Ok so pretty much X 50 ppl

Y has 100 ppl

X 1 person hospitalized

Y has 4 ppl hospitalized

So initially I thought this doesn't really seem like a paradox but wtv, lets just explain why Y has more hospital patients.

A. Ok if preventive health programs are more common X than in Y that'll explain why Y has more people in hospitals.

B. (I was between this and D just because I couldn't eliminate D) This actually explains the phenomena though. If city X is a leader in outpatient treatment whenever possible that explains why they have less hospitalizations they just send everyone home.

C. Perfect the drinking water of Y has DANGEROUSLY high toxins compared to that of X so that could cause more people to be sick and end up in hospitals

D*: (Read carefully) The hospitals in Y are of high quality and X ppl are sent there for treatment. Ok just because X people are sent there let's say to get the pain medication that wouldn't explain why Y has more hospital patients. They could just go get the medication and leave.

E. Fair assumption to make that if stress is correlated with higher hospitalizations

So phenomenon - El Niño - is expected to increase in coming years and this thing causes HEAVY WINTER RAINFALL in T.

Conclusion: Average rodent population in T will increase in the coming years.

WHY: Because rodent populations normally increase during LONG periods of suatainsmd rain.

Hope this layout helps you see that the author is probably either assuming that long periods of rain will occur with heavy winter rainfall or that heavy winter rainfall will cause these long periods of rain.

A. UM ok? this doesn't really appear to do anything to the argument

B. Ok but we know there is going to be heavy rain doesn't really hurt the argument.

C. Ok so I think you can't take other situations which are clearly not the same as T to be indicative of what is going to happen in T. Maybe to have more rodents you need the perfect variables which T is going to have thus our argument still stands.

D*. In T winters marked by HEAVY rainfall (the one that's going to be caused by El Niño normally does not mean that LONG periods of rain occur. This hurts the argument a lot, because it pretty much says "yea we are going to see a lot of heavy rain with this phenomenon but it actually rarely occurs for long periods meaning it probably (rains and stops....) which means we probably won't see an increase of rodents.

E. (Was very confused with this one) But this just requires to many assumptions

The global warming caused by air pollution (the same sufficient conditions for El Niño) is going to produce a large number of effects that could affect rodent populations.

Ok for E to weaken you need to assume that these effects are going to affect our rodents in T, also you need to assume they are going to be bad effects and not let them increase the average of rodents. What if the effects make them super human NYC type rodents, what if its a positive affect for rodents and actually increases them more.

Questions or games(75.3 for example) that require you to manipulate a complete sequencing chain really slow me down. Does anybody have any tips or know of any games so I can drill them?.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-75-section-4-game-3/

There is no explanation for this question on 7sage, so I'll just post a discussion that includes my reasoning on how I got this wrong in timed conditions and later right in BR. If anyone finds it useful, great!

RRE question.

In jurisdictions where the use of headlights is optional when visibility is good, drivers who use headlights at all times are less likely to be involved in a collision than those drivers who use headlights only when visibility is poor.

Record shows that making use of headlights mandatory does nothing to reduce the overall number of collisions.

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Why is it that drivers who use headlights at all times are less likely to be involved in a collision than those that only use it when visibility is poor? If in any case, the record shows that making it mandatory does not reduce the number of collisions.

Sometimes repeating the stimulus in a question form that directly addresses what the gap is between the 2 statements is what helps reach the link the gap of what is missing. It is also important to do this in a confusing stimulus because you do not want to lose sight of what you are trying to reconcile.

It is also good to prephrase (try to picture the flaw in a question before moving into the ACs). In this case, because maybe what causes the collision is not necessarily the headlights and perhaps there is another factor that plays a role, and the headlights are just correlated with this.

<><><><><><><><>

AC C: I picked it but I switched to E on timed conditions (wrong decision). C sounds kind of irrelevant but in reality, it directly addresses the question stated above. Why is it that there is a difference between the drivers who use headlights at all times and those who do not? Because the former are more careful, which might explain why they get into less collisions.

AC E: This sounds good at first, but it fails to reconcile the statements. It just gives a reason to maybe why the jurisdiction implemented the law. It does not explain why those drivers that use headlights at all are less likely to be involved in a collision than those who use it when is poor.

There is no explanation for this question on 7sage, so I'll just post a discussion that includes my reasoning on how I got this wrong in timed conditions and later right in BR. If anyone finds it useful, great!

P: The evidence for this explosion is that 45 of the 70 active opera companies were founded in the last 30 years.

C: There has been an explosion of public interest in opera over the last three decades.

<><><><><>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

The author makes this assumption.

The fact that 45 opera companies were founded = an explosion of public interest in opera.

Now, the conclusion seems a lot weaker right? If you could give an alternate explanation to why these new opera companies were founded that contradicts the idea that there has been an explosion of public interest in opera, then that weakens the conclusion, which in a NA question means it is right.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

AC B.- If denied, this weakens the argument which is correct. What if the 45 opera companies that opened did so because some other opera companies shut down? Then that shows that there has not been necessarily an explosion of public interest, but rather a replacement of opera companies in the same market.

AC D.- The premise and conclusion still stand as they have nothing to do with average audience.

AC E.- This does not have to be true for the argument to stand on its own. It could still be the case that not all 45 of the opera companies that opened. The explosion of public interest could have still happened as at least some of these opera companies opened because of an explosion in public interest for opera.

I just want to make sure I’m thinking about this right. I did a game where one rule said if H is in, G is not. And another rule said if J is not in, S is in. So when diagramming, if the slash is through the right variable (necessary condition) it’s always true that both can be out but both can’t be in. If the slash is through the left (sufficient condition) it’s always true that both can be in but both can’t be out (at least one must be in). Right? I tend to make reversal mistakes so I’m trying to make sure I fully understand.

Is the LR section harder to improve on or RC? I do great on the games, not so much on either of those. I have 5 weeks before I take my 2nd LSAT test and need to bring my score up by at least 7 points....please any tried and true methods that would really help someone in a pinch or is it still just practice practice practice?

help can someone please explain why H isn't in 2 for this question?

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

I got this wrong initially by marking down A but the correct answer is E. This stimulus tells us a few things

It can be hard to tell whether adults can be held morally responsible for the treatment they receive because its hard to know if that is on their control or not.

Sometimes people's actions are the inevitable consequences of the treatment they received when they were an infant (and since infants can't control anything they can't be morally responsible for receiving that treatment).

What absolutely MUST be true here?

A. an infant's actions are not on the chopping block here + never is really strong language

B. maybe this is true but it feels really tangential

C. this concept of partial responsibility does not exist anywhere in the stimulus we are operating in a binary universe

D. we know that the statement (people cannot be morally responsible for things they can't control and the inevitable consequences of things they can't control) is true but this offers a false contraposition of that statement (suff - neck confusion)

E. If everyone sometimes performs acts for which they are not morally responsible, that means that no-one should be held morally responsible for every act one performs.

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

#PT94 - S2 - Q15

Can anyone explain options A and B? Many thanksss!

I'm also not sure about the flaw in the stimulus. In my understanding, the stimulus goes as:

I think the flaw in the stimulus is that it takes the illicit negation of the premise to support its conclusion. The conclusion implies that if one could gain some good from the incompetent or evil leaders, one would follow that leader (the illicit negation of the premise). This is why the incompetent or evil leaders bring some good to followers.

If my understanding is correct, I didn't find any similarity to the stimulus in both options A and B.

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

I have been studying on and off for 3 months, I am not sure how to go about studying more seriously. This week I have been working on Necessary Assumption questions (not doing too hot on them) but should I get a good grasp on NA questions and then go into studying for another question type and continue that cycle on one question type at a time? If you have any words of wised regarding this, I will be eternally grateful.

I am a week into LSAT studying, about halfway through the “Causation and Phenomenon-Hypothesis Questions” section, and am wondering when I should start seeing close to 5/5 with BR on drills and quizzes? For the most part, I do well on the videos J.Y. goes over with us as part of the curriculum, but am being absolutely wrecked during drills, even with BR. I have months before taking my first official LSAT (June probably), but am curious whether I should be absolutely nailing these sections before moving on any further, or if I should continue through the syllabus as it will all fall together later on. Thanks in advance!

I think I understand why D is the correct answer choice. However, I am curious as to what you guys think is the best way to approach this question? Clearly using an in an out game board is the best choice. However, this question was hard for me to answer quickly just because it felt like a question that required a lot of trial and error, which obviously didn't work out (especially time wise).

Hi, I’m working on the 12 LR Drilling sections for MSS questions, and I could use some tips for Blind Review. A lot of what I have listened to makes me as if Blind Reviewing would be more effective when doing PTs. But what i’ve been doing so far is watching the explanation videos for questions I get wrong and then writing down why I get them wrong and why the right answer is right. But I still seem to miss a couple questions during each drill. Any tips?

The fourth game specifically I thought was tricky and wanted to see if there are any inferences I missed

Is E the right answer because it is the only choice that addresses jurisdictions that have mandatory headlight usage? Thanks.

I originally put A, I now understand why A is wrong. But I don't really understand why D is the right answer choice and what it means by "supposed class allegiance"

Is anyone in the DC/DMV area taking the lsat before the logic games get removed that still needs to do fool proofing?

I printed out all the logic games from 1-35 with the intent of fool proofing but I didn’t get to it and now I’m gonna take the lsat post logic games so don’t need it. Would love for it to go to someone instead of just tossing it! DM me if you want it!

Hi, for those you who have scored 170 and over on the LSAT, do you recommend doing untimed drills instead of timed drills when you’re in the core curriculum? I just started learning about logic in the curriculum, but I would do timed drills with the time and a half accommodations and get 2-3 questions wrong. Though I would get more correct once I did blind review, and I did that for every set, and wrote down why I got each question wrong and why the right answer was correct. I would appreciate any help!

Does anyone know how to access the giant web outline with all the components that the guy uses through the LR sections it looks like a massive web I would really like access to it to see all the essentials components outlined on a visual field.

Hello!

Could some explain to me why C is correct and how they arrived to the answer? Would also appreciate it if you could tell me why the other answer choices, especially D (which is what I chose), are incorrect! Thank you so much.

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

.

Hi,

Since this has no video explanation for it, I want to know whether I fell in line with the rest when I reached that conclusion. In this question, the author argues that butter manufacturers should be allowed to call their products "Can't believe it's not butter or Skim fat butter" to ward off any negative nuances from the term "Imitation butter". This person cites two reasons to back up one's allegation. A) People should be fostered to consume more low fat butter products because of their health concerns, arising from a high cholesterol level. B) This hostile naming like Knock-off/Ersatz could stave potential consumers off from those well-intentioned products owing to their aversion to the names. In that way, the industry could push people to indulge in more butterfat which could pose a threat to their health (esp. cardiovascular). In order to weaken this assertion, I thought it would be better off for me to claim that this aversion could beget more positive results healthwise for those buyers in the market. What if they, finding those suggestive names unbearably repulsive, decided to find the authentic low fat butter products which significantly slashed the fat content? For instance, they would rather find a real McCoy low fat butter, projecting an image of authenticity,instead of phonier butter substitutes, which happened to have less butterfat in it? People who voted for Trump would rather turn to him to gratify their desires, whatever they might be, in lieu of settling down for his miniature, Ron DeSantis, emulating his extreme creeds. I just thought that it was important for me to tackle the author's point that the negative naming could take a toll on public health because it deters people from purchasing the imitation butter which is healthier for them thanks to the low fat content in comparison with the regular ones. Thus, one of the ramifications was supposed to bear the unexpected consequence that made everyone more robust and hale: cutting off the consumption of butterfat more noticeably than what was expected from the fake butter. What are your thoughts on this? I would like to hear from other would-be legal minds. Thanks!

Doesn't [D] just strengthen the premise that scholars are more likely to study successful businesses than unsuccessful businesses? Can someone explain to me why it's right? It doesn't seem to strengthen the support that being more likely to study successful businesses -> overestimating successes of past businesses.

I chose [E] because it seemed to directly relate to the support. Just because scholar are more likely to study successful businesses doesn't mean that they're overestimating the successes of past businesses... what if they're also including setbacks that those successful businesses had along the way? [E] seems to guard against this potential weakness by saying that historical records actually don't allow historians to infer those setbacks. Why is [E] wrong?!

Doesn’t the right answer [E] confuse necessary for sufficient?! Maria satisfies both of the necessary conditions but that doesn’t make the sufficient condition (being eligible) trigger. If we can't conclude that she's eligible JUST from satisfying the two necessary conditions, then how can we say that she should be granted leave? I thought that was the "oldest mistake in the book." Here's how I diagrammed:

Eligible for leave -> applied at least three months before leave period starts and have one year of paid employment

Eligible for leave -> granted leave