Discussions

LSAT

New post

209 posts in the last 30 days

“Some anthropologists argue that the human species could not have survived prehistoric times if the species had not evolved the ability to cope with diverse natural environments. However, there is considerable evidence that Australopithecus afarensis, a prehistoric species related to early humans, also thrived in a diverse array of environments, but became extinct. Hence, the anthropologists’ claim is false.“

Could someone please show me verbatim how to diagram the entire passage Via formal logic and cross reference the mismatched terms that the author used in order to draw the false inference. According to the question it is a mistaken reversal and I am very comfortable diagraming up until the term “however”, after that I got so confused as to what the author was trying to translate.

Now if I’m not mistaken Jy mentioned that because the the author concluded that “the anthropologist Claims were false

ANTHRO CLAIM

“If survive ———-> Cope”

AUTHOR CONCLUSION

“Not survival ——-> Not Cope”

Are those the 2 conditional statements that conflict, that make this entire passage a mistaken reversal ?

Also please keep in mind I kind of dis regarded the premise right above the conclusion because the verbiage is confusing as it doesn’t appear to be a conditional statement that I can diagram

#HelpPlease

0

Hey everyone, need some help here. The sufficient assumption questions are giving me a pretty hard time. I was curious where I should go back to and review that might help me with these ? I was going through the CC quite fine, Everything leading up to SA made percent sense, including the SA lesson itself. Even the general approach to these questions I found understandable.

But as soon as the actual practice questions started I have never felt more out of the loop. I find converting the questions into Lawgic quite difficult.

Any advice, on what to review or areas that might be a weak link that are making this question type difficult for me ?

Thanks !

0

I personally find this the hardest LR question in PT 14; it is (1) bizarre on the level of content, (2) very long and overloads test takers with information, and (3) at the very end of the fourth section, thus hitting you at a point of the test where you already spent 2+ hours intensively thinking about stuff and are mentally exhausted.

In paraphrased form, the stimulus says:

(1) Phenomenon: In the Peruvian desert, there are different sets of lines in the sand. These lines occur in different layers: On the top layer, there are lines that branch out from a single point. Beneath that, there are lines that form a bird figure.

(2) Hypothesis: An investigator argues for the conclusion that both of these sets of lines were brought about by aliens, who supposedly used the Peruvian desert to land their space ships. To support this conclusion, the investigator evokes the premises that the lines in the sand would have been useless to Incas.

The first thing to do here is to figure out what the stimulus is even about: The phenomenon itself is not immediately clear – it is crucial to note that there are TWO sets of lines, not just one –, and the investigator’s hypothesis is counterintuitive to a degree that it becomes all too easy to disregard the glaring selective attention fallacy in their reasoning (Aliens or Incas, not Incas; therefore aliens). So the first hurdle here is to even figure out what is going on, and to throw out one’s common sense intuitions out of the window (How can you even identify the different layers of ancient lines in the sand? How did the lines stick around for so long? All of these questions become irrelevant).

The next hurdle then is the question stem, which again seems bizarre: Here, the test writers tell us that we seek to establish the conclusion that the lines are supposed to refer to astronomical phenomena, and that we are supposed to block an alternative hypothesis to the effect that the lines are non-astronomical. So at this point this seems to become a sort of strengthen question. The question stem is unusual to an extent that it becomes hard to pre-phrase or anticipate how a right answer might look like. Thus process of elimination seems to be the best approach:

(A) North American natives arranged stones in ways that allow for the measurement of astronomical phenomena. This seems to strengthen a little bit in that it points out a seemingly analogous case (It is not only in South America but also in North America that people used geological means to keep track of astronomical phenomena). However, it seems unclear how this answer choice would also have the blocking effect that the question stem is asking for. Thus keep around as a candidate but expect that one of the other answer choices might well be better.

(B) The straight lines indicate positions at which astronomical events could have been observed ‘at plausible dates,’ and the bird lines could represent a constellation. This gets at both sets of lines and associates both of them with astronomical phenomena. The answer thus is fairly specific. Furthermore, the answer itself postulates its own plausibility (‘plausible dates’), which seems like a massive hint, though again unusual. Like the rest of this question, (B) thus again seems wildly counterintuitive, but in the scenario we are supposed to explain, (B) arguably makes the most sense. In particular, (B) approximates the desired function more than (A). Thus far this thus is the least bad answer choice.

(C) The lines form patterns. This answer choice is worse than (B), due to its lack of specificity and its apparent disconnect from the question stem. Worst answer choice thus far.

(D) Central American Natives used rocks to measure astronomical phenomena. This answer choice seems almost identical to (A) and thus provides good grounds to dismiss both (A) and (D): There can only be one correct answer choice, two virtually identical answer choices thus are likely to both be false.

(E) The bird lines might be older than the straight lines. Again irrelevant; (B) must be right.

Takeaways: This seems to be a question where the LSAT really tries hard to make test takers focus exclusively on reasoning structures, not on common sense intuition or plausibility. In this sense, the question is similar to other early LR questions that seem weird content wise but make syntactical sense on the level of formal logic. Focus on getting a clear understanding of what is going on in the stimulus and the question stem; I spent four minutes on this and still felt overwhelmed. Get a clear grasp of what the phenomenon is, what the explanation attempt from the stimulus is trying to say, and how the two alternative explanatory directions from the question stem relate to another. Then use process of elimination to get through the answers.

0

Prep Test A Section 1 Question 21

I was stuck between answer choices C and E for this question but am having a hard time fully understanding why C is the correct answer. Would appreciate an explanation! #help #feedback

Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

0
7S
•

Edited Thursday, Mar 5

7Sage

Official

Breaking Into the 160s | The Short cut | LSAT Podcast

Listen and subscribe:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify

Anyone else feel like conditional reasoning makes their brain go foggy?

In this episode, @AlexJacobs and @BaileyLuber respond to a student who scored a 151, took time off, dropped to a 140, and now feels stuck trying to push into the 160s. They break down why that score drop is completely normal, why a 163 by April or June is absolutely doable, and how to get unstuck with conditional logic.

They talk about:

  • Why mindset matters more than you think

  • How to actually understand sufficient vs. necessary (instead of just memorizing it)

  • The indicator words you must know

  • Simple real-life examples that make conditionals finally click

  • How to drill smarter without overwhelming yourself

If conditional reasoning feels like alphabet soup, this episode will help you slow down, simplify it, and build it back up the right way.

0

The correct choice was B, I selected D. I found this statement really difficult to understand and even my BR took a while to do so if anyone can offer helpful tips on how they approached this question that would be greatly appreciated.

My reason for selecting the answer choice I did was because I made an assumption in the archaeologist's argument, I also confused myself with the grammar inside the stimulus.

This is how I am now understanding the question:

Treasure Hunter: Because of the rule, treasure hunters are entitled to what they retrieve since they are risking their lives. Since the rule applies, the ship is in peril. This condition must be met for the rule to apply.

Archeologist: They are not entitled to what they retrieve, the shipwrecks are stablized, the only danger they are exposed to is that of previous archaeologists and therefore are not in peril (implicitly stated). They are not in peril because for the rule to be met this condition must also be met, in this case it is not.

What they disagree about is whether or not the ship is in peril (B)

TH says this rule can be applied to a sunken ship. Implicitly saying that it is still in peril

A says nothing about the rule and only speaks about whether the treasure hunters are actually entitled to the artifacts or not. But since they are not entitled to the artifacts, the ship is not in peril.

(D) is incorrect because:

TH: agrees with the statement by saying even though they have sunk, treasure hunters are still entitled to what they discover because they risk their lives

A: Though they still risk their lives, they are only risking their lives because of other treasure hunters, not because the ship is in peril. But they make no mention about whether maritime law can be applied

0

(P1) According to dinosaur fossils, dinosaurs had an oxygen isotope ratio in their bones that suggests that their CORES had roughly the same temperature as their LIMBS.

(P2) Today, cold-blooded animals have much warmer CORES than LIMBS.

(MC) Therefore, dinosaurs were probably warm-blooded.

Weaken

This argument assumes, among other things, that warm-blooded animals, unlike cold-blooded animals, do NOT have much warmer CORES than LIMBS, or some other temperature distribution that deviates even more from the dinosaurs'. To anticipate the right answer, I thus was expecting a weaking option targeting this assumption.

(A) Unlike cold-blooded animals, warm-blooded animals only have SLIGHTLY warmer CORES than LIMBS. This goes in the direction of my pre-phrase but is not very strong. Crucially, it remains more likely that dinosaurs were warm-blooded than that they were cold-blooded, just as the author claims. So this answer choice does not seem to actually weaken, even though it gets at the assumption that the author makes, and that I had identified as the weak point of their argument.

(B) Dinosaur fossils don't actually allow you to do the temperature inference described in (P1). This answer is very unusual in that it attacks a premise rather than the reasoning in the argument. Nevertheless, this answer choice definitely weakens, since it takes away the data about dinosaurs that the author presupposes. Keep this answer choice around but be vigilant; see if a less premise-focused answer choice is available.

(C) About oxygen generally. Does not seem to pertain to the argument.

(D) Body temperatures in small and large animals other than dinosaurs. Does not seem to connect directly to the argument; especially since the stimulus does not identify dinosaurs as either small or large.

(E) Warm-blooded animals are more active and use more oxygen than cold-blooded animals. This again does not seem to relate directly to the argument under consideration.

(C), (D), and (E) turn out to be largely unrelated to the argument in the stimulus, and (A) does not seem to weaken the inference made by the author. This leaves (B) as the only remaining answer choice, and thus (B) must be right.

Nevertheless, (B) feels very much uncomfortable and is unusual. (B) just straight up contradicts information that we get in the stimulus, rather than attacking the author's reasoning. It also seems unusual to have this sort of unexpected answer choice so early in the section; just expecting straightforward questions in (Q1)-(Q10) is too naive.

I originally chose (A) because I got too focused on my anticipation of how the right answer could look like, and thus I neglected (B). Nevertheless, a more careful examination of what (A) and (B) are actually saying would have allowed me to get this question right. I need to stay alert to the details of individual answers and compare them against each other; a more thorough examination between (A) and (B) would have allowed me to see that (A) does not in fact weaken and that (B)'s unusual character does not prevent it from being the right answer here. Read answer choices carefully, compare them against each other, and choose the one that has the fewest problems.

0

This is for JY, if we have another answer choice ‘an activity that is conducive to healthy nation ought to be protected and encouraged by nation’ then, A, also this answer choice can be a right answer or just we are try to pick the bridge between main premise to conclusion. Thanks, lee

Admin note: edited title and added link

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-4-question-01/

0

Hello,

I am writing the November LSAT and I am genuinely so confused and over whelmed with how to get started. How often do I need to do a practice test how do I work through all the material? They removed logic games, how do I tackle the other sections?

0

Hi everyone,

I first started studying for the LSATs about a year ago, and have taken the LSAT 3 times since then. I plan on applying this year.

Nov 2018: 161

Mar 2019: 161

Jul 2019: 163

I had been consistently PTing at 165+ since May, but my digital July testing center had issues which I know affected my performance. I'm planning on taking the test one more time in November, and since I have another shot, I was hoping to tackle the 2 things that have consistently brought my score down: flaw + argument part question types.

I can tell you all 19 flaw types and I can tell you exactly what the highlighted argument part phrase/sentence is doing in an argument -- in my own words. My problem is the freaking answer options... I feel like 95% of the time I have a hard time understanding what the answer options are actually saying. Is it just me or has anyone else struggled with this? I have generally taken the strategy of skipping those questions and coming back to them, but now that I've (literally) bought myself another opportunity, I thought I'd try to master these.

If you are a tutor and think I could benefit from a session with you, please let me know! I'm open to tutoring at this point as well.

Thanks!

FW

0

Hello all,

I was reviewing PT 77 S2 Q18 (link below) and was having a bit of trouble clarifying my thinking on it.

If an argument "fails to exclude" X, that means it does not explicitly rule out X, correct? This is different than "presumes" or "takes for granted" X where X would be an assumption the argument makes, right?

Am I thinking about this correctly?

Thanks for any help!

Link:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-77-section-2-question-18/

0

I keep on seeing a trend for myself that I keep on getting inference questions specifically the MSS ones wrong. I think my first issue is that while I identify its an inference I don't realize its MSS and lean towards more of a MBT questions. Anyone have any advice on how to identify and approach these questions? Thanks!

0

Hello! I started my RC section at a -4 on my diagnostic, and I've found that after studying the section, my score has gotten worse- going to a -7 or -8. Does anyone have any advice? Has this happened to anyone before? I wonder if I'm just overthinking the answers.

0

On my last four pt’s I have gotten -7 wrong on each one. In between each pt I foolproof all games from that specific test and continue to go through tests from 1-35 and the pts I completed recently. I have already foolproofed 1-35 as well. On each test I miss the substitution question, one or two total in the first three games, and then I get killled on the fourth game usually missing three or four. I’m hoping someone could give me some guidance on how to get my misses down on that last game. If I could do that I think I’d be in decent shape. On BR I am able to figure the games out and go -0 to -1, so I think I may just not be picking up on the inferences quick enough. Thanks in advance for any advice or tips you have!

0

Hello,

I noticed that I am having trouble diagramming questions whenever I see the words "some" and "most" appear. In some cases, those words are used to indicate a some or most conditional relationship, but in other cases they are not. I noticed that sometimes I am diagramming some or most relationships where none exist, which is making questions take longer and making them more difficult for me than they really are with my skill/knowledge level. For example, I diagrammed question 22 from section 4 from pretest 70 (not sure if I can copy/paste question on discussion forum) as having some and most relationships when they didn't. When I watched JY's explanation, I realized that that problem should've been so easy, but I diagrammed it wrong. Does anyone have any advice about how to know when a some/most relationship triggers and when it doesn't? Thank you!

0

First impression wise, not a bad argument, but we're looking for an AC that shows that despite the fact that broadsides had statements about morals, it doesn't mean that most 17th century people were serious about moral values.

Maybe people back then bought broadsides for other reasons unrelated to those moralizing statements. This is the loophole in our argument.

B - gives us another reason why people bought broadsides: they were drawn to the sensationalized account of crime and adultery rather than to the morals.

B shows that broadsides were also entertaining in nature, not just moralizing.

A - regardless of whether broadsides are of low or high literary quality, they were still moralizing in nature, and people still bought them, but we're still left wondering whether people bought broadsides because they cared about morals or something else.

C - gives us an irrelevant mini history lesson.

D - premise booster. Tells us what we know already, namely that broadsides were moralizing in nature, so it makes sense for the clergy to use the broadsides for moralistic purposes. But we're still left wondering whether the people actually cared about moral values or not.

E - it doesn't matter what well-educated people think or feel about broadsides but how they think about moral values. Also tells us nothing about what the remaining non-well-educated people think about morals, which means we most likely can't justify the "most" statement in the conclusion.

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?