Self-study
-
PT Questions
7rbg180885
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
7rbg180885
Wednesday, Sep 28 2016
@roniafranci250 Just a quick question, since you seemed to have only gotten 2 LRs -- do you remember having a question about success requiring hard work (flaw question, I believe)? Trying to see if that one was experimental or not... Thanks!
7rbg180885
Monday, Sep 26 2016
Does anyone remember a question about a city having to invest in some software development technology or high internet speed infrastructure if it is to remain viable? Hoping it was the experimental...
I'm having trouble translating "only" statements... can anyone help me out?
For example:
Only the best artworks are beautiful. (PT 49, Section 4, Question 16)
Since "only" is a group 2 indicator (necessary), wouldn't it be the following:
Best Artworks --> Beautiful
Or, is it:
Beautiful --> Best Artworks
Thanks for your help, guys! Much appreciated.
Just a quick question for you veteran PT takers out there... the LG sections of my PTs (all of the older ones, at least) are not formatted as they are on the modern LSAT -- meaning, each game is on a single page with little space at the bottom.
How do you guys go about replicating the real thing? Should I just make do with the little space at the bottom, or do you guys use scrap paper on the side?
7rbg180885
Thursday, Jun 09 2016
@7sagestudentservices
Thanks, you are the bomb!!
7rbg180885
Wednesday, Jun 08 2016
@7sagestudentservices
Hey Dillon, could you add me as well? I purchased Ultimate+ a while back as well and also do not have access to the admissions package.
Thanks!
7rbg180885
Sunday, May 01 2016
Wow, that was extremely thorough and helpful. It's people like you that made me join the 7Sage community in the first place. Thank you so much!!
7rbg180885
Saturday, Apr 30 2016
@danielznelson160 Thanks for the clarification! If I understand you correctly though, if rule #2 does not exist, does that mean K must be in 1/2? I'm just trying to see how this rule could be understood in other games. So if in another game the rule stated that K is in 1/2, that means only 1/2, correct? Sorry if that's unclear!
Cannot for the life of me understand this rule:
"K is advertised during one of the first two weeks."
Doesn't this mean that K cannot be in weeks 3 or 4? Wouldn't K being in either 3 or 4 (which it does, as per J.Y.'s explanation) break that rule that K has to be in the first two weeks? Am I taking this rule way too literally or something?
Thanks y'all!
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-1-game-4/
7rbg180885
Sunday, Apr 24 2016
I had a quick question on (E) if you have the time, especially since I always appreciate your comments on these.
Isn't (E) just the contrapositive of (A)? If /L ‑m→ /P (which is what A is saying), then isn't (E) simply P ‑m→ L? Wouldn't that be valid?
Thanks!!
7rbg180885
Sunday, Apr 24 2016
@7rbg180885 @quinnxzhang542 Thanks for the help, guys! Really grateful how awesome this community is.
7rbg180885
Saturday, Apr 23 2016
@ioana200 Got it. Thanks again!
7rbg180885
Saturday, Apr 23 2016
@ioana200 Also, I'm assuming that the only time that "or" is not inclusive is when they specifically say "not both"? Is that a correct assumption? Or are there instances where they may not specify but the "or" is exclusive?
7rbg180885
Saturday, Apr 23 2016
@ioana200 Thank you so much for the help!
I was wondering if anyone could help me out here. Always had trouble understanding this concept.
1. Say I am negating [A and B]. I know this turns to [/A or /B]. Does this or mean that BOTH A and B are out? I know it means either A is out, or B is out but can both possibly be out?
2. Conversely, if I was negating [/A and /B], I know this becomes A or B. Does this or mean that BOTH A and B could possibly be in? I know it means either A is in, or B is in, but can both possibly be in?
Not entirely sure when the "inclusive" or applies or not. Thanks a lot guys!
7rbg180885
Wednesday, Apr 20 2016
@jhaldy10325 Please tag me as well! Thanks for taking the lead for us!
-
@roniafranci250 No worries at all!! I totally agree, it is a pretty unmemorable topic lol. The stim started by mentioning how people/surveys(?) claim that success required something (good luck, I think?) and then argued that this was wrong since success actually required hard work. It was a flaw question and I think it was trying to play on sufficient/necessary confusion, but wasn't quite sure. Sorry I don't remember much else, but hopefully it might ring a bell? Really hoping it was experimental... couldn't get a grasp on it for some reason!