Can someone explain the reasoning behind the correct answer

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"

The reason why the restorers want to make an exception for De Volterra is that De Volterra removed ALL layers of paint in the sections of the paintings where he made his addition before he made these additional. This suggests: De Volterra removed not only those layers of paint that people other than Michelangelo had added but also parts of Michelangelo's works themselves. This in turn means: If De Volterra's additions were removed as well, Michelangelo's underlying painting would not be revealed. Instead, there would just be a blank piece of wall, as De Volterra already removed those sections of Michelangelo's work that were there originally.

Making an exception for De Volterra thus arguably makes sense, because even an addition made by a painter other than Michelangelo would seem better than just have a blank piece of wall in the middle of Michelangelo's painting.

I have an issue with AC A because I don't see how the argument's sub-conclusion draws from the stated claim. It seems to me that there is a need for an unstated assumption - something along the lines of "heavy industrial activity rids a region of its natural beauty". The part of the claim about dependence on natural beauty is a necessary condition for the operation of many local businesses. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but in order for the claim to be "direct" evidence for the argument's sub-conclusion, doesn't this sub-conclusion have to invoke the notion of how natural beauty would be tarnished in the presence of industrial activity? Without this notion, there could be many reasons why coal mining would force the majority of local businesses to close, one of which being (perhaps) the more lucrative or stable business opportunity of starting your own coal mine.

Also, it seems to me that the same unstated assumption mentioned above, needed (in my opinion) to classify the claim as "direct" evidence for the argument's sub-conclusion, can analogously be used to classify the claim as "direct" evidence for the argument's main conclusion: if coal mining harms natural beauty, then it seems reasonable to expect that coal mining would reduce the number of jobs since many local businesses depend on natural beauty.

Would appreciate any thoughts on this.

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-87-section-3-question-20/

PT16.S3.12 – Retina Scanners

This argument deals with retina scanners, machines that scan the blood vessel patterns in people’s eyes and stores these patterns, such that the scanners can recognized previously scanned patterns. The author furthermore posits that no two eyes have identical blood pattern vessels in their retinas, which seems to suggest that any given person has at least two such patterns, one for the left eye and one for the right one. The author then infers the conclusion that “[a] retina scanner can therefore be used successfully to determine for any person whether it has ever scanned a retina of that person before.”

We are supposed to identify a necessary assumption for this argument, i.e. an assumption that must be true for the conclusion to follow from the premises. Under timed conditions, I chose (B), which posits that everyone’s left and right eyes have identical patterns. I took this to be necessary for the conclusion to follow, due to conclusion’s scope (the conclusion is about “for any PERSON who ever had a retina scanned,” not about “for any given RETINA that ever has been scanned”). However, (B) seems to be false, for at least two reasons: (1) (B) goes against the information we get in the stimulus, where we are explicitly told that no two retinas have identical patterns. (2) (B) does not seem necessary for the rest of the claim that the conclusion seeks to establish (“Retina scanners allow you to answer the question, has one of the this person’s retinas ever been scanned?”). To make (B) a necessary condition, the conclusion would have to say something like “Even if you only scanned one of this person’s two retinas beforehand but not the other, retina scanners allow you to determine whether either of this person’s retinas has ever been scanned before.” However, (B) is not necessary for the way the conclusion is actually stated; the conclusion never says that the evidence to consider for any given person is a scan of only one of their retinas, as opposed to two.

The right answer choice (A) avoids this mistake by blocking another possible objection: What if people’s retina patterns change over time? Wouldn’t this make it impossible to recognize past scans later on, contrary to the argument’s conclusion suggests? (A) blocks this possible objection by establishing: Even if people get e.g. eye sicknesses, the patterns in their retinas remain unchanged over time.

Hi fellow 7Sagers, while commenting on the September Discussion, I would be thankful if someone can explain to me why answer choice C is wrong and E is right. It would be great if you could explain to me what exactly CPUE mean in the context of the question

I want to try using tougher non-lsat passages to create questions. Each member will be assigned a question type to create with the same passage. Only message if you are serious and willing to commit, as this will require a group chat and a virtual meet-up to discuss approaches. If you can't turn your camera on to engage, and can't commit to meeting times, don't message. Personally I average -5 and this group will be more effective if the average gaps are very wide. From explaining answer choices to approaches, and sharing different way to tackle question stems, diverse averages will actually work best. Planning to sit for June but will reconsider if I'm not ready

How did you guys determine C was the answer for PTB S1 Q23

Hello!

Could someone please help me figure this AP question out? There's no explanation video for it. The median score of someone who got it right is a 173, and I am aiming for a 170+.

Stimulus: "One can be at home and be in the backyard, that is, not in one's house at all...."

Question Stem: "Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship between the argument's conclusion and its claim that one can be at home without being in one's house?"

Answer Choices:

A. (not correct)

B. (not correct)

C. (CORRECT)

D. (not correct, this is the one I chose)

E. (not correct)

Admin Note: Edited. It is against our Forum Rules to write out the entire LSAT question and answer choices on the Forum.

Could someone explain why the correct answer is C? I am so confused

Can someone explain how D is the correct answer to PTB S1 Q16? Is it correct because it simply has no impact on the argument?

I would like to see a video breakdown of this question

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

hey fam - I'm trying to push myself to keep my low res as abstract & structural as possible and less content based. I have a few keywords I listed as a usual "word bank"(listed below) but I am hoping to get help on other words that are better at capturing more nuance that I can have as go tos when working through cookie cutter & totally new passages.

Current Word Bank:

Background (Bg) / Context (ctx)

Support

Oppose

Apply

Main Point (MP)

info/data

Example (Ex), counterexample (c-ex)

Info / application

Any tips/additions appreciated!

Hi guys, I went through the curriculum for necessary assumption questions and I am still not showing improvement in any of the PTs I am taking. I was wondering if anyone has any helpful tips when tackling these types of questions.

Thanks.

How do you differentiate between SA/PSA questions that bring up principles versus Principle questions?

I'm still not clear on the contrapositive since there can never be a scenario where there is no table, according to the rules (Irene buys 4 items), whether the footstool or vanity is in or out. If this contrapositive is a true expression, is it not indicating that there IS a scenario where there is no table AND no footstool? Am I thinking about it wrong?

Contrapositives have always made sense and worked for me in many other questions, except this one. This is why I tried including a conjunction with the X (wood), because I was trying to figure out how to keep the existence of a table apart and separate from the existence of a table made from a particular wood (almost as if it were a 6th furniture option), but couldn't figure it out. I truly hope my question makes sense.

My proctoru indicates I have no break in my test in the rules, I thought we got a 10 minut break after section 2?

Hello everyone! I’ve been improving on my reading ability on the RC section and have been absorbing and understanding the information much better in my drills. I find that my problem are the harder questions. Like I understand the passage well but the complex questions throw me off. Idk if that makes sense but does anyone have any tips on how to counter this?

Does anyone know why the correct answer is D?

Looking to help out a few people who are finding it difficult to improve in Logical Reasoning. If LR feels like your cryptonite and is bringing down your overall score, dm me.

Hi Friends,

I built an app for myself that randomly generates arguments in the different valid and invalid forms we learn in the curriculum. The actual text is business and financial jargon; I tried to mirror the LSAT in terms of content. Anyway, if this would be useful, I can put it in the cloud so others can play with it!

I recorded a demo in the link below.

https://www.loom.com/share/519db74df8ab4eb781c6b95b72e85050

Need someone to keep me accountable for the next two months. Want a study partner to just study in silence with. We don't necessarily need to be studying the same things, but it would help to have similar goals/workloads to keep each other motivated. I have taken the LSAT twice in 2022 and scored a 167 in November. I have stopped studying for a couple months now and hope to pick things up to get a mid 170. I am currently in school but is generally free all days except Tuesday and Thursdays, and I aim to devote ~50 hours a week to study. Add me on discord xtt#8183 if interested!

With the April LSAT only a week away, I wanted to wish everyone who's taking it the best! I'll be taking it for the third time on the 14th and am getting pretty nervous lol For anyone who feels similarly, don't worry, think about all the time you put into your preparation, it will carry you through to the end!

How is D correct?????

Hello, I have been struggling with my timing and accuracy on reading comp.

When I move slow throughout the questions and passage, I tend to do much better with the questions (obviously). I will usually get all the questions right for easier - medium passages/questions, and only 1 wrong for harder passages.

My biggest problem however is that is takes me awhile, and usually in the 35 minutes I can only get through 3 of the passages. I have attempted speeding up my reading / time in questions to reach all 4 passages but my accuracy in questions severely drops in where I may get 2-3+ wrong per passage.

I have gotten much better at low res summaries, and I find that method helpful especially for structure questions.

What is the best way to speed up while maintaining accuracy? I have read previous discussion forums in where people only focus on the 3 passages and leaving the 4th passage for guesses. I have experimented with this method and i usually do way better in terms of accuracy (getting around 18-20 correct, vs 12 - 15 correct). I do recognize I sometimes waste time by checking answers in the passage when I am fairly confident in my memory however, I can't seem to trust it (as every now and then I check to find out my memory was wrong).

Any help / recommendations is recommended, thanks!

I am barely getting these questions correct and i am about to give up. Could someone please tell me your methods for approaching these questions cause negating isnt working for me.