In substitution questions, the part that says "would have the same effect in determining the order..." means what? I am having a hard time putting it into my own words? From my understanding, given the explanations for the questions in that the substitutions can not knock and old rule out of the new world nor can it sneak new rules into the old world? So, "have the same effect.." means that the "world" itself goes unchanged?

Kind of like when a business goes under new management. The only thing that changes is the person in the management position, the business itself stays the same because the policies, guidelines, procedures, etc. (aka the rules) are still the same. The new manager still has to follow the rules of the business. The new manager can not change any of the rules by getting rid of old ones or creating new ones because changing the rules will change the business and that's not what the new manager was hired for. The new manager was hired to follow the rules and uphold the business, not change it.

This is my understanding. Can anyone comprehend this explanation of the theory of substitution on the LSAT?

Please feel free to share your understandings of substitution as well!

Although I was able to get the right answer, I am not sure if my identification of the main conclusion was correct. Can anybody help me with this, please. Thank you in advance!!

Admin note: edited title

This seems like a waste of time....? It's literally the exact same section, but 7sage said it's a section designed around my priority areas of focus. Am I suppose to redo a section because I did poorly...? Feels confusing to be relooking at questions I half remember answering.

Hello

Any suggestions? I am able to get my wanted score only in BR.

On June it will be my 4th attempt.

Could someone please help me understand why the answer is D?

Thank you!!!

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

I wanted to see the reason why I got rid of B and D is correct.

B ) "The qualities enabling a person to be elected to public office" -

Descriptively incorrect. The premise never said her past antinuclear record is the quality that enabled her to be elected?

D) "It leads to the further but unacceptable conclusion that any project favored by major smith should be sanctioned simply on the basis of her having spoken out in favor of it"

Descriptively incorrect. Premise did say we should build the nuclear plant not because Mayor smith favored it but because Mayor Smith "who supported antinuclear record" favored it.

Admin note: edited title

How’d it go for everyone? Personally, I was annoyed by the paper test after all of the digital prep I’ve done. I had two LG sections and I’m praying that the art gallery was experimental.

Can someone give an explanation to this one please? I must have had the conclusion wrong. Ill keep reviewing. Thanks!

#admin

[I am posting on behalf of a 7Sage user. Please feel free to leave your comments below. Thank you for your help!]

Could you please help me with Main Point questions. What I am most confused by is the "how do I know this" approach. It seems that whenever I ask, "how do I know this?" for a potential conclusion statement I answer the question wrong because I am really not understanding this approach but it seems it would help the most when torn between two possible conclusion statements. Thank you.

I can't for the life of me figure out why (A) is better and (E), any help?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-45-section-2-passage-1-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-45-section-2-passage-1-questions/

I feel like soon as I can cement this I will be good! I'm challenged to properly identify whether one can pronounce 'X' or 'Y' of a given statement as a certain condition BECAUSE the logical indicator preceded it or not. Are there circumstances with rules for when it does not? I keep getting caught in the confusion between how to label what is before and after the logical indicator. And yes, I have gone through the lessons on this.

J.Y. can you assist with this #help

Hi, I'm new to studying so I'm having trouble with making an inference. The stimulus states that "none of the responses among terminal cancer patients to various therapeutic measures has been more positive than the response among those who consumed shark cartilage". The powerscore bible states that we can infer "(consuming) shark cartilage has received a more positive response than any other therapy". First, how would we diagram this or is it even diagrammable? Second, what fundamental is this testing? Is it logical opposites? Thanks in advance and happy new year!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-1-question-11/

Hi, I've been on a hiatus for a few months and came across a problem while reviewing NA questions on the syllabus and remember having this issue in the past as well.

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/computer-emotions-na-question/?ss_completed_lesson=1791

Here JY attaches a noun (computer) to another noun (emotions) instead of writing it as, and as I wrote it, C->/E he writes it as /Ec

Then he wrote the conclusion as follows /Ic, I wrote it as C-> /I

So how can I know when to attach one thing to another in conditional reasoning? Is there a general rule to this? Because it lead me to the following issue with this problem.

I created a chain where both E and I connect to /C however I'm not able to see which comes first inorder to validate the conclusion, the /E or the /I

(diagramed below)

P:C - > /E

SA: I->E or E->I

C - >/I

JY, and the correct answer choice, both did it as I->E - I understand how they got to that when he attaches the c to /E.

Im not sure if my conditionality is off or what, but I would have assumed that it wouldn't matter if I attached the two nouns together or just created it the relationship in the chain as above. If anyone needs more clarification on anything please let me know.

I find that in some strengthen/weaken questions, the right answers are some "other consideration" that influence the conclusion, but are irrelevant to premise. Consider this weaken question:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-26-section-3-question-06/

This phenomenon is also common in "shield" type of NA question. The answers are something that is not talked in the stimulus.

In these case, can we say that, we are not strengthen/weaken the support that premise giving to conclusion, but strengthen/weaken the conclusion independently?

(spoiler alert if you havent taken PT41) :

its the question that begins with "poor nutrition is at the root....."

the logic in the argument seems to me to look like "high nutrient diet ---> improved behavior ".........but the credited response was answer choice E which states " ~high nutrient diet-----> ~improved behavior"

intuitively, this answer choice feels correct, but wouldnt this be whats called "denial of the antecedent"?? other books call it illegal negation or denying the sufficient condition, but the point i guess is that its logically invalid. and yet that invalid logical structure is present in the correct answer choice for this question. Can someone explain that to me? thank you

Explanation Video: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-1-question-14/

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

I learned a subtle but crucial characteristic of necessary assumptions today, and am excited to share it with you:

Be careful when dismissing a Necessary Assumption answer on the basis of it appearing to be irrelevant to the argument in the stimulus. "Relevance" is more the domain of Sufficient Assumptions. With Necessary Assumptions, the correct answer is relevant in a structural sense, which might not jump out at you without a careful read.

In the rattlesnake question, I saw "food" and dismissed it too soon. I picked A, even though I felt uneasy about it. It felt too obvious. Perhaps a good question to ask of the answer in the NA context is not 'what does it say' but 'what does it do'.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-2-question-22/

I am saying this because there are some terms that I dont know what the question means. Like am I supposed to know what a generalization, alternative explanation, or evidence is? Could someone please explain this. There was this one question in the AP lesson that talked about Crime and Media coverage. I chose A for the answer because the explanation was supporting the conclusion. However the actual answer was E which was an "Alternative Explanation" What does that mean?

I am totally stumped on this one. Can anyone explain their understanding?

So, JY says that we need to use timed BR when doing a section of LR, but what if i'm still going thru the CC and haven't gotten to the point of PTs yet? do i still time myself while doing the cluster of such as weakening questions? #help

Hey guys, I just started studying for the LG portion of the exam. I was wondering if you had any tips for learning what to look for in the answer choices. For example if the question stem asks, "All of the following could be true except . . . " JY, without skipping a beat, says okay we are looking for 1 Must be false and the 4 others could be true. Not the best example, but its the best I could come up with right now haha. Thank you in advance!

Can someone explain why E is wrong?

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

Hi, guys. Recently purchased the Ultimate+ and really am loving the wide range of problem sets available for improving. My question is this: if through my first run (in this case a MSS problem set) of a problem set I finish each question in good time with confidence, clarity, and correctness; is it worth my extra time to go back through this problem set immediately after with the videos and blind review, even if I felt 100% certain throughout? I'm making my way through the CC now.

Also want to say I love the camaraderie on 7sage. I'm very happy to be here. Writing in November for my first time!

I came across a rule I'm not used to diagramming in PT 85 Game 1, and was curious if any of you have come up with a clever shorthand. I ended up coming up with one on the spot, but I think it led me to make an otherwise avoidable mistake on what should have been a straightforward game.

There are at least two slots separating H and S, but H and S are interchangeable in order. (JY used H _ _ S with a small "LL2") symbol in a switching box, but he himself called it somewhat clumsy.) When I did this game the first time around, I ended up forgetting that 2 slots was a minimum and not exact. Perhaps there's a way to make this rule clearer in the diagram and less of an afterthought?

Another more general diagramming question, not from PT 85: Values are not consecutive. I've always represented consecutive as (AB) and nonconsecutive as (AB) but find this leaves something to be desired in terms of clarity. Any and all suggestions are much appreciated!

Is there a way to create a problem set based on a specific type of RC question? Based on my trends I need to work on meaning of phrase in context and application of hypothetical situations. Is it possible to create questions sets with that filter or are RC problem sets simply based on full passages.

So I'm on the MSS lessons, and I didn't really do the drilling questions timed, i just did them and then went back and BR-ed them. Should I start doing the drills timed or is it better to take my time with them and save the "timed" part for the PTs?