If this is not the hardest question on the set, I don't know which is. I had a great time trying to understand this question and why C is correct and spent an hour just scratching my head trying to figure it out. Would still love to see what everyone thinks about this question. But so far I don't see that many asking about this question so here is my take on it.

Background: Some researchers claim that people gesture less when expressing abstract instead of physical ideas

Premise: Some people perceive words in different ways: for a word that has both abstract and physical understanding, people can perceive it as either abstract or physical

Conclusion: The argument that the researchers' claim is not universal is not sufficient reason to reject it.

WTF. What are the connections between the premise and the conclusion? It seems to me that the premise is trying to say that the researchers' claim MIGHT WELL BE universal.

The argument implies that the critics would challenge the researchers' claim by doubting its univsersality. It might be something like this: the word "comprehension" represents an abstract concept, but some people apparently gesture and make a grabbing movement when they say it. This is a disproving evidence that would show that this claim is not universal, therefore it can be rejected.

Author counters by saying: hey, "comprehension" doesn't have to mean the abstract concept of understanding. It can definitely mean "catching" or "grasping." Not so fast critics, the claim of the researchers can still be universal: people just understand a word differently, and their actions regarding gesturing when expressing different words or concepts are still in accordance with what the researchers have claimed. Just because someone does gesture when expressing a word that has an abstract definition does not mean that person are thinking of the abstract definition of that word. He or she might well be expressing the physical definition instead of the abstract one. In this line of reasoning, the researchers' claim still stand and still might be universal.

AC C matches this pretty well. The author is trying to use a psychological fact (people perceive words in different definition) to reconcile a general claim (researchers' 'people gesture less with abstract concepts'") with apparently disconfirming evidence (people do NOT always gesture less when expressing abstract concepts). I find this line of reasoning the most applicable to the right answer to this question. I might be dead wrong with this, and I would love to see what others have to say about this.

Hi all,

I just took PT 87 today under timed conditions, and I'm surprised to say my LR score went up! The 80's have been killing me with the LR; is 87 a lot easier or something? I just went from a -8 average a week ago to a -3 today?

I would like to discuss the LSAT maker's rationale under this question and its corresponding sentence (in line 30-31).

It seems obvious that in line 30-31 the reduced clause--"considered by programmers to be unimportant."--is to make the correct answer of Q4 more reasonable and obvious for test-takers.

But it looks to me that (E) still makes sense even if the reduced clause is scratched off.

If so, then what is the test maker's purpose to add the reduced clause? I would find it very surprising if the only purpose is to give us a head-up that soundtrack referred to in line 30 is intentionally emphasized.

How do you think? Any insights or comments would be very appreciated.

thanks.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-87-section-1-passage-1-questions/

I chose answer choice (D) for this question, because the passage definitely mentions benefits of advertisements near the end of the text:

"If there is a real need for emotional fulfillment, and if we can freely and authentically choose our means of obtaining it, then free, informed individuals may choose to obtain it through the purchase of commodities or even through the enjoyment occasionally provided by advertisements themselves."

Yet the video explanation says answer (D) is wrong because there are no benefits to advertising? How? People obtaining the desires they wish to fulfill, while enjoying the entertainment of ads. How is that not beneficial?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-1-passage-3-questions/

I saw a question on 90.1.16 that states "Which one of the following is a central purpose according to both passages?"

One answer choice reads "To trace the historical development of an important idea"

Could anyone point me to a specific passage for which this answer is applicable?

Thanks!

Why is the answer E but not C?

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

I understand why the correct answer is correct but I’m still iffy about answer choice A. Every website I check has different reasons for why it’s incorrect. I’ve read that it’s because the choice says beverage which doesn’t necessarily include coffee but is that a legitimate reason? It seems like nitpicking to me but if I’m wrong I’d like to know. I picked A because I thought the different levels of exercise could explain the discrepancy in arthritis between the two groups. Looking back I think I misread A as saying people who drink decaf are more likely to exercise than those who drink regular coffee. Would that make the choice correct or no? Why or why not?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-69-section-1-question-05/

If anyone want to go over Logical Reasoning Core Curriculum together? if you are interested, please let me know.

As the title says, how long did it take you to break the -5~-6 ceiling? And were you studying full time or part time?

To anyone else going through Prep Tests chronologically, was this question a bother for you as well? It's about two people arguing over whether or not they should modify their 36 hour training shifts for prospective physicians. The answer, B, does not to me feel like it is the sound logical weakener that the question makes it out to be. B seems to be unrelated to the topic unless you make another assumption that the degree of illness a patient receives is a factor in why a doctor needs to make better medical decisions not generally but all the time. While this logic probably flies in an older LSAT, I feel that newer ones would write this question off. However, I still wanted a second opinion considering God JY hasn't put out explanations for the LR sections in this Prep Test.

Can someone explain this?

Hi,

For those who have used Manhattan Prep RC, could anyone direct me on how to find out which PTs they use through out the book? I'm looking at the book and I don't see any indices of works used. This would be very helpful because I don't want any book to ruin certain PTs for me.

Thanks

Hi, could someone who understands this passage thoroughly translate paragraphs 3 and 4 with me? JY's explanation video for this passage zoomed through the last paragraph and I was still left pretty confused.

I do understand that overall, this passage is detailing Meyerson's critique of CLS and Paragraph 3 gets at one of her main issues with a key tenet of CLS, namely that just because we have two equally compelling solutions to a legal question, it must therefore mean that any choice between the two must be random or irrational and I get that she clearly doesn't agree but what I don't understand is why M would choose to bring in an "utterly unreasonable answer" to help decide between the two solutions. Like how would that help?

And for the last paragraph, is that first sentence just a really long-winded, abstract way of saying that the legal process is not necessarily moral? I also am confused about the whole who endorses the rules of the game in the final three sentences. What is the actual point of all this?

And I get it, during timed conditions I cannot hope to understand every detail but I'm reviewing right now and would like to try.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-3-passage-3-passage/

I was thrown off by this one; even took a few times to read it before I realized what I did wrong. What I failed to recognize is that he seems to be assumed the reason for the complaints is the complainant's difference in political opinion; this has, in fact, not been demonstrated to be true.

I'm really struggling to set up my game boards both quickly and in a manner that is helpful to solve the games. For example, I did PT 34, S4 today and could not for the life of me figure out how to set up the game board. Once I watched the explanation, it made total sense and it took me about :30 to answer each question.

Are there videos/tutorials I'm missing outside of these following lessons?:

Introduction to Logic Games & Sequencing Games

Sequencing Games with a Twist

Introduction to Grouping Games: The In-Out Games

Grouping Games

Grouping Games with a Chart

Grouping and Sequencing Games

Any other resources on learning how to set up game boards quickly and in a manner that actually helps the game would be much appreciated!

Could anybody tell which section was repeated (unscored) in these tests? And were you able to identify it?

I picked the right answer. But I wanna extract as much as possible from this question.

I noticed a nuance in the question stem "an element of". But how this is different from the ordinary question stem which simply ask what the author's attitude is best expressed?

I feel the correct answer would still be credit nicely even tho the question stem has no "an element of". But, given the sneakiness of the test maker, I believe there is something I missed.

Any insights? Thanks for your time.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-1-passage-2-questions/

I have been missing a bunch of these questions lately and I am wondering if there are any tips/patterns that can help me improve? Started to panic as the Jan test approaching

This is the third time I select the correct answer and once I check in on the results the answer choices have been changed.

Please help

I find that I can overwhelm myself, when there is no reason to be overwhelmed, for questions dealing with a lot of different variables. They typically manifest in: studies consisting of numbers/percentages, rising/lowering of levels (usually these appear physiologically), etc.

For instance, I took PT 89 and completely overwhelmed myself on 89.S4.Q23 (strengthening question about turmeric). In BR I was kicking myself because, had I stayed calm, organized and kept track of all the variables...I could have gotten it right!

Do you have a different method of approach for stimuli where you feel there's 'a lot' going on?

The last couple sentences of the passage say that there are a couple constraints to the method, but then the MP question says nothing about the constraints only about how the method is good? Im confused.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-3-passage-2-questions/

I used Loophole + my own method to make the LR formulaic as much as i could atleast. This method will help with NA, weakness, and strengthening questions for most part. other questions are i think much easier

P1: Infection with vaccine is coincidence

Conclusion: Vaccine is not of any concern

Loophole "what if" method apply leading to negated conclusion to show it can be of concern

"What if" x can be of a concern

What if infection with vaccine has worse outcome then it is of concern.

NA would be: infection with vaccine is same outcome/severity

Weakness: Worse severity

Strengthening: same or lesser severity

What if basically doing it this way helps you pick up the gap to play with. LMK if anyone has any questions. Feel free to put in your inputs thanks!.

Did anyone feel like PT 92 logic games were a little difficult? I usually get -2 or -3 on each LG section but I got -5 for this one. I also couldn't finish it on time.

Omg guys I am freaking tf out. I was in the middle of taking my exam and during the intermission I grabbed my phone to put it in the other room and when the proctor had me rescan the room she cancelled the exam because I touched my phone. What are the chances of the LSAC letting me retake my LSAT for January?? This was supposed to be my last LSAT before applying for the cycle so the next test that I would be able to sign up for would be in March which might be too late for this cycle. Ahhhhhhhhh I feel so stupid but does anyone have any insight???