#feedback: The written analysis for this question seems to have the low-rez summaries in the wrong spots; they are all shifted down a paragraph or so from where they should be.

@JTF2005 - never mind! I just needed to click Sage AI from that window, and that did open up the previous chats. Thank you so much for your help!!

@JTF2005 hmmm, mine doesn't seem to do anything even when the scroll bar is at the bottom... but thanks for taking the time to share the tips!

Really appreciate the "shallow dip" tips provided in this written explanation to help with strategy in timed conditions. Thanks @MichaelWright !

@JTF2005 thank you! it doesn't seem to show the previous chats for me though. Have you found a way to get to them?

I really struggled with this question because I didn't see "it has been argued that the attempt to write down traditional languages is misguided and unnecessary" as a fundamental "challenge" to the solution of community self-teaching, even if the teaching methodology is based in grammar. I took this to mean that this view supported community self-teaching as a solution for maintaining languages while emphasizing linguistic structures can be analyzed and taught orally without an orthographic written system that maps onto the phonetic sounds. (ie, we can learn how nouns, verbs, adjectives etc fit together without a written representation of the individual words and sounds).

So I read it as an elaboration of perspectives related to Obstacle 1 (developing written forms from oral traditions) rather than a challenge to the solution.

Eventually I eliminated the other options, but it took a lot of time.

I'd welcome any suggestions on how to approach this on a future question when I don't read the elements of the passage in the same way as was intended!

I took more than double the time because I also didn't know the word "posterity" but eventually got there by process of elimination.

I knew the P-->C bridge had to be

• (almost certainly contribute to intellectual and emotional enrichment of future generations) --> (moral obligation to not destroy)

A) "at least some chance of improving other people's lives" --> moral obligation to devote effort

• I lingered on this AC for a long time, thinking it was probably overinclusive as a sufficient condition, but may be okay if no better ACs. But the strength of likelihood ("at least some chance" vs "almost certainly") wasn't a good match.

• but the necessary condition was a pretty weak parallel ("devote effort" vs not "not destroy")

B) "anything that past generations had preserved for our intellectual and emotional enrichment" --> moral obligation to preserve

• no, past not future oriented

C) "supersede"

• nothing in premises comparing relative moral commitments

D) "anything that will most likely enrich, either intellectually or emotionally, our ???" --> moral obligation to not destroy

• eventually chose this one over A, the rest of the sufficient condition and necessary condition aligns almost perfectly with the premises

E) "being morally obligated...." --> something else

• no, conclusion in sufficient condition

This is not specifically about the look/feel of the LawHub platform, but related to integration: is there a way to blind review a PT done on LawHub so it can be added into my analytics for blind review? (I could also re-take the PT as a fresh test untimed and then exclude it from analytics, but it is a bit messier).

Thank you @Kevin_Lin ! I realized that it doesn't work when the "keyboard highlight" function selected (at least for me). Once you de-select the "keyboard highlight" tool, it works!

Thanks to all the 7Sage folks behind the scenes to keep up with the ever-changing landscape!

One question: Is it no longer possible to highlight within ACs? I thought LSAC said they would maintain that function but I haven't seemed to be able to use it

Appreciate the updates!

I think LSC confirmed there will be no changes for this, but I find that the finicky multi-step click for masking and highlighting is making these tools essentially non-usable in timed conditions. :( If there's a way to nudge them to find solutions, that would be so appreciated!

I chose D because I thought that "potential to support commercial grass plants such as rye" was incompatible with the restoration of natural flora. Assumptions I made that are NOT reasonable:

• the "potential" for something implies the intention to do something

• "commercial" implies non-native species

• "grass plants such as rye" implies it would only be a single crop, not a diversity of grasses. However, plants is plural, and rye is included only as an example and does not preclude a multiple species grown together

I would just like to express my appreciation for Mike's video! So helpful, with both a timing strategy approach to get to the correct AC quickly, and a deep dive.

@annashrest02 agreed. To definitively prove the conclusion false, AC (A) would need to be combined with additional info, like the running cost and lifespan of the new vs current refrigerators to see if if total costs in the long run are outweighed. But (A) by itself at least weakens the argument by introducing the possibility that other expenses (that are relevant to the total costs over the long run) have not been addressed.

@amipp93746 I don't think B is valid logic? I think this is how JY was saying that correlations in past events does not mean you can infer a conditional relationship. In his past US presidents example, it could be true that absence being a man, ie, being a women, was a causal factor in the failure of being elected as president.

However, this historical correlation cannot be inferred to be a conditional relationship, ie, it is not the case that (Being elected president) --> (Being a man). In the future, it could be possible that a woman could be elected president, so it is not true that (Being a man) is a necessary condition of (Being elected president)

I chose B, thinking that the claim is "most popular" is sufficient but not necessary for coverage. There could be other sports that even more students play, like football and soccer each have 25% of the student population participating. So it could be the case that football and soccer are the most popular, and both also get full-page coverage. Just because basketball also gets coverage when it is not among the "most popular" sports doesn't mean it is false advertising. So I thought the sample of two sports is too small to draw a conclusion when we don't know if there are other sports that are even more popular.

I think this reasoning is wrong because for the LSAT, "sample" refers specifically to representative samples, ie, inferring what is true of a larger population based on a smaller subset that should have the same key characteristics.

I struggled with the questions in this set. Given that Augustus' goals were political (respond to disorder and disharmony; promote peace and stability), and this was the reason for promoting gender relations (women's domesticity, taking on a familial role/title in the empire), I understood the relationship to be:

• (Politics) --shape --> (gender roles) --shape--> (culture: e.g. represented in arts)

Even the phrase "gender roles were becoming...more politicized" I read as politics were shaping gender roles.

This made it difficult for a number of questions that focus on the role of gender in shaping politics, and I thought these were traps reversing the passage's point.

I'm not sure what the take-away from my mis-read can be for future passages/questions... help??

@blueberry I agree, the thing that is confusing about this question is that we really only have the conclusion to work with.

A Sufficient Assumption question needs us to bridge the P-->C gap, but our only premise about "certain methods" is a "some" relationship.

P: Counterfeit <--s--> Measure

C: /Counterfeit --> /Measure

There's no way to create a conditional chain away from a "some" statement to create an "all" statement, so the SA bridges from nothing to the Conclusion and must just be something that expresses the Conclusion or its contrapositive.

@siennaisacolor I had the same thought about aberration + mainstream.

I think you are right: Richard's claim "will eventually be seen" is future-oriented; whereas Jung-Su's claim "is part of..." is a description of the present. Although the "whatever others might come to say" still seems to me to create some ambiguity whether the rest of the phase was meant to describe a future scenario when others might come to say something.

I eliminated all the ACs except B because they weren't about dilution/concentration, but then stayed staring at B for along time because I didn't like the conditional "If present in the environment in sufficient quantities" and we don't know if or when that would be triggered, and whether the anti-dilution provision would be enough to reduce environmental harm if a bunch of companies each dumped permissible concentrations. Ultimately, we'd need to ensure the total quantity dumped is within an acceptable range.

....And then I remembered we aren't trying to resolve the whole environmental harm issue. The premises just state that the intention of the law is to reduce environmental harm is a goal, and the antidilution law is assumed to help achieve that goal. We have to find support for why:

Dilute --not cause--> Reduce Environmental Harm

AC (B) identifies that dilution does NOT help.

I struggled with this question because I pre-phrased the flaw to be about inferring "most" from an average, and couldn't find it in the ACs. Ultimately I chose (A) because that was the closest, even though I didn't like "at least some" and knew that the argument's "most" did allow for "at least some". To be correct, aside from the actual representation issue (which I didn't pick up on), (A) would have had to have said "It overlooks the possibility that MOST new PAI policyholders surveyed reported they saved little or no money when they switched".

Takeaway: there can be more than one flaw in the argument; when the available ACs clearly do not address what I was looking for, be open to the flaw being something I overlooked.

@Tumptytumtoes I think "Beethoven, of course, has stood as a cultural icon for more than a century, but that didn't happen overnight. His most challenging works did not become popular until well into the twentieth century" helps to situate Fidelio (as one among Beethoven's works) as being appreciated later. We don't know for sure that Fidelio was among the most challenging works, but at least we know they were part of Beethoven's works, and that Beethoven became appreciated ("cultural icon").

@sxphs no I think we can only eliminate conditional ACs if:

• the Sufficient Condition does not trigger (ie, the premises don't give us the information we need to meet the condition of IF xxxxxx) - this is the case in AC (B) because we don't know from the premises that "the ailment rarely occurs except in cities in which there are large amounts of soot in the air")

• the Necessary Condition is not relevant (does not establish the conclusion of the argument) - not the case in AC (B) but it is the case in AC (D)