Discussions

LSAT

New post

302 posts in the last 30 days

Hey, guys. I think I got this one but I'm seeking clarification. I was between A, B and C and chose A. I think C is correct because a "property owner" is defined in lines 15-21 and A and B are incorrect because they describe how one can obtain ownership. A and B do not specifically discuss a "property owner." Also, A and B both seemed right to me because they were both similar and mentioned in the 4th paragraph. Would you guys say that this should've been an indication that they were both wrong? I had a hunch and had I gone with it I would've chosen C though not with confidence. Am I close?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-3-passage-3-questions/

0

Can someone explain how they were able to tease out the conditional elements in this stimulus?

I'm having trouble seeing how the second sentence fits into the conditional framework. It doesn't seem like it plays a role there.

All I can see with this, and it leads you straight to the answer, is:

Sentence 1: PPS-->MA

Conclusion: SA-->MA

Answer A: SA-->PPS

The negation didn't help me here since I didn't understand the conditional language at first, which is why I picked the wrong answer. If someone can explain why the negation would hurt the conclusion here, I'd be very grateful. Thank you.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-52-section-3-question-07/

0

Hello I have a question regarding the method of identifying an assumption. This is a strengthening question.

Context: Therapeutic intervention before the occurrence of mental disorders can mitigate factors known as major contributor to them.

Premise: A much more comprehensive research program is necessary to verify these results and allow for the design of specific health care measures.

Conclusion: In order to explore a potential means of cost-effectively helping people prone to mental disorders, we should increase funding for intervention research.

In order to find an assumption, I tried to see the gap between the premise and conclusion and found one gap that increase in funding for the research could lead to a much more comprehensive research program. With this in mind, I went to AC. But I could not find an answer that matches the assumption I drew. In the second shot of POE, through (C) I found that the author is assuming that by saying that the intervention research is cost effective the author is making an assumption that the research program is inexpensive compared to long-term treatment.

My question is, how come do I find the assumption that the right answer actually requires if that assumption cannot be drawn from the gap between the premise and the conclusion? Here, the claim that the research program is cost-effective seems to have nothing to do with the premise.

This question is part of CC.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-3-question-04/

Thank you.

0

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

0

Hi 7sagers,

I just recently solved the question referenced above, a MBT question with heavy conditional reasoning. I understand why TCR is what it is, but it took me WAY too long to solve this question. Even in hindsight/BR, I don't know how I could get through a question like this in 1:25.

I ordinarily feel comfortable with conditional reasoning - I can picture contrapositives mentally, can twist around unless statements without diagramming, solve some conditional stimuli without diagramming (though generally they don't have a ton of sufficient conditions), etc. Even some of conditional-heavy stimuli that have several statements/premises tend to link up in a linear fashion and can be pictured without diagramming.

I think that what threw me off in this question is that between the two conditionals in the stimulus, there are just a million sufficient conditions to keep track of!

Do you guys have any tips/shortcuts for cutting through a question like this relatively quickly?

TIA!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-2-question-09/

0

I've studied the valid/invalid arguments and though it's almost down, I sometimes still have mix-ups. I'm wondering if it's a good steadfast rule that, most and some only allow you to draw valid inferences if they occur first, then all the relationships following are "all" relationships?

ex. A some B ---> C

Is this a rule that works every time? If so, are there any other simplified one liners to help internalize?

Thanks all!

0

I often read arguments in the Flawed Assumption stems in LR and find myself regarding them as things I hear often. I don't even mean to be all that nice in this observation.

I wish option E was literally always, "The argument has no flaws."

I guarantee that even if the LSAC issued a blanket statement saying that hypothetical option E was NEVER the correct answer, people who commonly use these hypothetical flawed techniques in day-to-day arguments would still pick E.

0

So I chose C, the conclusion is that the scientist said that kids need learn how to draw curves first then they can move on to angles. So my reasoning: I chose C because it explains a reason as to why they cant just jump into angles

a) were not talking about straight lines

b) theyre not answering the question as to why they need to learn first how to copy curves before they can draw angles. I

c) this is correct because its saying that they need to be able to discern what an angle is before they can move to angles so it gives us a reason why

d) this weakens the argument

e) this I don’t think will support the hypothesis because yes they have the ability to but CAN they do it, I have the ability to sing but can I actually sing, NO lol

So can someone walk me through why Im wrong? Thank you!

0

Hey all,

I've been gradually improving on RC over the last 10 PTs (-6 to -8) to (-3 to -5) by spending more time upfront understanding the passage content/structure/emphasis and less time wastefully deliberating over answer choices. Generally, I feel pretty efficient about how much time I spend on each question based on the question type and its respective difficulty.

However, I notice that for harder meaning/synonym and author's attitude questions, I find myself spending a longer period of time debating answer choices (~1 min+) than I should be (~30 sec). For author's attitude questions, I circle key words that reflect the author's opinion as I read the passage and write an A next to the longer parts of the author's opinion. For meaning/synonym questions, my strategy is to replace the word in the stimulus at its respective location with the answer choices and see if it fits.

Usually, 2-3 of the answer choices can be easily eliminated, but when the remaining two answer choices have the correct type of tone (i.e. both positive/negative) and only differ in degree, I end up spending way too much time debating between the two by looking at the passage for textual evidence and eventually end up going with my gut. I know JY's advice for difficult RC questions is to cut your losses, go with you gut, and rack up points on easier questions, but I feel like there's a better way to approach these questions more confidently to minimize time spent and improve accuracy.

How do you guys approach these question types?

0

Hello, 7Sagers!

I'm a bit puzzled with this NA question and wanted to get your input on the matter.

This question states that medical schools are teaching curative medicine and preventative medicine at a 10:1 ratio respectively. It goes on to state that despite this, the use of preventative techniques lowers medical costs significantly.

The claim is that if medical school's have the goal of making medicine lower in cost, they aren't spending enough time teaching preventative medicine.

The correct necessary assumption is purportedly that the amount of time needed to teach preventative medicine thoroughly is greater than one hour for every ten currently being spent on the curative counterparts.

Now, a negation test should confirm this answer, but from my perspective, it does not. Negating the statement results in the time to teach preventative medicine thoroughly being equal or less than one hour for every 10 spent on curative. Now, I assume that at this point the LSAT wants you to assume that because the ratio now favors preventative being taught thoroughly, the argument falls apart because they're no longer spending insufficient time.

But who's to say that the ratio of time spent has anything to do with the actual time spent? The argument has to do with the actual time spent. In fact, we could only be sure that there isn't an insufficiency if we know for sure that the med schools are meeting or exceeding the total amount of hours needed for thorough teaching of curative medicine.

So what if we have a 10:Less-Than-One thoroughness need ratio ? Maybe the schools are teaching 1000 hours of Curative and 100 hours of Preventative, when students actually need 10,000 hours of Curative and 200 hours of Preventative to be thoroughly taught each respectively. (This would give us a 50:1 ratio of time needed for curative vs preventative thoroughness, congruent with the negation of the right answer, but still leaving the argument perfectly in tact.)

If the argument can easily be correct without the designated answer being negated, why can we call it a necessary assumption for the argument? The argument can be just fine without it being true.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-32-section-4-question-19/

0

Hope this helps others:

#1. Weakening (Except)

○ I assumed that the correct answer choice (which would need to be the one that did not

weaken the argument) needed to be one that strengthened the argument. In reality,

something that is neutral suffices as something that does not weaken

#2. Flaw

○ I failed to realize that words like (to) promote, elevate, develop, forward, advance, stimulate,

assist, foster, boost, catalyze, nurture and encourage are NOT synonyms for sufficient nor

necessary.

○ Instead of choosing the answer choice that attacks the argument, I chose the answer choice that

merely validated the opposing argument. Just because an argument is true that does not mean its

opposite is false.

○ I failed to realize that the correct answer choice was subtle which lead me to choose the best

incorrect answer choice since it appeared to say what the correct answer choice is saying.

#3. Main Conclusion

○ I chose the context and/or intro statement instead of the conclusion

#4. NA

○ I skimmed the stimulus

○ I did not choose the correct answer because it was a pretty strong statement which the correct NA

answer choice usually is not. Sometimes the NA is strong.

○ I did not see how the correct answer choice helped to connect everything up. Focused way too much

on looking for those ACs that when negated, destroy the argument. I did this at the expense of

looking for those ACs that when negated burn down the bridge formed by the correct AC.

○ I failed to correctly identify what the implication would be if the assumption inherent in the

correct answer choice was reversed.

○ I failed to focus on the conclusion and instead mistakenly focused on the premise/support that is

integral to the conclusion

○ I assumed that the correct answer choice would need to, when negated, be able to destroy the

argument but it merely needs to make the argument irrelevant.

#5. Parallel Flaw

○ I failed to ensure that all of the elements of the flawed argument I chose amongst the answer

choices aligned with all of the elements of the stimulus' flawed argument including modifiers such

as "safely" or "obviously conclude" versus "must conclude".

○ Sometimes does not mean some

#6. Strengthening

○ Only appears to be strong but does nothing to strengthen the argument

0

So I have an online program from Power Score, and one from 7 Sage...I've mostly been focusing on 7sage, but did some drilling from the Power Score workbooks today on weaken questions, and I bombed the question set. I only drilled weaken games, and got -10 (out of a total 30 questions). I looked at which prep tests the questions were from, and it was tests 19-29... are the questions different from those tests? They definitely read weirder.

I'm a bit worried because weakening questions are my strongest question types in LR, and I'm kinda freaked out I did that poorly.

Thoughts?

0

Is there anyone in the area of Clemson/Greenville currently studying for the September LSAT who would want to form a study group? I was thinking we could pick a few PTs to take individually and then BR together, but am definitely willing to study in whichever way the group thinks is best!

0

Hey all,

What's really tripping me up is that this question stem is written in the passive voice. The stem saying "could have remained unchanged in force and focus IF which one of the following had been advanced as a counterexample in place of the word 'absentee'" makes me believe that the original explanation wouldn't have to be amended if it weren't for the counter example of "absentee" being used. So I was trying to find a counter example that talked about an individual performing the action unilaterally, while not needing the explanation that resolves the impasse which is what I thought the question stem was asking me to do.

If the question stem was "the reasoning could remain unchanged in force and focus if which one of the following words is used in place of the word 'absentee'" rather than the goddamn passive voice, then it really would be much easier.

Can someone clear up my confusion? Am I just crazy???

Paging JY

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-4-question-22/

0

Hi guys! I wanted to get some feedback on this RC question.

The prompt asks for the main idea and the right answer is that 'the views of ecologists and economic growth advocates have only recently become polarized.'

To me, that phrase implies that the passage is about recency. It implies that the passage is primarily dedicated towards explaining a long history of no polarization that has but little time ago turned into a polarized dichotomy.

I agree that the passage accomplishes this, but to me, this accomplishment was used as a template for the author rather than his/her explicit, or even primary purpose.

I detected notes of author view, such as in line 11 when he describes the recent polarization as "sad." On top of that, the way the author describes both sides seems to indicate that he favors the previous attitudes towards the issue, consistent with what Marsh and the Enlightenment thinkers believe. I almost got a sense of sarcasm in how he described the implications of Clements' equilibrium model. The author claims that the model became a "mystique," environmental interference was "taboo," wilderness was "adored." These descriptions made me believe that the author saw followers of this mentality to be radical, cult-like, trendy, and perhaps a form of the "tree-hugger" stereotype.

Back to the first paragraph, the final sentence talks about how the "sad effects" make it "difficult for industry to respond to impact analyses that demand action." This came across as having sympathy for contemporary industries, being pinned down in this polarized climate where (as we would later read) before they could act in harmony with environmentalists and have productive conversations based in compromise and understanding.

With all of that in mind, I was very quick to eliminate D, an answer choice with no reflection of the author's argument/bias, and way too much (in fact, pretty much 100%) emphasis on the mere fact that such a change is recent. Who cares if it's recent? You didn't need to give your opinion and write four paragraphs only to tell us that this polarization is recent. You could easily switch the dates mentioned in the passage, and the meaning would barely change. It would just be polarized ----> not polarized instead of not polarized ----> polarized.

I picked E because I thought it captured the author's sentiment and reflected an idea that the entire passage built to establish. A lot of the passage's content contributes to that idea, while only a few small distinctions affirm that the change happened to be recent.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-4-passage-3-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-4-passage-3-questions/

0

Hi there,

Is every RC passage from PTs 1-35 used in the curriculum's problem sets? I am trying to get every bit of RC practice I can, and would love to know if anyone knows of certain passages in particular that weren't pulled for the curriculum. I've done the problem sets twice over and am looking for unused material (I've also already done every RC passage since 35 already).

0

Hi all,

I came across this game in a practice test (# unknown) recently. I am wondering how best to approach it. I am especially interested in understanding how to diagram this game. Thanks in advance!

Two friends, Rachel and Teresa, own a dog walking business. During a particular week, on Monday through Friday, they walk three dogs--a Newfoundland, and Otterhound, and a Poodle--in accordance with the following conditions:

-Each dog is walked exactly once by each friend and no dog is walked twice in one day.

-Rachel walks the Newfoundland at some time in the week before she walks the Poodle.

-Rachel walks the Poodle earlier in the week than Teresa does.

-Teresa walks the Otterhound earlier in the week than Rachel does.

-Rachel walks the Newfoundland on the day immediately before the day or the day immediately after the day on which Teresa walks the Newfoundland.

-Rachel walks no dogs on Wednesday.

0

Flaw Question-- calling all folks who are a beast at LR:) HELP?

I understand that the answer is C but I want to make sure that I'm breaking down the argument correctly:

*Best way to understand --> Direct Empathy (that's what some psychologists claim, and we're supposing they're right)

*/Direct Empathy ("since it's impossible to gain a direct and complete grasp of another person's motivations" aka Direct Empathy-- I believe this is what the author takes as the truth)

THUS, no way at all to understand (already problem here, it should have been THUS, "no best way to understand" rather than "no way at all to understand")

But that's not even the main conclusion...

*Understand ("One can understand other people"-- again, this is what the author takes as the truth)

THUS, the psychologists' claim is wrong-- it's wrong to state that (best way to understand --> Direct Empathy)

The problem is that the author cannot state that the psychologists' claim is wrong because the author's evidence is flawed--- assumes there's no way when the psychologists are only talking about best way.

However, I'd like to go deeper into this question and modify it-- what if the author correctly said it was "best way to understand" as opposed to "no way at all to understand"-- would the argument be valid then??

*Best way to understand --> Direct Empathy (that's what some psychologists claim, and we're supposing they're right)

*/Direct Empathy ("since it's impossible to gain a direct and complete grasp of another person's motivations" aka Direct Empathy-- I believe this is what the author takes as the truth)

THUS, there's no best way to understand

*Best way to understand (my modified premise-- "But there is a best way to understand people")

THUS, the psychologists' claim is wrong-- it's wrong to state that (best way to understand -> Direct Empathy)

In this case, is the argument's conclusion valid? It's TRUE that the psychologists' claim is wrong because ultimately what we have is... we know it's true that /Direct Empathy & there is best way to understand ... so we can't validly get to "Best way to understand --> Direct Empathy"

(Am I thinking correctly? lol)

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-2-question-11/

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?