Hey! I literally started with a diagnostic of 154 in May and no previous exposure to the LSAT. i've been consistent at achieving 168-174 in all my PTs, so in 2.5 months it is 100% possible. i've been studying 4-8 hours every day, so it's just being consistent and putting in enough time and real review of wrong answers not quick skim, but really closing that knowledge gap.
@SirHarvey Thats an assumption that needs to be made, and an incorrect one as the example JY gave. A king's assassination in a different country 200 years ago has zero influence on a current King's assassination. You can argue 'similar events" also means similar context of the reasoning, etc but once again it is an assumption and needs to be explicitly stated
Cultivation of crop -- decreased yields due to bacteria, parasitic, inc. in soil. Crop rotation is solution or wait it out, beacteria more present in suppressive, bac inc phyto (supported by experiments)
Looking to build a study group with others preparing for August LSAT! Currently scoring in low 160s trying to reach goal of 170, if interested feel free to message me!
@mostxareyallyarezthusmostxarez I'm still a bit fuzzy on the logic, but I did a deep dive into it, and I think its because if you negate the claim then it means people with parkinson gene, not Parkinson's itself took more iron then iron could be the cause, so we are denying that claim which strengthens. Why? Because if ALL people have same iron intake, then genetics would not be the cause since they do not have parkinson's they're just "prone to it." (Remember the "genetics" s an alternative cause since argument says Iron is the cause, but this answer choice is talking about Parkinson's gene. and our hypothesis is about parkinson's).
To Summarize: We are denying an alternative explanation, when originally looking at the question i thought likeliness to develop Parkinson's and genetic predisposition are the same, but having genetic predisposition isn't more likely to cause parkinson's as choice A denies it.
I hope this cleared it up even a bit for you, I'm still confused too, but I see the string of logic behind it more, if this helps you figure it out and it clicks please free to share since I'm still confused too!
@ArielleSambolin I'm still a bit fuzzy on the logic, but I did a deep dive into it, and I think its because if you negate the claim then it means people with parkinson gene, not Parkinson's itself took more iron then iron could be the cause, so we are denying that claim which strengthens. Why? Because if ALL people have same iron intake, then genetics would not be the cause since they do not have parkinson's they're just "prone to it." (Remember the "genetics" s an alternative cause since argument says Iron is the cause, but this answer choice is talking about Parkinson's gene. and our hypothesis is about parkinson's).
To Summarize: We are denying an alternative explanation, when originally looking at the question i thought likeliness to develop Parkinson's and genetic predisposition are the same, but having genetic predisposition isn't more likely to cause parkinson's as choice A denies it.
I hope this cleared it up even a bit for you, I'm still confused too, but I see the string of logic behind it more, if this helps you figure it out and it clicks please free to share since I'm still confused too!
If anyone can give an explanation on end-of-the-video question, let me know! Got the question at the end correct, but by eliminating other answers and seeing that one might have an impact. The logic isn't clear to me, why it strengthens though. If people who are more prone to parkinson's have the same iron intake as people who are not, doesn't that suggest that iron isn't correlated to Parkinson's, but rather the genetic predisposition?
@AshmiBoora825 Hey! This might be a long response, it's helping me as well as hopefully you to put things into perspectives.
The answers can not come from intuition that's the most detrimental thing in my opinion, but I do see what you mean by when you see the answer you think it's obvious I had the same problem. The LSAT is standardized and very repetitive, so each answer choice has a specific reason why it is incorrect even if it could be correct without the real answer there.
If you haven't worked through the 7sage curriculum definitely do it, was very useful to me. As far as an answer being obvious, for me I had to convince myself to stop trusting my intuition and when I'm reading the stimulus in LR I think of different flaws made (most LR stimulus are flawed even when it is not a flaw question.) Finding those flaws before I even get the chance to look at any answer helps me eliminate attractive answers that appeal to intuition.
I'm unsure what you're scoring at right now, but I think if you're below 175s (myself included) 80% of the time you get an answer wrong it is a logical issue that must be addressed and why what you thought the case was is not the case. Correct answers are obvious to me as well, but why did I pick the other one? I think for most it's because of what I was talking about, we don't see that relationship of flaws made while reading and once it has been identified for us it clicks, but we must practice seeing those flaws ourselves.
Also something that helps me is thinking of the stimuli as I read it and visualize what is happening or apply it to situations familiar to me.