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,

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,

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 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 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.

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 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