Hello Everyone,
I’m looking for a study buddy who would be willing to go over in depth explanations for the prep tests. We can build off of each other’s knowledge and look for patterns and reasoning structure. Please message me if you are interested or leave a comment below.
Hello Everyone,
I have been taking practice tests and I notice that I am overwhelmingly getting necessary assumption questions wrong. I understand the basics for solving them such as finding the gap. However, are there any patterns with solving necessary assumption questions. I found noticing patterns for weaken/strengthen to be very helpful and they’ve become my stronger question type. I greatly appreciate any feedback. Thank you!
Hi Everyone,
I just finished taking PT 65 and was wondering if anyone else wants to BR this test as well.
Just saw this post and it was very helpful! I looked for it in PT 82 and I think I found it in section 1 question 12 and it was comparing yoga to physical therapy. I employed the technique you used and it worked out great. Thanks!
I have a large gap between my actual PT score and my blind review score. I have been consistently scoring in the 168-169 range but am BRing in the 177-179 range. If anyone has had a similar experience what is the best way to get over this?
When is the review of the 2nd section and what is the link? I wasn’t able to attend the session on Friday, but would appreciate going to this session. Thank you!
I’ve been looking through many logical reasoning weaken questions and I’ve trying to look for patterns. The only one I found was correlation—> causation. I was wondering if there are any other common patterns that would be discernible in the stimulus for the questions.
How do you commit how to solve a question that you got wrong to memory. For example, I always feel that I sometimes forget what I learned from blind reviewing when I apply it to a new prep test. Thank you!
Hello,
Here is my analysis for question 17 in section 3 for prep test 72. This is a weaken question; therefore, I wanted to weaken the connection between the premises and the conclusion.
Argument Analysis:
Premises:
Individuals who get injured due to unsafe actions not only cause injury to themselves but also can put financial and emotional burdens on others who they are close with.
Conclusion:
The Government is vindicated in making actions that are considered risky to one’s health illegal, in order to guard other people’s interests.
Prephrase:
Just because something that could be injurious to one individual and that brings pain to their family is not grounds for outlawing it. Think about it this way, just because trampolines can cause you harm and make your family pay your hospital bills doesn’t mean that this is grounds to ban using them.
Answer Choices:
A. This supports the argument because it further justifies why it would feasible to implement the law. The reason is due to the fact that it shows how putting a burden on the people you have close ties to constitutes harm to oneself.
B. This doesn’t weaken because just because we have an obligation to not injure ourselves doesn’t mean that we won’t injure ourselves. For example, one may have an obligation to not eat their sister’s last piece of chocolate cake; however, is that obligation strong enough to prevent us from eating it? Probably not.
C. This strengthens because it meets the necessary condition of posing a financial burden to the family.
D. This weakens it entirely because entirely wipes out the evidence that the argument provided for the conclusion. If the evidence is not sufficient than the conclusion is not entirely justified to be true.
E. Again, just because you have an obligation doesn’t mean that it will guarantee that people won’t do it. The person could easily say, well this law will just affirm this obligation.
Honestly, I wish I hadn’t gotten this question wrong. I had originally picked B because I assumed that because one has an obligation to not do something that they won’t do it. But, how many obligations have we had that we have broken? Conversely, D shows that the evidence that the person gave does not completely bolster the argument for instituting the law.
Admin note: edited title
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-3-question-17/
How do you learn the mistakes that you made from questions that you’ve gotten wrong on previous practice test? When I review them, I kind of feel like I don’t remember what I learned two weeks later. How do you get around this?
I would like to join this BR call. I just to PT 74 could we go over that one if it is possible?
Hi Daniyal,
When I started this question I immediately realized that it is a most strongly supported question due to there being no conclusion. Additionally, I took stock of what the stimulus was indeed saying. For example, I realized that there was no normative language such as "should." Therefore, I would be wary of answer answer choices that use "should" or other forms of normative language. Lastly, I noticed that there were no especially strong words such as "always" or "never" in the stimulus so I would also be wary of any answer choices that showed up using similar words.
Lastly, (and I have particularly struggled with this), I thought to myself that I can't pick an answer that overreaches or goes beyond what is said in the stimulus. Sure we can make inferences, but I try to limit myself to only supportable inferences.
One element of the stimulus that I felt was particularly important was in the last sentence. I can make an inference that the stock of cod has staid around the same number over the last decade. Why? The reason is that the number caught commercially has increased by the same amount the number caught for research has decreased. For example, lets say in 2008 commercially 40 tons of cod were caught and 60 tons were caught for research. That is 100 tons. Now in 2018, 70 tons of cod were caught commercially and 30 tons were caught for research. That still equals 100 but the number caught commercially increased by 30 and the number caught for research decreased by 30 in accordance with the stimulus.
Now I don't know which answer you selected but here is my analysis of the answer choices.
A. This is the correct answer for the reasons I mentioned above.
B. We can't make this inference necessarily, and in the past I probably would have selected this answer, however, maybe the commercial boats just got better at finding the cod or have stayed out on the water longer than before.
C. This is a comparative statement, the stimulus never makes this comparison.
D. A normative statement, the stimulus never tells us what we should do.
E. Never mentions anything about 20 years ago. We really only know what happened over the past decade.
I hope this helps and good luck in your studies!
I’m sorry for your loss. Thank you for the insight on the tutoring hours!
I’m trying to determine how much money studying with a tutor will cost me. I understand that they charge by the hour; however, I don’t necessarily know how many hours on average one spends with a tutor. I know this number is probably arbitrary but, if you did use a tutor, about how many hours did you spend with him/her? Thank you!
Does anyone else have difficulty with the mss/inference questions on reading comp? I always feel like the answer I select is never the one best supported by the text because I don’t make the correct inferences or because the answer was somewhere else in the passage.
Hi Everyone,
I’m currently studying for the June exam and have been working through the reading comprehension section to improve my score. I am currently averaging four wrong on this section. However, logic games is my strength. I have had much success with hard games such as the virus, dinosaur, and stain glass windows.
I’m looking for a study partner who’s strength leans more towards reading comprehension. I can help you with logic games so we can get very good at both sections together. Please PM me if you are interested.
Thanks!
Hello,
Here is my reasoning for question 18 in section 4 for prep test 62. Since this is a sufficient assumption question, I want to be able to find a “connector” that would assure the conclusion from the premises, or evidence given.
Argument Analysis:
Premises:
• We can’t reach E.T aliens via spaceship
• If we can talk with the E.T aliens, then they need to be as smart as we are (most likely so they can understand what we are saying to them).
Conclusion:
• If there are E.T aliens, we won’t be able to know this unless they are as smart as we are.
Prephrase:
Initially, I was trying to look for something along the lines of connecting being able to communicate with the E.T aliens that are as smart as we are. For instance, maybe we don’t have the technology to transmit messages to them or perhaps they want their identity to remain hidden for all of eternity. However, looking more closely to the set up of this argument I found another primary issue. The issue is that we are only given two options for determining if they exist. Well, couldn’t there be other ways? For example, (this is purely made up) maybe we could get into a teleportation machine and teleport ourselves to their planet or we could build a massive slingshot to sling ourselves to their planet. My gist is that we have to get to the idea that it is necessary that the aliens be as smart as we are in order to determine if any actually do exist in the entire galaxy.
Answer Choices:
A. No. This doesn’t work because the person never rules this out.
B. I don’t believe that this guarantees anything. Maybe we could send them a signal and if they accept it, then we know there is life. A conversation isn’t necessary to prove that there is life.
C. No not need, the author never suggests that we need both options to determine if they exist.
D. Yes, because this AC rules out all other choices and substantiates the necessary condition in the conclusion.
E. This is slightly a premise booster and slightly a reversal of one of the premises mentioned in the stimulus.
Problem: My major problem with this question is that answer choice B is very compelling for me and I am afraid that I would select it during a timed test.
It would be great if I could have further feedback on why B is wrong or what we need to do for this particular type of SA question.
Admin note: edited title and added link: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-4-question-18/
I’m looking for any study partners for the reading comprehension section. It is definitely my worst section but I’m willing to discuss questions and reading strategies. I have tests 62-71 and I’ve taken 72, 75, 79,80,81. Let me know if you are willing to form a group!
I’m interested!