Rewords the conclusion

Can anyone please explain the pattern of reasoning that would make the answer C?

I'm trying to work now to get my RC score down to the -5 range, and I'm drilling a lot on the passage types im bad at, and most of the hard or hardest passages I'll get 2 or 3 wrong, and on the easier ones, 1 or 2 maybe, if I get a good selection of passages its likely I;ll be in that -6 range. EXCEPT for spotlight passages; something about spotlight passages just doesn't click for me, there's a majority 1 star or 2 star passages where I'll get straight up 4 out of 6 or 7 ACs wrong, and I don't understand why, does anyone have any tips? I'm confident my LR will be at -4/5 for August/Sept LSAT, but if I can't get my RC out of the -7/8 zone I won't be able to get a 165

(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.

Before entering the PT's in the 80's, I used to blaze through the LR questions and would get -4/-5. Obviously, not perfect but a solid result.

But once I entered the 80's, my LR started dipping and I end up getting -7 to -9. I took a step back and tried to see what's going on.

I'm starting to find that a lot of the flaws and assumptions in LR in the 80's are still the same, but they are disguised with more convoluted language, both in the stimulus and in the answers. This has forced me to have to slow down now and really untangle the language in both the stimulus and answers now.

Is this something people have noticed or am I just going crazy? Lol.

I used to love blazing through the sections, but am wondering if I need to slow down now to attain accuracy on the more recent PT's.

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?

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

I've found that the games I struggle with most consistently involve conditional logic. I don't have any trouble understanding the logical relations themselves, but the complexity of the rules gets me very confused. For example, when a rule says something like, if A is before B, then C is before D. An example of a game that gives me trouble is PT78.S2.G3: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-78-section-2-game-3/

Does anyone have any advice on how to approach these games?

While Ive been working through BRing Reading Comp passages in the past week, Ive been using outside explanations to help me understand where my gap in reasoning lies. While I think it might help in the long run, its inevitably extremely difficult to remember the logical reasoning behind every single question. That being said, would I be better off figuring out the logical reasoning on my own or continuing to use outside explanations for right/wrong answers? My concern is whether I am cheating the process by possibly not fully thinking it through on my own. Any tips will be helpful! Thanks!

I'm having trouble figuring out the argument in this stimulus. I believe its saying:

Premise: While health care in other Western countries is supported by their tax revenues, the US government does not provide health care via tax. The US public health-care expense is ~5% of the GDP, but private is 7%. Thus, this 7% is tax.

Conclusion: It is incorrect to say that people of the US are "lightly taxed."

What the hell does that mean? This argument literally makes no sense. I can't follow which is probably why I can't pinpoint the flaw.

Any input would be helpful!

Hey, Does anyone know if a Mac 10.12.6 is acceptable for test ? ProcturU says minimum 10.13 and I wrote to clarify but they sent me to the same FAQ page.

Thanks for any help

Does anyone consistently approach weakening questions like RRE and see consistent results?

I just took PT 85 S3 and on Q24 JY shows how to resolve the question using an RRE method. I see exactly why this question is right now and have a great understanding for RRE questions (it's my favourite question type as I can often get them right even if I have no idea what's going on lol).

So I was wondering if it might be good to leverage my strengths and try it out , but thought I would ask to see if anyone else does this. :)

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-85-section-3-question-24/

Omg I've been wracking my brain trying to think through this question, could really use some help!!

I have trouble understanding why D is correct.

I dismissed it because D claims that the two faulty studies do not support a causal finding, when the premise is based on the two study's correlational finding. The conclusion also specifically clarifies that it only applies under the assumption that "IF night lights cause nearsightedness," so even if the studies are faulty and do not support a causal finding, it doesn't hurt a conclusion that already operates under a world where night lights do cause nearsightedness.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!!!!

these two games are a perfect example of why I get confused as to when I should set up my game board as a grouping sequencing game or a regular grouping. What throws me off is that they both have inherent order (game 1: 1 3 5, and game 2: 1 2 3).

I would appreciate any insight as to how some of you are able to determine what type of game board is needed in these situation. Thanks!

I never took science past grade 10, and know nothing lol. Do people with 0 science knowledge have any tips on how to better understand them?

Whenever I do diagram for a question, I find that I get very enveloped in it and as a result am less likely to notice the "gap" in the stimulus that needs to be connected for sufficient assumptions. Basically, I find diagramming to obscure this assumption recognition process for me. But I am not sure if this is because I am not diagramming correctly, if diagramming becomes less "involved" over time as you do more of it, or if my brain simply interprets the question better by not diagramming?

My process basically is: find assumption, then find the answer choice that connects the two "unconnected" ideas, then just confirm that the necessary and sufficient positioning isn't making some sort of flaw (e.g. mistaking necessary for sufficient or vice versa).

I'm studying for a 167+, so any advice on how to reduce my margin of error for this process would be appreciated! Last PT was a 161 (which was the official Jan LSAT).

Did anyone find a more simpler way to tackle game 4 in this pt?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-2-game-4/

Hi everyone,

I’m consistently scoring around -4 per LR section, and I’ve noticed a frustrating pattern. Two of the questions I miss are usually 4–5 star difficulty so fair enough. But the other two are often 3-star or easier, and when I review them, I immediately see the correct answer and understand exactly why it’s right. I usually just shake my head and wonder how I missed it.

Timing isn’t an issue. I’ve done a lot of timed practice, feel comfortable under time pressure, and usually have time at the end of each section to review any questions I flagged. By the time the section ends, I’m confident in almost every answer I’ve chosen, but I’m still missing these “should’ve got it” questions.

Has anyone else dealt with this? Any strategies or mental habits that helped you tighten up and eliminate these kinds of preventable mistakes?

Appreciate any advice.

What is the frequency of the different question type distribution within LR on the recent LSATs?

Looking for someone to study LR with, needing tips on how to study, consistent. Last LSAT June 2024 looking to increase 15-20 points!

Do we get an email a few days before orr....?

Hey everyone I tried searching through the forums to see if there were any hits and I didn't see anything but I am a little confused on general principles. I am doing pretty well on the method of reasoning portion of the curriculum knock on wood but one area that I've noticed myself wasting too much time on are on answer choices that mention something to do with the argument using a general principle. I've been getting in the habit of quickly attempting to come up with an example of whatever the answer choice is and then comparing that to the argument featured in the stimulus that I have summed up in my own words but I keep second guessing myself on the answer choices with something to do with a general principle.

In the second lesson of the method of reasoning curriculum JY uses the "all jedi use the force" or "all apples are fruit" as examples for a general principle. That makes sense to me but then I'll see some stimulus's where either a premise or conclusion will say something that I think could be interpreted as a general principle and then that gray area is the source of my question. Most recent example was form LSAT 19 Section 4 Question 18 June 1996. I got it right during blind review but it seems like this is one simple fix I can make to tighten my shot group. Does anyone have any other examples of general principles or any tips on their approach?

-Stay safe and thank you for your time!

how do you guys do MBT and MSS conditional logic questions quickly / in a timely manner? When I am doing a timed run sometimes the language of the stim feels like gibberish to me so that doesn't help because I'm re-reading it several times. Then I also feel like diagramming the whole thing takes too much time. From there I'm already tempted to skip it. However, in BR, the answer feels way more obvious once I understand the logic at play -- it just takes too long to grasp the logic at play. If anyone feels the same as me, how did you 1. read the stimulis without freaking out / decipher it without needing to read it a million times 2. do you diagram it ? or do the inferences stand out in your head quite quickly? 3. Was it a matter of just drilling these questions more and then you got the hang of it ?

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 dont know how to get faster. I've been doing RC practice for so long and I cant get faster. I easily do LG and LR on time but not RC, any tips on how to get faster that you did that worked for you? Skipping words made me do worse.