Correct: A

Incorrect: C

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-09/

"C" is incorrect because the male population could've stayed the same and the decline of the female population made it equal to the male population. "A" is correct because "proportional" gives relation to the whole population. It is saying that the decline of the female population is a decline in the total population. This takes it from being 2/3 of just females to 2/3 of the species.

PT16.S3.12 – Retina Scanners

This argument deals with retina scanners, machines that scan the blood vessel patterns in people’s eyes and stores these patterns, such that the scanners can recognized previously scanned patterns. The author furthermore posits that no two eyes have identical blood pattern vessels in their retinas, which seems to suggest that any given person has at least two such patterns, one for the left eye and one for the right one. The author then infers the conclusion that “[a] retina scanner can therefore be used successfully to determine for any person whether it has ever scanned a retina of that person before.”

We are supposed to identify a necessary assumption for this argument, i.e. an assumption that must be true for the conclusion to follow from the premises. Under timed conditions, I chose (B), which posits that everyone’s left and right eyes have identical patterns. I took this to be necessary for the conclusion to follow, due to conclusion’s scope (the conclusion is about “for any PERSON who ever had a retina scanned,” not about “for any given RETINA that ever has been scanned”). However, (B) seems to be false, for at least two reasons: (1) (B) goes against the information we get in the stimulus, where we are explicitly told that no two retinas have identical patterns. (2) (B) does not seem necessary for the rest of the claim that the conclusion seeks to establish (“Retina scanners allow you to answer the question, has one of the this person’s retinas ever been scanned?”). To make (B) a necessary condition, the conclusion would have to say something like “Even if you only scanned one of this person’s two retinas beforehand but not the other, retina scanners allow you to determine whether either of this person’s retinas has ever been scanned before.” However, (B) is not necessary for the way the conclusion is actually stated; the conclusion never says that the evidence to consider for any given person is a scan of only one of their retinas, as opposed to two.

The right answer choice (A) avoids this mistake by blocking another possible objection: What if people’s retina patterns change over time? Wouldn’t this make it impossible to recognize past scans later on, contrary to the argument’s conclusion suggests? (A) blocks this possible objection by establishing: Even if people get e.g. eye sicknesses, the patterns in their retinas remain unchanged over time.

Can anyone explain to me why E is the correct answer? The stimulus does not even mention 1980, and it does not explain how locating sharks equates to there being more of them. Please help, thanks!

Conservative: Socialists study history, and they do so to identify trends that inevitably lead to a socialist future. However, this undertaking is certain to fail, because it is only retroactively that historical trends appear inevitable.

Socialist: Socialists do indeed study history, but the purpose of this is practical rather than theoretical: Instead of trying to identify historical trends that themselves bring about socialism, socialists try to identify trends that inform the kind of work that socialists need to do to bring socialism about. Socialism thus is not the inevitable outcome of historical trends, it instead must be worked towards and deliberately brought about.

Under timed conditions this Point at Issue / Disagreement question had me genuinely confused: The conservative and the socialist agree in maintaining that socialists study historical trends, but they disagree about the purpose that these studies are supposed to serve: According to the conservative, these studies are a purely theoretical undertaking, the socialist deems them practical. This thus would have been the issue to anticipate.

The pertinent answer choices are (A) (“[A] socialist society is the inevitable consequence of historical trends that can be identified by an analysis of history”) and (E) (“Socialists analyze history in order to support the view that socialism is inevitable”).

In the case of (E), we do get at a version of the anticipated answer; (E) gets at the conservative’s portraying socialist analyses of history as purely theoretical undertakings, which the socialist rejects.

(A) is more tricky. If (A) said “Socialists believe that a socialist society is the inevitable consequence of historical trends that can be studied,” this arguably would be a right answer choice: The conservative does ascribe this view to socialists, the socialist does not. However, (A) is a claim in itself, not only a belief that socialists may or may not endorse. In this context, the situation is more straightforward: We have no reason to think that the conservative deems the creation of socialist societies inevitable, and the socialist explicitly denies that they are inevitable. So as it stands, the speakers actually seem to agree that (A) is false. This thus can’t be the point at issue.

Takeaways: It is crucial to distinguish clearly between the two viewpoints here, as well as between facts and beliefs. Do not interpret (A) as a belief that the conservative ascribes to socialists; it is rather a claim that the speakers themselves are supposed to endorse or reject.

Passage: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-43-section-1-passage-4-passage/

Question: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-43-section-1-passage-4-questions/

Hey guys I have a question about #28. I thought it's not the degree of ownership that varies, it's the degree of use that varies, and depending on if it passes the mark as significant use or not, the institution either "asserts a claim to faculty's intellectual product" (line 41-42) or presumably not assert a claim if it's deemed not significant use. How can we say the degree of ownership varies? The passage never said how much of a claim depends on how much use, if significant use, the more of a claim. It only says asserts a claim if X, then it's reasonable to assume, if not X then not assert a claim. Either assert or not assert, not varying degrees of how much they assert a claim..

How can E be correct then?

i’m having difficulty with this parallel flaw question. I chose answer be as it has the same logical structure as the stimulus and reasoning. What am I missing?

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

Hi everyone. I recently got approved for accommodations on the LSAT but I'm struggling to improve even with 53 minutes. Anyone have any tips? I plan on taking the October LSAT.

Hey everyone! I've been struggling with Principle Questions. When I come to do the questions I honeslty have no idea what to look for? I do understand Sufficient Assumption questions (trying to bridge the gap between Premise and Conclusion). I even understood the lesson JY has on Principle Questions but when I try to do the problem sets I have no clue how to answer the questions.

Can someone maybe break down a question in the comments and try to explain it?

Thanks!

So I keep making the same number of mistakes. I've been on AP for the last two days and for some reason theres something Im clearly doing thats hindering my part and my ability to fix my mistake. Any idea? PLEASE HELP

For eg : PT 78 Sec 3 Q04--> I picked B even though I did consider C

What am I doing wrong?

Really want to start seeing improvement in my score and curriculum before my October test. Best tutors?

procedural question: how do you incorporate an exp section into a digital PT on this site?

(Really glad that it's possible to do all tests digitally here, but other sites (khan, powerscore) include an experimental section. Despite having far fewer PT available overall theirs is a much cleaner way to PT digitally.)

How do people go about incorporating an exp section here, under timed constraints? I'm asking at a technical level, pretty much, since there's no pause option or breaks during timed tests on here.

Do you exit the PT, go to an already opened section in a new window, then navigate back into the actual PT? Seems like an inefficient hassle, not to mention not simulating test day very well at all.

Love 7sage but not sure how to approach this. Thanks!!

Noah Centineo: It matters not what you’ve done, but what you do with what you’ve done for others.

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone could give me some advice on whether I should cancel my score.

I just took the international LSAT in Asia today and have a few days to think about whether I should cancel this attempt.

A little background: This is actually my fourth take and retaking is not an option for this cycle.

My first two scores (two years ago) were terrible (should've canceled but was too stupid to not do so) and my third take (this Jan.) was a 166. I am aiming for the top 20 law schools in the US.

My question is: should I cancel and work with the 166, or should I see if I bumped up a point or two?

Nothing particularly devastating happened on this attempt but I feel like I performed similarly or slightly worse compared to my recent PTs (which I have been scoring around 167-170). I understand that my situation is not one of the three situations where a cancel is warranted but I was wondering whether already having a close score to my target schools while having no option to retake would be an exception.

I am worried that if it turns out I got, say a 162-ish, schools will think that the 166 is actually an outlier. I imagine even though schools only consider the highest score, a drop on my last LSAT would not reflect well on me.

On the other hand, if I bumped up a point of two, I would probably open some doors to some lower T-14s and may squeeze some $$ for others.

So...I guess it all boils down to how large a drop on the last LSAT would be tolerable or be disregarded by schools?

Hello,

I noticed that once I click the time section on the scored page of a prep test, I see "Target" with a designated time. I was wondering how this "target" time was designated, especially in reading comp.

Thanks!

Daniel

I was reviewing JY's video about approaching parallel flaw reasoning questions in the core curriculum. My favorite commenter @"Accounts Playable" made a comment that I thought would be interesting to answer and/or discuss here.

For parallel reasoning questions, sometimes the stem says that their is a flaw in the argument while others don’t. For the ones that do, obviously there is a flaw. For the ones that don’t is this evidence that the argument is valid? Or could these have flaws as well?

If my understanding is correct, a question stem that asks us to identity the parallel reasoning does not have a flawed argument in the stimulus whereas a question stem that asks us to identify the parallel flaw reasoning does have a flawed argument in the stimulus.

Thanks all!

How do you negate the following sentence?

For most bus drivers, the presence of a supervisor makes their performance slightly worse than it otherwise would be.

In the video for explaining this ac https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-3-question-06/

JY negate it to all bus drivers, presence of a supervisor makes their performance dramatically worse than it otherwise would be..but i thought to negate most is x you say 0-50% is x. or am I wrong?

Thank you!!

Hi everyone,

I've just completed the MP and MSS lessons and was wondering...what do you all do when you 96% understand a lesson? I did some custom problem sets from the question bank, and was getting all right except 1 or 2 of the ones designated "hard" or "hardest" every section...do I move on to the next lesson? Do I stay here on MP and MSS? What else can I do to make sure I 100% understand this before moving on?

Thanks!

Thank you in advance for any advice!

I have a weird history with the LSAT where I took the 2018 September LSAT cold because I have old school lawyers in my family that said "you don't need to study for the LSAT. If you don't do well you're not meant for law school." So I went in thinking I could do it. Obviously, I scored poorly and was very upset. I also didn't know anything about the LSAT at the time so I didn't know that cancelling a score was an option. (I apologize if y'all are eye rolling while reading this...) I graduating in May and decided to study over the summer, getting my PTs up in the 160-165 range. I went into 2019 September LSAT knowing I would perform in that range if I did well on Logic Games. Well, like most people LG killed me in the first section and I was looking for another LG the rest of the test. I cannot gauge how I did on the other sections even though I didn't feel like I struggled on Reading Comp as much as I have on PTs this summer. I cannot remember anything about the LR sections which makes me so nervous.

I was already registered for the November LSAT so I am definitely taking that now. I am just so confused reading everybody's posts about what law schools consider with multiple LSAT scores. How would it look if I have a terrible score from last year, a cancelled score for September, then retake November and score much better?

I will absolutely be submitting an addendum regarding last year's test but I just don't know what to do. I know this score will be higher than last year, but if it isn't dramatically higher I feel like law schools will look at it and say "she only improved that much after a year of studying?" and put more weight on last year's score.

Please help!!!!!

Can someone please explain question 13. It's frustrating there is no explanation available. :(

Admin Note: Edited title. For RC questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# (P#) - brief description of stimulus."

hi, i am taking my lsat in june, and recently my game scores have plummeted for some reason, so i am trying to get my scores back up –– when i was doing ok on them, it was right after i did the games part of 7sage, and i guess i was doing like 2 at a time over and over again, but i am wondering if anyone who has super improved on the games noticed which strategy is better (doing the same game a thousand times in a row or like alternating 3 sections over and over again)?

Would the contrapositive of "If all farmers were to practice organic farming, they would be unable to produce enough food for Earth's growing population" be different from the contrapositive of "If farmers were to practice organic farming, they would be unable to produce enough food for Earth's growing population?"

The only difference is the "all" right before "farmers."

Thanks!

For this question, I initially chose answer choice E because the background information really swept me up. My intuition told me that because the passage wrote about all of these other linguistic influences, the answer choice probably had something to do with that. However, upon BR, I ended up going with the correct answer choice A because the first sentence in the passage notes that the nature of English literature reflects... the English language. Thus it follows that the "origin of English," referring to the language, played a role in shaping English literature.

Question Stem: Sufficient Assumption

Stimulus: Shoe factory employs more unskilled full time workers (W) than all other businesses in town combined.

If shoe factory closes, more than half of town RESIDENTS who are W will lose jobs.

See the shift between the W that are employed at the factory in the premise, and RESIDENTS in the conclusion? Look for an idea connecting these 2 ideas: workers at the factory and residency.

A. residency, no workers

B. workers, no residency

C. workers, no residency

D. everyone employed at the factory is a resident.

E. neither

D works because without it, we have no idea where the workers come from - what if they all live OUTSIDE Centerville? Then there is no way the conclusion is true. So D closes this one gap.

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

why was it marked D instead of C? i feel like C is the correct choice because it matches the argument.

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

Hello,

I'm confused on how to approach this weakening question. My understanding of the auto industry executive's argument:

The auto industry executive is rejecting the recent guidelines that are requiring the production of cars with higher fuel efficiency (C) because statistics show that cars after 1977 that were built smaller to be more fuel efficient had a higher incidence of accident related fatalities (P). As I understand it, the executive is making a poor correlation-causation argument between building cars smaller and the assumed increase of fatal accidents. I'm having trouble with how the AC's best weaken the argument.

I initially chose D, and was struggling to find a better AC during BR. I eliminated E and B right off that bat. That left A C D. I chose D because I thought if modern technology could make cars more fuel efficient WITHOUT having to alter the size of the car (the executive is linking smaller fuel efficient cars and fatalities), then it might weaken the argument. You eliminate the need for change in size, you eliminate one potential connection with accidents.

I'm struggling to see how AC C is correct. I noticed the change between big and small and left that AC at first. Can someone help explain how that is the correct AC. From my understanding, if large cars can have a better fuel efficiency from new technology based off recent guidelines, does that weaken the executive's argument that the guidelines would have to adopt previous standards that they (incorrectly?) linked with accidents and fatalities?