I understand how A is correct, can someone please explain it to me? thanks

I really don't like any of these answer choice, but I was pretty confident when I eliminated D. Can someone explain how D resolves the paradox? In my mind, it makes it weirder.

Right after the war, the area that had been subject to oil fires and oil spills had less contamination than prewar surveys indicated. The surveys also indicated that PAHs were low compared to those in more temperate oil producing areas.

What I am looking for: If the land had been contaminated with all of this bad stuff during the war, then how was their less contamination after the war than before? Maybe the survey was wrong? Maybe some people cleaned up the land?

Answer A: Who cares about the effects. We want to know how there was more contamination.

Answer B: I think this makes the paradox weirder. Shouldn't there have been more PAH compared to that in temperate regions?

Answer C: This is what I chose, but I didn't like it all that much. Even if this is true, this explains why PAHs were low compared to temperate regions, but it doesn't explain anything about before the war levels and after the war levels. What if after the war levels of PAH were higher than before the war, but after the war levels were still lower than the Baltic Sea regions? It fits the facts and makes the paradox weirder.

Answer D: I felt 110% confident eliminating this one, and I can't figure out how this does anything but make the paradox weirder/do nothing. If peacetime oil production results in high levels of PAH and oil dumping, then this could mean two things: 1.) this answer choice is talking about the period of time after the war (which definitely does not help the paradox since we want to know why all of this bad stuff was lower than before the war) or 2.) this is talking about before the war. But if this latter case is what this answer choice is talking about, then wouldn't we need to have the relative contamination effects of oil dumping, oil fires, and oil spills? So yes, during the war, oil production declined (line 4), but a ton of bad contaminating things still happened. How is it OK to assume that the contaminating things in answer choice D (prior to the war) had a greater effect than the stuff that happened during the war? What if they actually had a lesser effect on the environment than the fires and spills during the war? This is a plausible occurrence, consistent with the facts in the passage and facts in the answer choice; this would make the paradox weirder, right? I used this same type of reasoning (coming up with a scenario consistent with the facts) to eliminate C.

Answer E: OK, but why was the contamination less after the war? Wouldn't this imply that the damage wasn't as bad as it could have been, but there was still an increase in damage?

I'm having trouble finding support for answer choice D. Can someone help out?

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [first set of words]"

I missed this one during the timed exam, and I didn't change it during BR since I didn't see how A fully explained the facts.

Over the past five years, the number of car thefts has decreased while the likelihood of someone being convicted of stealing a car has increased.

What I am looking for: What if the technology to catch someone has increased so much that people are deterred from stealing a car and those that do get caught easily/have a lot of evidence against them? What if all of the "good" car thieves have been caught, and just a few really bad/easy to catch car thieves try to steal cars?

Answer A: The first part definitely explains the fact that the number of thefts have decreased: there are fewer thieves. I don't really see how the second part has anything to do with the conviction rate, though. So what if they abandon the car later? What does that have to do with conviction? Not sure about the LSAT's logic with this one...

Answer B: I picked this originally, but when I read it during BR, I really didn't like it all that much. Since I still didn't like A, I kept this during BR. The car alarm idea might explain the lack of car thefts superficially, but if people ignore them, why are there fewer thefts? The thieves probably wouldn't be dissuaded.

Answer C: This might make the situation weirder. If police resources are not used on car thefts, then how has the conviction rate increased? Wouldn't thieves try to steal more cars often if the police don't spend their time on such crimes?

Answer D: This also makes the situation weirder. This suggests that stealing cars is very profitable, so why would there be a decrease in the number of thefts?

Answer E: It's hard to see how there being more young car thieves helps explain the idea that car thefts have decreased in frequency. Also, the fact that they are given short sentences suggests that they will come right out and steal cars again.

Hi! I'm taking the LSAT in Nov. and I'm having trouble with In/Out questions. ANYTHING HELPS!!

This section alone has four weaken questions!!! I don't think i've ever had a section with so many flaw and weaken questions together... anyway, since JY's explanation videos are not available yet, I want to put these confusing ones out here for discussion:

Q22

Premise: (because) if we want to know medieval epi includes some claims, we just ask whether any epi believe it. If they did, then it is part of medieval epi; if they didn't then the opposite is part of medieval epi.

Conclusion: The solution to define medieval epistemology simply as the epistemological beliefs of the medieval epistemologists.

The correct AC is E, however I feel like E is weakening the premise. since we're supposed to weaken the support in this type of questions, I'm not sure E does that and also this argument feels like circular reasoning to me. Please feel free to point out any problems in my breakdown of the argument.

Q24

premise: if pollen from a drug-producing crop flies into a nearby non-drug-producing crop of the same species, the drug could fertilize and turn it into a drug-producing crop.

conclusion: genetically engineered crop raises the possibility that drug will end up in the general food supply.

I chose E for this question, becuz i think E provides that even though X happens, doesn't mean Y will necessarily ensue (X, not Y).

Similar to Q22, I find the correct answer choice D to weaken the premise, instead of the support.

Hey 7Sage,

12 days until the Sept exam, WOOT! I am seeking advice on what PTs to do in the next two weeks. I have already done nearly

all the exams. My only completely untouched exams are old exams -- 39 and 44. Maybe also 10 and 13. Thus, I don't think I should focus on those in the next two weeks, although they are new to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think I want to look at the newest PTs again, since they're nuanced compared to older tests. I have done 70-72 and 75-80 once each. I figure I will do 3 more before the 16th. Should I do 78-80? Does it matter? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Aside from just repetition, do you guys know the best way to tell what chart to use for each type of question? Often find myself having a harder time just because I am not using the best possible chart for the scenario and am actually overcomplicating things.

“Some anthropologists argue that the human species could not have survived prehistoric times if the species had not evolved the ability to cope with diverse natural environments. However, there is considerable evidence that Australopithecus afarensis, a prehistoric species related to early humans, also thrived in a diverse array of environments, but became extinct. Hence, the anthropologists’ claim is false.“

Could someone please show me verbatim how to diagram the entire passage Via formal logic and cross reference the mismatched terms that the author used in order to draw the false inference. According to the question it is a mistaken reversal and I am very comfortable diagraming up until the term “however”, after that I got so confused as to what the author was trying to translate.

Now if I’m not mistaken Jy mentioned that because the the author concluded that “the anthropologist Claims were false

ANTHRO CLAIM

“If survive ———-> Cope”

AUTHOR CONCLUSION

“Not survival ——-> Not Cope”

Are those the 2 conditional statements that conflict, that make this entire passage a mistaken reversal ?

Also please keep in mind I kind of dis regarded the premise right above the conclusion because the verbiage is confusing as it doesn’t appear to be a conditional statement that I can diagram

#HelpPlease

Hey everyone, need some help here. The sufficient assumption questions are giving me a pretty hard time. I was curious where I should go back to and review that might help me with these ? I was going through the CC quite fine, Everything leading up to SA made percent sense, including the SA lesson itself. Even the general approach to these questions I found understandable.

But as soon as the actual practice questions started I have never felt more out of the loop. I find converting the questions into Lawgic quite difficult.

Any advice, on what to review or areas that might be a weak link that are making this question type difficult for me ?

Thanks !

Hi. I'm planning on taking the test in October or November ! And I'm in need of a study buddy in the Charlotte area that is open to meeting up and doing zoom calls as well.

For sufficient assumption questions I am a bit confused of whether or not we are allowed to use the contrapositives of the argument for the answer. For example if we have

A

B

the link we need to make is A->B but if one of the answers are /B->/A would that be the right answer choice?

I have taken three practice tests and my raw score gets worse each time I take it (stuck in low 150s). However, my blind review scores are consistently improving. I am discouraged because I feel like my blind review results won’t transfer to my actual LSAT performance. I think I perform about the same on LR and RC.

Any suggestions on how I should organize my studying?

Listen and subscribe:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify

There's a lot of information going around about the LSAT...so much that it's often hard to tell what's true and what's not. Fortunately, ZeSean and Henry are here this week to separate fact from fiction and break down some of the commonly-heard LSAT myths. Tune in to this episode for some LSAT myth-busting!

Hi I'd like to know how people got better at RC, both in reading skills and getting a better score. Thanks!

@JR For the sake of maximizing my study material, is it best for me to take the old practices right now on classic.7sage before LSAC pulls them? Or should I just switch over to the new platform and start taking the newer tests?

Whenever I do a standalone section with 26 questions, I am not able to get the allotted time to 35 minutes. Anyone have that issue?

Listen and subscribe:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify

With about a month remaining until the June LSAT, you might be wondering about your progress and what your next steps should be. In this episode, hosts Nicole, Bailey, and Henry explore how to effectively evaluate where you stand in your preparation as test day approaches. They'll discuss helpful ways to understand your current performance, identify areas that could benefit from more focus, and develop a practical plan to guide your studies through these final important weeks. Join them for a supportive look at navigating the last month of your LSAT journey.

I keep on seeing a trend for myself that I keep on getting inference questions specifically the MSS ones wrong. I think my first issue is that while I identify its an inference I don't realize its MSS and lean towards more of a MBT questions. Anyone have any advice on how to identify and approach these questions? Thanks!

Hi,

For some reason, I just found this question really difficult. I was really kind of stuck between B and E, and I wasn't sure about either of them because it is hard to find direct textual evidence that I can connect back to what the question is asking for. For instance, B looked right because of lines 35-36. E looked sort of right due to lines 57-58. However, what made it really hard for me to decide the answer choice was lines 32-35-- if finding common grounds to communicate is "impossible" then how is it "resolvable" in the first place? This sentence made A look sort of right, and made me doubt my previous thinking...

Can anyone give an explanation for this question?

Any #help would be appreciated!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-31-section-4-passage-4-questions/

Hello! I started my RC section at a -4 on my diagnostic, and I've found that after studying the section, my score has gotten worse- going to a -7 or -8. Does anyone have any advice? Has this happened to anyone before? I wonder if I'm just overthinking the answers.

The problem sets for the Most Strongly Supported Statements have been very helpful in fine tuning my skills. However, I am in dire need of help with the questions that are considered High Priority. I cannot seem to correctly figure them out.

What works best for you?

#help

#help!

Hi,

This was a very weird author's-attitude question. Even when I look at the correct line (line 24), I still don't fully understand how the answer here is B. (I thought the answer was A because of how the author described Bentham's reform as revolutionary and then goes on to describe the flaws behind the reform). Why is B right?

Any #help would be appreciated!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-2-passage-4-questions/

On my last four pt’s I have gotten -7 wrong on each one. In between each pt I foolproof all games from that specific test and continue to go through tests from 1-35 and the pts I completed recently. I have already foolproofed 1-35 as well. On each test I miss the substitution question, one or two total in the first three games, and then I get killled on the fourth game usually missing three or four. I’m hoping someone could give me some guidance on how to get my misses down on that last game. If I could do that I think I’d be in decent shape. On BR I am able to figure the games out and go -0 to -1, so I think I may just not be picking up on the inferences quick enough. Thanks in advance for any advice or tips you have!

So I’m having some difficulty eliminating Answer choice A and wondering why my interpretation of it is incorrect.

A says: “The truth of a given description is independent of its emotional vividness.”

I interpreted this to mean, whether a description is true or false is independent of emotional vividness. I remember from both passages that the respective authors thought that telling lies increased emotional vividness, so I thought A was correct by reasoning that if something is untrue then emotional vividness increases. Shakespeare in the first passage and subjectivity in autobiography in the second illustrated this. So I reasoned that truthfulness, as interpreted as being true or false is not independent of emotional vividness, because at least of aspect of truthfulness, being false—increases emotional vividness.

Obviously, this was an incorrect interpretation. Just wondering how I could know that from reading the answer choice, and how I could ascertain the correct one.

Thanks!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-88-section-3-passage-2-questions/