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 Because the author is not mixed up between the absence of a condition or the presence of a condition that is no longer in effect which was designed to protect the endangered species from the outset but would be revoked on the assumption that its absence would not likely to harm them and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 all,

I just took PT 87 today under timed conditions, and I'm surprised to say my LR score went up! The 80's have been killing me with the LR; is 87 a lot easier or something? I just went from a -8 average a week ago to a -3 today?

Hey everyone

I have 9 recent PT's left that I plan to take before the November 11th LSAT. Would it be ideal to have all of them except maybe one or two done before the final week leading up to the LSAT? That way I'd have completed all the material and can focus solely on review that week. Or is it better to just keep at my current pace and not switch to primarily review the final week. Thanks for any advice!

Hey just wanted to reach out to see if anyone else in the community had issues with taking the October LSAT. The first time I tried to test, the system stopped working in the middle of the exam and I couldn't finish. I sent emails, called, and reported an issue with the exam and rescheduled. Then when it came time to retest, the proctorU system indicated that the original exam, that I couldn't finish, somehow processed as completed as scheduled. So I was unable to take the retake as scheduled. I reached out to LSAC to see how this can be resolved, but I've heard nothing back yet. I'm a little worried they could snub me on the money I paid, as well as the exam attempt. Was anyone else unable to take the October 2021 LSAT because of multiple technical issues with LSAC and ProctorU?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-2-question-06/

I know this is early on in the section, but it's very tricky. None of the explanations I find online are satisfying.

For justify principle questions, the premises should connect with the conclusion, and this doesn't happen here.

First, a discussion of the stimulus:

Premise: The styling of characters in Quirks is not problematic because the film is funny, and that is necessary for a comedy.

Conclusion: The criticism of Quirks is misguided.

I would prephrase if a film is successful within their genre, actions that lead to that film's success as part of that genre is not warranted. (something along those lines)

The correct answer is as follows: D. "Films are successful if they succeed within their genre"

"if they succeed within their genre" = the film is funny, that is the most important thing for comedy

"films are successful" = ?

How can we conclude that "films are successful" = "criticism is misguided"? To me, that is still a big gap, that is not justified from the principle.

I don't think I have ever encountered a difficult LR sections as PT73. Please help!

Really struggled with this question in terms of understanding the QS and choosing between A and D (specifically, why A isn't right). Could someone correct my understanding?

Stim:

profit --> build more rooms or improve existing

/build more rooms

/profit

My thinking: So if there's no ability to increase profits, then hotel owners are either unable to build more rooms (which stim states) and/or unable to improve existing rooms

This question is a fill in the blank, so we're looking for a most strongly supported AC.

ACs:

A: Struggled a lot with this AC - it almost seemed like a necessary assumption because sure, even if hotel owners can't build more rooms, what if their rooms are at 10% occupancy right now? They'd be able to increase profits if they upped the occupancy rate to 100%.

B: Wrong. How would we know if they are maxed out when it comes to attractive location? Stim doesn't tell us this

C: Wrong. Cost of labor? came from left field

D: Initially chose this answer and then went back to A. My thinking here originally was: Alright, so hotel owners can't build more rooms, but they have another lever. Could they do some renovations and charge the rooms higher so they can make a profit? But, this AC shows that the hotels are already maxed out when it comes to improvement so they're really just...stuck.

(but then I came back again to this question and thought, well, what if the rooms aren't actually maxed out so then I kept bouncing back and forth between A and D) :(

E: Wrong. How do we know this/what would this even do to drive towards the fact that profits aren't increasing?

#help

So I was utterly confused after reading the first sentence. I just didn't get how they were able to use the color of gazelle teeth to tell whether a group of humans were nomadic or not. I just don't understand how this "support" supports the conclusion that N was nomadic but C were not. How would the color of gazelle teeth tell you anything about human lifestyle?

What are you even supposed to do after reading an argument like this and being utterly confused? I can skip but that just delays the inevitable. I have to come back it. How do you talk yourself out of confusion?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-c2-section-2-question-17/

Hi, could someone who understands this passage thoroughly translate paragraphs 3 and 4 with me? JY's explanation video for this passage zoomed through the last paragraph and I was still left pretty confused.

I do understand that overall, this passage is detailing Meyerson's critique of CLS and Paragraph 3 gets at one of her main issues with a key tenet of CLS, namely that just because we have two equally compelling solutions to a legal question, it must therefore mean that any choice between the two must be random or irrational and I get that she clearly doesn't agree but what I don't understand is why M would choose to bring in an "utterly unreasonable answer" to help decide between the two solutions. Like how would that help?

And for the last paragraph, is that first sentence just a really long-winded, abstract way of saying that the legal process is not necessarily moral? I also am confused about the whole who endorses the rules of the game in the final three sentences. What is the actual point of all this?

And I get it, during timed conditions I cannot hope to understand every detail but I'm reviewing right now and would like to try.

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

Omg guys I am freaking tf out. I was in the middle of taking my exam and during the intermission I grabbed my phone to put it in the other room and when the proctor had me rescan the room she cancelled the exam because I touched my phone. What are the chances of the LSAC letting me retake my LSAT for January?? This was supposed to be my last LSAT before applying for the cycle so the next test that I would be able to sign up for would be in March which might be too late for this cycle. Ahhhhhhhhh I feel so stupid but does anyone have any insight???

Did anyone feel like PT 92 logic games were a little difficult? I usually get -2 or -3 on each LG section but I got -5 for this one. I also couldn't finish it on time.

Evening everyone!

I'm Alexandra. I'm looking for serious study buddies for the Feb 2015. I've been studying while working full time but I need accountability and help with logic games (specifically). Any people interested in the study group can email me at alexandra.k.griffiths@gmail.com.

P.S. I live in Queens and work in Brooklyn. Again, serious inquiries ONLY!! Thank you! :)

Hey just wondering if I should complain about my proctor interrupting me. I really can't tell how much it threw me off. I feel like my concentration wasn't there, but I did finish on time. I don't know if I want to cancel... not sure what to do.

any last minute RC advice? my problem is not timing, but i can't seem to figure out what it is.

Hi everyone! I am a little confused on this question, specifically on Answer Choice E.

Because it is a Pattern MOR Q, I broke down the logic in the stimulus too:

B -> D or J

D or J m-> QP

B probably QP

I represented the conclusion with probably because I believe it is important, as the question does not fully claim B must be QP.

Working through the wrong answers:

A: Incorrect, talks about Mercedes Identifying most trees, but that does not really fit with the structure we need

B: Incorrect, assumption required between creaking gate and hearing somebody break into house.

C: Incorrect, similar to our argument, but does not include most, and includes a negation our argument does not have

D : Correct: M -> L or K m-> MD Conclusion: M probably MD. Direct mimic of Q Argument

E: This is the one I am struggling with why its incorrect.

Laying out the logic for this one I have:

T -> D or S

D or S m-> CS

T probably CS

I know I am missing something, but all I see here is an argument that also mimics the Qs argument. Maybe because the conclusion comes first?

Thanks for the help!

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!

Hello everyone,

While the printable preptests and 7Sage's digital tester use line numbers when referencing sentences in RC questions, I noticed the digital preptests on LSAC's website don't use line numbers, and instead say stuff like "in the middle of the third paragraph". Can anyone confirm what those questions are like when taking the actual test? Also, are we able to check off the box to condense the RC passage on test day as well?

I'm confused why the answer isn't x,y,z. Ik the Falafel truck serves 2 at a time but shouldn't it be able to serve all 3 if we cover all possible scenerios?

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-43-section-4-game-4/

I find that I can overwhelm myself, when there is no reason to be overwhelmed, for questions dealing with a lot of different variables. They typically manifest in: studies consisting of numbers/percentages, rising/lowering of levels (usually these appear physiologically), etc.

For instance, I took PT 89 and completely overwhelmed myself on 89.S4.Q23 (strengthening question about turmeric). In BR I was kicking myself because, had I stayed calm, organized and kept track of all the variables...I could have gotten it right!

Do you have a different method of approach for stimuli where you feel there's 'a lot' going on?

Hi!

I was watching the explanation for the in/out game referring to a group of people who can only be hired if they are interviewed for a position. In the explanation for the last question in the set, it mentions that the problem states at least 4 people are hired. However, I did not see that mentioned anywhere in the problem. Is it possible that there was an edit to the language or is there an inference that was not explained that I missed.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-1-game-2/

As the title says, I was around -3 on LG when I stopped studying last year and now I'm -10. I would prefer not to go back into the studying materials. Does anyone have any recommendations for filling in that knowledge gap?

Hello All,

If I want to create a few LR practice set, how should I break it down according to what the LSAT will be like? How many of each question type should I include?

Thanks.

I am curious to know if any study groups have formed in Lubbock, TX for the February 2015 LSAT?

So I've noticed that the introduction of the reading comprehension portion of the course does a pretty good job of preparing you for scientific readings. They discuss Phenomena, Hypotheses, readjusting a hypothesis following the observation of a new set of phenomena that rests outside the previously discussed hypothesis, etc. etc. The whole approach allows me to follow the chronological order of the scientific process discussed in the passages with confidence.

Do similar discussions exist for the other passage types like Law and Humanities? I am teasing out certain aspects on my own, like arguments and counterarguments often being in the law passages. But it's less direct than with the science passages. Any tips would be super appreciated!

I would like to discuss the LSAT maker's rationale under this question and its corresponding sentence (in line 30-31).

It seems obvious that in line 30-31 the reduced clause--"considered by programmers to be unimportant."--is to make the correct answer of Q4 more reasonable and obvious for test-takers.

But it looks to me that (E) still makes sense even if the reduced clause is scratched off.

If so, then what is the test maker's purpose to add the reduced clause? I would find it very surprising if the only purpose is to give us a head-up that soundtrack referred to in line 30 is intentionally emphasized.

How do you think? Any insights or comments would be very appreciated.

thanks.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-87-section-1-passage-1-questions/

Any advice besides reading more to improve in the reading comprehension section ? Structure, timing or types of questions?

So far I have been doing Bottom line but I have not seen much improvement.