#help

I answered this question correctly but approached the stimulus differently than J.Y. I interpreted the part that says “who receive unsolicited advice from someone whose advantage would be served if that advice is taken” to be a description of the kind of “people” the stimulus is referring to. Therefore, I teased out the logic in this way:

People (who receive unsolicited advice from someone whose advantage would be served if that advice is taken)

Interest NOT coincide → Regard advice with Skepticism

so

NOT IC → SK

Therefore, I approached the answer choices in this way:

A – Even if the interest of H and F do not coincide, the stimulus does not suggest a rejection;

B – Perfectly resembled my interpretation since S and R “NOT IC” then R should not reject the least expensive models. So, he must be skeptical about S’s advice;

C – In this case M and Y interest coincided so it did not trigger my conditional;

D – In this case S and R interest coincided so it did not trigger my conditional;

E – Even if we can infer that M and J interest did not coincide because M wanted to purchase a more expensive fish while J wanted to sell her a cheaper one, in no way we can conclude that M should follow J’s recommendation, so “NOT SK”.

What do you think?

Thank you in advance to whoever is going to answer.

Best,

Marco

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-4-question-19/

Any tips on Specific Reference RC questions? These are consistently the only questions I miss when doing RC passages and if I can improve my efficiency on these I'll see really solid improvement on my RC section scores. I've been reading passages from my monitor while notating on scratch paper to accommodate for the Flex but I recall seeing that Specific Reference questions will be different in some way on the Flex but don't quite recall how. Thoughts?

Unfortunately, i don't understand this weak question at all, or why the answer is C. C seems to link excessive blinking to confidence, which is a factor in an official's ability to conduct well in office, but i don't see how it affects the overall conclusion: any impact of excessive blinking is deleterious to election results. The author doesn't make a clear connection between someone's ability to perform in the office and his ability to perform in the election. i chose A instead, which linked the candidate's debate performance to his election performance. Can someone explain this to me? As a side note, i seem to notice with more recent tests that the earlier LR questions are a lot harder than older tests -- i rarely had wrong answers before problem 12. is there a reason for this increased difficulty in the early questions?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-84-section-2-question-11/

Hey guys, I just listened to JY's explanation for Question 19 from PT 20 Section 1 and it looks like the argument had a dual argument structure within the passage. I wonder if this is something common in LSAT or just one time thing. I see it first time, but wanted to confirm. Thanks

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-19/

Hello,

I noticed that I am having trouble diagramming questions whenever I see the words "some" and "most" appear. In some cases, those words are used to indicate a some or most conditional relationship, but in other cases they are not. I noticed that sometimes I am diagramming some or most relationships where none exist, which is making questions take longer and making them more difficult for me than they really are with my skill/knowledge level. For example, I diagrammed question 22 from section 4 from pretest 70 (not sure if I can copy/paste question on discussion forum) as having some and most relationships when they didn't. When I watched JY's explanation, I realized that that problem should've been so easy, but I diagrammed it wrong. Does anyone have any advice about how to know when a some/most relationship triggers and when it doesn't? Thank you!

Hi guys,

I have a question on the difference between question stem types that ask for "which of the following most closely conforms to one of the principles" vs. "which of the following, if valid, most justifies the argument?"

I'm specifically looking at PT 58.1.23, which is a conform to principle type question. The right answer is C), which is "social concerns should sometimes take precedence over economic efficiency."

Now, I know that in a PSA type question, the "sometimes" in the answer choice would make the answer choice way too weak to be make the argument valid. But is it acceptable to have a "weaker" answer choice for Conform to Principle type questions?

Currently getting about -7 wrong per LR section, and looking for any tips! During BR I write out full explanations for each question, and then go back and watch the explanation videos for those I missed during BR. My current BR score is anywhere from 166-170. I also read through The Loophole, but it didn't help me too much, although I do the basic translation drill still. Any advice?

For sufficient assumption questions I am a bit confused of whether or not we are allowed to use the contrapositives of the argument for the answer. For example if we have

A

B

the link we need to make is A->B but if one of the answers are /B->/A would that be the right answer choice?

I have a question about what you guys do after a PT in regards to your wrong LR answers. I know a lot of people do wrong answer journals which seems like a great idea, but I was wondering what exactly those who do that write down for each wrong question. Do you go over each answer choice and write out an explanation? What made you pick that specific wrong answer? etc. A lot of people have said this led to lots of improvement and I am hoping someone could explain what has worked and helped them. Thanks!

7Sage sentence:

Practice IS REQUIRED to be a skilled artist.

Answer: SA—->P

loophole sentence:

One man in his time IS REQUIRED to play many parts.

M——>> PMS

COMMENTARY:

I am confused I assumed “MAN IS required” to be the necessary and “play man sports” to be the sufficient. (PMS —>M) however, regurgitating that info out loud to myself, I realized within context it didnt make sense; but when does the LSAT ever make an effort to make sense 🤷🏽‍♀️🥴I guess I’m curious to know why both sentences aren’t diagramed the same when their both in the same format ?!?!😭... #HELPPP

7 Sage Sentence:

Practice IS REQUIRED to be a skilled artist.

SA—->P

Loophole Sentence:

One MAN in his time IS REQUIRED to play many parts.

M—->PMPS

Commentary:

I assumed “MAN IS required” to be the necessary and “play man sports” to be the sufficient since MAN IS THE REQUIREMENT?!? (PMS —>M) however, regurgitating that info out loud to myself, I realized within context it didnt make sense; but when does the LSAT ever make an effort to make sense 🤷🏽‍♀️🥴😭...why is that Both statements above mirror one another in terms of terminology but differ in context ?!?! #HELPPP

“Some anthropologists argue that the human species could not have survived prehistoric times if the species had not evolved the ability to cope with diverse natural environments. However, there is considerable evidence that Australopithecus afarensis, a prehistoric species related to early humans, also thrived in a diverse array of environments, but became extinct. Hence, the anthropologists’ claim is false.“

Could someone please show me verbatim how to diagram the entire passage Via formal logic and cross reference the mismatched terms that the author used in order to draw the false inference. According to the question it is a mistaken reversal and I am very comfortable diagraming up until the term “however”, after that I got so confused as to what the author was trying to translate.

Now if I’m not mistaken Jy mentioned that because the the author concluded that “the anthropologist Claims were false

ANTHRO CLAIM

“If survive ———-> Cope”

AUTHOR CONCLUSION

“Not survival ——-> Not Cope”

Are those the 2 conditional statements that conflict, that make this entire passage a mistaken reversal ?

Also please keep in mind I kind of dis regarded the premise right above the conclusion because the verbiage is confusing as it doesn’t appear to be a conditional statement that I can diagram

#HelpPlease

I have no idea how the answer is E. I am not connecting anything here. Can someone please explain.

Would love to hear where you took it and how the experience went! Would it be okay to register for a test center in one country and take the Flex online in another country?

Thanks in advance!

Hi,

Can anyone explain to me their reasoning about how they approached the correct answer here?

I thought that A (the correct answer) was wrong here because we have no idea why Chopin did not believe in the local colorists' idealization on line 38. Thus, it doesn't have to be because Chopin thought that the local colorists were "misguided" (aka wrong).

On the other hand I thought that B was right because it seemed a little more supported: in lines 32-35, it at least explains why Chopin wrote using local colorists' conventions: because she thought that the sentimental novels she read when she was little were a bit too excessive. In addition, my thought was: why write something that is so emotional in such a detached manner (line 37) unless you wanted to deafen the emotional impact?

Any #help would be appreciated!

Best regards

I marked this as a time-change flaw because it seems as though the author is using the past to predict the future. Does anyone else feel like it would be fair/correct to call it a time-change flaw? Obviously E is also an attractive answer since you cannot fully isolate the variables involved in preventing nuclear war, but aren't you simply supposed to assume that the information in the stimuli is correct and mostly valid when dealing with flaw questions?

Can I infer some are -P from the statement that most people are P? I think saying most people are mortal does not mean some people are immortal, but the correct AC of this question seems to suggest the otherwise. Is this a bad LR question?

In JY's videos on comparative passages he usually reads passage A and then answers all of the questions for the first passage before going back to passage B and then answering the questions again. I can see the benefit of keeping the two passages separate to prevent mixing up the content, as they tend to be similar/related, but under time pressure, I tend to do worse when using this method of attack.

How do y'all take comparative passages? One at a time or all at once?

Hi, I did some problem sets and this was one of the questions that I got wrong: PrepTest B - Section 1 - Question 14 (regarding the artists and subsidy)

Could anyone explain to me why the answer is C?? My weakness is pseudo assumption and I've read this question multiple times, but I still don't get it haha.

Gosh, this question is crazy hard...

Can anyone explain how the author is "impugning" the motives of Roehmer in the last sentence? It really doesn't look like the author is questioning/attacking Roehmer's motives at all-- the author is just saying that Roehmer is doing it for her supporters

Thanks!

Best regards

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-84-section-3-question-22/

Hi!

I was watching the explanation for the in/out game referring to a group of people who can only be hired if they are interviewed for a position. In the explanation for the last question in the set, it mentions that the problem states at least 4 people are hired. However, I did not see that mentioned anywhere in the problem. Is it possible that there was an edit to the language or is there an inference that was not explained that I missed.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-1-game-2/

I do not understand why 7Sage teaches "except" as a biconditional. It makes more sense to me to see it as a simple Group 3, where you just negate the sufficient. I've seen other programs teach it this way, too. I'm not trying to get into a comparison argument. I just want to know which is going to be useful to me on the LSAT. Here's an example: "I go to the store, except on Monday." It seems that the aforementioned sentence is the same as "I go to the store, unless it's Monday."

Of all the questions in RC, I ironically have the most difficulty with the first one - the main point/author's purpose question. I almost always can narrow the choices down to two, which are typically factually correct but focus on slightly different points of the passage. For example, in PrepTest 60, there is a passage involving Luis Valdez and the Teatro Campesino. Both C and D focus on Valdez's contributions to the Teatro, but I incorrectly chose D because I believed the information presented in the last paragraph countered a claim made in C. Despite racking my head about this question, I still cannot figure out why D was incorrect, and I certainly wouldn't have this time to devote to a main point question on the real test.

What is the best way to identify and keep track of the main point when reading a passage? I find JY's method of reflecting after every paragraph very helpful, but I find myself struggling to combine these summaries into a main point that the test writers would agree with. This especially occurs when the last paragraph introduces a new idea, or a counterexample, and I'm stuck wondering if the correct answer needs to specifically address this. How can I identify information that is given time in the passage but does not need to be included in the answer choice?

Thanks in advance!

I still haven’t quite internalized why “or” is in group 3, and don’t have a fundamental understanding on why sufficient/necessary are the way they are in group 3. Does anyone have some insight on internalization or a quick example as to why this is the case?

With question 14, after I fulfill the condition of T testing G on the second day, why can't T test H on the second day as well? The rules tell us I can't have both Ts testing G (done). It doesn't say anything about a rider not testing on the 2nd day twice on different bicycles. Furthermore, what if I chose my set as "GFJH" instead of "FGHJ." Would I be violating any rule? It doesn't mention the bicycles being in order so why do I violate a rule if I decide to place T to test H on the second day. Thanks

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-2-game-3/