Really confused by the extent to which we rely on diagram in this question. For PF questions, when is the case that we do not strictly follow the diagram in the stimulus? https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-2-question-22/

STIMULUS:

H–>/G

——-

H /G (confirm one theory at the expense of the other)

However, AC E:

D–>/J

——–

/D–>J (either or)

If the above is true, why is AC E is still the correct AC? Or in this case, are we choosing the best AC?

Really confused by the extent to which we rely on diagram in this question. For PF questions, when is the case that we do not strictly follow the diagram in the stimulus? https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-2-question-22/

STIMULUS:

H–>/G

——-

H /G (confirm one theory at the expense of the other)

However, AC E:

D–>/J

——–

/D–>J (either or)

If the above is true, why is AC E is still the correct AC? Or in this case, are we choosing the best AC?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-4-question-07/

I've watched JY's explanation and the only other forum post regarding this question, but I'm still not sure why my reasoning for B is incorrect.

I understand the diagramming to be:

P: know a lot about history —> easy to impress intellectuals

C: /(know a lot about history) —> /(easy to impress intellectuals)

I also understand this to be a case of:

Invalid Argument Structure

A —> B

———

/A —> /B

What doesn't make sense to me is I chose B though because I'm thinking it's possible

(you could know a lot about history ---> /(easy to impress intellectuals)) or (A --> /B). I'm not sure if my reasoning is correct and it's just not appropriate in this situation because it fails step 2 of the flaw test or if something else about it is flat-out incorrect. Any feedback is appreciated. Thank you.

I chose AC C and didn't even know I was wrong until I did heavy review on the right AC D.

C. I initially thought "Yes the author would agree it is a predominant strength for the Mexican American writers to not be tied down by a literary establishment. It would follow reasonably that without the need to be accountable to a larger establishment the writers are more free to experiment."

The part where this is wrong is the 2nd half - "So are free to experiment..." Where is the support from the passage that the author believes the writers are more free to experiment in ways Mexican writers can't? There isn't any. In fact, where is the support that Mexican writers can't experiment??? This was an assumption I made - that if you are tied to a literary establishment, you won't be able to experiment. But in fact no such reference is made. All we know is that Mexican writing tends to be characterized by longer writing, more "cosmopolitanism," and more theoretical content. We don't know that Mexican writers are discouraged from being experimental.

My takeaways - 1. Where is "experimenting" mentioned? It's not, this should be a red flag if the AC mentions a theme / content that's not found in the passage. 2. It is a big assumption that to be tied to a literary establishment, even if the author thinks this is a bad thing, may not mean you're less able to experiment. What if in fact the establishment has been encouraging experimentation relentlessly to Mexican authors?

D. I was put off by "regional" writers; I didn't think the author believed Mexican American writers were regional at all! But this doesn't matter!!! We could exclude the Mexican American writers completely and the author would still have to agree with this AC.

The Mexico city literary establishment = "this community." They believe "regional" writing (dismissive tone) is "parochial" again a negative tone word. So in Mexico "this community" writes in a certain way and has control for who is successful and who isn't. If someone is writing "regional" and "parochial" content, is this going to win the award for best book in Mexico? No, because the establishment who runs the show doesn't value the regional and parochial content. They value something else.

Hi there,

I have noticed that the questions I get wrong on RC are always the inference based ones. Anyone have any advice on how to improve on this particular question type?

Thanks in advance!

Can someone please explain why AC C is incorrect here? Thank you!

The question stem for this question asks us to pick an answer choice that shows that the explanation we were given in the stimulus is only a "partial one." I was doing this question as part of my weakening problem set. I read through the stimulus and was quickly able to identify my premise and conclusion:

P: Time runner's foot spends on the surface is less on a hard surface

C: Hard surface makes for greater running speed than a soft surface

I ended up choosing answer choice B, because I thought it provided us with an alternative explanation for why runners perform faster on the hard surface. In my mind, I thought the author was neglecting to acknowledge that it was actually the height of the runners that was affecting their performance rather than the hard surface.

If I were to add the following to answer choice B:

"when running on hard surfaces"---- would this make answer choice B correct? If not, why? Or would the stimulus have to make reference to the short v. tall runners?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-2-question-09/

Anyone in Texas want to start a study group??

Hi guys,

For question #2, we are asked to break down this argument into premises, conclusion, and context.

The common procedure for determining whether a food additive should be banned from use is to compare its health related benefits with its potential risks. Yellow Dye No. 5, an additive used to color lemon soda, might cause allergic reactions in a few consumers. For most consumers of lemon soda, however, the coloring enhances their enjoyment of the beverage. This particular additive should not be banned, therefore, because its benefits greatly outweigh its risks.

This was my answer:

Context: The common procedure for determining whether a food additive should be banned from use is to compare its [food additive] health related benefits with its potential risks.

Premise: Yellow Dye No. 5, an additive used to color lemon soda, might cause allergic reactions in a few consumers.

Premise: For most consumers of lemon soda, however, the coloring enhances their [most consumers] enjoyment of the beverage.

Premise/Sub Conclusion: because its [Yellow Dye No. 5] benefits greatly outweigh its risks.

Main Conclusion: This particular additive [Yellow Dye No. 5] should not be banned.

J.Y.'s was different. Can people explain to me why my answer is wrong? It makes sense to me since the first two premises explain why the sub conclusion (Yellow Dye No.5 benefits greatly outweigh its risks) which then in turn supports the main conclusion. Thanks!

Admin note: This is the lesson:

http://classic.7sage.com/lesson/quiz-context-identification-1-answers/

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-3-section-3-passage-1-questions/

I chose D, but the answer is C.

Doesn't the passage talk about theoretician's perspective about the satellites of asteroids?

I don't know why D is wrong.

Can anyone explain me why D is wrong and C is right?

Please help me.

Thanks!

I received a 157 on Nov Lsat and a 156 on Jan Lsat.

Should I cancel my jan Lsat grade or keep it?

If a collective effort is needed, one person/idea will not significantly change that affect

I don't understand why the answer choice is not A?

Am I the only person struggling to understand the explanation video? I find it very confusing. Per the explanation from the video, the passage excludes Spain from Europe but isn’t Europe still in Spain which would support answer A? The reason I could perhards see A as the answer is line 7-9 cites the origin of spanish-language proverbs while A says Mexican American proverbs. Besides that, I'm not getting the explanation that proved A wrong and I've watch the video 7 times.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-4-passage-2-questions/

Are there tips for practicing identifying this? Like a list of potential things each paragraph could be? the vocab always trips me up. thanks! @"Juliet - 7Sage"

Good Afternoon everyone!

I have my LR down to -4 on average but am not confident in SA and NA questions no matter how much I practice. Any tips on how to do them without diagramming? I get more confused when I diagram and do not find it helpful in the least.

Thanks!

Y'all.

I just saw someone else post this on another discussion thread, but for any testtakers today or later this week, do NOT forget to click on “Ready to Check In” before (BEFORE!!!) your 10 minute break is up. Do not wait until that timer hits '0'!!

I'm sure everyone registered got this email from LSAC:

--

"Section 3 will not begin until the countdown clock expires. Test takers must click the “Ready to Check In” button before the intermission expires. Once this button is clicked, the test taker is taken to a waiting room. At this point, your proctor will resecure your testing environment so that you can go on to Section 3.

It is absolutely critical that you return to your computer and click the “Ready to Check In” button within the allotted 10 minutes.

If you fail to check in for Section 3 of the LSAT prior to the expiration of the 10-minute intermission, your testing session will be terminated and your score will be canceled. This cancellation will be recorded by LSAC as a Candidate Cancel and reported to any school to which you apply for admission that utilizes LSAC’s Credential Assembly Service (CAS) reports."

I checked in at the 1'20'' left mark. And don't worry, I still had to wait until the full 10 minutes were done, and my proctor was slow to return anyways. PLUS I had another extra minute just BEFORE Section 3 was due to begin. So no one's getting jipped if you 'check in' early.

--

⚠⚠⚠ Please, y'all... DO THIS. ⚠⚠⚠

Is there a pdf sheet with answers to games from 1-35 (foolproofing) Instead of looking at each explanation, is there a way I can look at a sheet to see if I got the correct answer?

With question 14, after I fulfill the condition of T testing G on the second day, why can't T test H on the second day as well? The rules tell us I can't have both Ts testing G (done). It doesn't say anything about a rider not testing on the 2nd day twice on different bicycles. Furthermore, what if I chose my set as "GFJH" instead of "FGHJ." Would I be violating any rule? It doesn't mention the bicycles being in order so why do I violate a rule if I decide to place T to test H on the second day. Thanks

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-2-game-3/

Not sure if there are many people who have already solved this PT but would really appreciate the opportunity to pick your brains regarding this question.

I initially chose D. My reasoning was that looking at mortality patterns with other animals could perhaps reinforce or weaken the idea that more full grown male horse bones = people rode horses. What if mortality patterns of domesticated goats living with the Botai also shows that they had more full-grown males, thus also going against the typical pattern for domesticated animal usage? What if the Botai people just really love male animals? Basically my reasoning was that looking at mortality patterns of other animals could be a point of comparison.

I guess the weakness to my reasoning is that even if goats or other animals go against the typical hypothesis re: domesticating animals, the hypothesis regarding domestication of horses could still be true? So in essence it may not be a good point of comparison and may not yield any information to evaluate the hypothesis? I'm not sure, just trying to pick holes in my reasoning.

I also tried to reason for A: So I'm thinking this is a way for the author to evaluate whether the presence of more male bones than female bones is good enough evidence for the conclusion. If more bones show signs of being gnawed on or something, it could maybe weaken the claim that the Botai people rode horses.

Am I on the right track with A? What do you think regarding my explanation for D?

Admin note: edited title

In a nutshell, the developer says there is a country whose strict regulatory rules ban personal property holders from erecting buildings on their plot if any rarified animals in danger on the land. These rules render the existence of those animals a serious fiscal burden on them as their hands are tied businesswise. By virtue of those sacred beings, the proprietors feel reluctant about sheltering them and shielding them from harms. Therefore, endangered species would very likely not be jeopardized, if not better served, if the bureaucratic red tape is peeled off for good.

(A) is not the one we are looking for. Because the author is not mixed up between the absence of a condition or the presence of a condition that is no longer in effect which was designed to protect the endangered species from the outset but would be revoked on the assumption that its absence would not likely to harm them and a condition that would be obliged to avoid the endangerment of those rare species on the land.

B) is somewhat irrelevant. Above all, there is no morality-bound call or moral verdict grounded on fact-based assertions or accounts. In my opinion, a value judgment is like this: it is not ethical for humans to endanger those rarified species further by not protecting their subsistence. But this argument is the opposite of the developer's conclusion. Based on the factual grounds, he/she thinks one could go back on this duty because his assessment projects that this dispensation/waiver/relief does not likely harm those species. It rationalizes a claim based on the alleged facts without a value judgment.

(C) is the guy we have been searching for. This Mr. Right has it all. It, all of a sudden, somewhat irrationally, snubs any probability that even if some factors are prone to engender a presumed effect, they might be likely to beget more powerful countermanding/offsetting effects too. Then the final outcome could be more harm to those animals.

For instance, this suspension of the rule application might put those animals out of harm's way if those landowners just do not do anything about this roll-back except feeling happy about the exemption of the financial liability. However, what if there are other hyenas lurking around to capitalize on this repeal? They could be poachers eager to snare those animals to make money out of them. It could backfire on those animals which are be supposed to be protected in the absence of those rules.

(D) is a bit weird-do. No need to zoom in on those landowners to play a blame game. Those landowners could indeed enjoy the removal of regulatory rules in a different way than anticipated. For instance, once those regulations are rescinded, they decide to turn those animals into their cash cow to rake in dollars. Sure, it is possible. But it is not a flaw that is the most noticeable in his argument. The principal perp is his negligence about considering the side effects or backlash from the revocation esp. from the perspective of those animals meant to be protected by design. That was what his/her conclusion was about.

(E) is a total jerk and a typical A-hole wasting my time. This argument has no bearing on those landowners on whose tract no endangered species live.

Hi Guys,

Can you guys please help me take a look if my analysis on B & C is correct? https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-3-question-08/

The question is very much like a SA question. The answer choices can be quickly eliminated by a match principle into the sufficient condition. However, I think we can expand on this problem more.

A is correct. So won't go into detail about it.

B. The sentence is wrong based on 2 reasons. The first reason is by putting the conclusion as the sufficient condition. Even if we were to change the answer into: If election campaigns are to be funded from public funds, it will allow politian to devote less time asking for money than serving the interest of the public, this is still wrong because it is formulated into a C-->P Relationship, while what we are looking for is P-->C relationship.

C is wrong because it talks of a different set that we do not know. Had this question be translated into an Inference MBT Except question, the asnwer choice then is correct.

D. is wrong based on 2 counts. The first count is of the same reason as B by messing up the location of the conclusion into the suffcient condition. But in addition to it that the question steam mix in an unrealted element. Evne if we have deleted that related element from the sentence, it is still incorrect and not 50% correct due to the location issue with the conclusion statement.

If we were to extent this answer choice's analysis a bit further.

Suppose that in this case, the answer choice for A is wrong too. But D is formulated in the following fashion: "if public funding of some activity produces a benefit to the public but also inevitably a special benefit for specific individuals, the activity should be fully funded by the public while the special interest taker group contributes proportionally more".

In this answer choice, iff answer choice is made wrong in other fashion. D will be correct on 2 counts. 1) The sentence is 50% correct. Although it do have irrelevant items in it but part of the argument goes through along with our principle. 2) It is the most correct answer in comparison with the rest of the answer choice.

Had LSAT do this, then the question's difficulty is pushed to a level 4 or 5 difficulty.

E. is wrong because it like C speaks of another different set of population that is above this univerise. Again, it can become a correct answer choice if it is an MBT Inference Except question.

Hello, I am studying logic games not for taking the exam but for a programming course and so don't need the full course, but would like to view the sequencing games lessons and how to read the diagrams. Are there any free youtube tutorials on this that you recommend? Thanks!

Hey everyone!

I'm looking to get some more LR practice under my belt and hone in on my skills by tutoring. I have yet to master this section, but I have improved a good amount. When first starting out I started out averaging -13/-14 per LR section and have gotten that down to -4/-5! I'm looking to primarily tutor those early in their studying stage and have difficulty with concepts!

"June 2014 lsat score" thanks