It's an article about 2 schools of economics. I don't understand Q15 which answer is A. I chose B.

A. The environment's ability to yield raw material is limited.

B.Natural resources are an external constraint on economics.

Isn't that A can be interpreted as that natural resources is limited, and that's what Line 20-22 says (steady-state economists' view) and Line 30-35 saying "that natural resources, if depleted, can be replaced by'' shows that the neoclassical economists also believed that natural resources is LIMITED (although it could be replaced by other resources)?

And I don't see why B is wrong. Although the passage doesn't explicitly say that the steady-state economics hold this conception (or hold the conceptions like external/internal constraints.)

Can anyone explain this?

Many thanks!

Hey everyone

I'm planning on retaking the LSAT in June after getting a 165 on the awful, awful February test. I'd really like to find a study buddy/buddies if at all possible. My schedule is really flexible.

Anybody out there?

Hey guys! Unsure of how to approach this question or why (A) is wrong. Help? :)

Hola! Happy Friday! Hope everyone is staying safe and warm in our little rain weather ;) If anyone is in the Orange County area and would like a study buddy let me know! I am prepping for June 2014 LSAT!

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.

There is actually one MSS question i can’t figure out myself: Practice Test4-Section 1-Question17. I am having trouble deciding between B and C. Can someone help? Thanks!

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-36-section-1-question-22/

This took me probably 10 minutes to eke out the right answer. I kept thinking that the assumption was that all poets were writers because it clearly does not state that but that wasn't the answer choice. I'm still confused as how to get to work this conditional out. Please halllppppp!

Hi 7sagers,

I feel as thought having the ability to practice RC sections indivdually would help greatly. As I am going through PTS, after each one, i think about what went wrong and practice to improve it. this could be like a certain type of game, or type of qustions (i.e. most strongly supported). Id like to be able to have a bunch of old RC sets to practice with in hopes of improving timing. 7sage doesn't offer such adons or include them in updated packages. Has anyone bought something like this anywhere?

Thanks,

Jake

hi there,

i have a question about diagramming the following stimulus: "all too many weaklings are also cowards, and few cowards fail to be fools. thus there must be at least one person who is both a weakling and a fool." the question asks us to match the flaw and the correct answer is "some painters are dancers, since some painters are musicians, and some musicians are dancers."

i got this correct simply by process of elimination, but i wasn't 100% confident in my answer choice. i understand the first part: "all too many weaklings are also cowards" = "weaklings (--(some)--) cowards" since "all too many" = "many" = "some" on the LSAT.

the second part ("few cowards fail to be fools") is what confuses me, for two reasons:

(1) i took this to mean that "cowards (--(some)--) NOT fools," but the answer choice seems to suggest that this means "cowards (--(some)--) fools." i'm not sure if i'm overthinking it, but i just thought it was incorrect to assume "cowards (--(some)--) fools" since there is no contrapositive for "some"

(2) can we assume that "few cowards fail to be fools" to mean MOST cowards are fools (or is that too strong)?

thank you in advance!

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-2-question-24/

i'm having a hard time understanding the answer for PT 54.2.24 ("there are 1.3 billion cows worldwide, and this population is growing....")

the answer is A (that cows given good quality diets would produce more meat/milk than they would otherwise), but i got this wrong because i thought it had nothing to do with the conclusion (i.e., methane production would be kept in check if cows were given better quality diets). i kept looking for a connection between diets and methane production, which led me to B (although i still had qualms about it since it didn't address the differential quality of diets). i can understand that A would potentially eliminate a counterargument to the conclusion, but why exactly is this the best answer when it doesn't address the methane issue (i.e., it doesn't directly address whether methane production would be "kept in check")? could you go over what exactly we should look for when strengthening the conclusion?

this question just threw me off -- the stimulus itself doesn't seem difficult but the answer choices just sucked! ;)

thanks as always for all your help!

jane

I’m writing the exams a week from tomorrow (February 8th).

When i have all the time in the world, i’m perfect on the flaw family questions (All assumptions, flaw, weaken and strengthen) but with timing, i freeze on them and get stumped, it significantly hinders my performance.

Should i be worried? I would prefer to write tests everyday but i’m scared i’ll burn out?

Can anyone please offer me advice on how i can possibly work on getting better?

Prest Test 56 - section 2 - Q25.

Question removed. Please see video for question:

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-56-section-2-question-25/

---

Now, before I list the answers, please read my thought process so you can better understand where my head was at.

"In the long run... to use insecticides." --> Main Conclusion.

"Because insects... with insecticide use." --> Premise.

", farmers have to... to control insect pests." --> Sub Conclusion / Conclusion to the Above premise.

That's what I was thinking.

A.) It is the argument's main conclusion, but not its only conclusion.

B.) It is a CLAIM for which a causal EXPLANATION is provided and which itself is used as direct support for the argument's only conclusion.

C.) It is the argument's only conclusion.

D.) It is a claim that is used as direct support for an intermediary conclusion, which in turn is used as direct support for the argument's main conclusion.

E.) It identifies a phenomenom for which the argument's main conclusion offers a causal explanation.

*spoiler*

The second choice is the correct answer. Which implies that my labeling was wrong. The answer states that it was a claim (what i would consider to be a conclusion) and that it's accompanied by a "casual" (what the heck is that supposed to mean, LSAC,) "explanation," which is supposed to be the premise. It further states that this "claim" is used as direct support for the argument's ONLY CONCLUSION.

How is this the only conclusion!?? When the LSAT says Claim and Explanation in the answer choices or question stems, does it mean Conclusion and Premise or are these two phenomenon something different entirely?

I apologize if JY explained this in one of his lessons, but i seemed to have missed it and tracking it down seemed more time consuming than asking the forums.

can someone please confirm this is how logic games are set up now http://imgur.com/DtBikmY. There have been multiple posts and understandably so. I believe a picture speaks 1000 words. If this pic is correct, it appears to have like an elongated horizontal 3/4 length of blank page under all the questions ( making flipping between a game unnecessary). does anyone think incorporating a page folded like this to logic games (http://imgur.com/saO3sxV) while P'Ting would be a bad idea. Although it is lose, it seems to give a semi-representation of an actual situation. I don't think having the same amount of space though on the actual age on the actual test day will be that much of a negative difference, how bout guys. If someone has a better idea i'm opening to listening to it. wat do u guys think?? any thoughts?

If anyone is able to explain any of the above questions, I'd be very grateful.

To be more specific:

Q13 - stuck between A and D

Q16 - was able to eliminate C & D, but chose E

Q22 - really didn't understand this one... I chose A under timed conditions, and E during BR...neither of which were correct

Thanks in advance.

13- http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-71-section-4-passage-2-questions/

16- http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-71-section-4-passage-3-questions/

22- http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-71-section-4-passage-4-questions/

If you already have access to the full course:

http://classic.7sage.com/lesson/logic-games-habits-for-speed-and-accuracy/

Otherwise, I'm reproducing the contents of that lesson here. What good habits do you cultivate for LG?

Good habits:

-Tick off rules as you translate them into our visual language.

-Write out rules neatly, close to each other.

-Combine rules with overlapping items.

-Every time you encounter a new rule, think about how it interacts with the game items, the board, and the previous rules.

-Reduce visual clutter.

-Try to split the main game-board into sub-game-boards.

-Remember to check for floaters.

When stuck:

-Sufficient failed, rule irrelevant.

-Necessary satisfied, rule irrelevant.

-Pare down and rewrite your rules that still remain.

-Take stock of what items are left.

-Count the number of items left against number of slots left.

-Close out groups when they are full.

Stop the explanation video after the game-board setup. Try to solve the questions yourself.

Currently I'm struggling with the LR section mainly because I can't consistently get the weakening questions correct. I do 90-100% on Main Point and Strengthen. Weakening questions on the other hand are a 50-50 accuracy. Anyone know how to improve?

Hi all --

I'm pretty sure I'm posting in the right spot but let please move if I'm not!

In any case I'd like some advice.

I am a college student, but that's it.

My situation started off late January when I started to study for the October 2013 exam. This self-studying (complete with MLSAT and Powerscore bibles) didn't work out for personal reasons. I then decided to try to study again for the December exam, this time with a tutor. This has not worked out because my exam scores are nowhere near (think 150s) where I need them to be (170+). I'm delaying until February and taking a year off to work before law school, but now have been considering delaying until June 2014 in pursuit of a great score.

I have purchased the Complete LSAT package and will be going over it, as well as the recommended practice exams, in preparation for February. Do I have enough time to improve to where I need to be by then? Any experience or recommendations would be great.

I am awesome at this portion of the test and usually score really well, but for some reason cannot understand why the correct answer choice on this question is what it is.

The argument is #6 of Section 2 of Prep Test 23. They discuss prehistoric chimpanzee species, tool use and humans. I won't type the argument out unless y'all need me to, but was wondering if anyone could help explain why the correct answer is C over D.

Hi!

I took the December LSAT and I'm retaking it in Feb but I've gone through most of the practice tests already (all the recent ones for sure). To study for the Feb LSAT, should I retake the recent PT's that I already took when studying for the December LSAT? Or should I take the older PT's that I haven't taken but aren't as up to date?

Thanks for the help!

Hi Everyone:

I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions on how to spend the next month studying for the Feb LSAT. I work full time and want to make sure that I am using the time I have wisely. And any suggestions on how to improve my test score?

WH- PT - JP - TB - PD - CB - SM - PM - CE - DT - ? - PC

What is the ?

For Main Point questions, are they asking us to kind of mechanically pick out the conclusion of the argument, as indicated by words such as "thus", "therefore" etc or are they asking us to fully read and understand the argument and pick the answer choice that best captures what the stimulus is aiming to prove? Basically is main point = conclusion or does it mean the gist of the stimulus?

Hey guys, I'm planning on taking the LSAT in February. Would like to form study partners in Phoenix area. email fawzinur1@gmail.com

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-4-question-07/

I'm confused as to why the answer can't be C.

If supply goes down, and halibut is NOT replaced by other fish, then that means that supply has gone down, and even if demand stays the same the price will go up according to the law of supply and demand. There is nothing to suggest that demand will decrease in this scenario.