help

Thanks!

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-3-passage-3-questions/

0
User Avatar
•

Edited Wednesday, Sep 17, 2025

CourtneyPierce

💪 Motivated

Blind Review

Hi all! This is my first time posting on here and I hope I explain my predicament clear enough. Right now I am working on logic reasoning and my accuracy is at about a 95% with level 1 questions. The second I move into level 2, 3, &4 I start to plummet, which I expected. I know it takes practice which is what I'm doing. Where my issue comes in is, when I do those higher difficulty practice questions ill be honest I get less than 50% right on the first try but the second I move into blind review, I suddenly see that I picked the wrong answer and I do end up picking the correct answer. I am wondering if anyone has some tips that they think might help?

My diagnostic was a 142 and I have yet to take another test because I really just wanted to build the knowledge of the questions first and work on it a little bit, But my accuracy is going up, just not on the first try :(

0

In hindsight I understand why D is correct (PT 3 section 2 Q 9), but I eliminated it because in the STIMULUS the comparison was to the same amount of whole milk. The question stem tells us that the coconut oil doesn't "usually cause" the blood cholesterol level to rise which allows us to consider the fact that people use more of one product than another. Is this type of chunky question stem that allows for a gap in reasoning that wasn't present in the stimulus happen in other LSAT LR questions? Or is this abnormal since it's a very old test?

0

So I have a question on Problem Set questions, particularly the last two ones. Usually I am on a role and get most to all of the questions right in the sample single questions before the problem sets. Those sample single questions seem to be also numbered at the harder ranges like 10-25 ish. However when it comes ot the problem sets, especially the ones with 5 stars, they seem to be exponentially harder than any of the sample questions before the sets. For an example: in the Necessary Assumption section, I was pretty much able to get most of the questions right in the single questions. Not only that, the questions I got wrong consisted of a minor misreading of the passsage or answer choice. And don't forget that these questions are also in the 10-25 range which I believed would have helped me with the 5 star questions. It turns out that I was wrong. The difficulty in figuring out the correct answer choices even after significant amount of times has been evident. A question 13 from a 5 star question in a problem set seem to be exponentially harder than a question 13 from any of the sample single questions before the problem sets. I have been wondering, where does getting the 5 star questions right rougly place you in the LSAT score ranges compared to 4 star or 3 star?

0

Hi,

I chose C here because I thought it was supported by lines 5-7 and I didn't choose B because I didn't see how the passage showed how laws were less/more rigid (since I didn't see anything about laws being flexible or changeable). Can anyone help explain why B is right and C is wrong?

Any #help would be very appreciated!

Thanks!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-2-passage-4-questions/

0

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?

0

Hi guys I would appreciate it if someone could review my reasoning for this question and let me know if this is correct. When BRing I realized that I made a mistake and chose A rather than E which is correct.

Basically if negated, A says something along the lines of less than 51% of those people who abandon the use of chemical fertilizers will periodically grow alfalfa. Now this may be tempting but it doesn`t really do much, our argument doesn`t say that every person needs to make this switch, just that in order to improve the soil structure we need to ditch chemical fertilizers and begin growing green manure crops.

E is a much better answer because it tells us that we can`t use chemical fertilizers AND grown green manure crops, so we have to ditch chemical fertilizers as stated in the argument

When negated it sounds somewhat like, some farmers in the region will grow green manure even if they do not abandon the use of chemical fertilizers, suggesting that we do not need to ditch the fertilizers in order to grow green manure, and ruining our argument.

I also struggled a little with answer choice D, but here`s my reasoning

I think its incorrect because when negated it just says chemical fertilizers themselves do not have a destructive effect on soil, this can be true because the argument is assuming that its the switch from green manure to chemicals that has deteriorated the soil structure, it doesn`t need to be that the chemicals themselves are destructive.

Let me know what you think!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-2-question-20/

0

Can anyone help me out with this one? I ended up getting it right by process of elimination but I'm having trouble figuring out how to write it in conditional logic.

Thanks!

0

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.

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?