The question is asking for us to resolve the paradox. Basically, the question is saying that there is an increase in % and a decrease in the total population, and is asking us how this is possible.

Pre-phrase - The denominator (i.e. the total population must have decreased) That way, you have a higher %.

B - This is what the answer is, but the part specifically "in the year before last" threw me completely off. I googled what this means, and it basically translates to "two years ago"

But, how does that resolve the paradox? If two years ago, there was a substantial decline in the population, that doesn't solve the issue. If it were last year, that would totally make sense, but the year before last = 2 years ago which is already provided in the stimulus.

Are they alluding to two different times two years ago? (i.e. Maybe the death happened in the later part of the year whilst the 32 case count was from the earlier part of the year?)

Sorry if I am slow (I know, it's question #1), but that clause was a red flag for me that deterred me in choosing it.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-15-section-1-passage-1-questions/

Hey I just had a quick question and wondered if anyone had some advice on how to get through all 4 passages on the reading comp section. Accuracy isn't really my problem, it seems like time is as I can only complete 2 passages. Any advice? How fast are some of you reading?

Hi!

I'm so confused about the strategy for elimination on MOR questions.

I eliminated b and d straight away reading 'positive'. I thought the answer choice should include words of 'certainty' due to 'we can be sure'. Is my elimination strategy too extreme? I usually do this on method of reasoning first eliminating explicitly wrong answers from several cues, but I think for this one was too extreme to just eliminate right away?

Besides, I usually separate 'quantitative' and 'qualitative' + overall structure cues, and match three kinds of cues to each answer choice, eliminate and confirm. Is this strategy okay?

Huge thanks in advance for someone who can advise me for this questions and overall strategy!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-4-question-17/

I chose correctly during the actual PT but picked wrong during BR. I'm having trouble finding the conclusion in the passage to find the correct inference. I picked AC: A because I thought the other choices were irrelevant.

Can someone help me out here. This question and the way it's worded is giving me a great deal of difficulty.

From what I can gather the argument has two premises – a principle and a fact:

P1 - if competent to pass judgement on a subject → don't lack knowledge of the subject

P2 - Political "know-how" is a type of knowledge learned through apprenticeship and experience.

C - Therefore, if competent to judge whether a particular policy is fair to all → seasoned politician

In my estimation, this argument needs two things: First, it has to show that a "seasoned politician" doesn't lack knowledge of a subject. It does this by making the assumption that "if you have political know-how → you're a seasoned politician;" Second, it must then assume that "political know-how" and "[not lacking] knowledge of a subject" are the same thing. Reason being: Just because you have a type of knowledge, i.e. political know-how, doesn't mean you don't lack knowledge of politics. I feel like AC D then would best encapsulate this flaw.

Does this reasoning check out?

Also, if this question made sense to you intuitively would you mind explaining your thought process when reading the stimulus and identifying the flaw?

Many thanks.

help I'm having an issue in explaining why Answer choice D is a better than A. I feel like A addresses the stem better, what am I missing?

Admin note: Please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description of question]"

Please refer to the 7Sage Forum Rules

Explanation Video: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-2-section-3-game-1/

I will soon finish the CC and plan to fool proof all games from tests 1-35 before I start taking PTs. My question is: when fool proofing, should you BR a game each time you complete it? I realize that, in most instances, you will do a game multiple times and watch JY's explanation for the game multiple times, so should you BR each game each time you complete them? Or should you go straight to the explanation video once you've done the game two or three times?

Does anyone have blind review tips for reading comp? I am struggling to successfully BR that section.

I am a bit confused with this question. This is a classic cause --> effect stimulus and we are being asked to strengthen the cause and effect relationship.

To strengthen, there are three ways:

1/ Show that cause happens --> effect happens

2/ Show that cause does not happen --> effect does not happen

3/ Show that an alternate explanation is not responsible for both cause and effect

A/ What can't this be the third option? Doesn't the fact that there is no greater incidence of kidney disease for folks who have the bacteria in their stomach rule out the alternative explanation that kidney disease was not responsible for both the ulcer and bacteria?

E/ I understand that this is (no cause --> no effect) and is a strengthener, but I picked A since I was moving quickly in this section and to me, AC A seemed like an obvious alternative explanation that was being ruled out.

What am I missing?

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

Can someone explain the justification for the answer being E. Seems like that would makes sense if the stem asks for the flaw in David's argument, but it doesn't.

Hi I was wondering if any one could give me any advice? It's been 3 months of intense Logical Reasoning and under timed conditions I continuously miss 7-10! And then I proceed to look at the ones I got wrong and I don't look at the answer key I simply choose what would have been my second answer and I end up getting -1 to -3. And at this point I'm wondering if I'm just stressed or should be more patient and just get more tests under my belt to feel more comfortable. I'm at the point where when I review the Explanation Videos I can't really write any new notes cuz I'm already familiar with the answer style. I guess one thing that I have noticed that gets me frustrated is I don't really know at times if the LSAT wants me to use common sense logical analysis or deep conditional/causation/Comparison logic. I have literally gotten answers wrong that 91% get right simply because I went down a rabbit hole of being too naive that LSAT would never give an answer this simple. I know that that the first 10 should be easier than the rest but even then I can't help but notice myself get answer right that only 61% got right.. and miss an answer that 91% got right any suggestions???

I understand why D is correct, but can someone give an example of what C looks like in an argument? How would you be able to determine whether the evidence given is "stronger" than what the conclusion requires?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-81-section-2-question-25/

Does anyone know when this supposed to take place?

I have heard that the June LSAT is significantly harder.. is that true? I have heard it from a few people and I am nervous. Also I want to apply for Fall 2022, and it says the deadline is 06/30/22... I got a 136 on the first LSAT (I did not study at all) and I am wondering if law schools will consider my second score if I get it after I apply to law school.

Hey everyone, I was wondering if people had any tips --

What I've found I struggle with the most is close-reading on the LSAT, specifically Logical Reasoning. I tend to zoom over words, or not digest the prompt enough, etc, etc, etc. Sounds silly, but it's definitely what kicks me in the face on difficult LR questions. I'm taking my LSAT at the end of April, and this is still my weakest area after a few months of studying.

Any advice? I'm willing to do anything at this point to fix this issue.

Can someone please explain to me why answer choice C is wrong?

Admin note: Please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description of question]"

Please refer to the 7Sage Forum Rules

Can someone explain this problem to me? I'm pretty lost PT1S3Q11 Logical Reasoning

Can someone help me with these questions. I can't get myself to agree with the answers.

1.Commentator: The quality of health care is declining. Medical schools have been graduating fewer people than are needed to replace retiring physicians. Furthermore, on average, a physician now spends only 15 minutes with a patient on the patient’s first visit.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the commentator’s argument?

(A) The average length of all patient-physician visits is 20 minutes.

(B) More and more people are seeking physicians, thus increasing the number of patients that physicians treat.

(C) Most patients do not like to spend an inordinate amount of time in physicians’ offices.

(D) Five years ago, the average first patient-physician visit lasted 10 minutes.

(E) Most patients visiting a physician are suffering from ailments that are not life threatening.

2.Peterson, the current world record holder in the women’s 100-meter backstroke, has ranked first in the world for seven years. Her performance in recent competitions was disappointing, but during training she unofficially beat her official world record time. So she can be expected to set a new world record in the 100-meter backstroke during the upcoming world competition.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Peterson is widely expected to win the 100-meter backstroke in the next world competition.

(B) Peterson had the flu during a recent competition.

(C) Peterson has also set world records in several

other swimming events.

(D) Peterson is the only active world-class swimmer

in the world to have set a world record in the

100-meter backstroke.

(E) Peterson has in each of the past seven years

swum faster during world competitions than during training for those competitions

I am very confused by this question could somebody help

I was just thinking to myself that a lot of JY's work, especially in logical reasoning questions, use diagrams and logically expressions. But on the digital test, I can't draw or write any sort of lawgic near the questions to help me answer the questions. We do get 5 pages of scrap paper, but I often find myself saving that for the Logic Games in the event that I get a double logic game section. Is there anyway around this limitation?

Please note: I am not asking to literally get around scrap paper limitations. I want to learn your strategy of dealing with difficult questions with or without scrap paper.

Good Evening, Everyone.

Can someone please share some knowledge with me revolving around question 12 of PT.33? My specific question pertains to understanding the written logic, which is used to solve the question.

The lawgic is /S --> J --> H --> /G --> /W. There is an “M” below the J pointing to the H as well; however, what is confusing to me is drawing an arched arrow backward from the H to the /S. Once I have done that, how the lawgic plays out is confusing to me; and therefore, how the correct answer is reached. I have watched the video on this question more than once and I am still confused.

If anyone can share anything regarding this question, I would appreciated it. I hope my question makes sense.

Thank you!

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

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-4-game-2/

Does someone mind explaining why the correct AC is D? Why would this answer be the necessary assumption that the argument depends upon?

Hey, Im working my way through the RC section and have a couple quick questions. For doing the memory Method is it best that I print out the RC questions and do it by hand or is it fine to just look at the screen, read through it, then look away and try to recall? I know this may be a personal preference thing. JY says to flip over the page. Im struggling to get this method to work for me and it seems to be taking me large amounts of time so if someone could give me a little more insight and detailed or even semi detailed explanation into their process that would be very helpful to me.

I went through the explanation video again and realized that my summaries at the end of the paragraph where way to long so I will have to cut that down.

Hi all,

Based on the 4th paragraph, I wanna know how do you tell where the author's tone/ emphasis lies? Through the whole 4th paragraph, it seems to me that the author is simplyly reporting the critics' viewpoint. That is, the author sounds quite detached, IMO. I couldn't see any line or word which suggest author endorese or commit to either a critic or proponent.

Could you please share how do you see this paragraph? Thanks a lot.

Admin Note:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-32-section-2-passage-2-questions/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-32-section-2-passage-4-passage/

I don't get this. I think the method is used a lot when people argue in everyday life. How come this is flawed?

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

Link: Forum Rules