Anyone have advice on determining when a flaw question has jumped from a correlation to a cause and effect argument? Each flaw question I do with correlation and causation in the mix, I never can identify when the AC is 'infers cause from mere correlation'. Any help is appreciated! :)

What is the difference, can someone please enlighten me.

I’m having a really difficult time with LR. Is there an approach that works for you when taking the test under timed conditions? For instance, MBT means do this; MSS means look for this. Sort of a guide or plan of action for each type of question.

Hi everyone, I've been rolling around in this question for a very long time and still have some fundamental questions so would be great if someone can confirm my thinking/help answer those questions. Thanks in advance!

Stimulus breakdown:

P: The robots that are being designed are the ones that can be maintained with the least expensive, least skilled human labor possible

C: So robots won't eliminate demeaning work, they're just gonna basically substitute one "demeaning job" for another

In more human terms, the argument is saying that if there are 100 people assembling car parts in a factory (assuming that we call that a demeaning job), then the addition of robots will basically take those 100 jobs and turn it into 100 jobs of monitoring the robots (which they also assume is a demeaning job).

My question: It seems like this question makes us assume that "hazardous and demeaning work" is the same as "least expensive, least skilled human labor." Is this a flaw or is this something we could be allowed to assume?

Answer Choices:

A) Using 2-step test, this does happen in that he ignores that some jobs might be eliminated if the factories don't use robots. But this is not the flaw because even if he did consider that, it doesn't hit on the conclusion that robots are really just substituting and not reducing the net # of demeaning jobs

B) Not descriptively accurate, so fails step 1

C) Descriptively accurate - he doesn't specify what the engineers think but fails step 2 because that's not an issue. Even if he hits on the sentiments of the engineer, it doesn't weaken his argument that the robots are just subbing demeaning jobs and not even decreasing the net #

D) Not descriptively accurate - there's not any fear that's happening here

E) Descriptively accurate and if he did acknowledge that it's possible that 1 robot could replace the 100 shitty jobs in the care factory with just 1, then his conclusion that "robots will not eliminate demeaning work" no longer holds.

My question here is though, is it okay that a weakening answer basically completely destroys the argument? I know we can't attack the premise but not sure where that stands for the conclusion/broader argument.

#help

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

Hey 7Sagers,

Here's the official April 2022 LSAT Discussion Thread.

REMINDER: Under your Candidate Agreement, you may not discuss the details of any specific LSAT questions at any time. For the April LSAT, general discussion of what sections you had, or how difficult you found a given section, or speculation about which sections were scored or unscored, is prohibited until after 9pm ET, Tuesday, May 3rd.

Posts that violate these rules will be taken down and may result in disciplinary action from LSAC. Let’s work together to ensure the test is fair to everyone, and not share information before everyone has taken the test.

Some examples of typical comments:

✅ The following comments are okay 🙆‍♀️

❌ The following comments are over the line 🙅‍♂️

Good luck to everyone taking the April LSAT!

**Please keep all discussions of the April 2022 LSAT here!**(/red)

So I picked C during BR after I had mapped it out using lawgic but turns out E is the answer. I dont really understand why E is answer. Help please :)

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

Can someone help me out with this one? Apparently the correct answer is E, but I'm not particularly able to pin down the argument structure or understand what it is trying to say and why it is flawed in the respect indicated by the correct answer choice.

Thanks!!

(PT9 S4- #13)

J: worked 3 years and will vacation 4 weeks this year

Everyone who worked 1-4 years entitled to 3 week vacation

Apply half of unused vacation to next year.

So it makes sense to me that J had two weeks left over from last year so she got half of that this year

(A) J did not use two weeks in which she was entitled to

(C) J only used one week in which she was entitled to

What is the difference between the two and how can I distinguish them?

I selected choice A, but the right answer is B. Can someone go over the answers and clarify please?

I submitted my paperwork for accommodations on April 7th (for the June test). This whole time it has been "under review" on LSAC and I looked today and there was nothing indicating that I had submitted paperwork. Ugh...I'm super frustrated. I emailed LSAC so I hope they get back to me soon. I never got an email indicating the I had submitted paperwork for accommodations. It just kept saying that they were under review so I assumed they received them. Has this happened to anyone before?

With this question, I chose (C) over (D) due to 'becoming warmer'.

As (b) is eliminated with the same reason, I thought this whole passage doesn't talk about the future, but only focuses on what happened in the past 100 years. I got the detail that "greenhouse is the major cause" should be included, but (c) was more compelling to me as 'becoming warmer' seemed like a huge red flag for me.

I don't know why I get confused and waste time on relatively easy and clear-cut questions for others.

Overall, I think I'm too obsessed with details and words at this point. I tried to build the habit of not loosing details and tried to balance between holding on to the main structure, but now I feel like I have a serious problem of just maybe reading skill in general..?

Hope someone could give advice on my thought process...Really need help to improve on RC

Huge thanks in advance!!

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# (P#) - brief description of stimulus "

Explanation Video: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-84-section-1-passage-1-passage/

I get the questions correct under timed conditions, however, when I do blind review I change my answers from correct to incorrect.

Quick question -

I've just finished the grouping games intro videos on the CC. After watching JY walk through the solutions, I'm wondering, do we always just notate the necessary conditions on the gameboards?

For example, game 4 on PT26 (the lawmakers and scientists with one chairperson) has two not both rules. G -> /V and H -> /Y. Instead of notating G or H in, JY notates /V or /Y in, making the rules irrelevant since the necessary is satisified and the sufficient condition falls away.

In the game with the two boats with three adults and five children, there is a F -> G rule, and the contrapositive is /G -> /F. Instead of notating F or /G, JY instead notates G into the diagram. Once again, the necessary is satisfied and the sufficient condition falls away.

Is this what I'm supposed to be doing in my gameboard setup? Because if so, this might cut down some time while I'm doing games and even get my head straight when I'm doing the games.

If anyone has any advice on this, please let me know. I'm struggling most with just the gameboard set up (for most games) - as soon as I accomplish that, the questions are ridiculously easy.

I've completed Logic Game PT 1 - 52. Would you recommend I continue to do more recent PTs or redo the one I've already completed? I miss about 7-8 questions for a complete set (4 games) with timing (30 mins). When doing a blind review, I still miss 2-3 questions.

I'm preparing for the 2022 June LSAT. Any advice would be appreciated!

Hello all,

I was wondering if anybody could give me advice on Logic Games. I’ve been taking PTs everyday since April 11. And my test date is June 11. I’ve been seeing a slow incline and sometimes I’ll stagnate in scores. But I think it’s because my LG section is always really poor and it brings down my score.

Are their any strategies y’all would reccomend me do? Should I focus on LG during the week and then take PTs on the weekend?

Since my Best score so far on PTs is just shy of 8 points of my target score for the school I am looking at. So I think if I can just improve on LG section, then I’ll be able to get it on test day.

*PS, any of y’all watching the new season of Better Call Saul so far? Cuz I’m loving it! Haha

For those who have fool proofed, did you fool proof games that you completed in under the target time on the first try? So far I've still been doing each game 4 times (following the Pacifico method) regardless of if I completed it in under the target time on the first try, but I'm not sure if it's necessary.

Does anyone know which PT this game is from?

The one with 7 sequencing slots and three kat and puppies, each different species!

I totally screwed up this game set and want to redo it

No getting how the answer choice is right at all.

help can anyone explain to me why B is correct? Isn't B strengthening the argument?

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

help why is the correct AC correct????

Can someone explain the reasoning behind answer choice (B)? I'm not 100% sure why oxygen-18 in seawater is increased, not decreased.

Thanks in advance! :)

I missed the March PowerScore Crystal Ball and on the recent LSAT podcast they said the predictions might be helpful for April as well. Please comment if you have any tips or suggestions noted down from the Crystal Ball!

Posted this as a comment under the Problem Set, but am really unsure of why my reasoning is incorrect so looking for help. Won't add the question here so it doesn't act as a spoiler but I've referenced the question in the post title.

I've pasted my comment below:

"My only qualm with the elimination of E is that if there's a possibility for an earthquake to never happen, or happen less frequently, is that not safer than one that just occurred, but won't for another 99,999 years? I've tried to show my thinking with the comparison below:

Nuclear site 1: 1 earthquake every 10 million years, last occurred 1 million years ago (definitely before living memory).

Nuclear site 2: 1 earthquake every 100,000 years, last occurred yesterday.

Even if an earthquake just occurred at Nuclear site 2, the next one would still occur before the next one at Nuclear site 1. In this case, it would not be safer to build at Nuclear Site 2, even if an earthquake just occurred at site 1?

I understand why C is necessary, but given the reasoning above, don't see how to rule out AC E."

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-2-question-21/

Anyone here in their 29/30 studying for LSAT?

Hello everyone!

First time LSAT taker here. Taking the April LSAT on Friday morning. My RC and LR scores are reasonable enough, but I’m getting killed on LGs, mostly due to timing with constructing diagrams. Pretty last minute…but does anyone have any suggestions for the best method to fix this? What’s the best resource to utilize for strictly LGs? I’ve been focusing on practice LSATs and volume of questions…is this efficient? Thank you!