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/

Free will is not applicable in determining responsibility for all situations (its not a one size fit all equation).

We hold criminals responsible bc they cause damage out of free will.

We do not hold drivers (driving while heart attack and cause damage) responsible, even though the heart attack could be prevented from diet (free will).

A. Itself is not a conclusion

BC. Not “Should”

D. Not true

E. Maybe, saying that we do not apply free will equally to all situations (i.e both criminals and drivers under heart attack both stem from free will but they have different outcome).

Hello everyone! I am new to 7Sage. I am writing because I work a full-time job from 8:15am to 4:30pm. I have to wake up a 4am which kills me. I take the train to work every day and i get home at around 7pm. I am tired from work, and I do not have time to do anything but get my clothes ready and go to sleep. Do you think the studying for the LSAT just on the weekends would help. My goal score is a 167. During the week I just do not have time and I suffer from migraines and sleep apnea. I need some advice. I plan to take the November LSAT. What do you all suggest?

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!

I have been reading and hearing a lot that there are patterns to this. Can someone explain to me what that means? I can see how it relates to LG but confused on the patterns for LR.

Hello! Would anyone be down to take LR drills and review them together over Zoom?

"A is good if it satisfies B." How would you guys translate this? B --> A? or A--> B?

I feel like without translating it as A-->B, it's impossible to get the right answer.

Admin note: edited title

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?

I got this question correct but have no idea why C is the correct answer. Can someone explain?

Admin note: edited title

This necessary assumption question discusses the treatment of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) with a newly developed drug. CFS is associated with three different symptoms, and we don’t know if these symptoms are the effects of only one virus or of multiple different ones. Tests of the new drug indicate that this drug lessens the severity of all three CFS symptoms. The stimulus takes this to provide evidence to the effect that CFS probably is caused by one single virus, not by multiple different ones.

Pre-phrase / anticipation: We need an assumption to the effect of ‘If a single treatment lessens all of a given syndrome’s symptoms, then it is more likely for this syndrome to be caused by a single virus than by multiple ones.’

The pertinent answer choices are (B) and (D). (B) states: “It is more likely that the new drug counteracts one virus than that it counteracts several viruses.” This matches the consequent in the anticipated assumption but leaves out its antecedent. (B) thus does not make the argument valid and would fall short of being a sufficient assumption. But is (B) necessary? If negated, (B) would indicate that it would be equally likely or even more likely that the new drug affected several viruses. This is not at all what the author is trying to argue and thus would seem to rob their conclusion of any support.

(D) states: “Most syndromes that are characterized by related symptoms are each caused by a single viral infection.” This in itself might be right, and arguably (D) would be a good strengthen answer choice. (D) gets at the conclusion and points out parallel cases where similar correlations have been observed as well. A number of things seem off though: (1) Do we know that the alleviated symptoms in fact are ‘related,’ as this answer choice suggests? We certainly know that they all are effects of one or more causes, but does that also render these effects related to one another? (2) The conclusion in the stimulus takes the results of the experiments with the new drug to provide evidence to the effect that CFS has a single cause, but (D) does not contain a connection to these experiments. Instead, (D) is just making a general claim that arguably strengthens the conclusion in isolation but that does not also connect it to the other parts of the argument.

As an NA answer choice, (B) thus seems better than (D). (B) is essentially saying: In probabilistic terms, the new drug’s acting on three different effects indicates that these three effects likely have a single cause rather than three different ones. By contrast, had the drug only affected two of CFS’s three symptoms, it would have been likely that there are at least two causes for CFS, one virus that triggers two of its symptoms and another virus that triggers the third one. (B) is thus hinting at a sort of appeal to simplicity behind the author's reasoning. The author seems to assume: If two different hypotheses about the causal relationships behind a given correlation are possible, the simpler hypothesis is more likely correct.

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!

Can someone please explain why C is right? What is the type of theft? #help

PT5 S1 Q09

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

I had this question right initially but doubted myself and switched the answer during the blind review.

Can someone please explain?

I am having hell of a hard time figuring this one out; I have 3 issues here:

If the press were not profit making the only alternative is subsidy and with it outside control

1)I was thinking: NOT profit making------> Subsidy and Outside control

but then I remembered "the only" is group 1 indicator and I changed my diagram to:

Subsidy and Outside control--------> NOT profit making

and of course this does not lead to the right answer choice...

2) what's up with that AND? which one is right?

Not Profit Making--------> Subsidy & outsideControl

or

NOT profit making--------> Subsidy--------> Outside control

and then link either with Subsidy -------->NOT honest Journalism

3) Am I making this harder that what it actually is? I keep diagraming LR questions...

I am struggling to understand how this answer is supported by the stimulus. To run through my thoughts:

A: irrelevant, there is nothing about clams in the passage

B: irrelevant, we are not discussing the mussels spreading to the Mississippi or the effects on the pear industry

C: we don't have any information about removing the mussels from the areas they clog

D: This is the one I picked though I went back and forth between D and E. I picked D because it seemed to be the most related to the stimulus. The stimulus talks about how the mussels clog the intake pipes at the beginning and then transitions to talking about how bags of mussels suspended in discharge streams help clean water. I assumed without proof that the algae would just clog intake pipes as well.

E: This one seems like a logical conclusion, but I didn't think there was enough direct support in the stimulus to justify this conclusion. It seems like quite a jump to me to assume that the mussels will need to be discarded as hazardous waste.

Any advice or help on making the assumptions that need to be made in MSS problems? #help

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 copyrighted content and is against the Forum Rules

Potatoes -> has solanine (poisonous in large quantities) -most-> solanine in the skin.

Domestic potatoes -> has small quantities (so not poisonous)

Wild potatoes -> poisonous level of solanine (must be in large number).

So peeled wild potatoes =safe= unpeeled domestic tomatoes

What to warrant that the wild potatoes fall within this MOST group where the solanine stays in the skin?

A. So the amount of solanine in the skin of wild potatoes is more than the skin of domesticated potatoes. So peeling the skin of wild potatoes wouldn’t make it safer to eat than domesticated potatoes? Not at least as safe as

B. So removing this means removing the poisonous part.

C. So the peeled wild potato has the same amount of solanine as an unpeeled domesticated potato. Yes, as safe as.

D. Why does this matter.

E. Size doesn’t matter, its the quantity of solanine.

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

can someone explain why D is the right answer

For the past 10 months I've been studying part time for the LSAT. Out of all the sections, RC has consistently given me the most trouble and has been the most difficult section for me to improve on. From my diagnostic test to now, I've only been able to manage going from -15 to -10 (sometimes -8/-9 on a good day). I'm at a loss and I'm not sure what else I can do to improve. This section has been holding me back big time and is part of the reason why score fluctuates so greatly. If anyone has any tips on how I can improve, study, and review this section better, please let me know. I think my biggest issue is not having a strategy when going into RC and immediately feeling intimated/nervous about completing the section. Any advice or words of encouragement would be appreciated.

Hi Friends!

I'm wondering when I should use the lawgic notation vs when not to use it.. sometimes it's less challenging for me to rely on intuition + general understanding than to draw the relationships.. and the thing is that often times by the time I figure out that I need to use lawgic - it's already too late and I need to pass over to the next question..

any thoughts??

Thanks!!

Hey y'all

Writing in here to see if anyone has any advice for making gains on RC - Reading Comp:

I'm taking the November test as my last session before applying, and have not been able to figure out how to improve on RC. On average, I score perfect on Logic Games, and I average 1-3 wrong on LR; which are immense improvements from my original diagnostic range of -4 and -8. For RC however, my gains are not where I would like them to be. I started out in the 8-12 range (terrible I know) and have been able to trim that down to 4-7. Although I have made some solid progress, it just seems like i'm missing something on RC and this is costing me a T-14 score. For LG/LR, when I get a question wrong, it's almost always due to a mistake that I am able to recognize and internalize. I am also able to address the areas that I struggle with, and can address them accordingly. For RC, I realize that there are a couple questions on RC that will simply be too difficult for me to get right. However, my issue is that I continue to miss out on questions that are 50/50, and seem to be making a lot of the same mistakes on the same question types, even after Blind Reviewing for hours. After almost two years of practice, my time spent on passages has barely improved. I average almost 4-5 minutes on the passage, use the highlight functions to a large extent, and occasionally jot down Low-Res summaries for paragraphs.

At this point, i'm not sure if I can say that my issue is a practice thing. I just wish there was some way I could hone in on RC through some supplemental means, resources, courses, books, or exercises that could give me some tips and pointers.

If anyone has any advice that helped them improve on RC, any supplemental resources that they could recommend, or a general diagnosis for my situation, I would appreciate it tremendously.

Best of luck to all of you guys on your Law School journeys, keep grinding!

Why is the answer to this question C and not B?

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

This was a toughy

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"