Discussions

LSAT

New post

302 posts in the last 30 days

Hi,

Quick question about the above referenced problem. Why is (C) correct, and (B) wrong? I personally disliked (C) because of the word "remain". Stimulus is talking about "being" free (and "becoming" free), not about "remaining".

TIA!

0

Glad I saw this game with the outlier game types cropping up on current tests! Went in with way to cookie cutter of a diagram on the front end. Incredibly thankful for being able to adapt even tho it wasn't as quick as I would have preferred.

(kind of reminded me of assumptions I made on the multi-tiered car dealership game)

0

I'm confused with definition and/or terminology. Is numbered ordering the same as basic linear ordering (with a number line), or is there a difference? [3D numbered ordering and Advanced Linear ordering]

Also is there any relationship between numbered ordering and relative ordering.

Please help. Thank you.

0

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-1-passage-2-questions/

7Sagers, I'm doing some BR and I'm really conflicted on this question. I have no idea what the answer is to this question yet (I wanted to get feedback from you guys first) so I have no idea if I've even narrowed it down to the right final two answer choices but here's where I'm at.

This is the passage about the permissibility of custom-made medical illustrations in the courtroom. The question says

Removed. Please see forum rules.

Here's where I'm at with the question:

a) I think this may be an implicit argument? But the passage in the third paragraph actually seems to be refuting criticism not directly making a stance yet

b) ~~~ B looks really good

c) Does she do this? I don’t see where it says that they aren’t permissible in the court room – just that they are more confusing than general illustrations

d) No, she doesn’t do that in this paragraph.

e) ~

I’m really stuck and torn between answer choices B and E and I’m not sure I can figure out what the differences are on my own. Both look really good. The objection in the second paragraph to custom-made medical illustrations is that they misrepresent facts to comply with a partisan interest. The third paragraph says that the complaint is that they distort the issues through a variety of means. Does this count as a variant then? It feels like it does

Answer choice E seems tricky because it’s not lengthy but the paragraph does say that it’s an issue of complexity and simplicity and that this is in effect the differences between the two. Both answer choices seem really good.

0

Hello,

How did you guys translate question 9 in the quiz to lawgic? I read the sentence like this "without a will testifying the transferal (WTT), the state of California will auction the properties (AP)." /WTT --------> AP

I am bit confused about the translation in the lesson. The two ideas selected in the video are "will testifying transferal (WTT)" and "California has no choice (/CC) ." /WTT --------> /CC or CC --------------> WTT. If I were to approach this question mechanically, this makes sense. But what is the sentence actually saying? The confusing bit for me is what the CC here means when you take the contrapositive (California has choice---- to do what?).

Any thoughts? Thanks

Admin edit: This is the link:

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/quiz-on-group-3-translations-to-lawgic/

0
User Avatar
•

Monday, Sep 26, 2016

justflyy805

Cancel?

I took the exam in Asia, so I believe its a non-disclosed exam. It's my first write and unfortunately, I completely lost track of time because of exam nerves (completely my fault, I know) and ending up having to guess the last page for both reading comprehension and logic games. Honestly, like a random guess, not even an educated guess. This sucks and I know that I shouldn't have let it get to me, but I would be lying to say it didn't affect my performance at all for my later sections. I feel like the material itself was not extremely difficult and quite similar to my practice tests, but I guess the whole "realness" of the testing conditions scared the living crap out of me so I messed up. I think this is definitely something I can work with, by setting up more realistic practice test taking conditions. The question is, I want some confirmation whether I should cancel or not. I would love some advice. The law schools I'm planning to apply to take my highest only, but I feel like because I bombed this one so hard I want kind of a somewhat "clean slate" for my next write. Hoping for the best.

0

Hi guys I would appreciate it if someone could review my reasoning for this question and let me know if this is correct. When BRing I realized that I made a mistake and chose A rather than E which is correct.

Basically if negated, A says something along the lines of less than 51% of those people who abandon the use of chemical fertilizers will periodically grow alfalfa. Now this may be tempting but it doesn`t really do much, our argument doesn`t say that every person needs to make this switch, just that in order to improve the soil structure we need to ditch chemical fertilizers and begin growing green manure crops.

E is a much better answer because it tells us that we can`t use chemical fertilizers AND grown green manure crops, so we have to ditch chemical fertilizers as stated in the argument

When negated it sounds somewhat like, some farmers in the region will grow green manure even if they do not abandon the use of chemical fertilizers, suggesting that we do not need to ditch the fertilizers in order to grow green manure, and ruining our argument.

I also struggled a little with answer choice D, but here`s my reasoning

I think its incorrect because when negated it just says chemical fertilizers themselves do not have a destructive effect on soil, this can be true because the argument is assuming that its the switch from green manure to chemicals that has deteriorated the soil structure, it doesn`t need to be that the chemicals themselves are destructive.

Let me know what you think!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-2-question-20/

0

Hi Everyone,

These questions are some of the most time consuming in LR, and there are many people in the LSAT community who advocate using certain techniques for eliminating answer choices on these questions quickly. These techniques include strategies like: matching the strength of the conclusion (qualifier words), the type of reasoning (conditional, causation, etc.), and other qualifier words such as most, some, all, etc.

However, I've noticed that in recent exams (70's), LSAC has made these questions (even!) more difficult and time consuming by including all of these features in most of the answer choices. (For example, if the stimulus uses "probably" in the conclusion, 4 out of 5 answer choices will all include the word "probably" too.) As a result, they've eliminated some of the 'quick and easy' tells that we had at our disposal to move through these questions faster.

Has anyone else noticed this trend? If so, what other techniques/shortcuts do you use in order to cut through the problem and eliminate wrong answers quickly?

Thanks!

0

Hey, hope this is the right place for this to go. I had a search of the forum and didn't see this question discussed before, so thought I'd throw out my 2 cents.

Doing some drills before this week's test I noticed a much faster way of getting to the right answer choice on Question 1 of Game 1 in this PT, compared to the video explanation. In the video JY skips Q1 because by the end of G1 you have more points of reference with which to brute force it. But I think it's perfectly do-able with just the rules, and I think it's a fast inference.

I set the game up the same as JY, except instead of representing his rule 1 with two crossed out and stacked boxes of BB (boy, boy) and GG (girl, girl), I just used the notation 1+ ---> BG. I think this notation helped me more quickly spot the inference I'm about to explain here.

So from the initial setup and from the first indented prompt we know that the game is going to have 3 lockers with one person in, and 2 lockers with two people in.

Combine this rule with JY's (or my) rule 1 and we then know that there is going to be two lockers with BG in there.

For the next two rules (rules 2 and 3) I used the exact same notation as JY.

As JY explains, from rule 2 and 3 we know J will have to share with N or T, since R must be alone. This allows for a further, vey simple inference which I didn't see JY make with respect to Q1.

We know we have two shared lockers with 1B and 1G in there, and we know that one of those two shared lockers is J and N/T. Since we know that the other shared locker has to have 1B and 1G in it, we then know that the other shared locker is going to have a girl in it. But there's only three girls. And one of them is going with J, and the other is always on her own (R). So the girl that goes in the other shared locker is just the one left over from our choice in the J, N/T locker. (T/N)

Thus, just from this basic inference from the setup and rules 2 and 3 we know at the very least that in the two shared lockers we will have J and N/T and, in the other, T/N. This allows us to completely solve question 1.

All we need to do is look for an answer choice that has J, N and T in it. Since only one answer choice has all these three in it, we know E is right straight away. If there was another answer choice that was, say, J N T and F, then we would have to check to see if F needs to share. But luckily there isn't, so you can answer it right away.

Hope this makes sense!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-31-section-1-game-1/

0

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.

0

Hi Guys,

Can you guys please help me take a look if my analysis on B & C is correct? https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-3-question-08/

The question is very much like a SA question. The answer choices can be quickly eliminated by a match principle into the sufficient condition. However, I think we can expand on this problem more.

A is correct. So won't go into detail about it.

B. The sentence is wrong based on 2 reasons. The first reason is by putting the conclusion as the sufficient condition. Even if we were to change the answer into: If election campaigns are to be funded from public funds, it will allow politian to devote less time asking for money than serving the interest of the public, this is still wrong because it is formulated into a C-->P Relationship, while what we are looking for is P-->C relationship.

C is wrong because it talks of a different set that we do not know. Had this question be translated into an Inference MBT Except question, the asnwer choice then is correct.

D. is wrong based on 2 counts. The first count is of the same reason as B by messing up the location of the conclusion into the suffcient condition. But in addition to it that the question steam mix in an unrealted element. Evne if we have deleted that related element from the sentence, it is still incorrect and not 50% correct due to the location issue with the conclusion statement.

If we were to extent this answer choice's analysis a bit further.

Suppose that in this case, the answer choice for A is wrong too. But D is formulated in the following fashion: "if public funding of some activity produces a benefit to the public but also inevitably a special benefit for specific individuals, the activity should be fully funded by the public while the special interest taker group contributes proportionally more".

In this answer choice, iff answer choice is made wrong in other fashion. D will be correct on 2 counts. 1) The sentence is 50% correct. Although it do have irrelevant items in it but part of the argument goes through along with our principle. 2) It is the most correct answer in comparison with the rest of the answer choice.

Had LSAT do this, then the question's difficulty is pushed to a level 4 or 5 difficulty.

E. is wrong because it like C speaks of another different set of population that is above this univerise. Again, it can become a correct answer choice if it is an MBT Inference Except question.

0

Hi Guys,

I have noted a direct contrast between principle and MBT.

Take these 2 questions for example:

MBT: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-2-question-23/

Principle: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-2-question-11/

In the former one, anything that can be pushed out works as long as it abides to the principle within the stimulus.

However, of the latter one, when you are asked to draw a principle from the question, the right answer is best to cover 100% of the text. As by this logic, answer choice B is inferior than D solely because B only covered 50% of the argument while D covered all of them.

0

Please note that the information below will change to reflect the information we get! Contribute if you can via the official February 2017 LSAT discussion (linked at the bottom of this thread) 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.

Since it is the Feb. LSAT, please be aware that it is undisclosed and, as a result, I will not be updating this thread until I get multiple confirmations on a question.

Real Sections:

LG:

-Gold/Silver Vases/Plates

-12-Week Class Schedule

-Transcribing & Preparing for Interviews

-Different Libraries

RC:

-The Bumblebee's "Waggle Dance"

-Hindus and Romans / Patriotism

-Civil Courts / Judges and Juries

-Liberal Environmentalism / Ecology

LR:

-Speed Limits for Different Vehicle Types / Vehicle Emissions from 1967-1990 / Smog

-Global Warming/Climate Change

-Charles II

-Napoleon

-Meteorite and Nano-Diamonds

-Supernova and a King's Birth

-Ravens/Crows and Worms / Dropping Pebbles in a Tube

-Children Estimating Half-Full Beakers

-Plate Tectonics / Size of Planet

-Skilled Writer Politician Makes a Speech

-Company Criticism / Debt

-Government Sending Letters Across Country / Connecting People

-Middle-Aged Coffee Drinkers / High Blood Pressure

Experimental Sections:

LG:

-French/Russian Language

RC:

LR:

UNCONFIRMED:

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

None yet!

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

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/10331/official-february-lsat-discussion-thread

0

Looking for a group of motivated individuals who want to learn, progress, and prioritize the LSAT. People who can forge together and keep each other accountable on studying and practicing. I graduated from U of M -Dearborn with a BA in English Literature and double Minor in Criminal Justice and Writing. I'd be willing to help with personal statements in our study group as well.

0

Hi all!

I had a question on answer choice E with this one. To me, the reasoning of flaw in answer choice E was the same as that of answer choice D of the same PT same section question 20.

Looking at the explanation of question 20 (Morton: In order to succeed (...)) in other forums on answer choice D, the explanations state that Morton actually DOES consider the counterexamples stated by the skeptics (which is why D is incorrect); the problem was that he just did it through a flawed way. The structure of this passage was:

  • Skeptics have objected (...) by providing counterexamples (context)

  • However, this success is only apparent (Main conclusion)

  • This is BECAUSE (...) (Premise)

    • So, in actuality, this argument DOES consider the skeptics counterexamples.

    Now coming back to question 22, in my line of thinking, the author of the passage does the exact same thing as that of question 20.

  • Jerome refused Melvin's suggestion claiming that he could not afford the money (Context)

  • However, cost cannot be the real reason (Main conclusion)

  • This is BECAUSE he makes the same excuse all the time (Premise)

    • So, in line with the thinking of question 20, I thought that the author DOES in fact consider that it can be the real reason; its just that he supports it though a flawed way. Yet answer choice E (Does not examine the possibility (...)) goes against the line of reasoning of answer choice D in question 20....

    Thanks in advance!

    https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-3-question-22/

    https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-3-question-20/

    0

    Does anyone else find themselves mistakenly solving flaw questions as weaken questions when considering certain answer choices?

    What I will find myself doing when evaluating certain answer choices is saying to myself, "Well if this were true, it wouldn't necessary weaken the argument, so it isn't the flaw of the argument"

    I think this is incorrect because the best method for answering those two question types are different, but I don't actually know on a deeper level why the two methods don't sometimes overlap. Or maybe they do and I'm not always wrong in doing that.

    Instead, I just accept that that is the wrong way to go about answering the question and try to catch myself when I do it and revert back to the correct method to answering a flaw question.

    I know this is a bit abstract, but if someone could help explain more clearly why those two methods don't overlap sometimes when considering certain answer choices that would be helpful.

    0

    Confirm action

    Are you sure?