Want to make sure I'm thinking through this correctly. C is right because it suggests the incorrectness of a premise, that the reason that Peter's actions are more blameworthy than Alicia's. The relevant part of C is just that Peter's running a red light, an illegal action, caused the action that caught the police's attention. I'm struggling to figure out whether the part of C that says that Alicia took extra care to avoid police noticing her contradicts the premise that there's a diff in the blameworthiness. I would argue that it doesn't, but I want to ensure that I've nailed down the important part of the correct answer choice.

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

Hi everyone,

I’m consistently scoring around -4 per LR section, and I’ve noticed a frustrating pattern. Two of the questions I miss are usually 4–5 star difficulty so fair enough. But the other two are often 3-star or easier, and when I review them, I immediately see the correct answer and understand exactly why it’s right. I usually just shake my head and wonder how I missed it.

Timing isn’t an issue. I’ve done a lot of timed practice, feel comfortable under time pressure, and usually have time at the end of each section to review any questions I flagged. By the time the section ends, I’m confident in almost every answer I’ve chosen, but I’m still missing these “should’ve got it” questions.

Has anyone else dealt with this? Any strategies or mental habits that helped you tighten up and eliminate these kinds of preventable mistakes?

Appreciate any advice.

Whenever I do diagram for a question, I find that I get very enveloped in it and as a result am less likely to notice the "gap" in the stimulus that needs to be connected for sufficient assumptions. Basically, I find diagramming to obscure this assumption recognition process for me. But I am not sure if this is because I am not diagramming correctly, if diagramming becomes less "involved" over time as you do more of it, or if my brain simply interprets the question better by not diagramming?

My process basically is: find assumption, then find the answer choice that connects the two "unconnected" ideas, then just confirm that the necessary and sufficient positioning isn't making some sort of flaw (e.g. mistaking necessary for sufficient or vice versa).

I'm studying for a 167+, so any advice on how to reduce my margin of error for this process would be appreciated! Last PT was a 161 (which was the official Jan LSAT).

I never took science past grade 10, and know nothing lol. Do people with 0 science knowledge have any tips on how to better understand them?

Necessary condition" Fear of retaliation --> Deter attack/military deterrence

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

Omg I've been wracking my brain trying to think through this question, could really use some help!!

I have trouble understanding why D is correct.

I dismissed it because D claims that the two faulty studies do not support a causal finding, when the premise is based on the two study's correlational finding. The conclusion also specifically clarifies that it only applies under the assumption that "IF night lights cause nearsightedness," so even if the studies are faulty and do not support a causal finding, it doesn't hurt a conclusion that already operates under a world where night lights do cause nearsightedness.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!!!!

So I am learning Logical reasoning through the book "The Loophole". So it says that "Your loophole and resolution have to be powerful" and "Your inference and controversy have to be provable" But then when I got to the Provable question stem section it said that the question stems-- conclusion, NA, Method, Argument part, The flaws-- all used loophole. Can someone please explain this? I don't understand.. because the book initially said that loopholes have to be powerful.

I didn't pick the right answer choice (C) only because I did not understand what it was saying at all. What does it mean when it says the "first thing's having caused the second?"

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

I don't understand why answer C can not be correct. Wouldn't the fact that sicily was/was not cold affect the idea that the cold in China had nothing to do with the eruption? If you determine that it was not abnormally cold in sicily that would automatically mean that the eruption was not the cause of the cold in China.

Where in the stimulus do we find support for the fact that zebra mussels MUST be regarded as hazardous waste if they don't transform the waste products they filter and remove? Answer choices D and E seem really close here.

Admin Note: Please use the format "PT#.S#.Q# (G#) - brief description of question."

The "but" in the first section reveals the author's position on Midville: it is not as expensive as others perceive it to be. The following sentences provide support as to why they believe this is true.

I have been reading and hearing a lot that there are patterns to this. Can someone explain to me what that means? I can see how it relates to LG but confused on the patterns for LR.

An assumption I came up with was: "allowing eggs to decay makes it impossible to use them to analyze for pesticide-bird tests"

Would something along those lines be a viable answer for assumption questions?

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/advanced-valid-forms-review/

We have B-most->Z which implies two inferences B-most->C and B-most->/O. When you combine B-most->Z with B-most->/P, that gives you the inference /P some Z. But can you also then take the two previous inferences, B-most->C and B-most->/O, in combination with B-most->/P to create to additional inferences, /P some C and /P some /O, respectively? If those last two inferences are not valid inferences, then why are they not? I ask because in the comments on the lesson, someone stated that you can infer /P some Z but NOT /P some C and /P some /O, which makes zero sense to me.

Can someone show how to quickly translate/diagram this to make sense in the test? I was between B and C and chose c which is wrong. #help

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

How can you say what accounts for the best possible ice cream? Doesnt this stray too far from the passage? #help

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

Hi! Recently started learning about formal logic and it's kicking my butt to be honest. I'm still a little confused on how you even identify a conditional statement (I was going through some of the exercises and was like seriously, this is a conditional statement?).

More importantly, I'm still a little confused about how to deduce sufficient vs necessary conditions. I don't want to rely solely on indicators as LSAT is a test about understanding. If you guys could share your tips/explain, I would appreciate that so much, thanks!!

So I took the today's exam and I am currently feeling I bombed it so bad. I had one with the 3 LR's and I really screwed in RC. I guessed about 5 questions just in RC and probably missed another 6-7 questions top of that guessed ones.

My situation is little unique. It's my 4th time taking LSAT and previously I had 151,cancelled, and 162. If I cancel today's exam, I will not retake and apply in the coming cycle with my current numbers but I am wondering if that cancellation or lowest score from today's exam (such as like 155-157) will hurt my admission chance.

Some people suggested me that since the schools are only looking for the highest score anyway, it will not really hurting anything but I am so worrying right now.

I was wondering if anyone had a mnemonic they like to use to help remember which indicators belong to each group?

I'm doing some LR drilling right now, and I just wanted to make a discussion post and share my reasoning for a question (as prompted by 7Sage).

C: the glacier that melted to reveal the ancient body is at least 4,000 years old

Reasoning: Artifacts found on the man's body indicate that he lived at least 4,000 years ago, and that he died on the same spot where his body was discovered. Therefore, the glacier - the spot on which he died and was discovered - must be at least 4,000 years old. None of the other answer choices were even close to enticing and were easily eliminated.

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

I just worked through PT 44.4.20 and noticed the flaw traced to the lack of support between the premise and sub-conclusion. This is the first time I've encountered a question where the flaw hasn't been between the sub-conclusion and main conclusion. Is this common in other types of question, or does the LSAT usually focus on Sub-Conclusion to Main Conclusion flaws?

In PT 77, Section 2, Questions 5 and 14 they both use the word "linked" in their arguments. When the LSAT uses the word "linked," does it only mean correlation?

I'm trying to work now to get my RC score down to the -5 range, and I'm drilling a lot on the passage types im bad at, and most of the hard or hardest passages I'll get 2 or 3 wrong, and on the easier ones, 1 or 2 maybe, if I get a good selection of passages its likely I;ll be in that -6 range. EXCEPT for spotlight passages; something about spotlight passages just doesn't click for me, there's a majority 1 star or 2 star passages where I'll get straight up 4 out of 6 or 7 ACs wrong, and I don't understand why, does anyone have any tips? I'm confident my LR will be at -4/5 for August/Sept LSAT, but if I can't get my RC out of the -7/8 zone I won't be able to get a 165

Hi all, I started doing timed past tests but can't finish LG sections (LR and RC are fine). Should I come back and finish the leftover LG questions untimed but continue doing the rest timed? How should I go about doing timed prep tests now?

Looking for an accountability partner to do 1 RC passage daily. We’ll do it separately and then check answers together. Please message me if you’re seriously interested!