Passage: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-36-section-2-passage-3-passage/

Question: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-36-section-2-passage-3-questions/

The selection is the one about hormones and influences on behavior. The intro/background says that "discussions" about hormones and behavior have only talked about sex hormones.

16 has given me a lot of trouble. The right answer is C, but I have a problem with that because the passage does not say anything about "earlier research" at all. It only says "discussions," and therefore I eliminated that answer choice because it seemed to be adding claims that aren't present in the passage.

I'd really appreciate it if someone can explain to me why this shift in term is acceptable here, since generally answers can be eliminated for being out of scope if they use different types of terminology.

I'm especially worried because this seems to be a serious confidence error--I was sure that C was incorrect, since it seemed to be using more specific language (in my opinion, language indicating something that is uniquely different), than what the passage says.

Thanks!

Help! I don't know where to begin. I narrowed it down to A and C.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-26-section-3-question-15/

I am having trouble figuring out the hard LR questions. I want to be able to eliminate all the answers that I know are wrong, so I can leave the correct answer. Any tips?!? I hope I have made sense.

Can someone explain what role "even if" plays in (D)?

I was able to eliminate all of them except (D) so I picked it. Turns out, I got lucky.

I tried to make even if a sufficient condition so "even if" it fails, the necessary could still happen. However, is this correct way of thinking about it? Or is even if similar to only if?

On a side note I only got one wrong on PT 51 S1 :D

Not sure if this LR section was easier or if I got better :P

Edit: can we also go over Q16? I had trouble doing the diagram for it but managed to get it right.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-1-question-21/

This is a pseudo-sufficient assumption question.

P:All leaders in major parities oppose the bill

C:The bill will most likely fail to pass.

Target answer to connect no support with fail to pass.

Answer Choice Analysis:

A. Most bills that have not been supported by even one leader of a major party have not been passed into law

E. Most bills that have been passed into law are supported by at least one leader of a major party.

Isn't E the contrapositive of A?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-2-question-21/

My problem on this Q is that I can exclude the other four wrong answer choices, but I can't find the right answer choice right either.

Here is my thought:

The premise: no free market economy -> the maximum total utility is not assured;

The conclusion: a country is not trying to bring about a free market economy -> the country is not acting in the way most likely to bring about the maximum total utility.

The right answer choice: the argument wrongly presumes that trying to bring about a condition that will assure the achievement of an end -> the way most likely to achieve that end.

However, if I put this presumption back to the argument, what is negated in the argument is the sufficient condition here ( to assure the achievement of an end is not satisfied ). This negation doesn't get to the argument's conclusion, which is the negation of the necessary condition in the answer choice ( not the way most likely to achieve that end). So I feel the right answer choice should be like "wrongly presumes that the way most likely to achieve max utility -> trying to bring about a condition that will ensure its achievement."

Could anyone give some light?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-39-section-4-question-23/

Stimulus:

New Age philosopher: nature evolves organically and nonlinearly...

Flaw question.

I am down to B and E

B: overlooks the possibility that the overall structure of a phenomenon is not always identical to the overall structure of the reasoning that people do about that phenomenon.

I don't know why B is wrong. It seems to me that in the stimulus philosopher claim that the overall structure of a phenomenon (Nature) is organic, holistic, nonlinear. And also philosopher recommend we use the identical overall structure of the reasoning(organic, holistic, nonlinear) to understand that phenomenon, which is exactly what B says.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-49-section-2-question-18/

Breathe in breathe out!!!! Are my new fav words when I am trying to read and people keep talking to me though they see me reading ugh

So i'm going through the LR practice questions and I get about every Strength question right. But, I do awful in the weaking questions. And I know both are so similarly so I cannot understand why. I am also very strong in MSS section so maybe I am just taking the same approach. Would like some ideas or help to improve.

Is anyone else having the same problem?

Chris

An artwork cannot express an emotion that the artwork's creator is incapable of experiencing.

How to translate this sentence into logical condition?

If artwork's creator incapable of experiencing, then artwork cannot express an emotion.

Am I right?

Which word is the logical indicator in this sentence?

I thought cannot is the indicator means group 2. Am I right?

Many thanks!

Hi,

I've currently only taken 2 PT's (50, June 2007). I purchased some LSAT question bundles from cambridge lsat and drilled a bunch of LG and RC from tests 1-38. After each topic JY taught, I would spend about 2-3 hours doing drills from those packets.

I'm thinking of taking every other 50s test and then doing each 60-68 test.

Is this a good plan?

On PT 50 I screwed up hard on LR but after calming down my nerves and "retaking" the LR section I improved substantially. I have heaps to go though before I can say I am confident in my abilities to score 0 wrong (or as few wrong as possible). I did okay on the other sections but as mentioned in another post I ran out of time on the RC but got one wrong while missing two on LG because I didn't read my own inference chart properly...

Anyone else get messed up by this when they PT'd this test? I got owned pretty bad. Watched the video that J.y. put up though

After going through all the courses in 7sage, I found myself still confused about causation and conditional logical, especially how to know the relationship in stimulus is causation, condition, or premise and conclusion. Anyone can help me clarify it?

I don't know if anyone has this problem and I know the obvious answer to this question would be to just slow down and take more time but I was wondering if anyone finds themselves repeatedly mis-recording rules - messing up something very simple - such as replacing one variable letter with another. I am finding I don't miss infrences as much as I make a dumb mistake such as mis-recording a rule under timed conditions. It is problem, i believe, directly related to trying to get down the rules as fast as possible in order to give myself the most amount of time on the game. However, one slip in the smallest detail while recording the rules can destroy your timing if you have to go back once its been noticed (which is almost always the case, lol). If anyone has had this problem and had any specfic drill, exercies, w/e, that they used to over come it, I would be more than willing to hear them out about it.

Thanks

Jake.

We all know what AP and MP questions are, but I have ran into many harder AP and MP questions where the stimuli does not actually explicitly state the conclusion, making it difficult to label the different roles each sentences play. The conclusion in these questions are instead implied by the structure of the argument. Since I have ran into several questions like this, I have reasons to believe that this is a recurring theme on harder AP questions that we should be familiar with. However, this is only a hypothesis based on my experience, so I am here to ask all of you to pay attention to this type of questions and post it on this thread to confirm or reject this hypothesis.

Here are two questions that I have so far.

Preptest 28 Sec 3 # 14

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-3-question-14/

The conclusion here is that citizens in a democratic country should not neglect to vote.

Preptest 50 Sec 2 # 19

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-2-question-19/

The conclusion here seems to be that one should not go too far in limiting one's fat intake.

In either case the conclusion is not mentioned in the stimuli.

What are your opinions' on this?

I noticed that some games are very easy to diagram. However, I am always unsure on how many sketches I should make. In order to save time, is there a general method for knowing when to draw multiple diagrams vs. using only one?

Some classes of animal are so successful that they spread into virtually every ecosystem...

Answer: the argument is flaw because "what is true of a whole is also true of its constituent elements"

However, It seems to me that the argument is quite valid. All insects are so successful and ants are the most successful among insects, we can conclude that ants are also successful, which means is not a threatened species. I can't find "whole" "part" flaw here. Anyone help me ?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-1-question-17/

Hi all, this question comes from PT35, section 1, question 23, i chose E on this one. Can anyone share your thoughts on why E is incorrect?

I thought the author makes assumption that in order to survive, you need to have many beliefs, and then the statistician's rule is all about overall correctness of the total set of one's belief. So the author is implying if you want to survive, you need to have many correct beliefs, right? given the statistician's rule, this is not going to happen, so that is why they are incorrect.

Thanks in advance!

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-1-question-23/

Just came across a discussion where LSAT takers were saying they start at the middle of the LR sections, essentially getting the hardest questions out of the way first. then working on the easier ones last (1-10/11), since you can speed read those quicker. Do you recommend this approach? I've never heard of this before, they say this is where they saw their biggest jumps.

Philosopher: It is absurd to argue that people are morally obligated to act...

I am totally lost in the last sentence of this stimulus. Can anyone clarify the meaning of last sentence to me ?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-3-question-20/

I remember the Inference, sufficient assumption question should be the freebies for 170.

* Premise:

- TV news watchers have NO expectations of careful discussion of public issues.

- newspaper readers have the expectation of careful discussion of public issues.

* Conclusion: In contrast to regular newspaper reading, regular watching of network television news programs increases the tendency to think of public issues in oversimplified terms.

*** WEAKENING Answer: Regular watchers of network television news programs are much more likely than other people to be habitual readers of newspapers.

(PT 11/Section 2/#18)

I can see how the answer overlaps the two demographic groups(newspaper readers and TV watchers), but can't the conclusion still stand? Even if the same people watch the news AND read newspapers, the action of watching news itself(=the subject of the conclusion) can still have its impact. Whether they do read the newspapers or not, anybody who watches the TV news are still subjected to the influence of watching TV.... No?

Can anyone point out the critical flaw in my reasoning?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat11-section-2-question-18/

I feel great pressure and can't even sleep well at night. My aim is above 170 and now I am around actual 155, BR 165. Can I really reach my goal on the test day? I really doubt about that and feel hopeless. I spend all day long to study LSAT alone but efficiency is really low. OMG.

How do you guys time yourself while drilling LR? just do 24 questions in 35 mins ? 10 in 15 mins? not timed at all?

I feel kind of hopeless on LG. I've improved since I've been studying, but I figured after a few months I'd have them down, but its not the case. I still get trouble with some double layered sequencing games, and I havent really done much grouping yet. I do the games - watch the 7 sage video - memorize the inferences through printing a bunch of copies out. I duno what to do now. I practice them for hours a day and I feel like I am not gaining much progress on them. (I have both the LGB and MLG)