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! :)

PT F97.S1.Q18 – Roseville Courthouse

We are asked to identify the point at issue / disagreement between Mayor Tyler and Councillor Simon. Tyler suggested to build a new courthouse for the city of Roseville in 1982 for a price of 26 million dollars, but ‘now’ in 1992 the price of the courthouse is 30 million. Tyler uses these premises to infer that Roseville would have saved 4 million dollars if the courthouse had been built in 1982, as suggested. Tyler also mentions in passing that the existing courthouse has been overcrowded.

Simon responds by bringing in the topic of inflation: The 26 million dollars that the courthouse would have costed in 1982 are equivalent to 37 million in 1992 dollars. Simon takes this to show that Roseville actually saved money by not building the courthouse. Simon also mentions in passing that the courthouse, had it actually been built, would have been underutilized.

There thus are at least two disagreements in this exchange, one much more overt than the other: (1) Roseville was right not to build the courthouse in 1982: Tyler disagrees, Simon agrees. (2) Had the courthouse been built, it would have been put to good use: Tyler agrees, Simon disagrees. The answer choices are tricky in that four of them purport to get at this first disagreement while not actually resolving it. Only one answer choice, the correct one, gets at the second disagreement and actually resolves it:

(A) This gets at Roseville’s actions going forward, does not directly relate to either disagreement.

(B) This gets at the issue of inflation adjusted prices, does not directly relate to either disagreement.

(C) This gets at the extent of Tyler’s responsibility, does not directly relate to either disagreement.

(D) This does get at the second disagreement and points out one issue where Tyler and Simon disagree: Would a new courthouse actually have been needed / been put to good use? Tyler agrees, as Tyler proclaims the present courthouse overcrowded, i.e. insufficient to serve Roseville’s existing population spatially. Simon disagrees; states that a hypothetical larger courthouse would have remained underutilized. The disagreement is subtle, but definitely present.

(E) This confuses the issue of inflation adjustment with financial upkeep, purports to get at the first disagreement but actually misrepresents information from the passage, in an apparent attempt to confuse test takers who did not select one of the previous answers the first time around.

Takeaway: This is a tricky question in that there are two disagreements only one of which gets resolved. The question stem arguably hints at this by speaking of ‘A point of disagreement,’ rather than of ‘The point of disagreement;’ i.e. the question stem leaves open the possibility of multiple disagreements. Nevertheless, this question demands some reflection. Read stimulus and answer choices more than once to get at the nuance of the issues at play. Do process of elimination for the wrong answer choices. If necessary, flag the question the first time around and return to it at the end of the section.

I chose B, and then A, as I was unsure how this claim directly supported the main conclusion...

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

Can someone please help me with this question. Been sitting on it for 2 hrs

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.

Is there no explanation for this vide? I'm confused why it shows discussion only... :(

I started studying for the LSAT a week ago. I am taking my LSAT in September. What version would you guys recommend V1 or V2?

Taking all suggestions before the January LSAT!

Dear friends,

I just missed your group study on Jan 8th. Here is one question I don't know why C is the best answer to Q13.

As the two sentences are responses from Bordwell in proving musicals still fit into his theory, he mentioned that first musicals are derived from live theater, second, a structure from other genre makes viewers prepare for and thus accept them realistic. The author then attack him that "pigeonholing genres" is not necessary for viewers in watching films. So that is choice C is another way saying that "pigeonholing genres" is unnecessary? Thank you for helping me out.

Admin note: edited title

Hi, friends. I had a lot of trouble understanding the clay tablets passage in PT 74 and I'm wondering if anyone can think of or dig up any similar passages. It seems straight-up descriptive to me, like a history lesson, rather than posing a position or a hypothesis or theory. It only helps so much to reflect on this one example. Anyone?

Hi All,

The last sentence of the paragraph 2 reads: '...they argue that as the quality of black schools improved relative to that of white schools....'

J.Y. explains that from this, we cannot infer whether the quality of white schools remained the same, improved, and decreased. I understand this, but am wondering what the different interpretations of the sentence would be in the 3 scenarios.

What I think (assigning numbers as indicators of 'quality'):

Say the white schools originally were 10, black schools 5.

(1) In the case that white schools improved to 15, the net increase in quality for them would be 5. Therefore, whatever increase in quality of the black schools would have to be greater than +5, whether it be 11 or 12 (must be at minimum 11)

(2) In the case that white schools remained the same, then black schools can increase in any amount (but given the context of the passage, unlikely that it would supersede that of the white schools' original, 10)

(3) In the case that white schools decreased, say to 8 (so -2), black schools can increase in any amount, say 1, because that is still a greater than a -2.

Before J.Y.'s explanation, what I thought (1) would be meant if white schools improved to 15 (+5), black schools would also increase by +5 to 10. If this were the case, would the sentence have read: '...they argue that as the quality of black schools improved in parallel to that of white schools....'?

Please let me know what you think!

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-15-section-1-passage-4-passage/

There are two archetypes for answer choices: one that starts with something along the lines of "presume", "assume", or "takes for granted"; another that starts with something along the lines of "ignores", "overlooks", or "fails to take into account".

Most of us can do these questions based on intuition, especially if we use the method that JY taught us. I still visualize the goku doing his kamehameha blast on the car. But for some of the harder, more abstract questions, for me, it helps to realize what these two answer choice stems are saying.

Hope this helps, cheers =)

1- Is it still a good idea to do the classic LG bundle (1-35) or should I mix some games from PT 50-60 into the bundle?

2- Also another question, while doing the LG bundle I will do the RC CC as well. After I am done with the RC but still in the process of doing the LG bundle, should I incorporate timed sections of LR and RC or just wait and do a full timed PT?

I get that we are concerned about comparing the people that fall outside the weight bracket and people that fall inside the weight bracket, but I am still confused about (D). From the data collected from policyholders, we make a generalization, which looks like a flaw to me. I thought (D) acts as a flaw/gap protector by increasing the likelihood that holders are proper representatives of the population.

Help is appreciated! Thank you in advance!

Listen and subscribe:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify

This episode from the 7Sage LSAT podcast aims to help you conquer Flaw questions, discussing common mistakes in arguments and how to identify them. We then explore how these specific analytical skills are useful beyond just Flaw questions, making a real difference in how you tackle other LSAT question types. You'll also get to see this in action as we work through a few example questions as a practical exercise.

In parallel reasoning, the scope of the conclusion must be very similar. If the original argument has a "usually," then AC's conclusion must have a "most" or "usually" etc. Or if the conclusion is universal, "Bats are nocturnal," then the AC's conclusion must also be universal. (Right?)

In match the flaw, the scope of the conclusion is irrelevant.

Hi everyone, I'm starting my LSAT studying journey, looking around and trying different online platforms that I feel work best. I enjoy 7sage, but feel a lot in the core curriculum is locked, like over half, what packages would you guys recommend worked best for you? Thanks!!!!!!

Are there in study groups in Washington DC area for LSAT in September 2017?

Hi!

Is the Oct 12 MENA test digital or na?

I'm getting better at diagramming LR questions (when need be), but I'm very slow at it. Any tips for getting faster?

Hi there,

Is there a lesson as part of the CC where the process for approaching LR Evalutate questions is covered? If not is there a particular problem/ set of problems JY works through where he explains his strategy in detail?

Thanks yall

I have been doing really well on the first 60-65 questions of my practice tests, getting very few wrong, but it is in the last dozen or so questions on the final LR section of the tests where I am getting a majority of my questions wrong. I am aware that the test gradually gets harder throughout the section, but I am unsure why I am struggling so much with this part because I get most of the harder ones right when I drill. Should I be practicing harder drills? If anyone has advice on this problem, let me know.

Pretty much what the title says. My main issue is with LR. I used to be able to score 18/25. Then I hit a couple highs of 20/25 and was very, very happy. A week before, I started getting 16/15/14 out of 25, a pretty big dip. Took the Sept test, then about a week break. Did a section drill yesterday, got a 13/25. Is my brain broken? Was it too much to hope for a linear increase? For reference, I work full time, so MTWRF I study 4 hours daily: I wake up an hour before work to study, the hour of my lunch break, and 2 hours when I get home. The weekends are about 8-10 hour days for me. Is it too much to hope for a 160 by Oct?

Send Help.

Looking for an accountability partner to do 1 RC passage daily. We’ll do it separately and then check answers together. Please message me if you’re seriously interested!