Hey! I am having trouble understanding why A is incorrect. I do see how and why D works but I can't understand why A doesn't.

Here, we are given a correlation between the ad, price increase and drop in smoking. From the correlation, we get a causation that the ad is what caused the drop in smoking.

The flaw here is that the author overlooks all other alternate causes of the drop in smoking. In a strengthen question, an AC that denies an alternate causal explanation wins. For example, an AC that says or implies that X, an alternate cause for the drop in smoking, did not actually happen or that it can't be the cause will be the correct AC. And any AC that knocks out an alternate explanation for a given phenomenon automatically strengthens the proposed explanation.

Coming to AC A which says that the residents did not increase use of other forms of tobacco. Here, X i.e. the alternate cause, is given as people's increased use of other forms of tobacco. AC A denies this alternate cause.

The explanation that the 3% decrease in smoking happened because people switched over to other forms of tobacco seems like a valid alternate cause for the drop in number of smokers. (Cause: people switched to other forms of tobacco; effect: drop in smoking) It is such a small percentage and it is entirely reasonable that people switched how they wanted their tobacco kick. So, "3% people stopped smoking because they had switched over to other forms of tobacco instead" is a wonderful alternate causal explanation. Denying this alternate explanation increases the likelihood of ad causing the drop being true.

I get that D is better because it deals with the alternate explanation mentioned right there in the stimulus but how is A irrelevant?

TIA!

Hey guys, I've been studying for two months now and have learned all the foundations of Logical Reasoning. Currently, I'm scoring between -13 and -8 in the best-case scenario. Should I just keep drilling and focusing on accuracy, or is there another key to mastery at this point? Even with a solid understanding of the foundations, question types, and stimulus identification, I still find the test very challenging.

I PAY FOR THIS I WANT ACCESS......... RUDE

Help. I have an ERROR 404 message on everything I do

I have been studying for the LSAT using 7sage since early June and I was actually starting to improve the first 7 weeks or so. However, this past month my scores have dropped slowly with each practice test I take (a point or so every time). The steady decrease is concerning, as I am trying to take the test in September, and it feels like not a whole lot I am doing to study is working. If anyone has any advice to get my scores up, it would be greatly appreciated!

I have been going through the LR curriculum and get -1 in each section with the drills provided. However, when I go to take my own drills I am scoring poorly, and advice?

I always freeze when I read answer choices that say "takes a necessary condition to be a sufficient condition". I know in the abstract what they each are, but thinking through applying them as flaws is very difficult for me. Any tips?

What do you guys think is better, drilling 5-10 questions on LR with a random difficulty level or drill untimed and timed sections?

What has helped you improved the most?

How have you improved with timing?

I am a very visual person and the test doesn't allow paper. I am having a hard time keeping track of the conditionals in my head. Any tips for figuring out conditionals during LR in your head?

When I read a Reading Comprehension passage, I always look for the main idea, like where the author’s opinion or argument stands. For Main Point questions, does the correct answer always show where the author stands? For example, if the first paragraph supports idea A, but paragraphs 2 and 3 support idea B, will the right answer for the Main Point question always reflect the overall support for idea B?

Hi All,

First, thanks for your time. Secondly, I have watched videos, and supplement videos as well. I have completed all the “You Try” questions and got it all correct.

But, as soon as I attempt the drills, I am not doing very well. Any tips, advice, or notes you can provide?

Thanks in advanced.

How would you translate a sentence into lawgic that has both negate sufficient & negate necessary indicators in it?

Ex: "No entry after 9 pm without a valid ID." or "One cannot bake a cake without flour."

I'm taking the LSAT this week, and I would just like to know when others are planning to do their writing sections. I'm trying to focus on the actual LSAT, but I can't help but feel like the writing section is looming over me. Are most people waiting to prepare and take the writing section after their August test date?

Consider this original statement: "Most people are white." Its negation is: "It's not the case that most people are white." i.e. 0-50% people are white. Isn't this the equivalent of "Most people are not white"?

In contrast, given: "Most people are not white" Its negation is "It's not the case that most people are not white." i.e. 0-50% are not white. In this case, I know the negation is not equivalent to "Most people are white". It's not a binary cut here. Compared to the first statement, what changed? I'm not sure how to think about this.

The question asks us to identify the best explanation for why these birds choose a wooden box. The given answer choice B only explains why the birds prefer the wooden box to "highly concealing woody vegetation" but fails to account for why the wooden boxes are preferred over open grasslands. Answer C seems to more fully resolve the question. Defensive behavior from 'nest builders' ( which I have taken to mean both the birds who next in highly concealing woody vegetation and open grasslands as the wooden boxes specifically wouldn't have to be a built nest.) Taking this assumption doesn't C answer the question more fully than B.

I get the issue is probably that my assumption goes too far. But the LSAT often requires us to make leaps in logic that feel much further than the wooden box vs nest builder assumption I've made here.

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

Does anybody have any helpful tips to improve on RC? it's my worst section

I don't understand the meaning of this phrase when used in answer choices for questions concerning argument flaws. Like does it mean that the argument is flawed because there could have been stronger use of this aspect that was taken for granted? Does it mean the argument is flawed because it drew a weak/misguided conclusion from this aspect?

I have been scoring very consistently (plus or minus1) around a score that I am very happy with for a month and a half now, but yesterday, on my last planned practice exam, I just completely bombed the RC section, resulting in a score a whole 7 points before my average. I knew it while I was in the test. It felt like my short term memory was just gone all of a sudden. LR sections were consistent with my past performance, but I don't really understand what was going on with RC. Has anyone else experienced this sudden lapse in short term memory? It felt very specific, because, as I said, LR felt solid. Any thoughts on how to prevent this on the real thing next week?

Hi!

I'm less than a week out from the august LSAT test and am feeling burnt out and a little discouraged with my PTs. I know that I will most likely have to take the test again in October but still want to put my best foot forward. Does anyone have any advice leading up to the test? Any advice on getting over plateau I am at for Oct test studying?

Can someone explain why E and not B is the correct answer? I am not totally convinced by the explanation given here. This is because the idea that the work is split equally is not explicitly used as "one of the argument's presuppositions." However, the relevance of West's conclusion to the premises is directly implicated as he clearly does not use the relevant evidence (the proportion of correct decisions made by the quality control workers). Any help would be appreciated.

Did everyone else just get a huge amount of content added to their reading comprehension section? For the entire month I've been using 7sage there has only been the science passages section, which I did think was weird. Have I been using the format wrong or was there just a big update..?

Hi all,

I have been studying for the LSAT since March. I started with a 143 diagnostic, and there was a slow and steady improvement since then. For the last 5 prep-tests, I have been scoring between 157-159 (BR 163 - 165) and I feel pretty confident with my skills to be in this score band. My goal is to score between 163-165. I registered for the September sitting which is in approximately 5 weeks. I feel like it's doable and within my grasp. Are there any tips or advice from people who were in my shoes, to overcome the 160 barrier?

I'm doing two sections daily and one prep test a week.

I would really appreciate any advice on studying tactics, warmup, test strategies...etc.

does anyone have an estimate for how many hours the new RC curriculum will take? i planned out my schedule thinking it would only be 8-10 hours but it's wayyyy longer now and i'm kind of freaking out about having enough time to get through it all

It seems like numerous sections have been added to the Reading Comprehension section of the Core Curriculum. Would love some further insight into the update, like what was changed and why. Also, each lesson says it would take only 1 minute, yet some lessons have videos that are 5 minutes or longer. Some clarity on what is happening would be great if possible. Thank you 7Sage team!

I have realized that for certain NA questions, when I try to negate the answer choices, the answer choice gets even more confusing to understand. And I don't believe it is because I am negating it incorrectly, it just that when I negate the answer choice it does not make sense at all. Should I keep in mind that it is better to not use the negation method for certain NA questions or should I force myself to understand the negation of the answer choice?

Example question: PT101 S2 Q17