Is the reasoning flaw in the stimulus that it concludes what makes something not censorship from the sufficient condition for censorship?

If A or B, then Censorship exists.

From this, we cannot conclude that censorship does not exist.

Similarly, in (D),

If A, then heroic.

From this, we cannot conclude what's not heroic. A is a sufficient condition for being heroic, not its necessary condition. If it were the necessary condition, we have a way of concluing that something is NOT heroic. Is this all there is to see in this question?

Hi,

I am wondering if anyone has any good suggestions for specific drill templates that can be effective similar to the 15 LR in 15 min template J.Y. suggested in the core curriculum.

Thanks!

Looking for study buddies who are willing to out in the work and hold themselves accountable.

If anyone is in the Arlington/D.C/Alexandria area, let me know if you are looking for an accountability or study partners for the September and November LSAT's.

I skip around passages from easiest to hardest. typically, at the 3rd passage I start comprehending the passage less than if I were doing this passage isolated to the rest in the form of a drill . I assume the issue is because I have trouble shifting focus from passage to passage. As a result, I find myself not being able to complete 4-6 questions because I try to keep understand the passage after the initial read to reference those questions. Does anyone have any advice to overcome this> Thanks.

I couldn't see how the term "normal" was used differently between the two speakers? Would someone be able to clarify how to focus on that? I completely brushed over that.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-40-section-1-question-10/

Could someone help me out here?

The stem reads "The passage suggests that Taruskin's position commits him to which one of the following views?" I'm having trouble understanding why AC D is wrong here. I selected AC D because in lines 6-7 Taruskin explicitly states that high art was produced by and for elites. JY's reasoning as to why AC D is incorrect is just that Taruskin never mentions that the artists are themselves part of the elite class but this just doesn't seem to be true? I get why AC C is right. Does this question hinge on the use of the word suggests in the stem? That it can't be explicitly stated but must instead be implied? Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

I am taking the Jan LSAT and scoring well on LG and LR but RC keeps dragging me down. What is the best way to boost my RC score with just over two weeks until test day?

I started out with a diagnostic score of 153 and have been scoring 168-172 for the last 5 practice tests, and my main struggle is consistently LR sections. I have begun doing flashcards with the logical indicators to drill which group they go with, but want to gain a lot more confidence with arguments and logical relationships. Does anyone have tips they have used to better comprehend logical arguments and practice to become more confident in these sections? Thanks!!

I guess the reason why its true is because its strengthening the reason to use sugar on the wound, best explained because of its dehydrating effect. I originally choose E but then switched it to A and got it right in a blind review.

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

Hi,

Based on all the discussion online, this question seems to be very infamous, so anybody who can help me here would be a genius.

I was stuck between A and E here-- they both looked so good, so I ended up sticking with E (the wrong answer) because E had slightly more accurate terminology (I thought that maybe "environmental consequences" in A may not be the same thing as "environmental degradation" as stated in the stimulus and E). A ended up being the right answer (not surprised there), but how is E wrong?!?

My prephrase here was that: "Thus, the electric car will not result in an abatement of environmental degradation caused by auto emissions"

E looked right to me because abatement (according to the dictionary) seems to mean the same thing as "net reduction". As a result, E looked like a perfect answer almost word for word.

Can anybody explain why E here is completely wrong?

Thanks!

Best regards

Hello,

This question took me a while to understand why A was not the answer. Anson concludes that Dr. Ladlow isn't a responsible psychologist. The question stem asks: "Anson bases his conclusion about Dr. Ladlow based on which of the following?"

A ) If anything, the attack on his character would be the conclusion, not the support for the conclusion. Furthermore, from what I understand a personal attack would be more along the lines of: "Dr. Ladlow smokes cigarettes; we shouldn't believe anything he says"; not a professional criticism.

B ) Is correct because it takes the general principle within the stimulus of that responsible psychologists need to consider the potential of evidence that could refute their own findings, which Dr. Ladlow fails to do. Thus by failing to adhere to a general principle, Anson states that Dr. Ladlow's incorrect.

C ) There's no ambiguous term within this stimulus.

D ) Anson doesn't dispute Dr. Ladlow's facts (i.e. that the Dr.'s theory about rats isn't correct, its just that Anson adds to the notion that he must also consider the possibly that it might NOT be correct)

E ) Anson doesn't reject the Dr.'s theoretical explanation.

Hey everyone, so I wrote my first ever LSAT in November and I am pretty happy with my score. My first diagnostic was a 141 and now on the November Flex Exam I scored a 163. What I was hoping for some opinions on is my next move from here. Currently, I am signed up for the January flex exam (I signed up immediately after writing the November exam in a somewhat state of panic lol). I am happy with my score as it lands me in a good spot with the schools I have applied to (I am a Canadian student), and my GPA for my last 20 is also pretty good (3.695/4.0). I am torn on whether I should keep going with the January flex or withdraw. My average scores for my prep tests leading up to the exam ranged from the mid to high 150's to mid 160's, which is why I feel happy with my performance on exam day and feeling a little uneasy about whether I will be able to improve upon my initial score of 163.

Let me know what you guys think, I don't have many resources or people to draw from so I am interested in what the 7sage community has to say!

Thanks :)

Hey everyone, so I just got my January 2023 lsat score back and it's one point lower than my current highest score. I have taken the test 3 times very spread out over the years as I've navigated being a student/working throughout my studying. My highest current score is 156 (June 2021), and on my most recent test, I scored 155 (January 2023). Any advice would be so helpful as I really don't know what to do!! I really wish I had seen more progress over the years as I was practice testing in low-mid 160s prior to my January test. Should I cancel or is one point not worth a cancellation showing up on my record?

Any Tips on getting better at LR. I'm not doing so great on this section of the test and need help. This section is keeping me from my target score.

Hi,

So I can see why C is definitely a better answer choice than all the rest. However, I find myself confused by the fact that I am not sure how we can tell that the author thinks that doctrine of precedent is a "useful tool" here. Can anyone #help me with this?

Thanks!

Best regards

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-3-passage-2-questions/

Any tips on Specific Reference RC questions? These are consistently the only questions I miss when doing RC passages and if I can improve my efficiency on these I'll see really solid improvement on my RC section scores. I've been reading passages from my monitor while notating on scratch paper to accommodate for the Flex but I recall seeing that Specific Reference questions will be different in some way on the Flex but don't quite recall how. Thoughts?

Hope this helps others:

#1. Weakening (Except)

○ I assumed that the correct answer choice (which would need to be the one that did not

weaken the argument) needed to be one that strengthened the argument. In reality,

something that is neutral suffices as something that does not weaken

#2. Flaw

○ I failed to realize that words like (to) promote, elevate, develop, forward, advance, stimulate,

assist, foster, boost, catalyze, nurture and encourage are NOT synonyms for sufficient nor

necessary.

○ Instead of choosing the answer choice that attacks the argument, I chose the answer choice that

merely validated the opposing argument. Just because an argument is true that does not mean its

opposite is false.

○ I failed to realize that the correct answer choice was subtle which lead me to choose the best

incorrect answer choice since it appeared to say what the correct answer choice is saying.

#3. Main Conclusion

○ I chose the context and/or intro statement instead of the conclusion

#4. NA

○ I skimmed the stimulus

○ I did not choose the correct answer because it was a pretty strong statement which the correct NA

answer choice usually is not. Sometimes the NA is strong.

○ I did not see how the correct answer choice helped to connect everything up. Focused way too much

on looking for those ACs that when negated, destroy the argument. I did this at the expense of

looking for those ACs that when negated burn down the bridge formed by the correct AC.

○ I failed to correctly identify what the implication would be if the assumption inherent in the

correct answer choice was reversed.

○ I failed to focus on the conclusion and instead mistakenly focused on the premise/support that is

integral to the conclusion

○ I assumed that the correct answer choice would need to, when negated, be able to destroy the

argument but it merely needs to make the argument irrelevant.

#5. Parallel Flaw

○ I failed to ensure that all of the elements of the flawed argument I chose amongst the answer

choices aligned with all of the elements of the stimulus' flawed argument including modifiers such

as "safely" or "obviously conclude" versus "must conclude".

○ Sometimes does not mean some

#6. Strengthening

○ Only appears to be strong but does nothing to strengthen the argument

For anyone who doesn't have access to an appropriate device and needed the LSAC to send you their tablet loaner to take the FLEX, did you have any problems with it? Did it come with a charger, keyboard, etc? Any thoughts on the experience overall?

.

How’d it go for everyone? Personally, I was annoyed by the paper test after all of the digital prep I’ve done. I had two LG sections and I’m praying that the art gallery was experimental.

Is anyone willing to explain the third game to me for May Flex 2020? I have it figured out but I was wondering if there was a faster/easier way to solve this game. Thank you!

Is there a conditional and set logic drill so that I could apply the things that I am still learning. I went through the groups and I want to hone in my skills rather than just do 5 questions and be done with it. I have not taken any prep tests as I am saving it for the end of the course. I am currently working from the chains until the rest of the course section. Is there a place to practice these skills without affecting my progress on the actual questions on prep tests.

Is the best way to learn the indicators through anki or quizlet?

I feel like soon as I can cement this I will be good! I'm challenged to properly identify whether one can pronounce 'X' or 'Y' of a given statement as a certain condition BECAUSE the logical indicator preceded it or not. Are there circumstances with rules for when it does not? I keep getting caught in the confusion between how to label what is before and after the logical indicator. And yes, I have gone through the lessons on this.

J.Y. can you assist with this #help

Hi, I'm new to studying so I'm having trouble with making an inference. The stimulus states that "none of the responses among terminal cancer patients to various therapeutic measures has been more positive than the response among those who consumed shark cartilage". The powerscore bible states that we can infer "(consuming) shark cartilage has received a more positive response than any other therapy". First, how would we diagram this or is it even diagrammable? Second, what fundamental is this testing? Is it logical opposites? Thanks in advance and happy new year!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-1-question-11/