#feedback I think the analyses of the stimuli in this PT is great, but the explanations of some ACs seem a bit convoluted. It's a bit hard to read as a logical explanation and I feel like I have translate it in my head. Not saying it's entirely unhelpful, but it could be slightly cutdown? Although I do understand there are different instructor styles. It feels a bit similar to LSATDemon in that it's fun but I switched to 7Sage because of how straightforward and concise the explanations were.

Never choose an answer that was not supported in some way with the passage.

AC B can be eliminated because the author does not mention that the theory can always predict, rather than the theory cannot always predict the behavior of complicated systems. A lack of one thing does not imply the existence of another thing. Another flaw is the implicit equivocation of two concepts in AC B, complicated and chaotic. These are two separate things.

AC D is also a much stronger choice because it is closer to the purpose of why the author claims the theory is misleading. Look around the sentence in P1. The author immediately after states "such a theory would still be limited to interpreting fundamental interactions and explaining why subatomic particles have the mass, charge, and other characteristics that they do"

Agree that this questions was sooooo buns. Good luck to everyone on the June LSAT #slay

Picked AC B on this one. I see why D is correct, but wondering how to better eliminate AC B.

The author states that the theory of everything cannot "explain "everything" only in the sense that everything is made of particles. It could not predict the behavior of complicated systems like thunderstorms or human beings." I chose this because it also aligns to the theory that the scientists are pursuing, although they do not know that the theory will be unable to predict everything.

My best guess for eliminating this would be that the theory "assumes"- this implies that the scientists know that the theory is not consistently predictable, which is not true. The scientists in the passage do not acknowledge this, the author does.

Ok lol, just figured it out. Ugh

@goblue27 You actually don't need to make a big assumption for AC C. In P3, the author states "Between the extremes of simple predictability and chaos there can arise behavior that is partly linear and partly chaotic" and then introduces cells as an example of a system behaving this way.

From this, we can say that a cell's behavior is partly linear (partly linear and partly chaotic)

Aggressive elimination!

AC A, C, and D don't work because the author does not make any claims about excellence being required for something or that something else is required to achieve excellence. The author mentions excellence only as an uncontroversial concept by the sports public for performance but does not claim anything else.

AC B also claims an unnecessary requirement for judgment and the author does not mention beauty as a requirement for anything.

The only semi-good answer is AC E by process of elimination. If you're being tripped up by the word "serious"- SAME! But in the end, it's the best AC. Also note that this is a principle, not an explicit draw from the passage. The principle definitely underlies Passage A, as one of the claims made is that the sports public has the discriminating judgement for the sport. Why? Well, most of the people participated in the sport and acquired that capacity for judgment. The word "serious" in this case is definitely meant to trick you. Typically, something like this may eliminate the answer, but since there are no other ACs that are anywhere close to true, this is the best guess.

The LSAT is sometimes making that gut decision that nothing else is relatively close, so this is the best choice. It also depends on what the question type is and what can be most reasonably defended.

@ChadC this was helpful thanks! Shows how much a word or phrase strengthens an AC, which is really important for these types of questions

This was such a ridiculous answer choice that it made me laugh out loud on blind review. I crossed it out fast on the timed portion because of the introduction of the new concept, but it makes sense since some deaf people (folks who were born deaf compared to later becoming deaf) typically do not use speech to accompany their communication

It's the best answer out of the ACs.

@doodeedoo inference questions are not as strong as NA questions. AC A is the bare minimum needed to support this question. AC B is too strong because of the words "generally" and "many"

@Zanderantochow - this definition of intermediate conclusions helped me: "It will have a "why" below it (evidence proving it) and lead to a "so what?" above it (the main conclusion it helps prove)."

The statement is not being supported by any other statement.

Try this: The purpose of a law is to deter certain actions by threatening to punish those performing the actions.

Ok, why?

Because This threat works only if potential violators believe that they are likely to be punished.

This doesn't make sense. The second statement does not support the first in explaining why the purpose of the law is to deter certain actions. It only elaborates on the statement in order to support the conclusion.

Imagine the statements as a group. They all add additional support for the conclusion but they do not rely on each other to exist. They are all reasons to believe the conclusion, not each other.

A- author provides examples of effective programming in P4 that would support the success of native language preservations.

B and E- author does not provide examples or implications of what is REQUIRED for the success or failure of the preservation of language. these answers were too strong.

C- no mention anywhere that this was a "main roadblock"

D- no mention of economy or tech in the passage.

Tip: aggressively eliminate answers. even one or two words can make the answer wrong! if it seems a bit off, it's likely wrong, but always check all the answers before moving on to the next question.

If I'm confused about a stimulus, I usually reorder to passage with the conclusion first and then the support.

Ex.

According to NT, you don't need to know what two bodies are made of to calculate their orbit. That's because NT says that gravitational theory depends only on their mass and distance between them.

Missing link: What would make this conclusion 100% true? Likely something that has to do with the new concept of how to calculate orbits mentioned in the conclusion.

Also - Compared to earlier PTs, there a lot more of these questions on this PT's LR than usual:

Sufficient Assumption

Role in Argument

Parallel Flaw Method of Reasoning

Didn't see the different wording used:

"flash pasteurization"

vs.

"intensive pasteurization"

ugh!!

I think it depends on how many hours you study per day and what your score goal is! I've been studying anywhere from 1-4 hours per day for the past 6 months and I'm in the 160s. I work full time so I try to squeeze in as much time possible on the bus, during lunch, before bed. I would recommend drilling every day, doing preptests at least 1x a week, and always blind reviewing any drills/sections/tests. Even if you think you know the content, you also need to master the timing and testing conditions. Hope this helps. Good luck!

#help. I'm confused on why C would be correct if it does not address the gas-fired plant. For this question, shouldn't we be looking for ways in which the waste-to-energy plant is better than the gas-fired plant?

AC C only addresses why it's better than the existing trash incinerator, so aren't we making an unfounded assumption that the gas-fired plant produces more pollution than the waste-to-energy?

What if the gas-fired plant is better in terms of air pollution than the waste-to-energy plant? the explanation for answer B does not make sense to me, because it also says that "it isn't relevant to which new plant we should build." My thought for answer B was there is a need for the waste-to-energy because it will reduce the abundance of waste and produce additional energy to account for the increase of energy.

I'm still confused on two things.

For AC A: how does passage A espouse a general view without providing details? To me, it seems like they expanded on the view provided and how it applies to unjust ownership.

For AC C: how is the approach for passage A incorrect? I interpreted this as the author invoked fundamental ("commonly held") justice principles, adjusted this to apply to unjust ownership, and then recommended that we adjust real ownership to conform to the adjusted principles.

How is this interpretation incorrect, and is there a way to avoid this train of through? I don't see how the approach described for Passage A in AC A is clearer and more accurate than C. Although I do understand that the approach for Passage B is better in AC A.

Wouldn't it be bad to assume that environmental factors include cultural changes or different time periods? I eliminated D because I didn't want to assume.

I was confused by this question because I didn't know if we could infer if the 7 day cycle was referring to the observed weather pattern. Overthinking lol. The analysis was super helpful on this, this was probably the hardest LR question I've come across.

The conclusion is that human activity has appreciable, large scale effects on weather. We know this because the other possible cause, natural seven day cycles, can't cause measurable weather patterns. We can infer based on the phrase '7 day cycle' that the author wants this to refer to the information provided about industrial urban areas: the weather here (cloudier on weekends compared to weekdays) follows the 7 day cycle.

What we are assuming is that natural seven day cycles are the only other possible cause of measurable weather patterns, and if this is not possible, then the other option is human activity.

A flaw in this argument would be to say "well what if there's a natural cause with a 5 day cycle"? That's a gap that we need to rectify, and to do so, we would need to claim that if there is a natural cause, then it must have a 7 day cycle. If this were false, the author could not claim that human activity is the the cause based on their elimination technique.

Depends on how much time you have to study. I have been studying for 6 months for 1-2 hours per day and I'm in the high 160s. If you study 8 hours a hour, maybe you could increase your score faster. 170s may be unrealistic for a month, but if you push back your test date to August, it may be possible. Every point matters in terms of scholarship money, so I would always always recommend improving your score even if it means pushing back your test date.

I noticed your RC is worse than LR. I had this problem until I started doing prioritized untimed RCs, now I am at -4 to -5 per section and steadily improving. It really helps to do a one sentence summary for each paragraph, identify the overall main idea and purpose of each passage, identity the tone and perspectives, etc. Read up on the lessons in 7Sage, they really helped. Good luck!!

#help

Answer A says "some" while the stimulus says "many"

does this affect the answer choice at all? I eliminated A because of this

I've had this issue for a while now, and I recently started studying the basics again, which has helped me steadily improve over the past few weeks. I was doing good on the 1-3 level questions but struggled with some 4s and most 5 levels. I went back to some of harder questions that I got wrong and did a deep-dive of those questions and what exactly I got wrong. Then I went to study those specific question types and took notes of how I got them wrong. I went over the fundamentals of LR, conditional reasoning, and bi-conditionals.

I'm also working on 4-5 level questions non-timed, and then doing a drill right after with a mix of questions timed. Usually if I do a non-timed drill of the harder questions, I can really think through them and understand how I should be working on them. It really is difficult to incorporate the strategies they recommend, but once you get consistent with it, it'll start to stick. Hope this helps.

Good luck!!!

I thought Morgenstern assumed that if Brooks didn’t find their job, they would be unhappy, which is B. That assumption is essential to the argument M made. How is that not the assumption that B mentioned? And I don’t understand how B is describing circular reasoning.