In a nutshell, the developer says there is a country whose strict regulatory rules ban personal property holders from erecting buildings on their plot if any rarified animals in danger on the land. These rules render the existence of those animals a serious fiscal burden on them as their hands are tied businesswise. By virtue of those sacred beings, the proprietors feel reluctant about sheltering them and shielding them from harms. Therefore, endangered species would very likely not be jeopardized, if not better served, if the bureaucratic red tape is peeled off for good.

(A) is not the one we are looking for. Because the author is not mixed up between the absence of a condition or the presence of a condition that is no longer in effect which was designed to protect the endangered species from the outset but would be revoked on the assumption that its absence would not likely to harm them and a condition that would be obliged to avoid the endangerment of those rare species on the land.

B) is somewhat irrelevant. Above all, there is no morality-bound call or moral verdict grounded on fact-based assertions or accounts. In my opinion, a value judgment is like this: it is not ethical for humans to endanger those rarified species further by not protecting their subsistence. But this argument is the opposite of the developer's conclusion. Based on the factual grounds, he/she thinks one could go back on this duty because his assessment projects that this dispensation/waiver/relief does not likely harm those species. It rationalizes a claim based on the alleged facts without a value judgment.

(C) is the guy we have been searching for. This Mr. Right has it all. It, all of a sudden, somewhat irrationally, snubs any probability that even if some factors are prone to engender a presumed effect, they might be likely to beget more powerful countermanding/offsetting effects too. Then the final outcome could be more harm to those animals.

For instance, this suspension of the rule application might put those animals out of harm's way if those landowners just do not do anything about this roll-back except feeling happy about the exemption of the financial liability. However, what if there are other hyenas lurking around to capitalize on this repeal? They could be poachers eager to snare those animals to make money out of them. It could backfire on those animals which are be supposed to be protected in the absence of those rules.

(D) is a bit weird-do. No need to zoom in on those landowners to play a blame game. Those landowners could indeed enjoy the removal of regulatory rules in a different way than anticipated. For instance, once those regulations are rescinded, they decide to turn those animals into their cash cow to rake in dollars. Sure, it is possible. But it is not a flaw that is the most noticeable in his argument. The principal perp is his negligence about considering the side effects or backlash from the revocation esp. from the perspective of those animals meant to be protected by design. That was what his/her conclusion was about.

(E) is a total jerk and a typical A-hole wasting my time. This argument has no bearing on those landowners on whose tract no endangered species live.

Hi,

Do any of you have tips for staying motivated with prepping after getting questions like the ones for the Weakening question drill sets in the Core Curriculum wrong? I always write down why the correct answer choice is right and why I got it wrong, but I keep missing the level four questions.

Eric

Hi,

Could someone please help me with interpreting "except" in this sentence?

In order to encourage personal responsibility in adults, society should not restrict the performance of any of the actions of adults or interfere with the likely results except to prevent negative effects on others.

This short premise is originally from PT 69 Section 2 Q15. The way JY interprets except in the sentence is that "if there is interference, then it is to prevent negative effects on others". I understand this logical transition. However, in the syllabus, doesn't he say that "except" is a bi-conditional indicator? So, will we use "except" as a bi-conditional indicator here to translate the logic?

Thank you for the help!!!! I sincerely appreciate any helpful comments.

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

^^ title

Hi,

I have went through the cc of 7sage a little bit ago, and are moving into the LG section of the cc. However, as many have recommended, I have been trying to incorporate LR drills while going through the LG section of cc. I have been trying to do drills in LR specifically focusing on question types but seem to still be getting a lot wrong even with BR. In addition, I have purchased the Loophole since many said the supplemental material helps a lot. I was just wondering on anyone's recommendations on how to study? (I can dedicate a majority of my time studying since I only work PT as well). (I also have not touched RC at all in cc yet) Should I work through the Loophole before continuing anymore drills on 7sage? Should I still try to go through LR and LG at the same time, or how should I work through both most effectively? Any and all advice much appreciated!!!

I got this one right in BR, but would like an explanation as to why it is the best answer.

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

Hey everone, I just register for the in-person 7Sage course, anyone taking it?

Hi, can anyone elaborate on the math that J.Y. does in this problem in the explanation video? I’m still confused on how he got 200 for one aspect of it.

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

In the lessons about In/Out games there is use of bi-conditionals like J (--) /K. For other prep material they have used a "negative bi-conditional", so J (-/-) K. Do these represent the same things? I assumed they both meant J and K cannot be selected together. #Help

I have an average of a -6 RC and a -1 LR, plus -0 LG. What did you all do to get your RC so good? I haven't gotten a LG question wrong in a while RC on the other hand is a no go for me.

I don't know why but I always struggle with Flaw questions and get 50% of them wrong all the time. It's just not clicking! Does anyone have any tips that worked for them? Anything would be appreciated.

I am having trouble understanding what the question means when asking what is "IMPLICIT in the authors argument"

Hey everyone,

The chaining conditionals portion of the 7sage V2 curriculum (lessons 26 and 27 of Conditional and Set Logic) is quite complicated with little to no explanation on the skill builder. Has anyone used any other resources to help learn this portion of the curriculum? It seems very important, but with no videos or expanded explanations I am having a hard time with it.

I looked into using V1 in order to get more help, but that focuses a lot on LG and I plan to take the LSAT this fall (no LG). I suppose I could come back to this section, but it seems pretty important, so does anyone have any suggestions on how to proceed if 7sage does not have further instruction on chaining conditionals?

Thanks,

Can someone please explain question 13. It's frustrating there is no explanation available. :(

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

Hi everyone ! Is there anyone in the Boston area! I would love to create a study buddy group for those taking the June LSAT

So Ive been taking preptests and I seem to be stuck getting -1/-5 on LR. ITS DRIVING ME INSANE. I cant seem to get a perfect score on this section and was wondering how some y'all are studying for LR or how you went about drastically reducing the number of LR questions you get wrong?

I choose A, I thought it was a Sufficente/ Necessity error confusion, but I can understand that the suttle part is when the argument give us an example of a recent research where flexibility works better than tighten groups if a common purpose is shared, but what if not? That means the sufficient condition is not meat and we lose the necessary condition, so we don't have an argument.

The passage starts with a conditional claim, then there is a shift, claiming that in order for the A ---> B B has a condition, so in order for the claim to be true we need to assume that the condition is true for all cases. That's why AC E is correct.

We need to connect the assumption that the appreciation of the play and the attention, and thats AC B

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

AC A is correct because even though No creative employes are at the company we can not conclude for that that there is not one creative person in that company that it's what AC A is giving us

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

How are you guys approaching RC when doing low res? Since LSAT is digital, you can't write in the margins of the passage. Should we just commit to memory the low res of each paragraph? Or are we supposed to write them down on scratch paper?

I am registered for the June 2024 LSAT. Should I be taking the Legacy mode which has 4 scored sections or the Current mode which has 3 scored sections. I know that the June 2024 LSAT only has 3 scored sections, but the current mode does not seems to have an additional experimental section.

I just took a diagnostic after 6 months of having taken one (no studying in between). I am now ready to start studying with a consistent schedule and take the September Test. The problem is that my diagnostic score 6 months ago which included the LG section was significantly higher than my score from today, which I did without LG. Should I register for the June LSAT and try to study these next 5 weeks (mastering LG) and take it with the LG section, or should I just forget about LG and take it in Sept as the updated test version and take my time partaking on the other sections?

Anyone near the Charleston area willing to study together? I find I focus more when I'm with someone else studying together and none of my friends can help me.

So many people registered for the June LSAT that LSAC has added a new test date.

The June LSAT will now be offered Wednesday, June 5; Thursday, June 6; Friday, June 7; and Saturday, June 8.

LSAT Writing for the June 2024 LSAT will now open on Tuesday, May 28.