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.

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."

I'm looking to find someone to study regularly with either online or in person for the June LSAT.

Shoot me a message on here!

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’ve been having issues with RC. When I review questions or watch videos, all it gives me is the breakdown of the passage and doesn’t help with real-time issues regarding how I should map out the passage under time constraints. I either write too little or I write too much; I either eat up time going back to the passage or I spend too much on the diagram and run out of time for the Qs, respectively. Does anyone have a better system, preferably one that references the structure and a low resolution summary?

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.

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

Hi there,

I completed PTA RC, which doesn't have video or written explanations for the answers. Despite getting the answer correct, there was a major time sink on my end for the first question of the first passage. I want to reaffirm my thinking for the right / wrong ACs. Could anyone who has taken this PT confirm or revise my understanding?

Q1

AC A: Clandestine marriages is not at all supported by Donahue's position, lines 46-48 state that "so long as they acted in accordance with established bann procedures, a couple could marry without parental consent and still enjoy the blessing of the Church." Bann compliance is not considered clandestine. I had no trouble finding support against this.

HOWEVER, I struggled with whether the first part of this AC (concerning synthesis) is descriptively accurate and broad enough to be the MP. Is it accurate to say that "the doctrine of marriage by Pope Alexander III represented a synthesis of traditional ecclesiastical dnd legal opinion"? Would this sentence be accurate and potentially good enough for a revised MP or am I misunderstanding the passage?

AC B: More support for this is provided by the passage; no issues. (Based on mutual consent is supported by paragraph 1. Encouraged marriages based on love is supported in paragraph 2.)

Any help understanding this passage and question is appreciated! Happy studying!

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."

Biologist's argument: DF (deforestation continues at its present pace) -> KAE (the koala will approach extinction)

Politician's argument: /DF (stop deforestation) -> /KAE (save the koala)

So the politician's argument is a mistaken negation of the biologist's argument.

(A) is wrong because we do not know whether deforestation continues at its "present pace" so we do not know whether this is consistent with the biologist's claim.

(B) is right because even though deforestation is stopped, the koala could go extinct because deforestation could have stopped as a result of complete destruction of forests.

(C) is wrong because no one talks about reforestation.

(D) is wrong because it is consistent with the politician's argument rather than the biologist's

(E) is wrong because the biologist's argument says that the koala does not approach extinction only if deforestation does not continue at its present pace

Is my explanation correct for this question? Could anyone add explanation for this question? Thanks

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of PTx.Sx.Qx. Existing threads on PT2.S2.Q11: (1); (2)

ArenaPlus is an all-in-one platform designed to enhance the gaming experience by offering a seamless environment for gamers and content creators alike. With its user-friendly interface, https://arenaplus-ph.com allows players to connect with like-minded individuals, participate in competitive tournaments, and showcase their skills to a global audience. The platform also provides a range of tools for content creators, helping them to live-stream, share gameplay highlights, and build their personal brand. Whether you're a competitive gamer, a casual player, or a budding influencer, ArenaPlus brings together the best of gaming and content creation in one dynamic space.

Hi All! I will be taking the writing portion this week, is there any recs on how to tackle this part of the exam?

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.

Hey there fam,

So I was just doing some NA drills when a question struck me. In LR generally, we're looking for the assumption or flaw, and then want to set about our assigned tasks based on what we find. More specifically the flaw in the argument (between the premises and the conclusion). Does this mean then that when we notice an assumption in between the premises (which we are supposed to take for granted) that we just ignore said assumption or integrate said assumption into the group of things we take for granted?

Stated differently, can we think of any scenario wherein that assumption between the premises is something we need to account for, strengthen, weaken ect?

Thanks!

Anyone know of a template (with stims and blank lines) to do translation drills?

Hi! I am struggling to fully grasp how to do the assumption questions. Any tips or tricks to understand these? Thank you!

Hello I am taking the January LSAT next week and I have two questions. I am struggling with flaw questions when its not one of the common flaws listed. I have tried using the piecewise analysis when looking at answer choices, or trying to see if its descriptively accurate and weakens but I am still struggling to get them right. I think I also have issues because I am trying to not negate the premises and conclusions, but some of the correct answer choices does negate them? I think its hard for me to recognize a flaw because I get overwhelmed that there is so many ways to destroy an argument.

I feel like i am missing easy points if anyone has any tips

i got this answer choice correct but im not sure why successful is negated ; i think its because initially successful is necessary and to make it sufficient yoiu have to negate; i know why prime purchasers is negated

Hi! I'm taking the LSAT on Monday. My RC has always fluctuated, and I am hoping to practice with a really difficult section to make sure I'm ready for a worst-case scenario. Does anyone know of any particular RC sections that are science- and law-heavy and/or just have a lot of hard-to-spot inference questions? Thanks so much, and if you're taking October too, you got this!! <3

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."

Hey guys, please help

I have been looking for a LR question that I did (I have impression because I spent 3 mins on it during blind review and it is pretty tough) but I couldn't find it even after I have gone through the entire question bank. I remember starring the explanation, but when I looked again it is just not there. I am getting super super confused right now.

Here are my clues: It is either PMR or parallel flaw, and I think less than 50% people got it right. I don't remember what the stimulus is, but the the correct answer choice is C and it has to do with something like city figure and crime rate.

JY also excliplitly stated that we should skip this question and not waste time on it during real test because it is extremely time-consuming.

Anyone has an idea?

Thanks!

This is for JY, if we have another answer choice ‘an activity that is conducive to healthy nation ought to be protected and encouraged by nation’ then, A, also this answer choice can be a right answer or just we are try to pick the bridge between main premise to conclusion. Thanks, lee

Admin note: edited title and added link

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-4-question-01/

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."