I have not seen MP questions that begin with a question at the beginning before this one. I got it incorrect since I put B thinking the conclusion came after the word "Certainly" I am not sure how to get to the conclusion in this stimilus.

Hi all! I am reviewing PT86.S1.Q21. I understand why we can get rid of answer choices a,c and e as well as the general flaw in the argument being that the spread of organic farming is only a problem for having enough food if all farmers switch to organic farming. However, I am having trouble with what differentiates answers b and d. I know it has something to do with the logical meaning of some and all, and their opposites not some and not all. The explanation video for this question leaves it up to us to think about at the end, but I'm hitting a wall so all help appreciated! Thanks!

Just want to share my thoughts and notes:

This formula right here: independence -> progress doesn’t warrant that more independence = more progress, so E is incorrect.

Cultures -> needs independence to replace dependence (natives replace outside imposition) -> progress.

A. anticipated answer choice

B. Staff and students are digging too deep, we’re only looking at cultures as a whole

C. Tailor is too details, not needed

D. Must is g2 so Advance -> prevent outsiders, not really align with the lawgic above.

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

I thought this question was rather difficult but there is no explanation video, so just dropping my thought process/notes here. Please feel free to share yours!

P says ok eventually all mental stuffs can be explained in neurological terms

Explain mental stuffs in neuro terms -> knowledge (neurons and function, interaction, delineation of psycho faculties).

A. It supports the physicalist actually by trying to prove they are right.

B. It does describe

C. Not really, it didn’t use the 2 interchangeably

D. Why do we care about the purpose of this

E. Hmh that’s true, it talks about knowledge (which there are 3 but it only touches on 2).

Does anyone know where you can practice translating for English to logic for inference questions. For example a bunch of question stems for practice and we translate them to logic.

Hi everyone,

I am currently studying existential quantifiers and although I understand the concept of existential quantifiers, I find it difficult to apply the concept to MBF questions. I've only done a couple of MBF questions with existential quantifiers, but was wondering whether you need to use existential quantifiers for each MBF question? Also, what types of logical reasoning questions require us to use existential quantifiers?

If possible, can someone please reference some questions that require us to utilize existential quantifiers? I would greatly appreciate it! Thanks in advance :).

I'm reviewing RRE LR questions. I came across PrepTest February 1997 Section 1 Question 23 (the one about the professor's travel plans) in a drill. Even after blind review, I got it wrong. I know the right answer, but I don't know why it's right or why the other ones are wrong. Can someone explain it to me? I'm not sure where to even start with this one.

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

Just want to share my notes/thought process!

Cannot is G4 negate necessary

Good legal system -> well paid

Police well paid -> good legal system

Flips lawgic

A. E. Irrelevant

B. Must is a stretch, we dont care about them

C. Effective is irrelevant

D. Yes, it should be a NC but it switches to SC which doesn’t warrant the lawgic if NC is satisfied

Admin note: Edited title. For the community to better assist you, please include a description of your concern in the title. E.g. PT37.S1.Q12 - Political scientist: Efforts to create a more

PSA question- please help

Admin Note: Edited title and removed screenshot. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question." Also, please do not post the entire question and answer choices for the LSAC question, this is copyrighted content and is against the Forum Rules.

I identified the premise and conclusion as the following:

P1: Spy is identified as the only clergyman working at the French embassy

P2: Bruno had been ordained a member of the clergy long before he started work at the embassy

Concl: Bruno must have been the spy

I narrowed down to A and C and eventually picked C, which was the wrong answer.

I thought C was correct since his lack of French skills meant that he lacked the skillset that the spy had. On the other hand, I eliminated A because "not being dressed or functioned as a member of the clergy" is insufficient to prove Bruno wasn't a clergyman at all. He might have been an inactive member but could still have retained his clergyman title. I still don't see why C is wrong and A is correct. Can anyone walk me through the correct reasoning?

Hi! I was doing a drill and had this question. I chose C and that was the trap answer choice (rip) but I don't really understand why this is wrong and A is right.

Could anyone please breakdown the right and wrong answers? This would be such a great help thank you!!

Hi everyone,

Just have a few questions for those who will be writing upcoming lSAT test dates, or who who have written the LSAT online in the past.

What methods or tips can I use to mitigate the disadvantages of writing the test online vs paper? For example, for questions I find it very important to highlight and circle key words. I assume there is no option like this for the online version.

Thank you.

If I am taking my first LSAT in August, and have already begun studying the syllabus, how should I incorporate practice drills and PTs to maximize my efficiency? Should I complete the syllabus fully and then complete practice drills and PTs after? Or should I mix in practice drills and PTs within my studying of the syllabus?

I started studying for the LSAT a week ago. I am taking my LSAT in September. What version would you guys recommend V1 or V2?

Did anyone else move immediately away from A because of the more absolute syntax that was being used? I answered incorrectly in both my regular round AND in blind review...

Admin note: For the community to better assist you, please include PrepTest number, section number and question number in the following format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question"

E.g. PT37.S1.Q12 - Political scientist: Efforts to create a more egalitarian

Hi! I've recently started taking my lsat studying seriously (I started studying end of may and have consistently been working for about 5 hours per day which I will continue for the next few months). I'm wondering what LSAT exam I should be taking. My diagnostic score was a 157 untimed (I'm an anxious person in general so I'm sure if I took it timed right now my score would decrease). I am hoping to increase overall to a 165ish, and I am wondering how long that generally takes to achieve that score increase. I know this stuff isn't linear, but I'm looking for a general idea. I haven't really had anyone to guide me through this process at all (applications, LSAT prep, or otherwise), and I thought that taking the LSAT in October would be perfectly normal, but I'm now realizing that maybe it's not if I would like to apply to schools by December of this year. I don't know if I'm on the right track at all, so any guidance would be greatly appreciated! #helpme #inquiry

Are the questions in the inference category the same as MBT and MSS? Which lesson do we learn about the inference questions category? #help

Really struggle with Flaw questions... I know Flaw takes a big portion in LR. Any advice on how to master FLAW questions?

Admin note: I edited the title for clarity

A is wrong because we cant say many old people as we dont know the definition of old for Rotelle. If she considers 60+ old or 80+ old.

B is wrong because it says people as old as Sims are the only those. There could be more people.

C is wrong as argument is not saying that some young people can effectively do its simply saying who cannot.

D is sounds more correct as Sim is to old to understand issue but anyone anyone younger them isnt too old.

E is wrong because Rotelle is not committed to saying what's required for young people to understand.

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

A is completely irrelevant and argument doesnt make that assumption

I chose B but its wrong since argument says that fertilizer use will be reduced, it doesnt say we dont have to use fertlizers anymore. If it had said that we dont need fertilizer then it would have been correct.

C is also attractive but it doesnt set the conncection between why the need for fertilizer will be reduced

D isnt relevant

E is correct because if E wasnt true then there would be no argument.

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

D must be false because stimulus says that brains of identical twins are genetically identical and its the differences in brain from which we can tell if a twin is Schizo

Can someone help me understand this logic? Why is D the right answer?

The theory of military deterrence was based on a simple psychological truth, that fear of retaliation makes a would-be aggressor nation hesitate before attacking and is often sufficient to deter it altogether from attacking. Clearly, then, to maintain military deterrence, a nation would have to be believed to have retaliatory power so great that a potential aggressor nation would have reason to think that it could not defend itself against such retaliation. If the statements above are true, which one of the following can be properly inferred?

A) A would-be aggressor nation can be deterred from attacking only if it has certain knowledge that it would be destroyed in retaliation by the country it attacks.

B) A nation will not attack another nation if it believes that its own retaliatory power surpasses that of the other nation.

C) One nation’s failing to attack another establishes that the nation that fails to attack believes that it could not withstand a retaliatory attack from the other nation.

D) it is in the interests of a nation that seeks deterrence and has unsurpassed military power to let potential aggressors against it become aware of its power of retaliatory attack.

E) Maintaining maximum deterrence from aggression by other nations requires that a nation maintain a retaliatory force greater than that of any other nation.

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

Hi Everyone!

I just completed the Logic Games lessons and now I'm ready to start drilling. I was wondering, how do you all approach drilling? Personally, I'm planning to do four games per day. Here's my routine: I tackle one drill, take a short break, and then watch the explanation. After that, I move on to the second drill, take another break, and watch the explanation. At the end of the day, I revisit both drills.

By the way, I have set the difficulty level of the drills to medium. Do you think that's the right level, or would you recommend a different difficulty?

Hello!

I'm having some trouble with Flaw questions, and am wondering if anyone has any advice/resource recommendations?

I'm pretty well versed with the many different kinds of logical fallacies. However, I'm weary of how the test makers describe the flaw in the reasoning. E.g. If the author commits a "straw man," I'm unsure how LSAC words/describes that mischaracterization in an AC. Of course, I know our language is complex, and that there are hundreds of different ways to say the same thing (so, how something is worded in one AC, can be worded a different way in another question's AC and mean the same thing)! I see AC's that say "the author takes for granted," "the author fails to consider," etc. and am wondering if anyone knows how to decipher what these different AC's even mean. If the "author takes for granted _____," I'm assuming that LSAC means the flaw is in what the author/argument said/did. If, on the other hand, "the author fails to consider _____," I'm assuming the flaw is something the author/argument didn't say/do.

Has anyone compiled a document with LSAC's different answer choices that best describe different flaws in the reasoning? I've found that sometimes with the explanation videos to flaw questions, the wrong AC's and how LSAC writes them, aren't always described generally/examples of what the wrong AC means aren't always given (e.g. LSAC means by this wording that the argument did this _____, but the argument did this ____, so this AC is wrong). Maybe I've overlooked the curriculum for information on this? I often really overthink these questions, and what the AC is trying to say, and need some #Help!!

For this question, I initially chose answer choice E because the background information really swept me up. My intuition told me that because the passage wrote about all of these other linguistic influences, the answer choice probably had something to do with that. However, upon BR, I ended up going with the correct answer choice A because the first sentence in the passage notes that the nature of English literature reflects... the English language. Thus it follows that the "origin of English," referring to the language, played a role in shaping English literature.