Hey guys, I added the other LR section to my PT this week, and I came across this question. It was a complete confidence error, and I felt pretty strong about the answer I picked. In other words, I don't see how A isn't correct nor how B is correct.

Breakdown of stimulus: Since our calendar system is stupid, certain important holidays don't fall on the same day of the week each year. If the last day of the year and the extra day added at the end of the year every 4 years didn't belong to a week, some of these scheduling problems could be fixed.

What I am looking for: We need an answer choice that shows that a scheduling problem would still exist.

Answer A: What's wrong with this? If you anniversary falls on the day that doesn't have a week or on the last day of the year (12/31), doesn't that create a problem during the years with an extra day? Would the extra day be 12/32 or still considered 12/31?

Answer B: I don't see how this would be a problem. Just don't work every 7th day. How does the new schedule create a problem here?

Answer C: So what? They just have to attend a certain number of days of school.

Answer D: So what? This is completely fixed, I think since holidays will be on the same day every year.

Answer E: Why can't you plan ahead with the new schedule?

I don't get how (a) can strengthen the argument. It says "several species of shellfish and seabirds in the North Sea waters.." but how can being in the North Sea help the conclusion? Isn't it also possible that those shellfish and seabirds died because of the distemper virus, not the pollution?

Economic growth -> Increase agri (+ keep biodiversity) -> abandon conventional agri

Conclusion Econo growth -> abandon conventional agri/modify agri

SA?

A. Increase biodiversity -> /Increase agri

Increase agri -> Reduce biodiversity this is not what the stimulus is saying so non sequitur.

B. This would place biodiversity back in the loop and make it relevant by connecting the pieces of the structure

C. But this is alr listed in the stimulus

D. We dont know this

E. Modify agri -> increase agri this flips the lawgic

In lesson 2 of Assumption and Weakening questions, J.Y. stated, "Bear in mind that most arguments in real life and on the LSAT do not have a valid relationship." A deeper explanation at this early stage will be very helpful to me. I am particularly interested in the "real-life" side of this argument, but also what this means for the LSAT as I work through this section.

Can someone provide a deeper explanation of this statement?

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/good-v-bad-arguments/?ss_completed_lesson=1003

Hi, so I've been having trouble building a consistent timing strategy for the RC section. Sometimes, I think I'm taking too long on certain passages but after I blind review I see that I am like 3 minutes faster than the suggested time. A lot of times I could have taken longer to have a higher accuracy rate, but I didn't, unfortunately. How do I know on which passages to slow down on? I use my intuition most of the time. I find that I'm just as accurate on blind review as on the actual drill or test practice but I want to get better and finish the section on time. I hope this makes sense. I just want to improve my accuracy rate as much as possible with a good timing strategy. I would appreciate any advice.

Can anyone explain their reasoning for PT 3 Section 4 Question 20 - will never understand it for the life of me.

Does anyone know of a good way to practice dissecting the different parts of an argument in a question stem? For example, J likes to highlight, circle, label P for premise & C for conclusion, call out context & referential phrases, key words like thus, therefore, etc. I feel like I need practice with this. Does anyone have any suggestions? Do you print out a bunch of questions and practice that by hand? Is that a helpful thing to do?

Can someone help me find the conclusion in this passage? Its prep test B section 4 question 25.

Could someone help me understand how AC E counters the city officials response?

On another note, I have a tendency to want to set off either the sufficient condition, or contrapose the necessary for 'if' statements in order to prove that they will work, but is that even required for a weaken question or is the 'if' possibility of an idea taking place enough to weaken an argument?

Thanks!

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

PT F97.S1.Q18 – Roseville Courthouse

We are asked to identify the point at issue / disagreement between Mayor Tyler and Councillor Simon. Tyler suggested to build a new courthouse for the city of Roseville in 1982 for a price of 26 million dollars, but ‘now’ in 1992 the price of the courthouse is 30 million. Tyler uses these premises to infer that Roseville would have saved 4 million dollars if the courthouse had been built in 1982, as suggested. Tyler also mentions in passing that the existing courthouse has been overcrowded.

Simon responds by bringing in the topic of inflation: The 26 million dollars that the courthouse would have costed in 1982 are equivalent to 37 million in 1992 dollars. Simon takes this to show that Roseville actually saved money by not building the courthouse. Simon also mentions in passing that the courthouse, had it actually been built, would have been underutilized.

There thus are at least two disagreements in this exchange, one much more overt than the other: (1) Roseville was right not to build the courthouse in 1982: Tyler disagrees, Simon agrees. (2) Had the courthouse been built, it would have been put to good use: Tyler agrees, Simon disagrees. The answer choices are tricky in that four of them purport to get at this first disagreement while not actually resolving it. Only one answer choice, the correct one, gets at the second disagreement and actually resolves it:

(A) This gets at Roseville’s actions going forward, does not directly relate to either disagreement.

(B) This gets at the issue of inflation adjusted prices, does not directly relate to either disagreement.

(C) This gets at the extent of Tyler’s responsibility, does not directly relate to either disagreement.

(D) This does get at the second disagreement and points out one issue where Tyler and Simon disagree: Would a new courthouse actually have been needed / been put to good use? Tyler agrees, as Tyler proclaims the present courthouse overcrowded, i.e. insufficient to serve Roseville’s existing population spatially. Simon disagrees; states that a hypothetical larger courthouse would have remained underutilized. The disagreement is subtle, but definitely present.

(E) This confuses the issue of inflation adjustment with financial upkeep, purports to get at the first disagreement but actually misrepresents information from the passage, in an apparent attempt to confuse test takers who did not select one of the previous answers the first time around.

Takeaway: This is a tricky question in that there are two disagreements only one of which gets resolved. The question stem arguably hints at this by speaking of ‘A point of disagreement,’ rather than of ‘The point of disagreement;’ i.e. the question stem leaves open the possibility of multiple disagreements. Nevertheless, this question demands some reflection. Read stimulus and answer choices more than once to get at the nuance of the issues at play. Do process of elimination for the wrong answer choices. If necessary, flag the question the first time around and return to it at the end of the section.

Why is E the better answer when compared to answer choice D? Would really appreciate someone's insight.

.

Hi, is there a way to choose logic games that you specifically want to improve your speed on without having to take the whole preptest again? I know there are drills for different types of logic games, but I want to choose specific logic games that I want to redo and improve my speed on. Is there a way I can do that with the drill format?

Is the August 2023 LSAT going to be different, I heard online that they are changing the LG section in 2023. Wondering if that was real or not and if there is going to be any change to the August LSAT.

Why is B the right answer for a strengthen if the reverse could also be true: what if those who can copy angles can copy curves just means the other comes first. Isn't the key to the argument the idea that one is before? #help

Hey 7Sagers,

Here's the official April 2023 LSAT Discussion Thread.

REMINDER: Under your Candidate Agreement, you may not discuss the details of any specific LSAT questions at any time. For the April 2023 LSAT, general discussion of what sections you had, or how difficult you found a given section, or speculation about which sections were scored or unscored, is prohibited until after 9pm ET, Tuesday, April 18th.

Posts that violate these rules will be taken down and may result in disciplinary action from LSAC. Let’s work together to ensure the test is fair to everyone, and not share information before everyone has taken the test.

Some examples of typical comments:

✅ The following comments are okay 🙆‍♀️

❌ The following comments are over the line 🙅‍♂️

Good luck to everyone taking the April 2023!

**Please keep all discussions of the April 2023 LSAT here!**(/red)

Trying to figure out where I should devote my energy in anticipation of the June LSAT!!

Hello, everyone!

Taking the LSAT in April, and I'm not feeling too good about it. For me, it seems like time is the real problem. For Logic Games, I can complete just about any game with 100% accuracy, but it takes me ~10 minutes per game. That's not going to cut it. If I skip (guess) the hardest question out of each group, I can cut my time down by a couple of minutes -- but that feels to me a lot like dropping 4 questions. Probably not the best tactic.

If I am being honest with myself, I think that it takes me a bit too long to identify an inference or the effect that one of the rules, in combination with another rule, has on the game. Practice is the only way to get better at this, I imagine.

But are there any tips, tricks or techniques for cutting one's time down on these games? Thanks in advance! You guys are the best, and good luck to everyone!

Can someone explain why the correct answer choice is A for PT 9, Section 2, Question 20?

Hi,

I am looking for some help with percentage/numbers questions in general.

Most of the times I do get the answers right. But usually I hesitate between 2 of the answer choices and in blind reviews I tend to struggle explaining to myself why the correct answer is correct.

With this particular question, PT16, S2, Q9, I was down to (B) and (C). In the end I chose (C) because it "seemed more correct" given that the increase of electrical energy usage was larger (50%) than overall energy usage (10%). I also thought it is difficult to say anything about "other" energy types like in (B) as the stimulus does not give enough information about them.

As you can see, I didn't exactly have a confident reason in eliminating (B) and choosing (C). When I searched online for some explanations, they all came up with hypothetical numbers to show why (B) is not necessarily the case and (C) is. But I don't think I can come up with something like that during the exam under time constraint. So..

Can any of you tell me how you could go about during the actual exam environment in answering this question? Eliminating (B) with certainty and choosing (C)?

Thank you so much in advance!

Admin note: edited title

I got this question wrong both before and after BR and the explanations did not help but I finally think I understand it so I wanted to help anyone still confused like I was!

Here is how I logically mapped it out (I,F, and U mean inviting, functional, unobtrusive)

I & F → U

Contrapositive: Not U → not I or not F

This is the rule which the stimulus says modern architects violate. To violate this rule it would be that it is NOT the case that (I & F → U)

In other words, in order to violate this rule, there must be some case in which there is I and F, but not U

This is where I got caught up, as I was thinking that they had only mentioned that the buildings were not functional, but had not mentioned if they were inviting- but that doesn't matter. For the rule to be violated, it HAS to be the case (MUST BE TRUE) that there is some case with I, F, and NOT U. The other details are unimportant, as the correct answer just focuses on one aspect of the conditions that must be met for this rule to be violated.

Let me know if anyone has another explanation that makes more sense, or if my reasoning is wrong at any point!

The correct answer is A-fails to rule out the possibility that a true belief can have deleterious consequences.

While the AC by itself is reasonable, I am just not seeing how it is a flaw in the argument's reasoning.

I identified the conclusion as the first sentence of the stem, is this where I'm messing up?

Correct: A

Incorrect: C

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-09/

"C" is incorrect because the male population could've stayed the same and the decline of the female population made it equal to the male population. "A" is correct because "proportional" gives relation to the whole population. It is saying that the decline of the female population is a decline in the total population. This takes it from being 2/3 of just females to 2/3 of the species.

Correct: D

Incorrect: E

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-08/

Explanation: "D" makes it where we can't say that the effects go away with age. By saying that the 2nd and 3rd studies were flawed, we can take away the conclusion that is based on those results. "E" doesn't specify how many children slept with nightlights and weren't nearsighted. "E" could have 5 children that were nearsighted and slept with nightlights along with 95 children that slept with nightlights and were not nearsighted. Because we don't know if the other children were nearsighted even though they didn't sleep with nightlights, or slept with nightlights and weren't nearsighted, or not nearsighted and didn't sleep with nightlights, we can't form a conclusion on partial results. It just talks about several older children that were nearsighted and slept with nightlights. That's not enough say that nearsightedness caused by nightlights goes away with age.

I learned a subtle but crucial characteristic of necessary assumptions today, and am excited to share it with you:

Be careful when dismissing a Necessary Assumption answer on the basis of it appearing to be irrelevant to the argument in the stimulus. "Relevance" is more the domain of Sufficient Assumptions. With Necessary Assumptions, the correct answer is relevant in a structural sense, which might not jump out at you without a careful read.

In the rattlesnake question, I saw "food" and dismissed it too soon. I picked A, even though I felt uneasy about it. It felt too obvious. Perhaps a good question to ask of the answer in the NA context is not 'what does it say' but 'what does it do'.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-2-question-22/