Discussions

LSAT

New post

299 posts in the last 30 days

I saw that someone posted about this a while back. Any tips for the “infer” questions in RC? I am consistently getting these wrong. Anyone here have a good strategy for answering these questions?

0

lsat9.s2.question-16.misc

Hi, I'm working through the drills for Psets 1-9 and since there aren't videos I thinks it's a win-win for me to type up the solutions to the ones I get wrong. Would appreciate if fellow 7Sager's could ground or critique my logic.

Type: MBF

Conclusion: cannot have something legally permissible and immoral (note: they used 'inconceivable'... I'm taking a leap by making converting that to cannot. Is this ok ?)

Lawgic:

cannot group four, negate immoral and we get

Legally Permissible -> Moral

Morally wrong -> Legally impermissible

(A) Says the law does not cover all circumstances of moral wrongs. But from stimulus, if something is morally wrong then it is necessarily legally impermissible, which means that it is covered by the law. Correct MBF answer choice

(B) never group four, negate legally impermissible: Morally excusable -> legally permissible....this is saying that legally permissible acts are morally good, tricky language using the negations and word 'excusable' makes it a good trap answer choice. but definitely could be true

(C) Could be true. stimulus says nothing about gov officals

(D) Could be true. unrelated

(E) Could be true. Moral permisability has nothing to do with burdens on the economy

Admin note: edited title

0

Hi,

I've noticed that 7sage doesn't have the solved paper Preptest C Feb 2000.

I also saw that a possible BR took place in one of the Study Groups.

I was wondering if someone wants to review RC from PT C together, if there is any place online with explanations, or any resources that could be helpful.

0

Hi Sages,

I have a doubt regarding the order in which we should drill reading comprehension passages. Should we segregate easy, medium,hard passages from PT 1-35 ? Then first drill all the easy passages then move on to the medium level passages then finally take up hard passages ?What can be pros and cons of such a order? Pls advice. Thanks.

0

Hello 7Sagers,

I’m going over my last PT— 65– and in section 1 Q 16, there’s a sufficient assumption question with a bi-conditional premise. I understand it now, but it was a major time sink on the PT because I froze up. Can anyone think of other questions like this one? It seems cookie-cutter, so I’d like to practice a little more, and it’s too specific to filter in the Question Bank.

Thanks!

0

@mkang89

Correct answers in MSS questions are almost always one of two types: restatement of an idea from the stimulus or the conclusion of the stimulus (which was left unsaid in the stimulus).

But I've noticed a slight variant of the latter where the right answer choice asks us to identify a sub-conclusion -- slight more complex since we need to account for the premises and the conclusion stated in the stimulus. As a result, these operate a lot like a bridging question.

In 52.3.23, the stimulus gives us two survival benefits of HS and concludes from that support that a dense colony could survive indefinitely. That conclusion isn’t supported very strongly at all. There is so much we don’t know. But we need to accept the stimulus as true: these premises support that conclusion. It feels a lot like a bridge which means we are likely pushing out a sub-conclusion from the stimulus.

A. "If there was a dense colony then that colony would be capable of carrying out the two benefits indefinitely" (paraphrase). This is perfect -- it connects the survival benefits in the premises to the indefinite time horizon in the conclusion and in that way receives support.

B. This gives us a little more info about how one of those survival benefits operates but that's not supported by anything in the stimulus.

C. We don't know anything about "most organisms"

D. "If this bacteria thrives indefinitely, then HS has removed all oxygen and killed some organisms". There are two big problems here. First, it says these HS survival benefits are necessary for indefinite thriving. That's just not supported. What if we put the bacteria in a highly controlled lab environment with no oxygen and plenty of food which didin't need to be killed? Second, the stimulus doesn't say that all oxygen has to be removed.

E. Any colony? Ensures? Not supported in the least.

46.4.09 is another example of such a MSS although I think it is much more difficult.

Admin note: edited title for formatting

0

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

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

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

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

0

Hey everyone,

So I went through the CC awhile ago probably a few months ago ( I've been reviewing it since ) and also have a book by the Princeton review that I'm using for RC/LR . -called cracking the lsat

Logic games is def. my area of weakness - I'm trying to work on that right now, but wanted to fool proof Lr and rc as I thought I was getting the hang of it.

I'm focusing more on review than PT's that's for sure -I've probably done about 5/6ish PT.

For LR , I'm getting about 13/14 right on each section and that hasnt changed much even though I'm studying.

Rc- really goes up low of 14, high of 18/19

I'm aiming for 150's /mid 150's (pref). Target - 155

I began with high 130s before 7sage- mid 140's - then high 140's, and I've gotten one with 152 (untimed).

But now my score is sitting in that plateau area and I don't know if it's moving fast enough to consistently get in the 155 area timed and on test day.

I study about 5-6 days a week , for about 5 hours give or take. (starting mid may) started studying for lsat mid jan (but that was when I was working) so I didn't get that much studying done. Right now I'm doing about 1 pt a week, reviewing the pt and then reviewing CC.

Now I'm doing timed PT .

Taking the july lsat, how many PTS should I be doing a week , timed/untimed - all timed from now on ?

After every pt I go through it and look at areas of weakness.

Not sure if it's just anxiety/ mind set OR if I'm missing an important step. How did you all study coming up to the LSAT ?

0

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/advanced-valid-forms-review/

We have B-most->Z which implies two inferences B-most->C and B-most->/O. When you combine B-most->Z with B-most->/P, that gives you the inference /P some Z. But can you also then take the two previous inferences, B-most->C and B-most->/O, in combination with B-most->/P to create to additional inferences, /P some C and /P some /O, respectively? If those last two inferences are not valid inferences, then why are they not? I ask because in the comments on the lesson, someone stated that you can infer /P some Z but NOT /P some C and /P some /O, which makes zero sense to me.

0

So, I am having some issues with my June 2018 LSAT. If you had the LSAT with section 1 as your experimental (RC) can you please send me your answer key? Please and thank you!

0

An idea just occurred to me about how to approach MP questions in RC. My accuracy in these Qs is about 80%, but obviously I'd like this higher, and it can still be a tricky question type for me (i.e, time sink). A strategy I started using in LR MP questions is if it's a tough one where two answers are nearly identical, I say to myself, "Which one could potentially support the other?" The one that could give support is not the answer. This usually works. I'm wondering if I could apply that same logic to RC questions. Are RC MP questions asking what is the conclusion? Is there a difference in this context between "Main Point" and "conclusion" (Which would mean that the main point, i.e, conclusion, would require the support of premises)? Anybody ever have the same approach? I'm going to start implementing it, but I figure I'd get some feedback. Happy studying!

0

I have a few questions when it comes to logical reasoning so please bare with me. So I know how to pick the correct conclusion and premise and I can do the lawgic translation but I am having a problem translating the lawgic back into English and yes I have reviewed the lessons. Its like when I translate the lawgic back to English what I think the translation is saying is not what the answer choices are saying which then throws me off when its comes to picking the correct answer.So since I was having a problem with this I would paraphrase the conclusion and premise and try to piece together the answer which works for some questions but its not effective in mastering every question as opposed to the lawgic translations. I also get confused when it comes to the group 4 translations so I will add a link in for a question where you can see my thought process.

When should you be doing lawgic translations for logical reasoning questions? When do you know if conditional logic is being used in the stimulus? Is lawgic and logic the same thing?

Are there any tips when it comes to paraphrasing the stem for the lawgic translation? Sometimes I have a little trouble trying to figure out exactly what letters that I should use that will grasp the whole concept of the premises and conclusion. For example, I know that my paraphrase with letters will not be the exact same as JY's but I must admit that his paraphrase captures the whole concept and mine seems overly complicated which then throws me off because I be having the correct premise and conclusion,. What can I do that will help me with the paraphrasing and confusion from the lawgic translation to the English Translation?

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/self-expression-strengthen-question/?ss_completed_lesson=931

Premise: What they seems to ignore is that, trivially anything we do is self expressive and also their claim isn't interesting

Conclusion: We are not obliged to take their claim seriously.

Translation: /I and T

/S

Answer is /I...S or /T...S

So the correct answer was C but was confused because I thought that when it came to group four terms you have to do the contrapositive after the negation and Jy didnt. So I thought the final answer would have been s...t or /s.../t but it was t.../s

0

This is for JY, if we have another answer choice ‘an activity that is conducive to healthy nation ought to be protected and encouraged by nation’ then, A, also this answer choice can be a right answer or just we are try to pick the bridge between main premise to conclusion. Thanks, lee

Admin note: edited title and added link

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-4-question-01/

0

Does anyone want to review the RC section from PT 84 tomorrow (Saturday, 7/21/18)? I'm looking for someone to review with, so if you're interested, send me a message so we can set up a time to chat about it.

0

Hey guys, please help

I have been looking for a LR question that I did (I have impression because I spent 3 mins on it during blind review and it is pretty tough) but I couldn't find it even after I have gone through the entire question bank. I remember starring the explanation, but when I looked again it is just not there. I am getting super super confused right now.

Here are my clues: It is either PMR or parallel flaw, and I think less than 50% people got it right. I don't remember what the stimulus is, but the the correct answer choice is C and it has to do with something like city figure and crime rate.

JY also excliplitly stated that we should skip this question and not waste time on it during real test because it is extremely time-consuming.

Anyone has an idea?

Thanks!

0

Biologist's argument: DF (deforestation continues at its present pace) -> KAE (the koala will approach extinction)

Politician's argument: /DF (stop deforestation) -> /KAE (save the koala)

So the politician's argument is a mistaken negation of the biologist's argument.

(A) is wrong because we do not know whether deforestation continues at its "present pace" so we do not know whether this is consistent with the biologist's claim.

(B) is right because even though deforestation is stopped, the koala could go extinct because deforestation could have stopped as a result of complete destruction of forests.

(C) is wrong because no one talks about reforestation.

(D) is wrong because it is consistent with the politician's argument rather than the biologist's

(E) is wrong because the biologist's argument says that the koala does not approach extinction only if deforestation does not continue at its present pace

Is my explanation correct for this question? Could anyone add explanation for this question? Thanks

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of PTx.Sx.Qx. Existing threads on PT2.S2.Q11: (1); (2)

0

Sometimes I have a hard time understanding what the answer choice is saying. For example, on Method Reasoning questions, I understand what X is doing, but have a hard time formulating the words into LSAT words/answer choices. Does anyone know a good way to solve this issue?

0

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

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

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

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

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

Admin note: edited title

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?