Evidence -> Not Guilt

but now Evidence --> Guilt

Evidence must have changed.

A = B

now A = not B

A has changed.

(Answer B): Train = not Nantes at 11.

But now Train = Nantes at 11

Train has changed

I had a really hard time understanding the answer choices, which is why I missed this one. I don't understand how D is the flaw.

Determinism is the belief that everything has a preceding cause sufficient for its occurrence. This belief is wrong since we cannot know the complete state at any given time since we cannot accurately measure both the position and velocity of a subatomic particle at the same time.

What I am looking for: Is knowing the complete state relevant? Why can't a complete understanding of the state of the universe be beyond our understating and determinism still be correct? Next, is not accurately measuring position/velocity of subatomic particles evidence for not knowing the complete state of the universe?

Answer A: This isn't the flaw in the reasoning. Just because we can't know at the same time doesn't mean we can't know them independently.

Answer B: This is what I chose, and I chose it because I couldn't figure out what D actually said. I guess this isn't the flaw since the argument isn't saying "since we can't know the complete state of the universe we can't know the states of the particles." I think this statement is backwards since the lack of knowing the states of the particles is used to support the idea that we don't know the state of the universe.

Answer C: Isn't this exactly the same idea as A? Skip.

Answer D: I don't understand how this is the flaw. Where does the argument claim that there is "no complete state of the universe?" The argument only says "it's impossible to know the complete state of the universe" because we don't know the complete state of the subatomic particles. The point of the argument is that determinism is incorrect, but I don't see how saying determinism is false means that there is no complete state of the universe. Why can't determinism be wrong since the preceding cause isn't sufficient for the occurrence, or for some type of negation of the necessary conditions provided in the first 2 sentences?

Answer E: I don't really know why this is wrong other than it just "feels" wrong.

B is definitely a flaw in the argument, but can someone analyze my breakdown of D? Here is my breakdown:

50% of people in the survey believe that politician indicted----->politician resign.

35% believe that that politician resign----->politician convicted.

Therefore, more people think politician indicted----->politician resign than those that believe politician convicted---->politician resign.

What I am looking for: First, the conclusion is about "people" in general, but we are using a survey/poll. This introduces the possibility that the poll was biased/unrepresentative. Second, the conclusion makes a sufficiency/necessity conflation in the second comparative statement (about conviction). I didn't see this at first since, and I caught this flaw during BR.

Answer A: This is OK statistical/inductive reasoning. This would describe the flaw if the answer choice put the words "potentially biased" in front of sample.

Answer B: This is the correct answer since the 35% think resign--->convicted. But, the conclusion is about convicted--->resign. Pretty obvious answer choice if you read the last sentence carefully.

Answer C: What term is ambiguous? At best, the argument assumes that "politicians" and "elected officials" are the same thing, but that is an OK assumption.

Answer D: This is what I chose since I failed to see the sufficiency/necessity conflation originally. Would this be correct if the conclusion was correctly stated (if the comparative statement stated resign---->convicted)? Since the two responses convey different beliefs and since the argument is drawing a conclusion/comparison between them, is that a flaw? I am not so sure since the conclusion is about there being "more people" believing X than Y. Since both question were part of the same poll (and presumably same sample size) and since 50% is larger than 35% of that same sample size, would the argument have been valid (assuming there was not sample bias as well)?

Answer E: Why can't the premises all be true?

Absolutely clueless on this one. I've probably watched the video 5 times, and I just don't see how B weakens the argument that is in the passage. Also, can someone look at my reasoning for A?

Win democratic elections not fully subsidized--->poor candidates supported by rich. As a result, it could be true that the poor candidates will compromise their positions to win the rich guy's support. However, the proportion of rich people in all of the political parties is the same as their proportion in the population. Thus, the belief that it could be true that poor candidates will compromise their position to win the rich people's support is wrong.

What I am looking for: The premise doesn't support the conclusion at all since we don't know whether being proportionally equal nullifies the pressure to conform to the rich guy's opinion. For example, say that rich people are 1% of the population in all political parties; they must then be 1% of the total population. It might be reasonable to say that the rich don't have that big of an influence on policy. Now, what if the proportion was 99%? The rich might have a huge say in policy! Thus, the premise could go both ways in either providing support for the conclusion or not.

Answer A: This is what I chose, but I still am very unsure why it is wrong. I think the argument does fail to address this answer choice. Maybe it is wrong because of the word "primary?" I'm not so sure though since we are usually supposed to accept the answer choices as true. If it is the case that the "primary" function of a party still may not negate the influence of wealth, then doesn't this paraphrase the flaw very well? To me, this is hinting at the idea that the proportion of the wealthy might be so high (or so influential) in political parties that it doesn't matter which one the poor candidate choose, they will have to conform to the wealthy point of view's party.

Say that the word "primary" is the reason why this is wrong (which I am not really sure why it would be), what if this answer choice said "a function of political parties...?" Would it be correct then?

Answer B: Like I said earlier, I just don't see how this weakens the argument. I do think it weakens an argument, just not the one in the passage. Here is my breakdown of this answer choice: say the poor candidate believes, "Every person who takes the LSAT should get a 180 and full ride to Yale" but the Democrats and Republicans both think "absolutely not" (the positions of the parties is way less varied than the position of the candidate). Then sure, joining a political party would compromise the poor candidate's views. But, that isn't the argument in the passage. The argument is that the "possibility of a poor candidate compromising his views to win the support OF THE RICH [not the political party] is not true." How are these two the same argument? In other words, if this is true, isn't the LSAT equivocating between the views of the "political parties" and the views of the "wealthy patrons?"

Answer C: We don't care about government subsidized elections.

Answer D: We don't care about wealthy candidates.

Answer E: We don't care about other flaws.

Hi guys,

For question #2, we are asked to break down this argument into premises, conclusion, and context.

The common procedure for determining whether a food additive should be banned from use is to compare its health related benefits with its potential risks. Yellow Dye No. 5, an additive used to color lemon soda, might cause allergic reactions in a few consumers. For most consumers of lemon soda, however, the coloring enhances their enjoyment of the beverage. This particular additive should not be banned, therefore, because its benefits greatly outweigh its risks.

This was my answer:

Context: The common procedure for determining whether a food additive should be banned from use is to compare its [food additive] health related benefits with its potential risks.

Premise: Yellow Dye No. 5, an additive used to color lemon soda, might cause allergic reactions in a few consumers.

Premise: For most consumers of lemon soda, however, the coloring enhances their [most consumers] enjoyment of the beverage.

Premise/Sub Conclusion: because its [Yellow Dye No. 5] benefits greatly outweigh its risks.

Main Conclusion: This particular additive [Yellow Dye No. 5] should not be banned.

J.Y.'s was different. Can people explain to me why my answer is wrong? It makes sense to me since the first two premises explain why the sub conclusion (Yellow Dye No.5 benefits greatly outweigh its risks) which then in turn supports the main conclusion. Thanks!

Admin note: This is the lesson:

http://classic.7sage.com/lesson/quiz-context-identification-1-answers/

In my opinion, this is the hardest question on PT 58. I missed it because I didn't understand what B was saying. Can someone help me translate it/evaluate my translation of B into English? Here is my breakdown for this one:

There are eight craters in a straight line somewhere. Some of these craters have rocks that have undergone high pressure shocks. These shocks could have been caused by meteors or volcanoes. Since the craters are in a straight line, it isn't likely the existence of the craters is due to both meteors and volcanoes. Since the craters are different ages, it must have been volcanoes.

What I am looking for: We need to strengthen the argument. The argument seems to be making an either/or but not both argument. In other words, the craters were caused by either volcanoes or meteors, but not both. The argument is assuming that saying something about the ages of craters is evidence that it was NOT meteors. That's the assumption.

Answer A: This is what I chose, but I really didn't like it. I think this does actually strengthen the conclusion because it provides some evidence that volcanoes can actually create a "similar" line of craters. However, I don't like this answer very much because the line was "shorter" and the craters were the "same age." This doesn't address the assumption that age matters since it controls for that factor. So although this does strengthen the conclusion, it doesn't strengthen the argument.

Answer B: This is the correct answer, but I am having a very tough time translating this into English. This is saying that there is no known natural cause that could account for 8 meteor craters of different ages in a straight line; I probably should have chosen this answer in hindsight since it is the only answer choice that even talks about a relevant case of different aged craters. I think we can assume two things from this answer choice: volcanoes are a natural thing and meteors are a natural thing. Here is my translation:

1.) There is no known volcano that would likely account for the craters being from a meteor. To me this is like a "duh?" statement. Volcanoes and meteors are independent things. Of course volcanoes wouldn't account for the meteor craters.

2.) There is no known meteor that would likely account for the craters being from a meteor. I think this is the reason why this answer strengthens the argument. Does this flat out deny the chance that meteors were the cause? I think at best it only sort of does since the idea of "known" isn't all encompassing. There could be cases that we don't know about. So, in my mind, at best this is a pretty weak strengthener. It depends heavily on the idea that what is "known" is actually a reliable thing to use as evidence in this inductive argument.

Answer C: I think this severely weakens the argument since it suggests that it was neither meteors nor volcanoes. Definitely don't want this one.

Answer D: This is similar to C. This weakens the argument since this suggests that volcanoes were not the cause.

Answer E: This is another trap answer choice that I had a tough time eliminating during the timed exam. I think this answer is very similar to A in that it does strengthen the conclusion, but not the argument. This answer choice suggests that a single meteor shower couldn't have created the craters. However, what about meteors from different showers at different times? Being from the same meteor shower implies that the craters that would have been potentially created would be roughly the same age, which wouldn't create an analogous situation to begin with.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-58-section-4-question-23/

I really don't like any of these answer choice, but I was pretty confident when I eliminated D. Can someone explain how D resolves the paradox? In my mind, it makes it weirder.

Right after the war, the area that had been subject to oil fires and oil spills had less contamination than prewar surveys indicated. The surveys also indicated that PAHs were low compared to those in more temperate oil producing areas.

What I am looking for: If the land had been contaminated with all of this bad stuff during the war, then how was their less contamination after the war than before? Maybe the survey was wrong? Maybe some people cleaned up the land?

Answer A: Who cares about the effects. We want to know how there was more contamination.

Answer B: I think this makes the paradox weirder. Shouldn't there have been more PAH compared to that in temperate regions?

Answer C: This is what I chose, but I didn't like it all that much. Even if this is true, this explains why PAHs were low compared to temperate regions, but it doesn't explain anything about before the war levels and after the war levels. What if after the war levels of PAH were higher than before the war, but after the war levels were still lower than the Baltic Sea regions? It fits the facts and makes the paradox weirder.

Answer D: I felt 110% confident eliminating this one, and I can't figure out how this does anything but make the paradox weirder/do nothing. If peacetime oil production results in high levels of PAH and oil dumping, then this could mean two things: 1.) this answer choice is talking about the period of time after the war (which definitely does not help the paradox since we want to know why all of this bad stuff was lower than before the war) or 2.) this is talking about before the war. But if this latter case is what this answer choice is talking about, then wouldn't we need to have the relative contamination effects of oil dumping, oil fires, and oil spills? So yes, during the war, oil production declined (line 4), but a ton of bad contaminating things still happened. How is it OK to assume that the contaminating things in answer choice D (prior to the war) had a greater effect than the stuff that happened during the war? What if they actually had a lesser effect on the environment than the fires and spills during the war? This is a plausible occurrence, consistent with the facts in the passage and facts in the answer choice; this would make the paradox weirder, right? I used this same type of reasoning (coming up with a scenario consistent with the facts) to eliminate C.

Answer E: OK, but why was the contamination less after the war? Wouldn't this imply that the damage wasn't as bad as it could have been, but there was still an increase in damage?

I missed this one during the timed exam, and I didn't change it during BR since I didn't see how A fully explained the facts.

Over the past five years, the number of car thefts has decreased while the likelihood of someone being convicted of stealing a car has increased.

What I am looking for: What if the technology to catch someone has increased so much that people are deterred from stealing a car and those that do get caught easily/have a lot of evidence against them? What if all of the "good" car thieves have been caught, and just a few really bad/easy to catch car thieves try to steal cars?

Answer A: The first part definitely explains the fact that the number of thefts have decreased: there are fewer thieves. I don't really see how the second part has anything to do with the conviction rate, though. So what if they abandon the car later? What does that have to do with conviction? Not sure about the LSAT's logic with this one...

Answer B: I picked this originally, but when I read it during BR, I really didn't like it all that much. Since I still didn't like A, I kept this during BR. The car alarm idea might explain the lack of car thefts superficially, but if people ignore them, why are there fewer thefts? The thieves probably wouldn't be dissuaded.

Answer C: This might make the situation weirder. If police resources are not used on car thefts, then how has the conviction rate increased? Wouldn't thieves try to steal more cars often if the police don't spend their time on such crimes?

Answer D: This also makes the situation weirder. This suggests that stealing cars is very profitable, so why would there be a decrease in the number of thefts?

Answer E: It's hard to see how there being more young car thieves helps explain the idea that car thefts have decreased in frequency. Also, the fact that they are given short sentences suggests that they will come right out and steal cars again.

For question 17, I can't differentiate between D and E. For question 18, I got the correct answer via POE, but I don't know what "merely in a matter of degree" means in answer choice C. Can someone translate what that is talking about? Does it mean "quantitatively?" That seems like a weird definition.

Question 17 essentially wants us to support Maritain using something in Passage A. In Passage B, Maritain thinks that animal communication is a conditional reflex and not conscious intent.

Answer D: I see how this answer supports him. Calling causes females to approach and males to retreat. There is no evidence that the frogs do it in order to rely the calling frog's desire/intent to mate nor influence the other frog's behavior. This seems to suggest it is pretty reflexive.

Answer E: But, doesn't this equally support Maritain? The primates don't adjust their call depending on who is there/rely knowledge. Thus, there appears to be no goal/conscious intent either. Doesn't this also suggest that the primate coos and calls as a reflex when it sees food or predators, respectively?

Hello-JY mentioned these games are rare. Wondering if there have been any on the more recent administrations of the the LSAT. Thanks

I don't understand the correct answer for this one at all. Can someone breakdown why all the wrong ones are correct and D is correct? Here is my breakdown:

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-65-section-3-passage-3-questions/

Answer A: This is what I picked both times, I don’t really see what’s wrong with it. Doesn’t legally requiring something describe US/Canadian law while not legally requiring it parallel Roman law? To me, this is perfect…

Answer B: Roman law didn’t make anything illegal, so this isn’t it.

Answer C: Roman law didn’t distinguish between legality, so this isn’t it.

Answer D: Completely dumbfounded how this could possibly be the answer. Roman law didn’t make blackmail illegal outright. You had to show harm, and THAT made it illegal. I don’t see how this is analogous to Roman law in the slightest…

Answer E: Higher fines? Roman law didn’t have harsher punishment.

This was pretty tricky, and I got it right, but I still don’t have a good understanding of what is technically wrong with A. How is answer choice A not directly contradicting one of P’s premises? It must not because it isn’t the right answer choice.

Video link: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-69-section-4-question-15/

L: You philosophers say that linguists don’t understand language, but you haven’t provided evidence of that.

P: You say that “J and I are siblings” means the same thing as “I and J are siblings.” This isn’t true since the word order is different. For two things to be identical, everything must be the same.

What I am looking for: Both make pretty bad arguments (L makes an absence of evidence flaw), but we really only need to undermine P’s reasoning. P is wrong because he misses the point of what it means to “understand language.” The order of the words doesn’t matter necessarily; it’s the total meaning that matters. P assumes that “identical meaning” is influenced by the “physical” placement of the words.

Answer A: To me, this is attacking one of P’s premises directly (and that was one of the reasons I didn’t pick this one). Attacking the premise is technically an OK way to undermine an argument; the real issue is that the LSAT is very good at creating answer choices that SEEM to attack premises, but they really don’t. This one is different in my mind since it flat out contradicts the final independent clause of P's fact pattern. P defines “identical things” as “things having all of the same attributes.” If L responded, “I disagree with your definition since two things can have a few minor differences and be identical [referring to minor differences in physical structure, but identical meaning]” doesn’t this weaken the argument by directly attacking the truth of P's premise?

Answer B: I think this strengthens P’s argument since it provides another way that differences (context) matter.

Answer C: Wtf?

Answer D: This more succinctly hits the main point, and it is a much better answer choice that A. The issue is over “meaning," not the order of the words.

Answer E: More experience? So what?

Inbox me if interested * Brooklyn Latina*

[Admin edit: Please don't post titles in all caps.]

yep, as expected, LG3 f-Ed me over. But it's ok because I didn't suck at the other sections. I'm also well within the median for my goal school. But yeah, Game3, how cruel a fate.

I'm planning to take the LSAT in June 2016 and was wondering if anyone near would mind meeting to study? Please let me know, thanks!!!

Hi!

Though I watched JY's video explanation on this question,

I cannot still figure out what is a significant difference between an answer choice (A) and (C).

I thought "cultural relationships" in (A) can entail the meaning of how much external cultural influences affect the lives of people.

Could you explain these two answer choices further?

Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-2-passage-3-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-2-passage-3-questions/

I'm still confused as to how and why Jon's explanation in the video is used to express answer choice A is correct and answer choice C is wrong. I'm not following his logic in the video. Can somebody please explain this? Also there was a comment below the video that there are plenty of old LSAT questions with similar type of errors. I'm not sure, but can somebody point out those questions and the type of error? Thanks.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-1-question-16/

Hey guys,

I was just looking for some specific PTs, mainly the newer ones, that are available for download and discovered that Cambridge is still licensed to sell PDFs of every PT. They also have some awesome Bundles including one for all Logic Games from PTs 1-70 for $90 (instead of $295 for purchasing them separately). If you don't need all of those but want to do JY's method for the games using PTs 1-35/38 they also have a bundle for that, which is only $42.

Just wanted to share this since I was driving myself crazy using the copy machine every time I wanted to make extra copies for a game from one of the 10 Actuals books I have, which incidentally don't include PTs 1-6, 8 or 17.

Hope this helps!

Happy studies :)

Please note that the information below will change to reflect the information we get! Contribute if you can via the official June 2016 LSAT discussion without going into too much detail. If you think something is wrong or should be added, please post in the thread and let me know.

Real Sections:

LG:

- Team / Leadership Position

- Things made in 1920s

- Recordings / 2 Being Recorded While The Rest Weren't

- Tables at a Fair / Sundial (Table / Vase / Lamp question)

RC:

- High Art / Elite Classes

- CFCs / Ozone

- Legal Matters / Jury Nullification

- Clay / Cuneiform Tablets

LR:

- Brabblers / Birds

- Warm Sea / Jupiter's Moon Europa

- Oxygen Depletion / Levels

- Mayor / Indifference of Voters

- Iron to Prevent Parkinson's

- CEO / Lawyer

- Chocolate Desserts High Calories / Fatty

- World Literature / National Interest

- Hiring Lawyer to Write Will vs. Doing it Yourself

- Sociology / Psychology

- Movie Technology / Recovering Costs

- City of Troy

Experimental Sections:

LG:

- Bicycle Factories / Parts

- Lead Actor Understudy

- Septic Tank

- Fridges

- Oil Art / Gallery

RC:

- Movies made for TVs

- Blues / Musicians (RC)

- Farming Fish / Overfishing

- Computer Simulation in UK Courtroom

- Musical Iconography (?)

- Chem vs. Physics

LR:

- Heme and Non-Heme Food / Nutritional Value

- Hot Cocoa

UNCONFIRMED:

If you can confirm that these are real / experimental, please do so by PMing me or posting in the main thread.

- Coffee & Water in Water Heater

- Large Mall Bookstores / Sell Magazines

- Cereal / Whole Grains

This thread is closed for discussion. Official post June LSAT discussion here:

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/6922/official-june-lsat-discussion-thread

Most Authoritarian Rulers passage:

Hey guys after watching Nicole Hopkins' webinar on RC Methods and Jimmy Quicksilver's webinar on RC Question Types and Tips I thought it would be helpful to start sharing our notes/annotations for each passage because each of us reads a different way and we all see different things. I want to be clear that I’m no expert by any means and this is just the way I personally annotate that is a combination of Nicole Hopkins’s “Toolbox” method and JY’s Memory Method. Also note that I’m doing RC a slightly similar way to Pacifico’s Fool Proof method in that I’m doing the passage 2x one after the other and then once again the following day. While time consuming this definitely is allowing me to read more efficiently for structure and see the similarities in each passage which I know will help me in the long run. This is part one which will just include my annotations for the passage (Most Authoritarian Rulers) and I'll post one that has analysis of the questions immediately afterwards.

I hope this helps you guys and I look forward to seeing what you guys see in each passage!

Notation Breakdown:

Who: Important Nouns

• Box it along with the quantifier

What: Term or phrase that’s defined or has relevant information afterwards

• Box with a tail

When: Date or time

• Circle it

Where: In what context

• Put brackets around it

Pivots: Switching between viewpoints

• Marked with >

• Also may help if you distinguish which opinions each are

Questions: Questions someone raised that could be answered in the passage

• Mark with a Q or a ? In the margins

Time Breakdown of reading/annotating before going to the questions

• 4:05

Paragraph 1:

I boxed with tail “Most authoritarian rulers” who undertook democratic reforms (The quantifier “most” was important because an answer choice could have said “all authoritarian rulers and would have been out of the scope of the stimulus”)

Underlined “they” for referential phrasing

I put a pivot after the “but” to show that annotate that the real reason why the author believes that many authoritarian rulers undertake democratic reform is because they see that they can’t hold onto their power unless they do so

Boxed changes and mobilizations because I anticipated that was where the passage was going from here

What is the function of this paragraph:

This paragraph is introducing the author’s main point: “Due to the various changes and mobilizations in civil society it makes it impossible for authoritarian rulers to hold onto their power indefinitely so they undertake democratic reform.”

Where do we think the passage is heading from here?

Well the first paragraph mentions “changes and mobilizations but we don’t exactly know what exactly they’re referring to so that might be an indicator of where we’re heading from here

Paragraph 2:

Immediately Box “Three types of changes” because this lets you know that more than likely the author is going to talk about what the 3 changes are.

• Also note that these “Changes” are the changes and mobilizations in civil society that we annotated earlier

Box with a tail “values and norms in the society alter over time” until the end of that sentence. I wanted to box this with a tail because I wanted to get the first type of change along with showing how it changed civil society.

• Also I put a 1 in the margin so that I could quickly see where the values were when I needed to refer back to the passage

In the next sentence I put a bracket along with “Ex” in the margins so that if it asked about that specific example I could find it

• Also I circled 1970’s and 1980’s so if they had other dates as an answer choice I could quickly eliminate it

I underlined the last sentence in the paragraph because it shows another way that the changing of values and norms in society impact an authoritarian rulers’ power

What is the purpose of this paragraph:

This paragraph gives us the first type of changes in civil society that make it impossible for rulers to hold onto their power

• A change in norms and values

How does the change in norms and values contribute?

• Reduces people’s tolerance and stimulates concentration of power thus stimulating their demands for freedom (11-13)

• As people place more value on political freedom and civil liberties they become more inclined to speak out, protest, and organize for democracy, frequently beginning with the denunciation of human rights abuses (17-22)

Do you have an example of either of these points:

• Latin America in the 1970’s, 1980’s (13-17)

Where are we going from here:

We talked about the first value that contributes to society’s no longer condoning the continuation of authoritarian rule so my anticipation would be that the next paragraph would talk about the second change

Paragraph 3:

Box alignment of economic interests in society can shift: This is the second change the author gives

Box scholar: Let’s us know who is saying this

Box with tail and brackets from privileged people to long-term interests:

• We want to box privileged people so we know who we’re talking about and you want to make sure that you read with and without the internal context of who the privileged people were

• All of this is important information because it gives us a way how the economic interests shifting could impact the regime

Box “such a large-scale shift”: This is just so you can remember what type of shift we’re talking about the shifting of changing norms and values

Bracketed and put “Ex” in the margin for the Philippines example, for the exact same reason we did the Latin America example, if we’re asked about it we can easily find it

What is the purpose of this paragraph:

This paragraph gives us the second change that can contribute to a society no longer condoning the continuation of authoritarian rule

• Economic interests in a society can shift

How do the shifting of economic interests in a society contribute to the author’s main point

• A turning point is created when privileged people in society come to the conclusion that the authoritarian regime is dispensable and that its continuation might damage their long-term interests.

• (26-31)

Is there an example of this:

• Transition to democracy in the Philippines

Paragraph 4:

Box “expanding resources, autonomy, and self-confidence of various segments of society and of newly formed organizations both formal and informal”

• This is showing the 3rd and final change that contributes to the author’s main point

Bracket the next 2 sentences and put Ex in the margins

• This gives you visually a clearer point to see two examples of this change

Box this profound development: Referential phrasing to the example above

What is the purpose of this paragraph:

This paragraph gives us the 3rd change that contributes to the shifting from authoritarian society to a democracy

• Expanding resources, autonomy, and self-confidence of various segments of society and of newly formed organizations both formal and informal

Are there any examples of this:

• Students marching in the streets demanding change

• Workers paralyze key industries

• Lawyers refuse to cooperate any longer

• Alternative sources of information pierce and shatter the veil of secrecy

Paragraph 5:

Box “authoritarian rule tends in the long run to generate all 3 types of change

• This helps us understand that we have to deal with all of these problems not just 1 or 2

Box with tail “Ironically” until the end of that sentence: Could be asked about the author’s attitude towards this situation and this gives a glimpse into their tone

Bracket the last sentence of the passage

• Gives lasting thoughts to what the author believes (If you don’t convert to a democratic society then you won’t be able to retain any of your power)

What is the purpose of this paragraph:

This paragraph brings together all of the ideas and hints at the authors tone throughout the passage along with his thoughts moving forward regarding this issue

Overall Analysis:

This passage is pretty straight forward it introduces the issue (Authoritarian rulers are unable hold on to their power indefinitely unless the switch to a democratic society), then uses the following 3 paragraphs to go into detail about each change that contributes to this issue, then the author brings everything together and leaves you with his lasting thought.

Hey guys after watching Nicole Hopkins' webinar on RC Methods and Jimmy Quicksilver's webinar on RC Question Types and Tips I thought it would be helpful to start sharing our notes/annotations for each passage because each of us reads a different way and we all see different things. I want to be clear that I’m no expert by any means and this is just the way I personally annotate that is a combination of Nicole Hopkins’s “Toolbox” method and JY’s Memory Method. Also note that I’m doing RC a slightly similar way to Pacifico’s Fool Proof method in that I’m doing the passage 2x one after the other and then once again the following day. While time consuming this definitely is allowing me to read more efficiently for structure and see the similarities in each passage which I know will help me in the long run. This is part two which includes my breakdown of all of the questions in a similar manner to which I did when I was tutored by Nicole Hopkins and how we broke everything down.

I hope it helps and I look forward to seeing what you guys come up with.

Questions:

1) What is the Main Point of the passage

MP Question: “Main Point of the passage”

What we’re looking for:

• We’re looking for something to basically re-phrase the entire first paragraph, something that says “authoritarian rulers are forced to undertake democratic reform, if they want to stay in power, due to various changes and mobilizations in society.

Answer Choices:

A) Wrong: Being this far in the curriculum when you see the word “only” you should remember from your logical indicators that it immediately makes whatever follows the necessary condition. So we can rephrase this answer choice to be read as “If authoritarian rulers undertake democratic reform then the national’s economic and social power bases will slow economic growth and disrupt social order until such reforms are instituted.” For this answer choice to be right there would have to be evidence in the passage of undertaking democratic reform to be a sufficient condition and the only thing that we could infer if authoritarian rulers undertook democratic reform would be that they would be able to hold onto some of their power. This answer choice plays the trap of reversing the sufficient and necessary conditions, if it were reversed then one could argue that if economic and social based slow economic growth and disrupt social order then we will undertake democratic reform.

Why You would accidentally choose this:

• This answer choice holds a lot of the same words that are used in the passage and if you didn’t see the logical indicator or interpreted it the wrong way then this answer choice could seem attractive. However don’t fall for this, know your logical indicators and read the answer choice carefully and you won’t fall into trouble.

B) Wrong: When reading this answer choice it sounds really good to start, because the author does state that these Authoritarian regimes do ensure their own destruction. However, it isn’t for the reason that is listed here, they don’t talk about opposition groups to build support among the wealthy to lead the support away. The reason is in lines (51-57), the more success and stability the authoritarian regime has, the more time it gives for citizens to reflect on the circumstances in which they live which brings about these changes.

Why You would accidentally choose this:

• You could fall for the trap if you assumed that the opposition group referred back to the “privileged people” talked about in the 3rd paragraph. From there you could make a connection that this was talking about the second change that contributed to making it impossible for authoritarian rulers to hold onto their power. However, that still doesn’t actually answer the question that we’re after and even though this seems logical we have to actually answer the question that is asked

C) Wrong: This is similar to “B” in that it sounds really good to start off however it misses the mark when it says “success at generating economic growth and stability will be short lived”. This completely factually inaccurate the only thing that is short lived is the authoritarian regime but none of the reasons given were because the economic growth and stability were going to be short lived. In lines (51-57) you can see that actually the more success the regime has the short lived it will be because it gives citizens more time to reflect on their current situation

Why you would accidentally choose this:

• You would think this is right if you didn’t pick up the distinction that when the answer choice refers to “short lived” it isn’t talking about the regime it’s talking about the economic growth and stability. If you didn’t pick up on that then you could piece together that economic polices did alienate the economic power base, based off of the information in paragraphs 3 and 4. However, you have to read carefully so you don’t fall for the traps that the test makers set for you

D) Wrong: This answer choice is wrong because it says untenable (otherwise known as unattainable) and that is factually inaccurate. The point of the passage is that authoritarian regimes are not SUSTAINABLE however they are attainable. There are lots of traps here in this answer choice. First you need to see that the answer choice talks about authoritarian principles whereas the passage talks about the regimes specifically so that should immediately raise your suspicion. Then we already pointed out that authoritarian regimes are actually attainable and the main point is that they are not sustainable. Then finally if you somehow made it that far there is nothing in the passage that says that the reason why they’re not sustainable is because they require a degree of social and economic stability that only a democratic institution can create. As we’ve seen in lines (51-57) an authoritarian regime can have success and that ultimately leads to its demise.

Why would accidentally choose this:

• If you immediately read sustainable instead of untenable and then circled and moved on. Time is definitely not on your side but make sure you read all of the answer choices and read the rest of the information because many answer choices will have pieces that are true but only one will be true in all aspects.

E) Correct: This is exactly what we’re looking for. Let’s break down this answer choice. “Authoritarian rulers who instituted democratic reforms” lets us know that we’re talking about the same subject matter. Then “are compelled to do so because authoritarian rule tends to bring about various changes in society” refers to the 3 changes that were talked about throughout the passage. Finally, “that eventually necessitate corresponding political changes” refers to undergoing democratic reform.

Why you would accidentally NOT choose this:

• This answer choice isn’t a “sexy” answer choice. It leaves something to be desired because you have to connect the dots on the “various changes in society” referring to the changes talked about in the passage, along with “necessitating corresponding political changes” referring to undergoing democratic reform. This is how a lot of the correct answer choices are going to be written in RC, so don’t not choose an answer choice just because it doesn’t immediately come out and say exactly what you want, you’re going to have to work for it on some of the questions.

2) The author’s attitude toward authoritarian regimes is most accurately described as which of the following:

“Author attitude question”

What we’re looking for:

• The answer choices could go a multitude of ways; we could either say something along the lines as sympathetic because their success brings their own demise (51-57) or something along the lines of confident that authoritarian regimes will undergo democratic reform (56-60).

Answer Choices:

A) Wrong: This is really never talked about in the passage but it doesn’t seem correct when compared to our anticipated answer choices. The author seems to have 2 polar opposite attitudes regarding authoritarian regimes and “uncertain” doesn’t qualify as one of them.

Why would you accidentally choose this:

• If you weren’t looking for the author’s attitude then you could justify this answer choice by bringing in outside information because the author does seem to be neutral towards whether this is progress or not but you have to actually answer the question that is given, and this answer choice doesn’t do that.

B) Wrong: This hints at what we where going after because it does have the elements that authoritarian rulers do bring about their own demise. However, the author doesn’t address the motives of the rulers, he doesn’t explicitly say something like “Based on the past authoritarian regimes success, rulers should reconsider their views”

Why you would accidentally choose this:

• If you just saw “tendency to bring about their own demise” then this answer choice would be extremely attractive. You have to read all of the answer choice and not just parts because parts could be right but if the entirety of the answer choice isn’t right then the answer choice isn’t right.

C) Correct: This is exactly what we’re looking for and it matches out anticipated answer choice. We know that the author is confident that democratic forms of government will replace authoritarian regimes because he says so in the last sentence of the passage. “The more astute authoritarian rulers recognize that their only hope of maintaining some power in the future is with democratic political changes”

Why you would accidentally NOT choose this answer choice:

• If you fell for the trap of answer choice “B” then you wouldn’t have read this answer choice and you could get the question wrong. Also if you didn’t pick up what the last sentence of the passage was saying then you also would miss this answer choice. Read all of the answer choices and read carefully when reading the passage.

D) Wrong: Nowhere in the passage does the author say that authoritarian rule constitutes an “unjust form of government”, and if it’s not in the passage then it can’t be a correct answer choice.

Why you would accidentally choose this answer choice:

• This is one of the oldest tricks in the book for test makers, they want to play with your emotions and make put you in the position to draw off of your outside knowledge and insert your opinion on this information. Based off of the passage it very well could be that you believe that authoritarian rules are an unjust form of government but nothing in the passage states that THE AUTHOR believes that.

E) Wrong: This is extremely factually inaccurate, the author seems to believe that there is no way that authoritarian rulers can retain power without instituting democratic reform. That is the basis of his argument and the main point of the passage.

Why you would accidentally choose this answer choice:

• If you didn’t read this answer choice carefully and read that authoritarian rulers WONT discover ways to retain their power without instituting democratic reforms then you could logically work your way to choose this answer choice. The problem is even if the answer choice were written in that manner I still don’t believe that the author has any “concern” towards the authoritarian rulers I believe he is simply stating an argument but leaves out his personal feelings towards the predicament the authoritarian rulers are in

3) Which of the following titles most completely summarizes the content of the passage?

Title Question: Very similar to MP or a structure question

• Look at how the passage is written and choose the best title that matches the flow of the passage

A) Wrong: The first part of this answer choice is right however the author doesn’t make a dissent against authoritarian regimes. He never uses a paragraph to say that their principles are bad or that they’re crazy because the more success they have the more they dig their own grave, nothing.

Why you would accidentally choose this:

• This would combine a couple traps that you would have when taking the test. Either you didn’t read all of the answer choice because you were trying to save time so you didn’t read, “dissent against” or you did read, “dissent against” and brought in personal information and chose the answer choice. Don’t do either, and don’t fall for the trap.

B) Wrong: Nothing in the passage talks about human rights being abused or anything like that, this one should be an immediate deletion. Also when it says case study I interpret that as an example that is fleshed out throughout multiple paragraphs, the author used multiple different examples but he didn’t have one single overarching example that everything fit under.

Why you would accidentally choose this:

• Again if you brought in outside information that you personally felt towards the authoritarian regimes then you could realistically get to this answer choice but it still doesn’t make it right. Also if you saw authoritarian regimes and just circled it and moved on then you also could choose this, don’t fall for the traps!

C) Wrong: This is a TRAP ANSWER CHOICE because it has all of the right elements. However you have to think about what this is actually saying, this title would be right if the passage was referring to exactly how the democratic reforms were going to be laid out. There would be specific examples of what reforms would be done, maybe examples of democratic reforms in the past. Our passage however is simply saying that democratic reforms are going to happen and why, not exactly what the reforms are going to be.

Why you would accidentally choose this:

• If you fell for the trap of thinking that this was exactly what we were looking for because it had all of the right elements then you’d choose this answer choice. Read all of the answer choice and then ask yourself were their specific strategies/solutions that the passage laid out regarding democratic reform?

D) Correct: This is exactly what we’re looking for. “Why authoritarian regimes compromise” refers to the 3 changes/causes that makes it occur. While “examination of social forces” refers to each paragraph going into detail about each of the changes that are actually causing the reform to occur.

Why you would accidentally NOT choose this:

• If you fell for the trap answer choice “C” then you wouldn’t have gotten this, also if you didn’t feel like this was “strong enough” so you were looking for another answer that was “better” then you might have overlooked this. The answer choices you choose don’t have to jump out right away they just have to be the right answer choice.

E) Wrong: This isn’t the main part of the paragraph because it doesn’t talk about economic instability as the main reason why, as we’ve established throughout the prior questions the more stable the economy and the better the regime is doing, the more likely the regime will fall.

Why you would accidentally choose this:

• If you were running out of time and said that I know the author believes that most of these countries are going to undergo democratic reform, so that makes this subject matter correct. And there were some talks of economics in the passage so this is right. Just because the elements are there doesn’t mean that they’re talked about in the right way. Don’t fall for traps like this because it’s just a mashed potato answer choice.

4) Which of the following most accurately describes the organization of the passage?

Structure Question: “Describes the organization”

What we’re looking for:

• We want an answer choice that states the author states an issue (authoritarian rulers can’t maintain their power unless democratic reform occurs), and then lists the causes of that issue while providing examples, (values and norms shift, economic interests shift, expanding resources, autonomy and self confidence), and then the author reaffirms his position at the end.

Answer Choices:

A) Wrong: Everything in the beginning of this answer choice is right but when it gets to “relative importance” that’s when it’s done. Also afterwards the answer states, “possibility of alternate causes is considered and rejected” which also doesn’t occur.

Why you would accidentally choose this:

• If you didn’t read carefully and just breezed through this. These types of questions, the answer choices are usually extremely similar to one another and so one minor detail is how they differentiate from each other. Read carefully and read the entire answer choice.

B) Correct: This is exactly what we’re looking for. A political phenomenon (authoritarian rulers can’t maintain their power unless democratic reform occurs) is linked to a general set of causes (values and norms shift, economic interests shift, expanding resources, autonomy and self confidence), an explanation of each is given, then the causal relationship is elaborated and confirmed (author reaffirms his position at the end).

Why you would accidentally NOT choose this:

• If you didn’t label the passage for structure then when you get to the answer choices they all will sound similar. So you could miss this because you marked it as a maybe and then fell for another answer choice when you were looking at all of the answer choices. Take the time beforehand to do good annotations and the questions will be a lot easier

C) Wrong: Everything in the beginning of this answer choice is right but when it gets to “one possible cause is preferred over the others” it’s wrong. The first sentence of the last paragraph (line 50) says that all 3 changes are created and nowhere else in the passage does it say one is preferred over the other

Why you would accidentally choose this:

• If you didn’t read carefully and just breezed through this. These types of questions, the answer choices are usually extremely similar to one another and so one minor detail is how they differentiate from each other. Read carefully and read the entire answer choice.

D) Wrong: Everything in the beginning of this answer choice is right but when it gets to “3 similar phenomena” it’s wrong. Nowhere in the passage does it present similar phenomena nor does it discuss the similarities between the 2. Because of this the answer choice is wrong.

Why you would accidentally choose this:

• If you didn’t read carefully and just breezed through this. These types of questions, the answer choices are usually extremely similar to one another and so one minor detail is how they differentiate from each other. Read carefully and read the entire answer choice

E) Wrong: Everything in the beginning of this answer choice is right but when it gets to “3 similar phenomena” it’s wrong. Nowhere in the passage does it present similar phenomena nor does it discuss the differences between the 2. This answer choice is saying almost the same thing that “D” is saying but instead of talking about the similarities it says differences. Nowhere in here was there any other comparison so both of these answer choices are wrong.

Question 5:

It can be most reasonably inferred from the passage that

MBT Question: Inferred

What we’re looking for: Something that can be proven from the passage, there are many different directions this could go so it’s difficult to pre-phrase but the passage MUST be able to prove out the answer choice we choose

Answer Choices:

A) Wrong: We don’t know this the only thing the author claims is that authoritarian rulers are pressured to institute democratic reforms. This is outside the scope and therefore we can’t make any statements about it.

Why you might accidentally choose this:

• If you didn’t understand that the answer choice is referring to a specific situation that the passage doesn’t include. If you read it as “many authoritarian rulers will eventually institute democratic reforms” then yes that would be right, but with the qualifier “even if not pressured to do so” that renders this outside of the scope.

B) Wrong: We don’t know when citizen dissatisfaction is highest, so we can’t conclude anything about this either.

Why you might accidentally choose this:

• If you bring in outside information to answer this question then it could be reasonable to assume that citizen dissatisfaction is highest when it would be first imposed. However, this isn’t our world that we’re talking about, we’re concerned about this fake world so we can’t bring in outside information.

C) Wrong: This is similar to “B” in that we can’t conclude anything about when the support is highest for authoritarian regimes. The only thing we know is that the more success the regime has the more likely the regime is to fail, i.e. popular support is lowest when conditions are high.

Why you might accidentally choose this:

• If you mistake logical opposites with real world opposites. If you try to take the contrapositive of what we know from above you would get “popular support is not lowest when conditions are not high”. Note that this is not saying that popular support is highest when conditions are low. Not low could mean high, medium, average or any other part of the spectrum while not high could mean average, semi-low, or zero it’s just everything that isn’t high. Don’t fall for this TRAP ANSWER CHOICE

D) Correct: This is what we’re looking for because that’s the basis of our author’s argument. The last 2 sentences of the passage hint at this (51-60). It talks about people having more time to reflect on the circumstances in which they live and it causes the regime to end up failing because people realize that they want democratic reforms. So if the society doesn’t want the authoritarian regime then they have the power to change and therefore cause the ruler’s to have to change to maintain their power.

Why you might accidentally NOT chose this:

• This is another answer in which it doesn’t jump out at you because it’s very subtle and if you didn’t read and annotate correctly you wouldn’t have picked up on what it was saying. Read carefully and comprehend not understand what you’re reading and you’ll be fine.

E) Wrong: There is nothing in the passage that talk about human rights abuses being the only objectionable aspect of authoritarian regimes. You can’t add anything to the passage you simply have to use what the passage gave you to push out an answer. This isn’t supported by the passage and therefore it is wrong.

Why you might accidentally choose this answer choice:

• Anytime you get to answer choice E you need to be very careful. Testmakers understand the psychology of test takers and how when they’ve gotten to E they’ve already invested time into the question so don’t think that just because there are some elements of things that you remember that you need to choose that answer choice. Invest your time early on and you won’t waste it later on when you get to answer choice time sinks.

Question 6:

Given the information in the passage, authoritarian rulers who institute democratic reforms decide to do so on the basis of which one of the following principles?

What we’re looking for:

• We want an answer choice that says that rulers are going to do whatever they can to maintain as much power for the longest amount of time.

A) Wrong: The article talks about them wanting to maintain their power and nowhere does it mention that they should make an exception “if the health of the nation requires it”.

Why you might accidentally choose this answer choice:

• This is a “feel good answer”, it’s what we wish the world were like and if you bring that information/mentality to the test you’re going to get burned. Don’t bring in any outside information because you’ll be exploited.

B) Wrong: Nowhere in the passage does it mention rulers really caring about the amount of personal freedom their citizens have. If it’s not in the passage then it’s not a principle that is supported.

Why you might accidentally choose this answer choice:

• This is a “feel good answer”, similar to “A” it’s what we wish the world were like and if you bring that information/mentality to the test you’re going to get burned. Don’t bring in any outside information because you’ll be exploited.

C) Wrong: Nowhere in the passage does it mention the rulers wanting to neither transition to democracy nor does it mention that want to transition quickly or efficiently. They are only doing it to keep as much power for themselves as possible.

Why you might accidentally choose this answer:

• This is a “feel good answer”, similar to “A” and “B” it’s what we wish the world were like and if you bring that information/mentality to the test you’re going to get burned. Don’t bring in any outside information because you’ll be exploited.

D) The ruler’s in this passage aren’t concerned about the long-term health of the nation’s economy only maintaining their power for as long as possible. And even if they were concerned about ensuring the long-term health of the nation’s economy the passage doesn’t leave out the possibility of this regime having economic success. The irony is that in lines (50-60) it elaborates that the more success the authoritarian regime has, the more likely it will fall.

Why you might accidentally choose this answer:

• This is a “feel good answer”, similar to “A”, “B”, and “C”I t’s what we wish the world were like and if you bring that information/mentality to the test you’re going to get burned. Don’t bring in any outside information because you’ll be exploited.

E) Correct: This is exactly what we’re looking for; we wanted an answer choice that allows for the rulers to maintain their power for as long as possible. That is why they’re conceding to undergo democratic reform because at least they maintain as much power as long as possible.

Why you might accidentally NOT choose this answer choice:

• Like we’ve said anytime you get to answer choice “E” you should be fully aware of any traps but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t the right answer. If you fell for one of the “feel good answers above” and didn’t read any other answer choices to try and save time then you would have missed this. Make sure you read all of the answer choices and you’ll be fine.

Why can we infer that the Antibiotics group cannot have all 3 treatments in from Rule #1?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-4-game-4

Hello again, fellow 7sagers.

After doing a week of Pacifico's LG drilling method, I've noticed improvements in the relatively easier/medium games regardless of their type. However, I find that I still continue to struggle diagramming the more difficult appearing games. I use "appearing" because even games that are "simple" or "easy" to solve continue to give me a problem if they consist of multiple categories or variables (for example, I got 4 incorrect on PT 3's first game which is not difficult at all). Arguably the most difficult questions, for me anyway, are those with subcategories, particularly in/out games with subcategories. I simply just struggle with creating a good diagram, which is incredibly frustrating because if I could draw these types, I would be only getting about 2 or 3 incorrect per LG section.

So, my main question is this: should I be approaching these question types differently? Perhaps is this a mentality issue? Is continued drilling and familiarity the answer? Yes to all three? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. As I mentioned, my scores would be vastly improved if I simply could diagram these seemingly complicated games more clearly.

Anyone have any luck with this one? I don't understand how there's support for no reliable protections, when the only protections discussed in the passage are very specific legal protections.

Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-2-passage-1-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-2-passage-1-questions/

Why must the answer to relate to the audience? Is it just because the preceding sentence was regarding how the audience could react? Because the specific sentence in question is in reference to "participants," I assumed that it would involve the actors, and that's why C was appealing to me. Any further insight would be greatly appreciated - thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-4-passage-3-questions/