Do you guys go in order when answering RC questions? Would be appreciative if someone could give me examples of their strategy. At a bit of a RC slump.

Could someone explain their thought process in getting the correct answer? I debated between A and B and eventually settled for B because I thought the very last line is the Conclusion. #help

Hi! Could someone please explain why E is the correct answer? I would love to see everyone's understanding/explanation! Here is what I thought, which turns out to be incorrect but I still don't get why E is right.

PaI - Disagree over Interpret which news is newsworthy

S: Reporters pick which events they want to report (newsworthy) and for how long is the reporting, so they always interpret the news (preliminary)

Ramon: Reporters -> /Interpret the news. Once they decide a news is newsworthy, they better give me the full info.

So Sarah says the act of considering which news is newsworthy is already the beginning of interpretation, Ramon says the interpretation begins after a news is decided to be newsworthy.

A. Every time they report it? They might or might not, this is digging too deep

B. Sarah disagrees, Ramon agrees “once they deem a story to be newsworthy”

C. Irrelevant

D. Ramon no comment, he only cares about newsworthy

E. Ramon no opinion

My thought process in getting the correct answer:

High blood cholesterol -> increased risk of stroke by blood clots

Low blood cholesterol -> increased risk of OTHER stroke by cerebral hermorrhage (how? Low bc weakens artery walls, making them easy to rupture).

W diets better protect against cerebral hermorrahe (low bc) than non-Western

Assumption: W diets decreases low blood cholesterol (aka increases blood cholesterol, making the artery walls not weakened, less likely to rupture).

NC

A) Healthier is vague, we dont need this to be true

B) Anticipated answer

C) High blood cholesterol level PREVENT weakening of artery walls.

Negation: if high blood cholesterol doesn’t prevent weakening of artery walls (cause of cerebral herm), then high blood cholesterol increases (or has nothing to do with) cerebral hermorrage. This just wrecks everything the stem says, but it doesn’t tie to the diets argument part.

D) Who cares which one is more deadly

E) low blood pressure is irrelevant, were talking about blood cholesterol

Can anyone explain why B is the correct answer?

I crossed it out because on the surface, it seemed irrelevant to people's moral beliefs. B elaborates on the moral content of broadsides in detail, but how can this be an alternative explanation for people's subscription to broadsides? Instead of B, I chose E, which says well educated people who read broadsides hated broadside peddlers. I thought E showed that people don't necessarily read broadsides guided by their moral beliefs.

However, now I see why E is wrong. The "well-educated people" in E doesn't represent the "most people" in the conclusion. Also, those well educated people hate the "peddlers" who distribute the broadsides, not the broadside itself.

I picked E because I thought it eliminated an alternative explanation by showing that the population drop was not because the beetles were eaten by their predator. I immediately crossed over A thinking it was totally out of scope. My thought process was: the stimulus talks about the number of beetles "spotted" in 1985 and 1989, so why would their camouflage matter anyway? Is E wrong because it can't explain the "difference" in the number of beetles in those two years? Can anyone explain how A connects to the stimulus?

PTB S1 Q16

Hey! I remember reading somewhere or learning from an explanation video that in disagree questions each author must explicitly state the answer choice in order for it to be correct. Therefore, an answer choice wouldn't be correct if only one author discusses it.

Here is the question I am stuck on: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-3-question-19/

The correct answer is B. I eliminated all of the answer choices discussing emigration because Raphaela doesn't discuss emigration. Could someone provide more insight into their method for disagree questions?

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question" Also, please do not post the entire question and answer choices for the LSAC question, this is against the Forum Rules

I think I've started to notice a pattern in my wrong answer choices. The answer that I get wrong on LR is often the one most people choose when they get that answer wrong. So am I just falling for the top trap answer, or something more deeply concerning? Often the correct answer choice is a better articulation of the wrong answer that I find myself thinking "that's what I thought WrongAnswerChoice was saying," it just turns out that I fall into the trap.

How can I overcome this?

Reading the stimulus, I thought there was the following logical gap in Anita's claim:

having a quandary about newsworthiness(the premise) and the guidance being inadequate(the conclusion).

So I picked (D) since I thought it meant the contrapositive of my pre-phrase. However, is (D) wrong because of "ethical dilemmas" since the stimulus refers to quandary specifically related to newsworthiness?

Also, is (E) wrong because of making a "professional decision"?

Then, why is (A) the correct answer?

I hate to start a new thread for PT June 2007, but related threads seemed so old I wasn't sure if anyone followed those. I've been here since February, decided to get a feel for the curriculum first and took the 2007 PT today. Syllabus wise I am only through the Causation and Phenomenon-Hypothesis section. On the PT, I ran out of time in the LG section and did not even complete 8 of the questions. Therefore, I did not see a reason to BR the LG section as I do not even know how to attack these questions yet. After I work through LG eventually on the syllabus, can I go back and BR this section of the exam? Or once I "complete BR" there is no going back and would I just have to retake the exam?

When should I take my next practice test after this one listed in the syllabus? Should we not move on to other practice tests until we've been through the syllabus first? After seeing my performance on this baseline, I want to maximize my efforts on any future tests. I am determined that there really is no place but up from here.

Just a friendly reminder to read every single word throughout the stimulus and the answer choices. I blind reviewed this question for FAR too long and ended up not really seeing a clear difference between any of the answer choices. When something is not adding up and you feel like you are just throwing a dart between two answer choices - you are doing something wrong. As obvious as it sounds, misreading something or glossing over, just as I did, will be detrimental to the whole question.

What I did was gloss over the word "urban" several times while reviewing and my brain just translated it to "rural" for some reason. This one word completely changed the entire questions for me.

But anyways, READ EVERY WORD.

can someone help me understand this; i legit couldnt even get through the stimulus

Hello, I've created a discord for all students taking the August or September 2023 LSAT.

Here's the link: https://discord.gg/XhaYVT7z

PM / inbox me if the invite has become invalid.

Thank you!

No matter how many drills I do and how much I study reading I always get the same amount incorrect on all my practice tests which is about -11 and -12. My LR and LG are much less than this and I don't know how to get more right on reading. When I read the passages, I don't feel extremely rushed or even confused but when I go to review my test I just seem to get many questions wrong. Any suggestions??

On my diagnostic LSAT, I scored a 148 score -- but I completely skipped every logic games question due to how foreign and confusing it was to me. If I master logic games without improving on any of the other sections, how much of a score increase can I expect? Thank you much!!

Hi all! What is your thought process/explanation as to why A is wrong?

Admin Note: Edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description of stimulus]

Hi, I noticed that I am unable to see the difficulty level on the logic games I had done on PT. Is there a way I can figure out the difficulty levels?

I watched the first dozen lessons on reading comprehension and already I've improved. I would typically miss 3-4 questions in a batch of 7-8, and now I'm only missing 1/8, albeit, the most difficult question of the passage. So far, I'm very impressed with the lessons on here. Super helpful!

So I have an LSAT date for June 9th. I studied for a month prior to this on my own but ofc I am not ready. I signed up for this 2 days ago and I realize how I am getting improved and I love it. Should I cancel the test and study ton and take in October? I know I am not going to be ready but I was thinking since the year cycle is ending might as well go and see what it feels like, and then I will have three more options again since the cycle reopens in July, but I know I will not be ready for it. So cancel or not? If I do it today, I will get partial refund at least.

Here was my original notes:

this argument feels wrong ... like... it tells us that land life began NOT 0.5 billion years ago but probably like 1.2 billion years ago (implying this) due to some rocks with carbon 14... and these carbon 14 CAN be made from plants taking stuff from the atmosphere blah blah, which obviously implies (plants are living things presumably on land, unless answer choices talk about some underwater plant taking atmosphere??) there was life on land 1.2 billion years ago.

Find the choice that does NOT strengthen.

(a) finding fossils that are dated more than 0.5billion years old does help the conclusion that land did somehow begin 0.5 billion years ago.

(b) has a statement about how it was extremely difficult for life to begin in olden time oceans... This seems to strengthen, because our conclusion is trying to REFUTE the fact of life beginning in the ocean. However, just because life would be difficult back in the ancient days, doesn't mean it can't/wouldn't happen?... I don't see how this would strengthen the premise which states, namely: "oh my gosh, we found these rocks with carbon 14, and we know carbon 14 can be from plants, and these plants were 1.2 billion whatever, therefore land existed during that time"

But then again, I can't ELIMINATE this answer choice YET. I will read on, and if the remaining options, suck I'll pick this.

(c) basically tells us that this rock had the possibility that 1) it had contact with water and 2) that it also had parts that did NOT have water

I initially thought this was weird. Like why would this matter? But then if you think about it... the premises never talked about the origin of the carbon 14 of rocks. We just know that its there. The carbon could have came from like fish or something in the water. The premise only talked about plants, but it doesn't eliminate the chance of other things. So this statement strengthens.

(d) the answer choice says that the carbon 14 on rocks came not from plants but from soil and stuff. This directly supports my above point.

(e) if uranium testing shows that the rocks are ACTUALLY 1.2 billion and not some ERRONEOUS number then we are good.

Upon reviewing... reading my explanation for (d) is funny because its the SHORTEST most COP-OUT explanation known in existence.

Like now, I'm re-reading, and I feel stupid . If these carbon 14 thingies didn't come from plants (a living thing) but came from soil (obviously not living)... wouldn't it weaken my argument? Because this would show that rocks with carbon didn't come from living things, but from a non-living thing.

I think what happened was I said "like my above point" (pointing at the fish and stuff), but somehow was totally engrossed in the origins of the carbon 14 as opposed to whether the "origins" had any LIFE in them.

I just bought this course today.

The question I have, therefore, is... JY tells us that we use blind review to improve and ensure you don't make the same mistakes in the future.

I'm just confused about what exactly I'm supposed to be taking away from this analysis. It feels like I just merely "misread" or "focused on the wrong detail"

These ^ feel like stuff that I can't just "take away" and apply to other problems?

Hello all. This is from the trees game in prep test B. When applying the rules for embedded conditionals from the core curriculum, I come up with the following:

/Y → (L↔/O) = /Y and L ↔/O This could also be read as: /Y and O ↔/L

Contrapositive: O↔/L or Y Is this correct? It doesn't seem to make sense in the context of the game.

However, in the explanation of the game, the contrapositive is treated as a forever together biconditional

(L ↔ O) → Y or (/L↔/O) → Y

What am I missing here?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-b-section-2-game-2/

I just finished going through my main point and most strongly supported lessons, and still feel like I dont have a complete grasp on either of them, and that while I understand how to eventually get to the answer, I am not consistent with it and struggle BIG TIME with timing.

I am getting a bit discouraged as I feel it should make sense before I move on..

I was wondering if I should have it all figured out by now after completing these units and not move on until they make sense? Or if they are just a preview of information, and as I continue to progress through the lessons, they will make more sense with time?

Thank you so much for any help in advance!

PT5 S1 Q09

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

What is the difference in process & identification between these two question types? I feel like in parallel method you identify the flaw as a means of finding its match - so i dont really see how they are different. Can someone help me understand?