d

Does anyone know how likely you are to get a Misc Game on the test? I'm worried if I get one it will mess up my whole section. How can you practice for Misc Games?

Could someone please explain why the answer is C and not D. Thank you!

Admin note: please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]" for the discussion title

PT30 Game 2

The six messages on an answering machine were each left by one of Fleure, Greta, Hildy, Liam, Pasquale, or Theodore...

Anyone know of similar games? This one cost me a perfect LG section... which was infuriating because it's so easy once you get it. Wanting to try a similar game fresh.

Does anyone have any particularly open ended games with a lot of rules to recommend for practice? I find myself getting a bit intimidated when there isn't that much that one can map out up front, so more practice with these would be helpful.

Looking for an LSAT tutor in the Greater New York Area or Long Island. Please pm me for my email. Thanks.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-36-section-1-question-22/

This took me probably 10 minutes to eke out the right answer. I kept thinking that the assumption was that all poets were writers because it clearly does not state that but that wasn't the answer choice. I'm still confused as how to get to work this conditional out. Please halllppppp!

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'm taking a new preptest on Sunday and wonder whether anyone else would be interested in getting together to take it with me. i'd prefer to emulate test conditions (e.g. starting at 8:30AM). let me know!

I took the August test and scored much lower than anticipated. I am applying to T20 schools. Should I cancel the score? I've been scoring 168-170 on practice tests for the past 4 months but scored in the low 160s. I'm taking the October test.

I finally broke 170 and I never have to take the LSAT again. My diagnostic score was a 161 and I just got a 171. I got those 10 points by studying with 7Sage. Thanks J.Y.

I am very confused with a specific relationship between universal quantifiers and existential quantifiers. This confusion becomes annoying in Assumption Questions. Please help! So, basically this is it:

1. "A-->C + A -->B"

2. "A-->C + A -most->B"

3. "A-->C + A some B"

For each of three given premises, we can conclude the same "B some C" relationship. Though the first part is the same "A-->C", the second part is different. I thought that this difference is understandable, because "A-->B" implies "A-most->B" and "A some B". So, we should have the same conclusion for "B some C". But the problem often arises.

For example, PT 24, LR2, Section 3, Question 19. Sufficient Assumption.

"Every student who walks to school goes home for lunch. It follows that some students who have part-time jobs do not walk to school."

The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

Premise: Walks to schools-->Goes home for lunch.

Conclusion: Part-time jobs (some) Do not walk to school.

Take the contrapositive of the premise, we have "Do not go home for Lunch--> Do not walk to School"

Now, it becomes clear that he Sufficient Assumption to bridge the gap could be:

1. "Do not go home for lunch (some) Part-time jobs". This is the correct answer choice (d).

(d). Some students who do not go home for lunch have part-time jobs.

2. Do not go home for lunch -most-> Part-time jobs.

3. Do not go home for lunch --> Part-time jobs. (conditional)

If we take the contrapositive of 3, we have "No part-time jobs-->Go home for lunch". The contrapostive is logically equivalent to the original. Now, "No part-time jobs-->Go home for lunch" implies

"No part-time jobs -most-> Go home for lunch." and also implies

"No part-time jobs (some) go home for lunch." (This is exactly what the wrong answer choice A says.)

(a). some students who do not have part-time jobs go home for lunch.

Please help me clear this confusion. Is there anything I misunderstood? I really appreciate your help.

Hello,

I've been studying JY's method of "knock-out" answers v.s "sneak-in" wrong answer choices.

And I'm wondering if it's possible for an answer choice to be BOTH a knock-out AND sneak-in wrong answer choice.

For instance, in PT 66, S3, G2, Question 11

Answer choice (E) seems to knock out a situation that was possible in the old world (e.g. PVROSTR) but also sneak in a situation that was not possible in the old world (e.g. RVRSTOP).

What does this mean?

Thanks!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-66-section-3-game-2/

#help

The explanation video for Q11, PTM20 talks about two approaches for solving suspension questions, i.e. knock out and squeeze in. Where in the CC can I find the detailed tutorial for such approaches? Thanks a lot!

Hi,

I chose E, but the answer was A.

Here's supposedly why the answer is A: given that the question is asking for what would "most support the author's claim [on lines 24-27] about the relationship between muralism and the Mexican Revolution", people are treating this question as if the "claim about the relationship" is the statement on 26-27: that the muralists reflected important innovations in the art world (thus leading to the correct answer = answer choice A.

Here's why I chose E: I thought that a relationship had to be a connection between the Mexican Revolution and muralism, so I was focusing on the phrase that muralism was the result of changes that the Mexican Revolution represented (line 24-26). This led me to choose E, since this looked like the only answer choice that could possibly support a claim regarding the relationship between Muralism and Mexican Revolution.

In other words, I didn't agree with A's reasoning because the claim on 26-27 only talks about muralism and doesn't connect it with Mexican Revolution.

Can anybody explain how answer choice A was correct? How were we supposed to know that this claim regarding this relationship was that described on lines 26-27 rather than that described on 24-26?

Any #help would be appreciated!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-39-section-3-passage-1-questions/

Hey, I am struggling to decide which one of the following strategies would be most effective- typically now I flag 8-10 questions per section. Would it be better to circle back to the harder ones im very unsure of first (less than 50% confidence), and use up my remaining time to try and seek out the right answer. OR would my time be better spent checking over the ones I flagged that I had 75-85% confidence in? For reference I usually have 6/7 im decently confident in, and 2-3 im very unsure/debating. Risk is i spend my time checking over the 6/7 quickly, and sacrifice the 2-3, or i spend my time on the 2-3 and risk still getting them wrong since theyre the hardest ones AND not double checking the easier ones and maybe getting 1 of those wrong. Pros and cons to each side, but I cant seem to make up my mind. Wondering if anyone currently uses any of these strategies to try and get the most accuracy in the last 5 ish mins when theyre checking over their answers, please let me know!

Okay, so I'm currently running through SA's and PSA's and ran into this and actually gave it some time to sit with me (after looking it up on the actual explanation video, powerscore forums, manhattan prep forums) and I've come to rationalizing D as such:

"So what the general idea is:

Adopt tax package > Discontinue daily story time > Inconvenience parents.

or

Adopt package > Inconvenience parents.

For some reason this exists, which is what makes [D] right:

Adopt package > [Inconvenience Parents > DONT adopt package]

Technically, could be true. The truth is that WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENS IF SUFFICIENT IS TRIGGERED (If " Inconvenience parents " is triggered, and we move the diagram forward). This could mean that we can NOT adopt (/Adopt)"

Is this the correct way of thinking about this?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-3-question-14/

Should you use the phase 2 memory method for RC for the real test?

thank you.

I've studied the valid/invalid arguments and though it's almost down, I sometimes still have mix-ups. I'm wondering if it's a good steadfast rule that, most and some only allow you to draw valid inferences if they occur first, then all the relationships following are "all" relationships?

ex. A some B ---> C

Is this a rule that works every time? If so, are there any other simplified one liners to help internalize?

Thanks all!

Hey everyone-

I am going through the core curriculum for the second time (a year apart) and had an idea I'm playing with and think is helpful.

I started fool proofing both solving the game completely (as JY often does in his video) and never splitting the board. I realized that when under time pressure, I may not see all of the inferences that lead to a full and complete solve, but I still need to find the correct answers in a timely manner.

For an idea of how this looks from a process standpoint:

*Repeat until I can answer all of the questions correctly and well under time without the fully solved game board.

After doing this, I felt there was another skill set being developed and felt less flat footed going into games if I couldn't fully solve a game board.

I am going to provide these caveats...

What do you guys think? Anyone else experiment with doing this?

Does anyone know if and how to view your LSAT Argumentative Writing submission after it has been completed?

Hey everyone,

The new LR tags are pretty confusing to me. The basic ones before I found were easy to understand in terms of what I needed to work on. Now it's telling me to work on what seems to be broad types of questions like Value Judgement and I just want to know the specific question types. Can I make it go back to the original analytical tags or is this permanent?

Thanks!

Arianne

I enjoyed this Q and thought I'd do a write-up.

The hard things on this Q for me were seeing the conclusion and understanding AC D.

The statement about development not negatively affecting the wildlife in the park is the conclusion, because it draws support from the following statements about #s on wildlife increasing and the Park's resources can support the current numbers. At first I thought this would just be a premise but after I read the paragraph I had to go back and see what the conclusion actually was.

The second sentence is a bit confusing, let's unpack it. We're talking about 2 surveys - the most recent surgery compared to one taken just before the development started. We should be asking "how far apart were these surveys taken?" The stim tells us a decade, so ten years. That's enough time to see a sizeable difference.

Next we see that theamount of wildlife has increased in those 10 years. Here is where your flaw detector should be going off!! The amount of wildlife has increased, but do we know that this means the Park's wildlife has not been negatively affected? Heck no. What if the development led to the death of all bears, and now without predators the bunny population is 20million? Or what if development led to every animal getting really sick, so now they don't kill each other, they just sit there in a catatonic state? Definitely a negative impact.

We're given 1 more premise that is not really important for getting the right answer. The parks current resources can support the current population. Ok? Will it support 1 more animal? Idk.

I've identified a flaw and now ready for ACs:

A. (Going bit by bit): ok, the recent survey and 10 years ago survey. This was the bunny flaw we identified. What if 9/10 species died due to the development? We're saying that's NOT the case. Still 10 species alive now, no fewer. Now we see the latest survey shows increased #s in each species. Bears, bunnies, etc all have increased populations. Good! This addresses a big flaw, and I like it. Def keep this answer. Turns out this is the correct AC.

B. If we took a snapshot of wildlife total numbers we need to know those numbers aren't skewed. B is showing it IS skewed - we took a snapshot at the peak time.

If this is how you read B you made the same mistake I did. "Diversity" is not the same as gross numbers. If this AC read "in addition to total number increase, diversity increased as well." This would add support to the argument that wildlife has not been negatively affected by the development.

The issue with B is it does indicate the snapshot is skewed - it was taken during summer when the numbers look best. Also make sure to note diversity isn't the same as gross numbers.

C. If animals are migrating in, then what can we conclude about the numbers of animals within the park? No idea!! The argument is using the total number of animals in the park increasing as a premise. Now that number is skewed by outside interference. What if 100% of animals within the park died, and 200% that number migrated in? Certainly we can't say the development had no negative impact.

D. This is a great subtle AC which makes it a little hard to see why is wrong. What does it mean that we can locate hard to find animals now that we couldn't in the past? It means in the past we could find 8/10 animals and now we're finding all 10/10. This weakens the support that the premise gives to the conclusion. What if population numbers didn't increase and you're just finding the last 2/10 animals?

E. Plant life - what about alien life? Did they find SpongeBob and Patrick? This is a throwaway AC because I don't care about plants - plants don't have a place in the argument we're given.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-71-section-3-question-25/

I'm really confused between A and D too and can't still understand why A is wrong.

I chose A. The reason why I thought D was wrong is "widely accepted theory" part. The author said it has "gradually" won accepted (Line 20) rather than widely accepted. I think gradually accepted and widely accepted are totally different.

So how is it possible D is the right answer?

And why is A wrong?

Please someone enlighten me.

Thanks!

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-42-section-3-passage-4-questions/

I struggled to get this game down and was wondering if some of you have encountered similar games in the past which might help me hone in on general skills.