Just want to share my notes/thought process!

Cannot is G4 negate necessary

Good legal system -> well paid

Police well paid -> good legal system

Flips lawgic

A. E. Irrelevant

B. Must is a stretch, we dont care about them

C. Effective is irrelevant

D. Yes, it should be a NC but it switches to SC which doesn’t warrant the lawgic if NC is satisfied

Admin note: Edited title. For the community to better assist you, please include a description of your concern in the title. E.g. PT37.S1.Q12 - Political scientist: Efforts to create a more

Hi, just got really confused on a particular LR question and hope I can get some help, thank you. The question I am talking about is the LR question from PT88, Section 4, Question 24

How is answer B correct? I still don’t see it. Because experiencing trauma is the REASON why you develop PTSD, and therefore you can still say that even though the reason you produce more cortisol is because to resist developing PTSD, it is still because that you have experienced past trauma! (works like a conditional logic chain: trauma -> PTSD -> more cortisol), so B doesn’t actually weaken the argument since it is still suggesting that trauma is the ultimate reason. That’s why I eliminated B immediately.

I am not understanding how D is the correct answer. I actually chose D before blind review, mainly as a gut instinct to look back over later. Upon blind review, I changed my answer to B.

I now understand why B is wrong, as all we know is that many municipalities will choose rent controlled ordinances for short term gain, but there is no way of knowing whether or not they will choose to repeal them when the long-term disadvantages set in.

What I don't understand is how D is not subject to the exact same flaw. I understand that we know that many municipalities will choose rent control ordinances, which in theory would eventually lead to a shortage of rental units, but how can we properly infer that each municipality in that group either does or will actually make it to the point of experiencing that long-term disadvantage? Isn't it possible that they will all repeal the ordinances before shortages become a problem?

Maybe the reasoning is because while it is possible that they repeal before the shortages arise, we should assume that, because they are entirely motivated by the short-term gains, they would not repeal the ordinances before the shortages arise?

If there is a better way of reasoning this out please let me know, thanks! I am probably overthinking this one....

I'm reviewing RRE LR questions. I came across PrepTest February 1997 Section 1 Question 23 (the one about the professor's travel plans) in a drill. Even after blind review, I got it wrong. I know the right answer, but I don't know why it's right or why the other ones are wrong. Can someone explain it to me? I'm not sure where to even start with this one.

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

I’ve been studying for the LSAT for about 7 months now. I’ve seen pretty significant improvements on LG and LR. Right now I’m usually at around -1 to -3 for LG and -5 to -7 for LR. Studying RC has been very difficult for me. I have repeatedly been getting -12 to -15 on RC sections despite putting a lot of effort into the core curriculum and drills. I know RC is one of the harder sections to improve on, but I really just want to improve so that I’m getting around -8 consistently. Does anyone have any strategies for low scorers on RC to improve by a few points? Is it worth it to try skipping the last passage all together and just focus on the first 3?

Hi everyone,

I am currently studying existential quantifiers and although I understand the concept of existential quantifiers, I find it difficult to apply the concept to MBF questions. I've only done a couple of MBF questions with existential quantifiers, but was wondering whether you need to use existential quantifiers for each MBF question? Also, what types of logical reasoning questions require us to use existential quantifiers?

If possible, can someone please reference some questions that require us to utilize existential quantifiers? I would greatly appreciate it! Thanks in advance :).

Does anyone know where you can practice translating for English to logic for inference questions. For example a bunch of question stems for practice and we translate them to logic.

I thought this question was rather difficult but there is no explanation video, so just dropping my thought process/notes here. Please feel free to share yours!

P says ok eventually all mental stuffs can be explained in neurological terms

Explain mental stuffs in neuro terms -> knowledge (neurons and function, interaction, delineation of psycho faculties).

A. It supports the physicalist actually by trying to prove they are right.

B. It does describe

C. Not really, it didn’t use the 2 interchangeably

D. Why do we care about the purpose of this

E. Hmh that’s true, it talks about knowledge (which there are 3 but it only touches on 2).

Just want to share my thoughts and notes:

This formula right here: independence -> progress doesn’t warrant that more independence = more progress, so E is incorrect.

Cultures -> needs independence to replace dependence (natives replace outside imposition) -> progress.

A. anticipated answer choice

B. Staff and students are digging too deep, we’re only looking at cultures as a whole

C. Tailor is too details, not needed

D. Must is g2 so Advance -> prevent outsiders, not really align with the lawgic above.

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

Hi all! I am reviewing PT86.S1.Q21. I understand why we can get rid of answer choices a,c and e as well as the general flaw in the argument being that the spread of organic farming is only a problem for having enough food if all farmers switch to organic farming. However, I am having trouble with what differentiates answers b and d. I know it has something to do with the logical meaning of some and all, and their opposites not some and not all. The explanation video for this question leaves it up to us to think about at the end, but I'm hitting a wall so all help appreciated! Thanks!

When it comes to strengthening causal reasoning, I understand that offering other instances where a cause leads to an effect (cause -> effect) will act to strengthen an argument. In addition, I have read that offering instances where there is no cause there is no effect (no cause -> no effect) acts to strengthen arguments as well. One particular question that shows this logic is PT 66 Section 4 Question 12.

Is it true that (no cause -> no effect) acts to strengthen? I've tried to look into this and have come up with various answers.

I have not seen MP questions that begin with a question at the beginning before this one. I got it incorrect since I put B thinking the conclusion came after the word "Certainly" I am not sure how to get to the conclusion in this stimilus.

So last night when I was in bed I randomly thought of a statement and tried to decipher whether or not it could be translated into logic in a traditional LR question.

The statement is: Excessive yelling and/or screeching tends to deteriorate vocal cords.

Could one translate this as (EY/ES-> DVC)?

I'm wondering if the word "tends" works as a sufficiency indicator or if it's more like a way to introduce an implied (probably flawed) correlation, though not definitely sufficient to bring about the condition discussed.

I think the statement itself would likely serve as a conclusion in any or most questions and it seems like it'd fit better as a flawed reasoning or parallel flaw statement. I have trouble thinking of premises that would lead to an arguer in an LR question coming to a conclusion that uses the word "tends" rather than some stronger indicator unless "tends" really is a sufficiency indicator.

Would love to hear thoughts from others!

What LGs, preferably in/out games, are good for practicing embedded conditional statements and dealing with them when they pop up?

Can someone please explain this to me: “‘or’ does not, in and of itself, exclude the possibility of ‘both.’ Thus, if a rule states, ‘F or G will be assigned to Y,’ it is entirely possible that both F and G can be assigned to Y.”

How???

I know that sufficient assumption questions essentially have a formula you can go by in order to reach the answer. Are there any other questions that I should approach in the same way? Sufficient assumption questions do seem easily approachable/easily mastered by using a formula so I wanted to ask if there are any other question types like this!

Hello,

I am a little confused on why answer choice A is the correct answer.

Why is the answer C and not A?

Admin note: For the community to better assist you, please include PrepTest number, section number and question number in the following format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question"

E.g. PT37.S1.Q12 - Political scientist: Efforts to create a more egalitarian

I put B but am confused to why the answer is A

I was going to take the LSAT in June, but I decided to switch my test date to August, since I got out of habit of studying. Im applying for Fall 2024!

For this question, I chose E in the first round but switched to B in the blind review. I thought B would be a safer choice since the word "criticism"/"criticized" is used by both Murray and Jane. If Murray does not think it is wrong for politicians to accept gifts from lobbyists, why would they assume other politicians should have been criticized? Could someone please explain to me why B is not correct?

Hi Guys,

I achieved a diagnostic score in March of a 130 and in April as well, but my score was still pretty low. I am planning to take the test in October and started studying about May 13th. I really would like to hit the 99th percentile, if possible, but not sure if anyone else has achieved more than 40+ increase. I am studying about 20 hours week and seriously studying, but just concerned. I know anything is possible, but just a little worried that I scored a little lower. Not sure if this is normal. I want to get full-ride scholarships.

Thanks so much! Stay Blessed!

Hi what is a good approach for these questions? I been studying for 6 hours and Im still not grasping it? :(

I had a quick question about a line of reasoning regarding the correct answer to this question. I got the correct answer, E, but for a different reason than what was explained in the explanation video. In the video, the narrator discusses the difference between old people and old people with insomnia and claims that this is where the sample is unrepresentative. However, when I was thinking about this question, I was focused on the phrase "as they age" and the fact that the sample size was those aged 65-81. I thought that it was too difficult to determine that melatonin was produced less as you age because what if it is produced at a lower rate during early years as well, but the sample only included older people? Would this line of reasoning be incorrect? Is this a type of thinking anyone else had?

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

Link to explanation video: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-4-question-18/

Hi guys, I was wondering if it’s normal for LR scores to fluctuate between -13 to -6. Both are my worst and best score on my recent LR. (I have been studying for some time; I’ve finished CC and been practicing tons of drills.) Let me know if any of you relate and if you have any solution for this!