Discussions

LSAT

New post

299 posts in the last 30 days

I did not chose D because it has the word 'interest'. But to me this sounded superficial as oppose to beneficial. I chose E because it shows the exact correlation between the two, but i did think it was a strong statement. Can somebody help?

0

I'm doing some LR drilling right now, and I just wanted to make a discussion post and share my reasoning for a question (as prompted by 7Sage).

C: the glacier that melted to reveal the ancient body is at least 4,000 years old

Reasoning: Artifacts found on the man's body indicate that he lived at least 4,000 years ago, and that he died on the same spot where his body was discovered. Therefore, the glacier - the spot on which he died and was discovered - must be at least 4,000 years old. None of the other answer choices were even close to enticing and were easily eliminated.

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

0

(spoiler alert if you havent taken PT41) :

its the question that begins with "poor nutrition is at the root....."

the logic in the argument seems to me to look like "high nutrient diet ---> improved behavior ".........but the credited response was answer choice E which states " ~high nutrient diet-----> ~improved behavior"

intuitively, this answer choice feels correct, but wouldnt this be whats called "denial of the antecedent"?? other books call it illegal negation or denying the sufficient condition, but the point i guess is that its logically invalid. and yet that invalid logical structure is present in the correct answer choice for this question. Can someone explain that to me? thank you

Explanation Video: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-1-question-14/

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

0

So I am learning Logical reasoning through the book "The Loophole". So it says that "Your loophole and resolution have to be powerful" and "Your inference and controversy have to be provable" But then when I got to the Provable question stem section it said that the question stems-- conclusion, NA, Method, Argument part, The flaws-- all used loophole. Can someone please explain this? I don't understand.. because the book initially said that loopholes have to be powerful.

0

Where in the stimulus do we find support for the fact that zebra mussels MUST be regarded as hazardous waste if they don't transform the waste products they filter and remove? Answer choices D and E seem really close here.

Admin Note: Please use the format "PT#.S#.Q# (G#) - brief description of question."

0

Hi, I've been on a hiatus for a few months and came across a problem while reviewing NA questions on the syllabus and remember having this issue in the past as well.

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/computer-emotions-na-question/?ss_completed_lesson=1791

Here JY attaches a noun (computer) to another noun (emotions) instead of writing it as, and as I wrote it, C->/E he writes it as /Ec

Then he wrote the conclusion as follows /Ic, I wrote it as C-> /I

So how can I know when to attach one thing to another in conditional reasoning? Is there a general rule to this? Because it lead me to the following issue with this problem.

I created a chain where both E and I connect to /C however I'm not able to see which comes first inorder to validate the conclusion, the /E or the /I

(diagramed below)

P:C - > /E

SA: I->E or E->I

C - >/I

JY, and the correct answer choice, both did it as I->E - I understand how they got to that when he attaches the c to /E.

Im not sure if my conditionality is off or what, but I would have assumed that it wouldn't matter if I attached the two nouns together or just created it the relationship in the chain as above. If anyone needs more clarification on anything please let me know.

0

Want to make sure I'm thinking through this correctly. C is right because it suggests the incorrectness of a premise, that the reason that Peter's actions are more blameworthy than Alicia's. The relevant part of C is just that Peter's running a red light, an illegal action, caused the action that caught the police's attention. I'm struggling to figure out whether the part of C that says that Alicia took extra care to avoid police noticing her contradicts the premise that there's a diff in the blameworthiness. I would argue that it doesn't, but I want to ensure that I've nailed down the important part of the correct answer choice.

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

0

I can't parse out or understand the assumption being made in this question below:

Paleontologist: It is widely, but falsely, held that life began in the ocean and did not exist on land until half a billion years ago.

The answer is D but I do not understand why

Admin Note: Deleted the question and answer choices because it is against our Forum Rules to post the entire question and answer choices on the forum.

0

Hey everyone, so I just got my January 2023 lsat score back and it's one point lower than my current highest score. I have taken the test 3 times very spread out over the years as I've navigated being a student/working throughout my studying. My highest current score is 156 (June 2021), and on my most recent test, I scored 155 (January 2023). Any advice would be so helpful as I really don't know what to do!! I really wish I had seen more progress over the years as I was practice testing in low-mid 160s prior to my January test. Should I cancel or is one point not worth a cancellation showing up on my record?

0

I'm one of the 35% people that chose (B) and still am not fully convinced that (E) is better. To compare the two ACs, I'll list all potential objections/flaws they each have for them to work:

(B) says, salt is not the only dietary factors associated with high blood pressure. It takes for granted that the people in the question actually were consuming these other foods, and the intake of such foods in combination needs to be significant enough, not only to offset the effects of their high salt intake, but also to bring their blood pressure down to very low.

(E) says, some people have abnormally low blood pressure and they have heightened cravings for salt to maintain a blood pressure that's not too low. It assumes without justification that these people are in fact the people talked about in the stimulus, and their high salt intake was in fact the result of their heightened cravings.

I'll admit that (B) makes a lot of unwarranted assumptions. But the "cravings" in (E) really trips me up because I think the assumption of "heightened cravings for salt" implying "high salt intake" is the exact kind of bad assumptions that LSAT usually punishes us for making. My only justification for choosing (E) over (B) is that it makes fewer assumptions. Can someone please help me out on this one? This question is bothering me so much and I don't know what I need to do differently to avoid similar mistakes in the future. Any help is hugely appreciated!

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?