- Joined
- Jun 2026
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Discussions
it is a premise. Just not relevant for the question (video goes over it)
I thought of it like this
conclusion: Smith herself is not aware of the true meaning of her own words
why?: true meaning of an author's statements can only be understood through insight into the author's social circumstances (this is from the premises)
So, we need an idea (the sufficient assumption) to connect these ideas and show that the conclusion exists because of the why statement
The assumption is: Smith is not aware of her own social circumstances . this matches to answer B
I thought of it like this.
The conclusion is that: at least one city council member should vote against the proposal.
and why is this the case? well, the author of the stimulus (the activist) says: if all the city council members abstain from voting, the matter will be decided by the city voters.
So, we need something to link the idea that BECAUSE all the city council members abstaining will mean the citizens vote on it, then at least one city council member should vote against the proposal.
I came up with: The activist does not want the city's voters to decide the matter. This matched pretty close to answer choice B.
I tried in my head to make the sufficient assumption between the premises and the conclusion, then find it in the answer choices.
I know these questions are hard, i'm having trouble with some of them too, but this one was clear to me so I hope this answer helps!
I am sacrificing both while studying for this test rn (got the question tho after 29 mins!)
I thought of it this way
The stimulus said " A similar privatization of telecommunications industry has benefited consumers by allowing competition among a variety of telephone companies to improve service and force down prices".
So the author is saying "hey, privatization has benefited consumers by allowing more competition, that lead to X and Y, which benefited consumers.
So the benefits are caused by allowing more competition. If that is true, then E is correct, because if privatization of national parks produces less competition then privatization of telecom industry, it weakens the argument, because the author is basing the idea to privatize national parks with the hope it can be competitive. If there is less competition, it weakens his suggestion
I'm sure many others picked B, I almost picked it. But I rejected that trap answer because after reading it, I thought, what does it really mean? It means that
Many new products fail when they are supported by marketing campaigns
Many new products fail when they are NOT supported by marketing campaigns.
the first point here is important, because in the stimulus the author explains "one way to save it would be a new marketing campaign. This would not guarantee success".
SO here, the author is already admitting that the product might fail even with a new marketing campaign, so success is not guaranteed.
The reason this is a wrong answer is because it does not weaken the argument, it just explains something we already know the author admits from the stimulus
same, but accuracy is the most important in this setting since the focus on these questions is getting it right, not trying to optimize for speed
On 7sage, there are difficulty ratings for each question, 1-5.
How many of each are on the actual LSAT? 20% of each difficulty? or mostly level 3-5 questions?
I'm interested to know so I can better expect what the actual LSAT will be like
All good, I get it, I sometimes struggle between two answers. All you can do is just keep studying and learning, and it will come with time and practice!
focus on accuracy, timing will come as you get better with the questions
This is a good sign because you are not struggling between 5 answers or 4 answers. You already narrowed it down to 2 which is good. Next step is always remember there has to be a correct answer and has to be 4 wrong answers. If you think "oh i guess both could be correct" that wont work
Hello,
this is how i undesrtood it
For A, B, C,
The question is trying to trick you to think "proof of emergence" means it caused the emergence.
Proof of emergence is the result. So the idea of the individual free agent in greek society was already emerging or existing, and this drama captures that the idea of the individual was emerging. the drama did not introduce the idea of the individual free agent in greek society.
D is correct because it captures this idea, that the drama reflects an idea already existing in the society.
for E, it is incorrect because they did not discuss relations to the modern western world.
For A, B, C,
The question is trying to trick you to think "proof of emergence" means it caused the emergence.
Proof of emergence is the result. So the idea of the individual free agent in greek society was already emerging or existing, and this drama captures that the idea of the individual was emerging. the drama did not introduce the idea of the individual free agent in greek society.
D is correct because it captures this idea, that the drama reflects an idea already existing in the society.
for E, it is incorrect because they did not discuss relations to the modern western world.
at the top of the screen "show question" this can let you do the question before watching the video answers. Then you can see if you got it right or wrong in the video and why
I got this question correct. When I got to C, I kind of made a note that it could "maybe" be the correct answer. I liked the answer choice, but the word "all" felt a bit too strong, as in that answer choice was making a bit too strong of an assumption. But after going through D and E and eliminating them, I realized C was the most strongly supported.
This doesn't mean C is the perfect answer or it is 100% true. In fact, the word "all" is a pretty hard thing to guarantee. But it is the most strongly supported answer out of them all.
studied for the lsat last year. I vaguely remebered this question, and today I got it right! Lets goooooo!
@Kevin_Lin ah ok, that makes much more sense. I don't know which questions I'm able to assume or not, ill try to make notes of that, thank you!
@Kevin_Lin Yeah the taxi example makes sense, but I guess I am still confused for the actual LSAT questions, when to include outside assumptions or not, sometimes I assume something from outside the text and I get the question wrong, other times I do not assume things outside the text and I get the question wrong. I'm having a hard time to see what is "reasonable" to assume. I don't get how to evaluate reasonability
Does anyone else get confused on number 5?
I am having a hard time to understand when we need to make assumptions. Up until now I kept hearing, you need to only focus on what is in the text, not assume outside biases. However, in this question, we are being told to make an assumption? I understand the assumption made, but what I do not understand is when to make them.
Is there any sort of guide on when we have to assume outside things, and when we only stick to the text? I don't know when I should do which one, pls help!
10/14 and 12/14 on BR !!! need to get better at timing tho!