@futurelawyerhopefully Using most or some isn't something I decide, it depends on what they actually say.

So you have to read the stem, stim and ACs to know where to use each one.

The core curriculumhas a lesson on what these words mean, I can't rememer exactly which one but its helpful!

Whoever came up with the initial explanaton video for these parallel questions, you deserve a medal.

What used to be my absolute worst set of questions, has become something I get 100% of the time, and at worst slightly above target time.

Using that approach is an absolute gamechanger, wow. I don't even need to read all the options.

@WendyCurrington

I see why it looks odd, but I can help you explain.

Many sports leagues have pre-season talks about who will win the league. Let's say the Patriots with Tom Brady are the best team in the NFL.

The best team is the most likely team to win the NFL. Does that mean that they have a >50% chance of winning the NFL? No. It just means that out of all the teams, they have the highest chance of winning. That chance could be (and typically is) around the 10% to 30% mark.

Being the most likely to win does not mean you are actually likely to win.

How do I get the level 5 question 14 seconds under the target time but I spend 1 minute above the target time on a level 1 question just to fail it.

@AngelicaAnzaldi Elicit means "cause" so if I elicit a reaction, I caused or encouraged a reaction.

Illicit typically means illegal", but here it's more accurate to say "falsely." Illicit really does not mean false, but LSAT is fond of using words in a way adjacent to their real meaning to throw you off.

LSAT could have also used "implicitly" because the argument implies a cause where there is only a correlation.

Hell, they'd probably use "explicitly" here too, and argue that the causation/correlation mixup is very obvious (explicit).

Illicit, elicit, implicit, explicit. The LSAT is a funny exam.

Back to back 5/5s LFGGGG

@NatashaChander-Levy Depends on how you interpret the meaning of writer.

You could dictate your literature, and you'd be a writer. Could also type. Or, use a crayon.

Unless knowledge of how to use a pen is the only way to be a writer, this is not a necessary assumption.

I'm usually able to answer these questions by using POE to assume each AC is true and then eliminate them one by one from there mentally. That's what allowed me to answer this question.

There is a limit to what I can model in my head though. Like a couple lessons back, there was a Level 5 question about finding sentient beings outside outside our solar system. That question had far too many words and linked conditionals for me to model it in my head. So, I had to write down the premises and conclusions, then swap out each AC one by one.

My problem is that I feel like J.Ys videos are made from the perspective of someone that already knows the answer, and then chooses the easiest method to get there. But we don't know that.

Why choose to model this question with a diagram? We didn't do that in the other questions. And then jump straight to the answer as B? I doubt that anybody solves questions like this.

#feedback If possible, 7sage should create videos of people who solve LSAT questions that they see for the first time out loud under timed conditions. Every solution video takes 5x, 6x, 7x the time you have to actually solve the question and I think it makes us plateau.

If we all had 8 minutes and 29 to answer each question we'd smash the exam. It is the time limit that is killer.

I had to write out the premises and conclusion, then slot each answer choice one by one to see if it would support the conclusion until I found D. Took me 10 minutes but I finally got it.

Premises

1. If you are sentient AND can communicate with us, you are at least as intelligent as us

2. If a sentient being on another planet (outside the solar system) cannot communicate with us, the only way to detect its existence is by sending a spacecraft to its planet (Answer Choice D)

3. We can't send spacecraft outside our solar system

Conclusion

1. We can't determine if there are sentient beings outside our solar system unless they are as intelligent as us

Notice that Premise 1 uses "and". It doesn't apply if you don't meet both criteria.

Then, answer choice B then tells us what happens when you meet only one criteria, in this case being sentient. Premise 3 then says that the condition in B isn't not met aka we can't trigger B.

That is why I underlined the part I did in the conclusion. Premise 2 and 3 work together to remove all the other options we have.

Premise 1 tells us the only option we have is if they are sentient and can communicate, then they are as intelligent. Which means that if they aren't as intelligent, they don't meet the criteria for Premise 1, aka, we cannot determine anything.

But if they were as intelligent, sentient and could communicate, then we might be able to determine their existence.

That is why the conclusion avoided the might, and chose to negate the necessary condition, which is being as intelligent as us.

On a side note, this question has the lowest pass rate of any question I've seen on the LSAT. Only 42%? the average score for 50% of people that got it was 167? Damn.

But hey, we know it now, so we'll be good right?

@ManjotSingh I know right?

I actually laughed when I saw it beecause I was like, oldest trick in the book? We're better than this.

I got this in 1 minute somehow, which was because I managed to see through the logic and find the trap they set.

The stim tells us that:

1. An exemplary record (ER) is necessary for eligibility, and without one, you cannot be eligible (note where it said but not otherwise).

2. Exceeding reasonable expectations is one way to become eligible, but it never said it is the only way.

Any option that doesn't tell us that Penn doesn't have an ER is automatically false. C and D are out.

This why A is correct and both B and E are wrong. They just tell us that Penn hasn't done something to exceed expectations. What if another rule for eligibility is 20 years of service? He could qualify that way, but we don't know that.

LSAC preys on your mental battery by overloading you with wrong options that look similar and have a lot of words but only tiny differences to wear you down when you try to differentiate. They also do it so you waste time, then panic over the wasted time, and do even worse. Not just LSAC too, lawyers try to trip themselves up all the time in real life too. Hell, one day we might be the ones laying traps for other lawyers.

So just relax. Don't let them get to you. This is why we (hopefully) get paid the big bucks.

@GiannaMaria M Guido Maybe, but the "proper reason" why A is wrong is because the stim says that they didn't find evidence that he falsified data in his doctoral thesis aka "in the course of pursuing that PhD", so why would that be the basis to revoke it?

You have to be really careful with these.

When I read the stim, my mind was thinking things like soft gel manufacturing is very hard to acquire. It was only when I read AC B that the assumption I had been making all along slapped my face.

The assumption is so in your face that I missed it at first.

I chose D, but this is why I think people are picking B and C

We know that we assume the ACs are true. B and C do not guarantee the outcome if the condition is met

C. The drug company should not undertake a new marketing campaign for its newest product if the campaign has no chance to succeed.

For this to be true all that needs to happen is that if the product has a 0% chance of suceeding, the company should not do another campaign.

But in our heads when we assume truth, we go on to assume that the product does not have a chance of suceeding, so the company should not undertake a new campaign

In other words, when we say an AC is true what we say is that the conditional is right in saying whatever it said, not that what it said has happened.

This same principle applies to AC B

Cost Benefit Analysis

Shooting your leg will get you an accomodation from LSAC. The pain from shooting your leg is not worth an accomodation from LSAT. Also, bullets are expensive. So is healthcare. Don't shoot your leg to get an accomodation.

If you're struggling with these types of questions, I have a piece of advice that has worked well for me.

Step 1: Read the question stem. In this case we want to weaken the argument.

Step 2: Read the stimulus and identify the conclusion. This is the most important part. Before you even look at the answer choices (ACs), have something in mind to (typically) look for.

I say typically because I am not the most experienced LSAT taker, so don't just hunt for an answer you like, use that as the starting point to eliminate bad answers. POE is always superior to Hunt for accuracy, Hunting is just good for time management on easy questions.

In this question, we are not just looking for a mechanism that protected the heart. We are looking for an AC that will explain a mechanism that protected the heart AND was not extremely low in fat. That "and" is crucial.

We are not strengthening the heart, we are strengthening the authors hypothesis as to what protects the heart. Even if the author was wrong, we still want to strengthen their hypothesis.

Using this basis alone, you can instantly eliminate D and E because they provide alternative hypotheses. Remember alternative hypotheses weaken arguments?

C fails because it doesn't tell us that a diet without low fat protected their heart. It just said they like the food. Ok? I like deep fried food too, will it protect my heart?

A fails because for one if denies the sufficient, which is an instant no. It also doesn't tell us that a higher fat diet still protects the heart.

POE leaves us with B, which works because it tells us the fats are still there, and the heart was protected.

I now realize that I wrote all this shit just to explain a question 98% of people already answer correctly LMAO who am I deceiving

I failed this because when I was coming up for potential explanations for why the experts didn't recommend electric bug zappers, I thought that if they weren't bright enough the insects wouldn't be attracted to them in the daytime.

Once I saw "provide less light," I didn't really think it through again. Confirm your assumptions people.

I almost fell for it! I even picked answer choice B first. Then I had an epiphany. The fact that other factors contribute to tropical storm development apart from global warming is not a conclusion, it is a premise! A premise presented as evidence used to challenge the prediction. But the conclusion is that the prediction is wrong.

LSAT I am learning your dirty tricks!

@DavidDuncan88 I love this so much

5/5 for me. My method is very simple. I take the mathematical meaning of the qualifiers and see if the numbers the quantifiers give can fit into a 100% without an overlap.

1. (Some) At least 1 electric truck is unpopular. (All) 100% of trucks inspire awe in children. There is already a 100% of trucks, so even that "at least one" truck must fit into the statement. Overlap IS guaranteed, valid conclusion.

2. (Some) At least 1 pro athlete is extremely talented. (Some) At least 1 athlete works hard to improve their skills. We can have one of each and still have no idea what all the other athletes are doing. It might overlap, but it is not guaranted. Overlap is NOT guaranteed, no valid conclusion.

3. (Most) More than 50% of professional athletes are extremely talented. (Some) At least 1 professional athlete works hard to improve their skills. Can you have a situation where 51% of pros are talented and only 1 pro works hard to improve their skills? Yes. Again, they might overlap, but that overlap is NOT guaranteed, so no valid conclusion.

4. Similar story to Question 1

5. This one is tricky because in all the other questions the subjects were either the same (pro athlete and pro athlete), or one was in the superset of another (electric truck in the superset of truck).

   Here, potions in the witch's hut are in the superset of ALL (100%) potions, but not necessarily MOST (>50%) of potions which is what the question asked us. This is the nuance that made Question 4 valid.

   This overlap only exists of most potions in the world are in the witch's hut. Which might be true, but we cannot guarantee it. And if the overlap is NOT guaranteed, there is no valid conclusion.

Remember that we are dealing with formal logic here. Validity is binary. Validity is absolute. There is no spectrum, or gradient, or scale to validity. It is either valid or not, and to be valid you must 100% guarantee that if your premises are true, your conclusion is true (in the world of that premise). That conclusion need not be true in the real world, just in the fake world of LSAT.

Good luck to everyone wading through this incredibly annoying exam that is explicitly designed to trip you up.

Hello All! If you happen to be a terrible procrastinator like me, I am trying to write this exam in February 2026. I got a 162 on my first practice test, but I imagine that score is not sustainable. If you're writing the exam next year, please reach out. We can still do this!

I was quite annoyed with this question but the solution is this easy. For B, even though it would reduce the number of lobsters with gill disease, you'd have to assume gill disease hurts most diseased lobster. For E, if most people who eat diseased lobsters are harmed, then the solution is to reduce the number of diseased lobster. B needs you to assume the harm, E guarantees the harm. This is why E weakens it more. We all heard "disease" and assumed the harm immediately without thinking it through. Also, the explanations for the correct answer don't tell us much lol.