Hi!

This is killing me! Why can JNOP be a correct answer just because we happened to pick J first? Okay, if J is the necessary then O and N can go in too and also because they are OR groups and so both can be in S okay. But then why can't be in S as well? This doesn't make any sense to me. NOJ are in because its an /N--> and /O-->J as an OR group. But its /K-->P as an OR group so why can't K be there too like N and O were?

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-4-game-2/

Hey all, I'm struggling to understand why AC A in PT 119, Section 1, Question 14, is incorrect. I've reviewed the video explanation, online forums, and comments, but the best explanation I could come up with is below. Help on understanding this would be much appreciated - I've thought through this for several days but am still confused. I've never been this stumped after reviewing a wrong RC answer.

Q14: I understand why AC C is correct but am still struggling to eliminate A, especially since A seemed supported by lines 37-40 "personal and cultural screens of silence and secretiveness that have enshrouded her past". Here are a few things that I believe discredit A as a viable answer choice:

Although this might be a subtle distinction, in this context "history" means a a factual record of historical facts, where Naomi "reconciles" history - in other words uncovers or accepts difficult truths about her personal history and the historical context in which she lived.

Heritage, as JY alludes to, refers to cultural or ancestral legacy, including cultural traditions.

In this case, being discouraged from exploring heritage is not supported(?). I would still argue that if AC A references history (not heritage) it might be supported by lines 37-40. Even with the distinction between history and heritage, I'm not fully convinced that A is not supported. These in-text lines refer to cultural secretiveness. Does this mean that Naomi was discouraged from seeking her heritage? Secretiveness of the past does seem to refer to a form of discouragement.

Trying to figure out where I should devote my energy in anticipation of the June LSAT!!

I take my LSAT next week, and I am in the low 160s at the moment. The literal only things on logical reasoning that is keeping me down are the conditional and causal reasoning questions. Are there any specific lessons from the syllabus that anyone found really, really helped with these? I know I could just rewatch all of them but due to my limited time I want to make sure I'm really prioritizing what matters here. Thanks! Good luck everyone

i dont understand why this is E

from obsolete version, PT 11 S4 Q23 answer choice C

Is this a correct example of "it makes a generalisation that is inconsistent with the evidence":

This tsunami was caused by an earthquake.

So all the tsunamis are caused by earthquakes

what is your example

I chose answer choice C because being the rock being submerged in water does not prove the conclusion that is falsifying the idea that life began in the ocean and did not exist on land until half a billion years ago.

Does anyone have an explanation for why C does support the conclusion and why D would be the answer for non-supporting? Thanks!

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

On the 2007 prep test, I was unable to arrive at the correct conclusion for RC#13. I was confident that my answer was right and I even got it wrong during blind review. Even now, I’m unsure that I’d be able to deduce this quickly on a test. When I get to the RC section and begin doing drills, how can I study for this type of question? Are all Art, InfAP and Co questions similar?

I can understand why (B) is correct - but not sure why (C) is wrong. I think I'm not understanding (C) correctly. What does it mean to "indicate the falsehood of the implications" of a hypothesis? Doesn't the author do so in the stimulus, by showing that predicting an invention according to the hypothesis necessarily entails inventing it (the implications), which would be self-contradictory? Is (C) wrong because self-contradiction ≠ falsehood? I'd really appreciate it if someone could give me an example of (C) since I'm not exactly sure I understand JY's example either.

Thanks in advance!

I saw a comment on this question that stated: but & and are logical equivalents. Is this true?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-2-question-10/

Original text ----------

Hello!

I have a question regarding an embedded conditional. Does the interpretation change on the base of where the comma is located at like the following exmples? Thanks for your help in advance, I appreciate it!

If S, then /B unless F

= S → /B unless F

= S → (B→F)

= S and B → F

If S, then /B, unless F

= /F → (S→/B)

= /F and S → /B

Answer ----------

[S and B -> F] and [/F and S -> /B] are the same!!!!!!!!!!!!

Calling other non-trads. My youngest child is heading to college, and I am considering law school. I hold a BA in Human Physiology and an MBA and I am currently a COO of a tech and media co.

Let me know if you are interested in creating a non-trad study group.

Wrong Answer (D) and Right Answer (E). I can't seem to reach the understanding on how E is relevant, e.g. doesn't contain information introduced in the passage on whether or not zebra mussels can transform hazardous waste and why they would be considered hazardous waste. I chose (D) because out of all the answers it seemed like the closest to being supported, as it mentions one of the 'redeeming qualities' of zebra mussels.

I got 4 out of 5 right in this drill but got this particular questions drastically wrong. I selected B and on blind review selected C. I never felt E was correct during the drill or blind review. I do not know what I am not seeing on this particular question. I do not understand why C is incorrect. If 40% in the first group reported awaking paralyzed with a strange presence in the room, wouldn't it be correct to say 60% had not? Or is C wrong, because it only mentioned "strange presence" and excluded "paralyzed" as part of the answer? #help

So I have found, as with many others I am sure, that time is the enemy (in general but way more so on the LSAT) When fool proofing are you guys starting out timed then just reducing the time each round, or do you begin untimed? I am never sure exactly how much time to give myself. I am not 100% on games ever but with a solid 15mins I can figure just about anything out (sometimes I still miss a question), but I know I will NEVER have that for just one game. I am not sure with what games I should be giving myself 8-10 mins, and which I should be giving myself 5...i've been thinking for fool proofing to give myself 10 mins on all to begin with, then each round of 'retesting' reducing it by two minutes? does that sound like a good idea? I really need to improve my logic games because right now I am finishing PT tests and getting usually all of the questions I FINISH right, but only actually finishing 2/4 games, which as you can imagine is killing my score.

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 ?

I'm one of the 35% people that chose (B) and still am not fully convinced that (E) is better. To compare the two ACs, I'll list all potential objections/flaws they each have for them to work:

(B) says, salt is not the only dietary factors associated with high blood pressure. It takes for granted that the people in the question actually were consuming these other foods, and the intake of such foods in combination needs to be significant enough, not only to offset the effects of their high salt intake, but also to bring their blood pressure down to very low.

(E) says, some people have abnormally low blood pressure and they have heightened cravings for salt to maintain a blood pressure that's not too low. It assumes without justification that these people are in fact the people talked about in the stimulus, and their high salt intake was in fact the result of their heightened cravings.

I'll admit that (B) makes a lot of unwarranted assumptions. But the "cravings" in (E) really trips me up because I think the assumption of "heightened cravings for salt" implying "high salt intake" is the exact kind of bad assumptions that LSAT usually punishes us for making. My only justification for choosing (E) over (B) is that it makes fewer assumptions. Can someone please help me out on this one? This question is bothering me so much and I don't know what I need to do differently to avoid similar mistakes in the future. Any help is hugely appreciated!

Can someone explain the percents/proportion relationship that makes B the right answer? I am having a hard time understanding it. #help

For the correct answer choice, why does it matter if the trees used are or old or new since the answer is talking about the harm caused by the products they will be turned into? This is the reason I did not choose it #help

Hi All,

I'm hoping to find the section where J.Y introduces the idea of piecemeal analysis. I kept hearing him talking about it during the flaw section but I can't remember where he introduced the idea of peicemeal analysis. He suggested that he introduced it in Method of Reasoning.

If anyone has the lesson, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you

Correct: D

Incorrect: E

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-08/

Explanation: "D" makes it where we can't say that the effects go away with age. By saying that the 2nd and 3rd studies were flawed, we can take away the conclusion that is based on those results. "E" doesn't specify how many children slept with nightlights and weren't nearsighted. "E" could have 5 children that were nearsighted and slept with nightlights along with 95 children that slept with nightlights and were not nearsighted. Because we don't know if the other children were nearsighted even though they didn't sleep with nightlights, or slept with nightlights and weren't nearsighted, or not nearsighted and didn't sleep with nightlights, we can't form a conclusion on partial results. It just talks about several older children that were nearsighted and slept with nightlights. That's not enough say that nearsightedness caused by nightlights goes away with age.

Did anyone else move immediately away from A because of the more absolute syntax that was being used? I answered incorrectly in both my regular round AND in blind review...

Admin note: For the community to better assist you, please include PrepTest number, section number and question number in the following format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question"

E.g. PT37.S1.Q12 - Political scientist: Efforts to create a more egalitarian

I've been looking at this question for the last 20 minutes, watched the JY's explanation, and looked through the comments. Still have no idea what is going on. Can someone help explain it to me?

Thank you!

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-36-section-3-question-18/

I am having a hard time between Option A and E.

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

Does anyone have a breakdown of the subdiscipline of social science passages on the LSATs?

(Background -- I am asking, as I double-majored in sociology/political science; I work in public policy; and so I am well-versed and find it easy to read and analyse Sociology/Political Science/History passages, but find archeology/linguistics/anthropology quite a bit more obtuse! And am wondering what my odds are for getting something within my zone of comfort!]\