http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-26-section-3-question-07/

I chose E which is a right answer because C didn't mention about drug which was a sentence right before the blank, so it makes more sense to me.

But I thought C could be an answer too at first.

Can anyone enlighten me why C can't be and E has to be an answer?

Thanks!

Evening everyone!

I'm Alexandra. I'm looking for serious study buddies for the Feb 2015. I've been studying while working full time but I need accountability and help with logic games (specifically). Any people interested in the study group can email me at alexandra.k.griffiths@gmail.com.

P.S. I live in Queens and work in Brooklyn. Again, serious inquiries ONLY!! Thank you! :)

Hello, I am interested in connecting with individuals who plan to take the LSAT in February at the University of Louisville or will be studying for the test in the Greater Louisville-Area. Contact me if you may be interested in creating a study group or would like to partner with me till the testing day February 2015

For statements with if and only if, does it matter which variable I write first?

Example: V is selected if and only if P is selected

the if and only if here is referring to P so the solutions in the book show

P (--) V

not V (--) not P

but if I wrote it out as

V (--) P

not P (--) not V

Would that be correct since this is a biconditional statement? if past would make P sufficient condition and the only if part would make P the necessary condition. Am I thinking of this correctly?

Also, can I think of biconditionals as implying that the two variable must always go together meaning that PV will always be together in the "in" group or in the "out" group. There is never a possibilities where one variable is in and the other is out. So, I could show them as a block in my diagram.

Anybody in the area that wants to do some last min studying for this February lsat

So I do not want to constantly open new discussion threads for logic games, I think it is best to make this just one and if anyone else has their own questions just keep posting here and we can all try to answer each others questions. (Just a suggestion :-) )

Preptest 7, Feb 1993 LSAT Logic Games kicked my butt today ! In particular Logic Game 3, (7 Judges, In & Out Game)

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-7-section-2-game-3/

After reviewing I realized how splitting the game board makes the game so much more easier. But here is where I am still kinda stuck.

Rule 1.) If the two conservatives and at least one liberal voted the same way as each other, then both moderates voted that way.

I initially diagramed this as

If CCL -->MM

IF not MM-> not CCL

But when I saw the video of JY explaining the rules he labeled the contrapositive as

If not CCL -> not MM (little confused why he did it that way, is that not against the arrow?)

I'm a little unclear on a few things. Perhaps you can help me out.

1. Is the idea to do one passage again and again for practice like the LG method? I ask this because it seems like the marginal returns will begin to diminish quite quickly. I suppose I'll be able to answer my question here empirically once I start doing this in earnest myself; but hey, what are these forums for if not to free ride a little bit?

2. If the answer to my first question is no, then why only 6-8 passages? Why not, time permitting, do this with literally every single passage that one doesn't plan take in a PT?

Maybe have/do some type of study group? Idk about y'all, but I do and focus a lot better that way.

Beans.

(via Trainer)

Find assumption to make legit:

Kermit is a frog. Therefore, he love green long time.

Right: One is a frog only if one loves green. Translation: In order to be a frog one must love salsa verde.

Wrong: One loves green only if one is a frog. Translation: All the salsa verde lovers, are frogs. (but not all the frogs love verde salsa)

I'm struggling with translating the "wrong" statement. It just don't make no sense ricky bobby, and the worst part is it did two days ago. When I don't intentionally think about for like 2 minutes, it seems like the right and wrong statement are saying the same thing.

I know that "if" statements read left to right and "only if" states read right to left (or you just move the if in front of the first clause), but it's hard for me to understand.

This has probably been covered before...but advice is best only if it is fresh. (see what I did there. see it.)

While Ive been working through BRing Reading Comp passages in the past week, Ive been using outside explanations to help me understand where my gap in reasoning lies. While I think it might help in the long run, its inevitably extremely difficult to remember the logical reasoning behind every single question. That being said, would I be better off figuring out the logical reasoning on my own or continuing to use outside explanations for right/wrong answers? My concern is whether I am cheating the process by possibly not fully thinking it through on my own. Any tips will be helpful! Thanks!

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-2-question-06/

I know this is early on in the section, but it's very tricky. None of the explanations I find online are satisfying.

For justify principle questions, the premises should connect with the conclusion, and this doesn't happen here.

First, a discussion of the stimulus:

Premise: The styling of characters in Quirks is not problematic because the film is funny, and that is necessary for a comedy.

Conclusion: The criticism of Quirks is misguided.

I would prephrase if a film is successful within their genre, actions that lead to that film's success as part of that genre is not warranted. (something along those lines)

The correct answer is as follows: D. "Films are successful if they succeed within their genre"

"if they succeed within their genre" = the film is funny, that is the most important thing for comedy

"films are successful" = ?

How can we conclude that "films are successful" = "criticism is misguided"? To me, that is still a big gap, that is not justified from the principle.

I don't think I have ever encountered a difficult LR sections as PT73. Please help!

For question 19 of section 3 on the october 2008 test, the stimulus reads: "Bureaucrat: The primary, constant goal of an ideal bureaucracy is to define and classify all possible problems and set out regulations regarding each eventuality. Also, an ideal bureaucracy provides an appeal procedure for any complaint. If a complaint reveals an unanticipated problem, the regulations are expanded to cover the new issue, and for this reason an ideal bureaucracy will have an ever-expanding system of regulations."

Answer choice A reads "An ideal bureaucracy will provide an appeal procedure for complaints even after it has defined and classified all possible problems and set out regulations regarding each eventuality."

In negating this answer choice, I believe that the clause "even after it has defined..." all the way to the end remains constant in both the answer choice and its negation. If this is the case, how does it not break the conclusion of the argument that "an ideal bureaucracy will have an ever-expanding system of regulations."?

Hey guys...I'm taking the October 3rd LSAT and wondering if you had any advice on some of the heavy hitting areas I should focus on over the next two weeks - maybe areas where you saw the most improvement? I work full time (much more than 40 hours a week, ha!) so putting in 8 hour study days just isn't realistic. I usually average 3-4 hours but am having a hard time right now narrowing down what to focus on. I'm doing practice testing but scores are staying pretty stagnant.

Not shooting for the Ivy's here - but definitely want a decent score.

Any help you could offer would be much appreciated!!!

Sitting for the October exam this weekend but will be retaking in December. Looking for a few people to study and blind review together in person or via Skype. A little about where I'm at, drilled all LR and LG from1-38. Took PT 39-45 and 55-60 averaging around 167-172.

ive been studying lsat for a year already (approximately 1-2 hrs a day). My initial pt score is 153, and after 3-4 months I got around 160. However the score just doesn't go up anymore. I about to take the test on dec. 6th so I have literally 2 months left. My target in dec is 165+. Is that reasonable?

I just purchased this course 5 days ago and I found this course really useful but, I've already wasted all the pts (40-75). So I don't know how to follow the schedule of this course in a smarter way in this case.

I quit my job few days ago so now I have 8 hrs ago (!!!)

Anybody who got similar experience or anybody who has any idea about what should I do now?

I don't see how D seriously undermines the hypothesis. How do we know anything about the death of diatoms? For this answer to work, you have to assume that Antarctic diatoms die near Antarctica (why can't they move or float away, or the death shells float away?) Lastly, don't you have to assume that the sediment left by the death shells would be indicative of a population increase? Aren't life and death two totally different ideas?. How are we supposed to know that these are OK assumptions?

Take for instance A (just for the sake of argument, I understand that A is incorrect). I think A would work if you assume diatoms of today are similar to diatoms during the ice age. You would also need to assume that the "unusually large amounts of ferrous material" that does not exist today would not promote a further increase in their population today. How are these assumptions less reasonable than the ones needed for D to be correct?

How is answer A incorrect and E correct? First, where in the passage is E supported? I can't find it. Next, doesn't A capture not only the main point of the passage but also Goodrich's prescription in lines 40-43 and line 45? Goodrich doesn't think that common law should be looked at as a set of rules (a legal code). Also, line 45 states that common law is a text with history and tradition, and in line 46, studying common law historically is really important. How does this not capture the idea of "a relic of the history of the English people?"

But I was under the impression that conditional statements are not comparisons. I read the first sentence as a comparison and therefore ignored it since I did not read it as a conditional statement. How should I have broken down the first sentence to see the conditional?

I thought I diagrammed this correctly, but I can't figure out how E is "properly concluded" or must be true.

Here is my diagram:

Explanation--->Must Distinguish from justification

Human action--->potentially has an explanation-->Can give an accurate description of the causes of the action (I don't think you can link these up to the first sentence)

Action justified--->person performing has sufficient reason to act

Action justified SOME justification forms no part of the explanation (These you can link together).

Generally, rational--->justification/reasons form an essential part of the explanation

What I was looking for: Since the only thing I could link up were those two middle statements, I thought the answer was going to be Person performing has sufficient reason to act SOME justification forms no part of the explanation. This isn't an answer choice though.

Answer A: This isn't in any of my chains.

Answer B: This isn't in any of my chains.

Answer C: I ended up picking this one even though I didn't see any support/I had eliminated all of the other answer choices. It was the "closest" to what what I was looking for, but it still wasn't in any of my chains. Explanation isn't part of the linked up middle statements.

Answer D: Discovered? Totally irrelevant idea.

Answer E: This is the answer choice, but where is the support? The only time "cause" is mentioned is in the second conditional statement. But even then, it is only talking about giving a "description of the cause." Rationality does imply reasons forming an essential part of the explanation (last conditional statement), but why must they be causes? Shouldn't this answer choice be "If any human actions are rational, then the reasons must be given an accurate description of the causes of the action?" I don't see how this is the same thing as what answer choice E states.

I got this question correct by POE, but I don't have any clue why C is something the author would most likely to agree with. Can someone point to where this idea is supported in the passage? Also, why is answer choice D explicitly incorrect?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-04/

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

*The kind of question this is:* Weaken

*Premise(s):* Marijuana has THC → THC has been found to inactivate herpesvirus (IH) → IH can convert healthy cells into cancer cells.

*Conclusion:* Marijuana can cause cancer.

*What I am looking for:* extra information that we didn’t know about marijuana and its correlation with THC.

*Answer A:* No. That strengthens the argument by showing that scientists had a consensus and the same results.

*Answer B:* Yes. There is information we did not know about marijuana and how it neutralizes THC.

*Answer C:* No. That strengthens the conclusion.

*Answer D:* No. Great, but that is only an “IF.” It would still stand that marijuana causes cancer.

*Answer E:* No. Marijuana is beneficial to cancer patients, but it would still cause cancer for none cancer patients.

The answer should be D, as the other answers all call for too much. There is no apparent need for real strength. 'To be believed' is the key phrase.

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

*The kind of question this is:* Weaken

*CTX:* Local agricultural official gave fruit growers of District 10 a new pesticide that they applied for three years to their pear orchards in place of the pesticides they had used before.

*Premise(s):* during the three years, the proportion of pears lost to insects was significantly less than it had been during the previous three years period.

*Conclusion:* based on the results, the official concluded that the new pesticide was more effective than the old pesticide, at least in the short term. In limiting the loss of certain fruit to insects.

*What I am looking for:* Just looking for answer choices that weaken the argument. Maybe an alternative explanation as to why the pears lost to insects were significantly less than it had been during the previous three years period.

*Answer A:* Yes, this is the right answer. This is irrelevant and does not weaken the argument. There were less fruit being produced because the number of mature trees has declined of the past 8 years. Who cares. The argument is talking about the “proportion of pears lost to insects.” So, it doesn’t matter how many pears we started with, it’s how many of those that were lost to insects with the new pesticide.

*Answer B:* Not the right answer. This weakens the argument. Insect abatement programs were used in the last 5 years, and were successful. That explains why the pears lost to insects were significantly less than it had been during the previous three years period.

*Answer C:* Not the right answer. Over the past 5 years, the birds that prey on the insects that feed on the pears have spent more time in the district 10 region. Weakens.

*Answer D:* Not the right answer. Insects in district 10 that infest pear trees are water breeders, and access to water for them is shrinking. This means the insects did not get to the pear trees. Weakens.

*Answer E:* Not the right answer. It is saying the old pesticide is still in effect after it has stopped being used, so it may not be the new pesticide that is credited with eliminating many pear eating insects. Weakens.

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation. I am not sure about my explanations for "B" and "D"

*The kind of question this is:* Weaken

*CTX:* Post office must be replaced with a larger one.

*Premise(s):*

• The present one cannot be replaced.

• Land near the present (center of town) location is more expensive.

• Cost of acquiring a site is a significant part of the total construction cost.

*Conclusion:* Post office can be built more cheaply on the outskirts of town.

*What I am looking for:* A reason, that outweighs the burden of cost, in favour of the office to being built near the present (center of town) location, rather than on the outskirts.

*Answer A:* No. That is just information. Irrelevant. The building code is not a stated obstacle.

*Answer B:* Yes. The office on the outskirts will need a parking lot that is more expensive than not having one.

*Answer C:* No. That’s an issue that the new post office would not need to worry about. It is not mentioned how this would be a problem.

*Answer D:* No. So what if they have to deliver mail to home. The mail will still arrive to the costumers. The post office on the outskirts will still be in business.

*Answer E:* No. That’s not a problem. That’s just the process that will be taken to build the office in the center of town.

Tough. Choice (E) is correct.

You can tell by using the

contrapositive on both of these statements:

If not (prices fall as rapidly as/more rapidly than

competitors),

then not (production costs fall as rapidly or more rapidly).

if NOT (production costs fall AS rapidly), then NOT (not slower to adopt new tech)

= as fast as competitors to adopt new technology.