Discussions

LSAT

New post

298 posts in the last 30 days

stimulus :

"There can be a known known only if theres a known unknown, but there can never be an unknown unknown without a known unknown. Thus, every unknown unknown which is known is actually a known unknown which is unknown."

the conclusion above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

the content of this question is inspired by the "Rumsfeld Matrix." What would be a sufficient assumption for this question? Is this a hard question or did you find it on the easier end of SA questions?

0

(P1) According to dinosaur fossils, dinosaurs had an oxygen isotope ratio in their bones that suggests that their CORES had roughly the same temperature as their LIMBS.

(P2) Today, cold-blooded animals have much warmer CORES than LIMBS.

(MC) Therefore, dinosaurs were probably warm-blooded.

Weaken

This argument assumes, among other things, that warm-blooded animals, unlike cold-blooded animals, do NOT have much warmer CORES than LIMBS, or some other temperature distribution that deviates even more from the dinosaurs'. To anticipate the right answer, I thus was expecting a weaking option targeting this assumption.

(A) Unlike cold-blooded animals, warm-blooded animals only have SLIGHTLY warmer CORES than LIMBS. This goes in the direction of my pre-phrase but is not very strong. Crucially, it remains more likely that dinosaurs were warm-blooded than that they were cold-blooded, just as the author claims. So this answer choice does not seem to actually weaken, even though it gets at the assumption that the author makes, and that I had identified as the weak point of their argument.

(B) Dinosaur fossils don't actually allow you to do the temperature inference described in (P1). This answer is very unusual in that it attacks a premise rather than the reasoning in the argument. Nevertheless, this answer choice definitely weakens, since it takes away the data about dinosaurs that the author presupposes. Keep this answer choice around but be vigilant; see if a less premise-focused answer choice is available.

(C) About oxygen generally. Does not seem to pertain to the argument.

(D) Body temperatures in small and large animals other than dinosaurs. Does not seem to connect directly to the argument; especially since the stimulus does not identify dinosaurs as either small or large.

(E) Warm-blooded animals are more active and use more oxygen than cold-blooded animals. This again does not seem to relate directly to the argument under consideration.

(C), (D), and (E) turn out to be largely unrelated to the argument in the stimulus, and (A) does not seem to weaken the inference made by the author. This leaves (B) as the only remaining answer choice, and thus (B) must be right.

Nevertheless, (B) feels very much uncomfortable and is unusual. (B) just straight up contradicts information that we get in the stimulus, rather than attacking the author's reasoning. It also seems unusual to have this sort of unexpected answer choice so early in the section; just expecting straightforward questions in (Q1)-(Q10) is too naive.

I originally chose (A) because I got too focused on my anticipation of how the right answer could look like, and thus I neglected (B). Nevertheless, a more careful examination of what (A) and (B) are actually saying would have allowed me to get this question right. I need to stay alert to the details of individual answers and compare them against each other; a more thorough examination between (A) and (B) would have allowed me to see that (A) does not in fact weaken and that (B)'s unusual character does not prevent it from being the right answer here. Read answer choices carefully, compare them against each other, and choose the one that has the fewest problems.

0

Hello 7Sagers!

I'm looking for some tips to help improve my reading comprehension score. I am currently scoring around -12 which is of huge concern given I take my second LSAT in January. While practice is, of course, key to improving my RC score, I need to see lots of improvement in a relatively short amount of time. At present, I seem to be struggling the most with my speed. I take too long answering the questions, which indicates to me that I need to spend more time analyzing the passage. Perhaps some tips on low resolution summaries might help? Any insights would be greatly appreciated!

0

Good Afternoon everyone!

I have my LR down to -4 on average but am not confident in SA and NA questions no matter how much I practice. Any tips on how to do them without diagramming? I get more confused when I diagram and do not find it helpful in the least.

Thanks!

0

Hey everyone,

I am planning on taking the January 2024 LSAT. I have been studying for quite a while now, and am scoring in the range of 152-155. I recently just decided to purchase 7sage due to the overall positive results it has produced for students. I have been PT'ing using 7sage as well scoring within that range, however, I have been scoring between 166-168 on my blind reviews. Here are my averages for each section:

LG: -6/-7 (-1/0 BR)

LR: -9 (-5/-6 BR)

RC: -10 (-5/-6 BR)

One of my overarching issues is pacing. I can't seem to quite get to where I want to be given the time constraint. This usually forces me to skip a LG section, and forces me to miss a fair amount of questions on both RC and LR. Sometimes, depending of difficulty, I may skip a LG section while being about 50% on each answer for another.

From all of this, I would just like to know what I should do going forward with studying. Should I go through 7sage's modules and work each section out? I work about 30 hours per week, and since my graduate classes are completed for the semester, that is really my only obligation as of now. My goal score is to get around a 160. Thank you so much!

0

For this question I picked A, and then B for final. I now know that A is the right answer, but I want to be sure that I understand why I had gotten this wrong.

For a short recap, Oscar's conclusion is "Thus a country's economic well-being will not be a function of its geographical position but just a matter of its relative success in incorporating those new technologies". Here I am thinking okay cool well-being is determined:

Geographical Position --> Incorporating those new technologies

Now for Sylvia, they counter this because they say that it is due to the poor country (the south as mentioned by Oscar), is not able to acquire the $$$ to incorporate the tech. They conclude by saying that it will only "widen the existing economic gap between north (rich) and south (poor)".

So going into the questions, I chose B because I thought that since the poor countries didn't have $$$ for implementation that it would cause the gap. However, I see that A was right because widening the gap meant that the rich prolly wouldn't know how rich they were unless the poor were some amount of poor? However, what does "natural resources" in A mean? Could it mean economic? Oil? I believe that was a part of what tripped me up, but I believe another was the assumption that I made which didn't allow for me to truly grasp Sylvia's conclusion.

Anyone have any suggestions when going into these questions? Or ways that I can improve in NA?

0

Hello All,

I recently drilled this PT section. While I found the game to be pretty smooth, I was quite confused when I missed nearly all the questions on the first try, and 3 questions on the 2nd. I've located the issue to my interpretation of "3-hour block starting at 1pm." In JY's videos, this leads him up to 3:30 pm. But isn't that only 2 and a half hours? Although my game board is just like JY's in that we both have 5 slots, mine ends at 4pm. Because 1-4 is 3 hours? I'd appreciate further insight/ ways to avoid, or at least, finesse interpretation errors such as this one. I'm failing to see how "3 hour block starting at 1pm"could possibly go up to 3:30 no matter how its read. Thanks!

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

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-65-section-2-game-4/

0

For this question, I was wondering why E is the wrong answer? Passage A and B endorse the same principles that lying is necessary in writing good narrative, but B says later they see it as unethical while A does not. Is it because the principle they are endorsing isn't exactly the same but applied to diff contexts (lying is necessary in historical vs. lying is necessary in autobiographical) and thus D is the right answer?

0

PrepTest 94:

I'm confused on how this was the correct answer choice (B) because Zobel's claim that Peterson’s analytic concepts are wrong and should be rejected was established, as he directly stated that in the first sentence. What makes a claim "established"?

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

0

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-4-question-07/

I've watched JY's explanation and the only other forum post regarding this question, but I'm still not sure why my reasoning for B is incorrect.

I understand the diagramming to be:

P: know a lot about history —> easy to impress intellectuals

C: /(know a lot about history) —> /(easy to impress intellectuals)

I also understand this to be a case of:

Invalid Argument Structure

A —> B

———

/A —> /B

What doesn't make sense to me is I chose B though because I'm thinking it's possible

(you could know a lot about history ---> /(easy to impress intellectuals)) or (A --> /B). I'm not sure if my reasoning is correct and it's just not appropriate in this situation because it fails step 2 of the flaw test or if something else about it is flat-out incorrect. Any feedback is appreciated. Thank you.

0

Bee -> sting once

Sting once

—————

Bee

A-> B

B

—————

A

A) Spring -> Sneeze nonstop

Sneeze

——————

Spring

C) Old + brittle -> move with care

/Move with care -> /Old + brittle

Negation: Old + brittle -> Move w care (still valid argument whereas the stimulus is invalid).

D) Only is G2

Ruin roof -> more thunderstorm

/Ruin roof -> /more thunderstorm

0

hi! (fair warning, this a question from is the genuinely tragic mirrors passage btw): for the life of me, i cannot figure out why c is the right choice for this one. i think it's largely because i literally just don't understand what the answer choice means. like genuinely sentence/word-wise i have no friggin clue.

on a theoretical level, i get that the idea of "separating observers from scientific phenomenon" as it's discussed in the text + how this informs the tendency of scientists to prefer certain explanations for phenomena. but i don't understand how that idea is conveyed by the words of answer choice c. answer c reads: "One explanation of what mirrors do reveals the traditional tendency of physicists to separate a phenomenon to be explained from the observer of a phenomenon."

i've been racking my head trying to parse the bolded part word-by-word but i genuinely can't figure it out. isn't the point the text is making that science ppl prefer explanations that don't rely on the observer? how does "separating a phenomenon •••to be explained••• from the observer of a phenomenon" do that?? if someone could even just help break down what this part means that would be useful lol. ty in advance (3(/p)

0

hi! (fair warning, this a question from is the genuinely tragic mirrors passage btw): for the life of me, i cannot figure out why c is the right choice for this one. i think it's largely because i literally just don't understand what the answer choice means. like genuinely word-wise.

i get that the idea of "separating observers from scientific phenomenon" as it's discussed in the text + how this informs the tendency of scientists to prefer certain explanations for phenomena. but i don't understand how that idea is conveyed by answer choice c. answer c reads: "One explanation of what mirrors do reveals the traditional tendency of physicists to separate a phenomenon to be explained from the observer of a phenomenon."

i've been racking my head trying to parse the bolded part word-by-word but i genuinely can't figure it out. isn't the point the text is making that science ppl prefer explanations that don't rely on the observer? how does "separating a phenomenon •••to be explained••• from the observer of a phenomenon" do that?? if someone could even just help break down what this part means that would be useful lol. ty in advance (3(/p)

0

hi! (fair warning, this a question from is the genuinely tragic mirrors passage btw): for the life of me, i cannot figure out why c is the right choice for this one. i think it's largely because i literally just don't understand what the answer choice means. like genuinely word-wise.

i get that the idea of "separating observers from scientific phenomenon" as it's discussed in the text + how this informs the tendency of scientists to prefer certain explanations for phenomena. but i don't understand how that idea is conveyed by answer choice c. answer c reads: "One explanation of what mirrors do reveals the traditional tendency of physicists to separate a phenomenon to be explained from the observer of a phenomenon."

i've been racking my head trying to parse the bolded part word-by-word but i genuinely can't figure it out. isn't the point the text is making that science ppl prefer explanations that don't rely on the observer? how does "separating a phenomenon •••to be explained••• from the observer of a phenomenon" do that?? if someone could even just help break down what this part means that would be useful lol. ty in advance (3(/p)

0

Y'all.

I just saw someone else post this on another discussion thread, but for any testtakers today or later this week, do NOT forget to click on “Ready to Check In” before (BEFORE!!!) your 10 minute break is up. Do not wait until that timer hits '0'!!

I'm sure everyone registered got this email from LSAC:

--

"Section 3 will not begin until the countdown clock expires. Test takers must click the “Ready to Check In” button before the intermission expires. Once this button is clicked, the test taker is taken to a waiting room. At this point, your proctor will resecure your testing environment so that you can go on to Section 3.

It is absolutely critical that you return to your computer and click the “Ready to Check In” button within the allotted 10 minutes.

If you fail to check in for Section 3 of the LSAT prior to the expiration of the 10-minute intermission, your testing session will be terminated and your score will be canceled. This cancellation will be recorded by LSAC as a Candidate Cancel and reported to any school to which you apply for admission that utilizes LSAC’s Credential Assembly Service (CAS) reports."

I checked in at the 1'20'' left mark. And don't worry, I still had to wait until the full 10 minutes were done, and my proctor was slow to return anyways. PLUS I had another extra minute just BEFORE Section 3 was due to begin. So no one's getting jipped if you 'check in' early.

--

⚠⚠⚠ Please, y'all... DO THIS. ⚠⚠⚠

0

Really confused by the extent to which we rely on diagram in this question. For PF questions, when is the case that we do not strictly follow the diagram in the stimulus? https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-2-question-22/

STIMULUS:

H–>/G

——-

H /G (confirm one theory at the expense of the other)

However, AC E:

D–>/J

——–

/D–>J (either or)

If the above is true, why is AC E is still the correct AC? Or in this case, are we choosing the best AC?

0

Really confused by the extent to which we rely on diagram in this question. For PF questions, when is the case that we do not strictly follow the diagram in the stimulus? https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-2-question-22/

STIMULUS:

H–>/G

——-

H /G (confirm one theory at the expense of the other)

However, AC E:

D–>/J

——–

/D–>J (either or)

If the above is true, why is AC E is still the correct AC? Or in this case, are we choosing the best AC?

0

I was wondering how I should attack/understand this question?

It asks if it discusses the relationship between the reliability and one of the AC's. What does relationship mean in this case? Is the question asking if the passage mentions some sort of a connection between the reliability and one of the answer choices?

Thank you.

0

LR- PTB.S1.Q1

Misread the question and u was stuck between two answer choices that I thought would be correct. I need to understand the main point for this question because it can lead to tricky answer choices.

Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

0

Hello, I posted a comment on someone's previous post on this question, but because it was from 3 months ago, I wanted to bump with my own post.

I got the answer correct, and I can explain why I thought C was correct, but I couldn't fully prove why A was incorrect. I could eliminate B, D, and E, because the stimulus does not mention what conditions would determine whether someone deserves praise or is worthy of it. The stimulus only mentions whether which treatment is more worthy.

In regards to C) Only what is subject to a person's choice should be used in measuring the praiseworthiness of that person, the stimulus mentions that a person cannot choose to have feelings. Therefore, the ethicist's argument that one's treatment is more worthy of praise if it is at least partially motivated by feelings of compassion means they did not have choice in the matter of having those feelings. So C cannot be true.

For A, the reason why I personally did not choose this answer, is because the stimulus states that treatment that is entirely motivated by cold and dispassionate concern for moral obligation is less worthy of praise- I was unsure if 'cold and dispassionate concern' could still be categorized as feelings, even if it is slightly described as lack thereof. Still, I couldn't completely eliminate this answer.

I'm not sure if my reasoning is correct- could someone confirm? Thank you so much!

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?