I listened to JY's BR call on this question ( https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/21699 ).

I don't get why he was so dismissive of answer choice C -- I would say it weakens the argument. An alternative explanation as to why the artist's face showed up in the painting (other than him painting it himself) serves to weaken the argument that painter of the painting has been determined. And that's what C provides -- his face may be there because the actual painter used him as a live model. I mean, he's an artist, completely reasonable that he would be in the milieu of artists in the area, and was asked by a friend to pose as a live model.

I agree that D more strongly weakens, but disagree with (what seemed to be) JY's position that C doesn't weaken at all.

Admin note: edited title mildly; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

This article is really hard... Does anyone attempt it?

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q#(P#) - [brief description]"

How’d it go for everyone? Personally, I was annoyed by the paper test after all of the digital prep I’ve done. I had two LG sections and I’m praying that the art gallery was experimental.

Noah Centineo: It matters not what you’ve done, but what you do with what you’ve done for others.

weaken: a cause b

a there b not there

b there a not there

Strengthen: a cause b

a there b there

b not there a not there

a not there b not there

Do you guys agree with the above? Are there other ways to strengthen/weaken?

Hello, am I looking to weaken and strengthen the conclusion in my answer choice. Should I select an answer that could work both ways? Or find the answer that does either or? Thank you

Hi all. So I'm taking my LSAT next week and I've been scoring in the high 160's and low 170s on all my practice tests so far. Most of the time when I get a question wrong it's only because I read the question stem wrong. But since this is my first LSAT, I want to retake it in January just so I have one more try before applying to Law Schools. I've already started some of my applications.

The issue is that in January I'm getting a rhinoplasty procedure a couple of days before the LSAT. I know I can't push it to February because I want to apply to T-14 and T-20 schools and I feel like they wouldn't accept an LSAT as late as February, but I'm not sure.

Do you guys think my operation would have any impact on my performance on test day? It's a closed operation so I won't have stitches or anything. Is it worth the risk, or should I just take it in February instead. Ideally I would've postponed the procedure but it's been scheduled for months now and it would be too expensive to make changes at this point.

Or alternatively, I can take it in January and then once more in February, but how bad does 3 tries on the LSAT look?

Did some searching on the forums and couldn't find a clear cut answer on fool proofing.

For context - I am scheduled to take the JAN 2020 LSAT (may move it to FEB 2020).

I am currently just through the CC on LG, about to start RC. I am almost always able to solve the logic games with -0 or -1, however, time is almost always an issue. New games definitely take me longer than what JY recommends, but I can usually get them almost perfect with more time.

I took the SEP 2019 LSAT and scored 153 and went -11 on LG/AR, -10 on RC, and -18 on LR.

I feel that the core curriculum will definitely improve my LR scores - there was some basic concepts that I was missing that I think will enable me to improve there. At this point - does it make more sense to spend the time to start fool proofing AR/LG or to move on to RC? I went close to -10 on both, but understand the concepts behind LG well enough to solve them, albeit slowly.

Whats up

Admin. note: Did you mean to send a direct message instead? Use Discussion > Discussion Inbox to send a direct message.

Hi,

Can anyone explain why the answer is B instead of C? Why exactly is C wrong?

To solve this necessary assumption question I used the technique of negating each answer, and then seeing which opposite answer choice would have to weaken the argument. The one that must weaken the argument is the answer. However, here, I just can't quite understand why C is not the answer (I understand why E is the answer though).

Any help appreciated!

Admin note: minor title edit; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Hi,

Does anybody know why the answer here is not C? This passage is confusing the hell out of me

Admin note: minor title edit; for RC please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# (P#) - [brief description]"

I understand the whole formal logic chain, pretty simple, however I do not understand why the last sentence is added to the end of the chain (a necessary condition) when the sentence starts out as 'The only', which implies sufficiency. Not sure for legal reasons if I am able to post the actual question on here, but I am more the welcome to if somebody if willing to assist me. Thanks!

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]." Also, you are correct - please do not post the entire actual question in forums for LSAC/legal reasons, the title format helps others reference the PT and question. Thanks!

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-86-section-1-question-10/

Wanted to see if anyone had advice on tackling the "newer" RC. I used to average -3/4 for the section, but since I have been taking the more modern exams, I have been getting 7-9 wrong.

With ~2 weeks left till the exam, anyone have any advice they would recommend for adjusting to the harder RC?

Thank you!

Hi 7Sage Forum! I am looking for strategies on identifying the Sufficient and Necessary Assumptions in questions. I find myself understanding the material but am getting bogged down in language. Still working through the 7sage curriculum however any advice would be helpful! Thanks!

does anyone have a list of games that have bi-conditionals in them?

Thanks!

Hi,

Can anyone explain why the answer here is B instead of C? I just feel like JY's explanation for why B is right instead of C seems a bit insufficient

Thanks!

Can someone please explain to me how they arrived at the answer to this evaluate logical reasoning question?

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

The conclusion of the stimulus is that the decline in energy consumption is due to

(1) reduced standards of living and

(2) changes in the way people spend their time

So we are looking for 4 answers that fall into one of these two buckets (or both).

(A) is the purchase of portable heaters and limiting the number of rooms. Falls into category (1).

(B) is people spending more time in libraries and community centers. Falls into category (2) because they're changing the way they spend their time.

(C) is people decreasing energy costs by having inexpensive work done to improve efficiency of existing heating system. This doesn't fall into category (1) because the standards of living are the same, and doesn't fall into category (2) because they aren't changing the way they spend their time.

(D) is a decreased indoor temperature on very cold days. This falls into category (1).

(E) is people showering for shorter amounts of time. This potentially requires the assumption that shorter showers means category (1) reduced standard of living, but compared to answer choice (C) this is much more clearly falls into that bucket.

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Mary Simms (outdoor advertising rep): "Billboards are the basis of our business. If they are torn down, our ability to earn a living will be severely damaged.

Jack Jordan (local merchant): "The basis of our business is an attractive community..."

When Mary said "our", she meant her advertising business.

When Jack said "our", he meant the town/community.

Hence (C) is the correct answer.

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Hello,

I did not choose A (the correct answer) in this question because I thought "specific examples" was incorrect given the fact that the passage did not raise any plural nouns and actually seemed quite general to describe their examples. Can someone explain why the examples raised in the passage count as "specific examples"?

Thanks!

#help

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-1-passage-1-questions/

Hi All. I have two questions:

(1) Roughly when did the important distinguishing features of newer logical reasoning questions become the norm? I'm thinking in particular about longer and tougher stems, more frequent strengthen/weaken/RRE questions, less frequent formal logic questions, and generally trickier answer choices?

(2) In these newer LR sections, are the toughest questions typically found between questions #11 and 20? Or are 21-26 generally harder? Or has it gotten more random?

I've been largely following the "save the best for last" approach in my studying thus far, and so have only recently moved from tests #20-45 or so to more recent tests. Recently, I've begun alternating between tests near #80 and closer to the 50s, and plan to keep doing so. Today, though, I took my first test in the 50s (#55) after taking a couple near #80, and the LR sections felt much closer to the old style I'd been used to than the new style I'd seen in #78 and #80---in particular I noticed more formal logic, and that the hardest questions were located near the end rather than the late-middle. So I'm wondering what to expect. Roughly when did the shift that happened between early and late tests occur, and how accurate is my sense (partially based on some article I now can't find) that the newer sections have harder questions towards the late-middle?

Hi,

I understand why C is right, but what I have trouble understanding is why D is wrong.

I mean, in terms of D, couldn't it be argued that Politician P is "appealing to wholly irrelevant issues" by talking about taxpayers' happiness to distract from the real issue of whether or not there is an obligation to raise taxes?

Any #help would be appreciated!

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-26-section-2-question-04/

#help# For this question, I eliminated all 5 answers, because I think none of them are right. The right answer is E, but I doubted it. Since E only said the period of Bruno's tenure is just matching exactly to the period when the spy was transmitting information. There could be many people or clergies working in the French embassy at that time, how can this choice exclude this possible alternative and support the argument???

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

#help#

Can anyone explain how B is justified in supporting this hypothesis? I didn't see any relevance between strategies of defence and the two functions of infrared sensor.

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"