Hi Guys,

Week 2 with RC practices. I been doing them along just beginning to learn LG.

So I been doing primarily JY ranking L5 and L4 reading sets. And what I find is the following:

If I take more than 6-8 min on the passage and 6-7 min on questions, I can get an average of -1 on the passage. Never a -0 because the questions are usually very subtle.

But if I take the average reading speed which the average textbook recommend, the mistake obviously goes up.

I don't know what exactly to do with this just because 1) The passage usually require time to understand since it always include a lot of referential phrases, 2) the structure is not clear, 3) the answer choice, which is 1/5, targets a specific sentence in the middle of no where where you have to find it.

So does practice help on this? Should I just continue to focus on with my accuracy oriented practice style until later when PT is up or when I finish the actual learning set?

Your recommendation will be highly valuable.

Hi guys,

Please help if you can. The question is filled with technical terms, which I know that I should just replace it. But then, the answer choices put in more of those terms and I literally felt like my brain just had blown up after doing this one single question.

But in any case, I have some questions. Please help and it may help to strengthen your ability too because the question I guess is not an easy one.

When it comes to this kind of questions, what is your approach in terms of understanding what this question is saying?

When it comes to the answer choices, with some fuzzy knowledge of what had just happened, how do you choice the correct one? For example, please take a look at answer choice C. The state of my brain was already blown up after reading and analyzing the stimulus and this term "cerebrospinal fluid" gets throw in. Naturally I picked it with the hope that JY will say in the video "we don't know that". I mean where did the stimulus say about fluids? Isn't it about some stuff attacking some other stuff.

How do you understand answer choice A?

In the end of all the elimination, I have A & C left. And I finally eliminated A, the correct answer. My brain process went like the following:

It says "Gamma interferon stops white blood cells from producing myelin-destroying compounds". But wait, white blood cell produce myelin? What is this dash doing here? What does destroying compounds mean? Isn't the problem that white blood cell is killing the myelin instead of producing it? Does Gamma stop white blood cell? All I know is that Gamma doesn't work.

In the end, I am left with an answer choice A that I could hardly understand and answer choice C with a term" spinal fluid". So I guessed for C.

Please let me know how you would approach the problem and how your mind works when you are reading this kind of passage which is filled with technical terms and your approach to answer choice A & C.

Thanks in advance.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-4-question-22/

Hi guys,

So here is what I have written down in my notebook as a problem I am having. If you have any good solutions please let me know.

So this is what I have written down today in my notebook:

1. When the question asks to refer back to specific passages, correctly identifying the referencing passage is key.

2. After the referential passage is correctly identified, the section of the paragraph should be read in sizeable amount as to capture the underlying meaning in a complete or sufficient manner. Even if there is a passage break in between, the beginning of the next passage should be read as well to identify for any hints.

3. A question can be made difficult by the author through applying referential phrasing in the sentence which it directly is referring. Under such circumstance, patience and care should apply and the main intended topic needs to be draw-out through back solving.

4. A question can be selected wrong for this set of questions when there is a answer choice that directly points out the main point of the passage. Under referencing questions, this reference only applies to the sentence which it is pointing instead of the main point. The brain has a tendency to go with the familiar without actually drawing a constraint for the task at hand.

Please let me know how you deal with this situation.

Hi All,

I had stumbled across a question which it needs to negate an universal statement. Is there a JY lesson on this? If so, it will be great if anyone can share the link.

If not, I had love anyone to talk about how to negate a universal statement.

Hi there,

I was wondering what do you guys do with questions that you had made a mistake?

Do you write down the question so that you review it later?

What kind of method do you do?

Hi Guys,

I am having a bit of difficulty with this question.

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/banana-epidemics-na-question/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-3-question-03/

It's the banana question.

I have a hard time distinguish B. I mean, it is a sufficient assumption, yet it is the correct answer for the necessary assumption too.

I am feeling a bit, how do you call it, mumble jumble right now.

Can any one help to explain?

Hi guys,

I was wondering if you guys have any good tip in terms of approaching parallel questioning? So far, after doing 15 question, the only thing that I came up with:

1) Attention to structure

2) If difficult to understand, supply with an example to fill the referencing words.

Any good tips for this type of questions?

Thanks,

Panda

Hi guys,

I was wondering if you wondered the same thing when you entered into this lesson question:

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/regulating-the-banks-na-question/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-2-question-15/

Is it correct if I translate the argument into a logic as:

Tightening-->Loan Less-->Economic Downturn

Tightening

Conclusion: Economic downturn

Aside of this logical flaw, the problem is wrong due to temporal causation flaw.

Am I correct about this?

If so, I guess you can still generate answer choice if the argument is bad as a start even logically invalid?

Thanks,

Panda

Hi all,

Just a quick question, does the word "can" indicate a relationship or is it indicate like "could", "might" a probability?

For instance, the sentence, "Some reporters can scoop all of the reporters", can you translate it into: Reporter X(-Some-)Scoop all of the reporters. Or is it just a statement indicating probability of this relationship?

if that is not true, then, as a rule of thumb, you can never translate a probabilistic statement into a conditional statement since conditional statement are 100% of occurrence?

Hi Guys,

I was trying to prove the following statement, please help to see if it is correct:

(A-->B)-->C

not (A-->B) or C

(A some/and B) or C

C->(A some/and B)

is there more step to go below this?

So all I can get to is that, if C fails, then some A are not B.

Hi Guys,

I have noted a direct contrast between principle and MBT.

Take these 2 questions for example:

MBT: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-2-question-23/

Principle: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-2-question-11/

In the former one, anything that can be pushed out works as long as it abides to the principle within the stimulus.

However, of the latter one, when you are asked to draw a principle from the question, the right answer is best to cover 100% of the text. As by this logic, answer choice B is inferior than D solely because B only covered 50% of the argument while D covered all of them.

Hi Guys,

Can you guys please help me take a look if my analysis on B & C is correct? https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-3-question-08/

The question is very much like a SA question. The answer choices can be quickly eliminated by a match principle into the sufficient condition. However, I think we can expand on this problem more.

A is correct. So won't go into detail about it.

B. The sentence is wrong based on 2 reasons. The first reason is by putting the conclusion as the sufficient condition. Even if we were to change the answer into: If election campaigns are to be funded from public funds, it will allow politian to devote less time asking for money than serving the interest of the public, this is still wrong because it is formulated into a C-->P Relationship, while what we are looking for is P-->C relationship.

C is wrong because it talks of a different set that we do not know. Had this question be translated into an Inference MBT Except question, the asnwer choice then is correct.

D. is wrong based on 2 counts. The first count is of the same reason as B by messing up the location of the conclusion into the suffcient condition. But in addition to it that the question steam mix in an unrealted element. Evne if we have deleted that related element from the sentence, it is still incorrect and not 50% correct due to the location issue with the conclusion statement.

If we were to extent this answer choice's analysis a bit further.

Suppose that in this case, the answer choice for A is wrong too. But D is formulated in the following fashion: "if public funding of some activity produces a benefit to the public but also inevitably a special benefit for specific individuals, the activity should be fully funded by the public while the special interest taker group contributes proportionally more".

In this answer choice, iff answer choice is made wrong in other fashion. D will be correct on 2 counts. 1) The sentence is 50% correct. Although it do have irrelevant items in it but part of the argument goes through along with our principle. 2) It is the most correct answer in comparison with the rest of the answer choice.

Had LSAT do this, then the question's difficulty is pushed to a level 4 or 5 difficulty.

E. is wrong because it like C speaks of another different set of population that is above this univerise. Again, it can become a correct answer choice if it is an MBT Inference Except question.

Hi guys,

I have some confusion going on here between the difference of the following question:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-4-question-23/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-1-question-23/

In sum,

From PT25-S4-Q23, we learned that:

If A cause B cause C, then it concludes C causes A; this is wrong because the possibility of C some A, or C and A, is ignored.

If that is true, so why is: PT27-S1-Q23 answer choice A wrong.

If most A cause B, then B, therefore A, the structure of PT25-S4-Q23, then, if we had follow PT27-S1-Q23 logic, it gets down to: (negating "most" to "some not", then it follows that some B is not A is ignored, which is what answer choice A says isn't it?

Hi All,

This is a difficult flaw question and I intent to give a shoot at explaining it, which is different from JY. Please help and check my explanation's validity.

The question link is here: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-4-question-25/

For flaw question, the first step I do is always noticing the logic and try to draw it out. This helps to distinguish whether the logic fallacy is a formal fallacy or informal fallacy.

Under this question, the logic are breaking down into the following:

Premise 1: Reporter knowledge-->Press Agent-->Tells Everything-->1 reporter knows more->Scoop other reporters

Activator: Tells Everything

Conclusion: Scoop other reporters

By this we notice that it is a SA/NA fallacy.

However, we are not finished. As time consuming as drawing the logic out, the question steam puts the final hurdle.

The question didn't ask "Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning in the argument", but instead, it says, which one of the following which isn't stated, but is consistent with the flaw.

In other words, we are trying to find one thing that is consistent within the flaw, which we have defined. And we are not defining the flaw here, but a consistent use of language.

Which marks E correct, which translates into: 1 reporter knows more-->Reporter knowledge. I agree, the translation isn't as perfect, but it does draw a great deal of similarity.

Had the question asked to identify the flaw in this question, then B becomes the correct answer, which states: one doesn't have to be a reporter and not scoop the reporters. To see this, refer to PT25-S4-Q23.

Please comment on my explanation.

Thanks,

Panda

Hi guys,

I wonder if you can help and check my analysis to see if it is correct or not.

The question is here: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-22/

I used logic to solve this question.

The logic goes of the following:

Law abiding people->Environment->Character->Criminal Action->Crime

And the conclusion states:

Crime->Law abiding people

That is why answer E is correct.

For those who have a math or econ or business background.

We learned that of any financial or math model, there are 2 kinds of variables-Endogenous and Exdogenous. And from macro-econ or Linear Algebra, the change of an endogenous variable does not change the model it self, as such, moving from X to X' is only a result of Y to Y'. And it does not move us to Z to Z', which needs the introduction of an exdogenous variable into the equation.

The exact same method is applied here.

By the question steam, you are able to formulate a principle, or a math equation, and the math equation only applies in this particular set of population-the population of dangerous activity.

Furthermore, if you think of dangerous activity be on your x axis and tax as on the y axis, the fact that dangerous activity does not result in tax on those activity can be thought as a correlation set where you can denote a +1 or - 1direction.

As such, by the question steam, "by the same token", we plug in variables, as we know that these are endogenous and push out a Y'.

Answer choice D perfectly describes the result of MBT from this answer choice while answer choice B does the opposite.

Answer choice A/E describes 2 phonomena. Answer choice E describes "food and shelter", which are variables that cannot be accounted for. And answer choice A "nonessential sports equipment and recreational gear" describes another market or population set. As you know, we cannot slap an equity valuation model onto an alternative asset valuation model, they are simply different kind of assets.

Hi guys,

I am really confused about this question: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-4-question-17/

After reading the question, I notice what the author is trying to do. It is trying to argue for a sentimental value to counteract the mayor's argument for the monetary value. And the conclusion argues can be translated as due to the great importance of the sentimental value the item listed should be restored.

From this, I immediately draw up the missing assumption which is almost a principle that is missing: if sentimental value in this case is greater than monetary value then the government needs to fix it despite the fiscal limitation.

As such, I moved into the answer choice and didn't find it or anything close to it.

So I was puzzled between A & B. And finally I chose A for the reason that the argument appealed to emotion. But it is wrong.

Why?

Hi guys,

I want to make an argument and delete LSAT 25, S2, Q10 from the problem set because the answer choice is poorly written.

Without diving too deeply what the question is saying, it is about some spider webs that emits UV and conclusion is that the insects get attracted because of the pattern.

Naturally, after reading the question, the weakest spot from the argument that I had naturally draw without reading the answer choices has to do with this specific pattern and maybe it connects with "food or mating".

And the answer choice E, which is the correct answer choice because it proves that okay insects are attracted to the UV. But that is entirely restating the premise. The answer choice is made correct because we got A, B, C irrelevant and answer choice D being 180. SO answer choice E, which doesn't do anything that sort of just rephrase the premise, being the right answer.

Please let me know how you feel. And if you feel that the answer choice certainly strengthens I be very honored to hear your reasoning because I just don't see how answer choice E is different from confirming the premise and the gap still leaves untouched.

Admin note: edited title

Hi Guys,

Currently I am looking for a good RC virtual tutor. I am located in Shanghai China.

Any recommendations? Is JY a choice available?

Hi Guys,

As a general rule of thumb to score for a 170, for RC, at the current level, I can get level 1-2 difficulty -0; level 3 -0~-1; Level 4: -1~-2; Level 5: -2~--3.

How can you improve level 5 question answering accuracy. During review, I will spend almost 1 hour on the passage, and looking at it, I just have no idea how to not miss the question when under timed exam.

Should I get a tutor like Nicole to help out? Or how can you shore up those points?

Hi Guys,

I think I have spent a lot of effort in coming this up and I want to share with you my hypothesis to see what you guys think about this as of how do you correctly tackle every SA, PSA, Strengthen and Weakening. (I suppose that I can add the NA question type into it as well, but...I am not there yet)

If you like it, please comment. if you hate it, please comment. If you want to add on or correct me, please please comment.

So here is my hypothesis:

1) Every SA, PSA, Strengthen, and weaken is an argument. Therefore, there is/are assumption[s].

2) First job is to read the stimulus and find the task. The task requested will then require us to go to various stages. For instance, If it is SA and PSA then we need to find the assumptions. But if it is strengthen or weakening then we need to bring one step further to find the best way to address it.

3) Read the question steam. When reading, it is important to find the stimulus and conclusion. When identifying, we have to be able to find the relationship between the stimulus and conclusion. For example, does the stimulus jump right into conclusion or does it just go from stimulus then major stimulus then minor conclusion then major conclusion, etc.

4) Find the word that is linked. One word or term is always in the premise and another is always in the conclusion. And if you link them, there comes your assumption, which is where you stop for your SA and PSA questions. SA and PSA questions can be made hard in 2 ways. The first way is that they give you 2 premises, which means that you have 2 assumptions (P1-C1), (P2-C2). But the method used is the same. The second way is to introduce something similar but not exact as of your anticipation.

And now comes to the answer choices. When answering the question, be mindful of how difficult the question is. If it is an easy question then your assumption, which you had anticipated should show up there in plain side. Some cosmetic on wording can occur, but there should be little difficulty in identifying them. You circle and move on.

But now for harder questions, while you do exactly the same thing above, you deploy the process of elimination method and find your final 2 candidates. When found, read carefully as of how they are worded. One wording can make a whole difference.

5) From step 5,we move into strengthening and weakening questions. The strengthening and weakening is just either block an objection (strengthen) or call out an assumption (weakening), but the twist here is that you have to assess how to best address it. But once again, your pre-forumulated assumptions stays.

The easy strengthening and weakening question just do this. But for the harder ones, they do something else.

They have a general tendency to call out an still connected but indirect the answer choice that deviates from you initial anticipation.

But before we go there, let's take a look at a question, where I disagree with JY's analysis. https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/new-appliance-models-weaken-question/

In this question, there are embedded in it 2 argument parties making 2 arguments. On one side, there is the consumer, who claims because there are different modifications, product name should be different to differentiate them. On the other side, it says, because every modification is beneficial to the consumer, consumer should just ignore it)

So if you analyse the argument this way, the assumption pops out to you right away by connecting the words.

Assumption 1 from the consumers: The appearance of the product is not enough for the consumer to identify the modified version.

Assumption 2 from the merchant: every modification will benefit consumers.

And answer choice D, directly calls out the first assumption.

In the end, I always believe there is a model to solve these questions. A fool proof model.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-4-question-15/

Hi guys,

Is there an error in this question? There is a historical LSAT question that I am...disagreeing with: PT30-S4-Q15. PSA.

The question, rewrote, consists of:

P1: Too large or too small of class size is bad.

P2: Very light or very heavy faculty work load is also bad

C: Crowded classes and overworked faculties are bad.

In general, I feel the argument's conclusion is valid. "Large class size", reference to "crowded classes" ,and "heavy faculty workload", reference to "overworked faculties", are both bad.

What is wrong with just taking 50％ from each premise and concluding something from it?

However, above this, I see another gating point, which is the answer.

The correct answer is "very small class sizes or very light workload" are also bad. While, I feel that, in order to arrive at this premise as a needed one, we need to have something like "if the school's both class room and faculty workload is at medium level, then it is good". Right?

Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks,

Panda

Hi Guys,

I am going through the parallel thing and I think I have to look at the advanced logic first in order to do them.

Do you guys felt the same thing?

Hi Guys,

Are there any live question takers recordings that we can see?

I was on LG Problem set 1 question 1 and saw Leia doing her questions, it will greatly help if there is a chance to see someone who does RC live.

Thanks,

Panda

Hi guys,

In the video, JY recommends re do questions, but what exactly does it mean?

Does it entail recalling everything by memory from the game?

or do you get to look at the questions and just plainly re do them while looking at the questions?

Thanks,

Panda