@temibaba I would try creating a drill through the Study --> Practice --> Drills using the menu at the top. I'm not sure whether trying to recreate the drill in the CC would give you different passages.

Many passages have multiple style tags -- that's probably why you're seeing this. (Let me know if the passages you're seeing aren't tagged with both.)

@Sabercat48 I don't think there's anything wrong with this in the sense that this is a reasonable approach to studying and using your time efficiently. Many people can usefully study even without doing BR; they just look at what they got wrong and try to understand the explanation for why it's wrong and how they should have been thinking.

But the BR score that results from this kind of review is likely going to be inflated, because often when you get something wrong, you were only considering one other potential answer, which is the correct one. So knowing that what you picked is wrong can help you correct that question in BR, even if you never would have changed your answer had you reviewed it without knowing that it was wrong. This means the BR score wouldn't really reflect your current untimed potential in the same way that a totally blind BR would. But as long as you recognize this, there's nothing wrong with doing this more limited type of review.

@Alastor1815 Noted, and I like responding to substantive comments like this. There have been times I have been similarly flummoxed by a correct answer, never being satisfied with the idea that it's still the "best" even if it seems very bad. But that means to me that there's some nuance I'm overlooking, or that this may be an instance of language having a range of interpretations, and the LSAT is asking me to recognize that the interpretation they're taking is allowable, even if it doesn't strike me as the best possible interpretation. I think this is actually an intentional aspect of the test, because it is a common part of lawyering.

@Alastor1815

Setting aside the existing explanation (which can always be improved), do you believe "This may be impractical..." can reasonably be considered part of the argument that is being sketched out? If so, that's one way to resolve the issue. (Note, I don't mean that it's the "correct" interpretation -- I'm asking whether it's within the range of reasonable interpretations, even if it's not the one that you think is the most reasoable.) I don't think the entirety of the argument needs to be sketched out in quotation marks. Clearly the author begins the argument with "Native Americans were the first human..." And it ends at some point -- one interpretation is that it's the rest of the paragraph, another is that it ends right before "This may be impractical..."

Let's say the arguments ends before "This may be impractical..." In that case, as I understand your position, the last two sentences indicate that the author necessarily endorses the argument. Is that right?

If so, I see two things that are worth exploring.

First, what do you make of the difference between saying that a wrong "can most easily be righted" in a certain way, and the idea that the way should be adopted? Can one say "this is the easiest way to do something" without necessarily thinking that it should be done? And, to head off a potential response, I don't think the mere characterization of something as a "wrong" implies the belief that something should be done to fix that wrong.

Second, if we do believe that the argument sketched out ends before "This may be impractical," isn't there a difference between "ideally, the land should be restored to its rightful owners," and "compromises might have to be made ... return [the land] wherever that is feasible." Arguably taking a more moderate position isn't necessarily an endorsement of the more extreme position (assuming we read "ideally, the land should be restored..." as the more extreme position).

By the way, the point of this discussion in my view is to try to understand the best arguments in favor of (A) being the best answer, since that is what I think is the most productive way to approach studying for the exam. Characterizing this as trying to "pretend" that particular lines support (A) is uncharitable, I think.

@SophiaWood I understand that you were thinking that (B) is already something true. When that happens, I might examine the stimulus to see whether that actually was something already stated by the premises. Very likely it wasn't, and the reason we thought it was already true is that we were bringing our own unwarranted assumption.

This can happen quite often in some other question types, especially Necessary Assumption. We look at an answer and think "that was already established..." But when we think that, it's often a sign that this could be the right answer. Often, it actually wasn't already established, but our minds just filled in the gaps while reading the stimulus and we perceived it as already being established.

@LSAT1011 Couldn't the self-expression required for survival be a non-violent form of aggression? "Violence is an extreme form of aggression" doesn't imply that all aggression is violent.

@Alastor1815 No, I don't think an author needs to explicitly say "I do not necessarily endorse the argument I described" to support the idea that they don't necessarily endorse the argument.

1. We should do X, because of Y.

2. One can obviously argue that we should do X, because of Y.

In #1, the author necessarily commits to the idea that we should do X because of Y. That commitment is not as clear in #2.

@sofistar Just making sure I understand -- are you suggesting A is just restatement of the conclusion, and so therefore isn't an assumption?

Also, regarding B, what do you make of the "reduced even slightly" aspect of this answer?

@e.wimoine The word "for" is being used as a premise indicator. (You can replace it with "since" and the meaning wouldn't change.) And "after all" in the last sentence tells us the last sentence is a premise.

@KR Interesting -- that does make sense. I think the LSAT might lean on "significantly" in (E).

@AlexBroussard There is technically a difference between "NOT (believe that it does not exist)" and "believe that it exists." It feels nitpicky, but there is one question I know off the top of my head that does require this distinction (and possibly one or two others).

Think of the following states of knowledge

1. believe that it exists

2. just have no belief at all about whether it exists

3. believe that it does NOT exist

"NOT (believe that it does not exist)" is triggered by 1 or 2

but "believe that it exists" is triggered only by 1...

If this doesn't really make sense right now, it's OK. It's such a niche issue that it might just take some more time ot think about it.

It might help to bring in the real life context. This rule is probably in place because if you're aware that something is, let's say, probably a fake good, then if you sell it to someone, you should still be blamed for fraud. But...if you genuinely believe that it's NOT fake, then maybe you did nothing wrong. So there's a potential carveout on whether you should still be blamed. Still...if you just have no belief it all -- you neither think it's fake or think it's real...but you're still aware that it's probably fake -- you don't get to take advantage of the carveout. You should still be blamed.

@LSATTobyInHR

It has to do with the specific phrasing of the relationship.

If studying more always increases your grades. Then studying less means your grades aren't as high as they could be.

If "the more friends you have, the happier you are", then that does imply that the fewer friends you have, the less happy.

But consider, "the more friends, the happier" is saying something different from "If you have lots of friends, you're happy." With this latter statement, it would be wrong to interpret this as suggesting "If you don't have lots of friends, then you're not happy."

"The more A, the more B"

is different from

"If A is true, then B is true."

Whenever you feel like there's some kind of contradiction in the pedagogy or the way the test is written, there's likely to be a level of nuance that justifies different treatment. This doesn't mean to throw out certain undertandings of the test, but rather, to seek out that nuance that makes one kind of thinking appropriate in one situation but not appropriate in another.

@manifest Have you experienced this from the start with these practice blocks, or is this something that has happened only more recently?

Could you tell me how many passages show up when you do the following:

Go to Drill --> RC --> Manual selection (isntead of automatic) --> Scroll down to "Results" filter and select "At least 2 incorrect"

Trying to figure out why you keep getting the same passages. It could be that there aren't enough passages fitting the criteria and we need a backup for this situation, or there could be something else going on.

@legallyhaya Have you experienced this from the start with these practice blocks, or is this something that has happened only more recently?

Could you tell me how many passages show up when you do the following:

Go to Drill --> RC --> Manual selection (isntead of automatic) --> Scroll down to "Results" filter and select "At least 2 incorrect"

Trying to figure out why you keep getting the same passages. It could be that there aren't enough passages fitting the criteria and we need a backup for this situation, or there could be something else going on.

Have you experienced this from the start with these practice blocks, or is this something that has happened only more recently?

Could you tell me how many passages show up when you do the following:

Go to Drill --> RC --> Manual selection (isntead of automatic) --> Scroll down to "Results" filter and select "At least 2 incorrect"

Trying to figure out why you keep getting the same passages. It could be that there aren't enough passages fitting the criteria and we need a backup for this situation, or there could be something else going on.

@180-Energy You have an argument as long as there is a premise and a conclusion. There can be many other statements, too, which you'll learn later are context. But the presence of other kinds of statements doesn't change whether you have an argument.

@LiviaLSAT If you can do these questions efficiently, correctly, and confidently (meaning, you're not seriously tempted by a wrong answer), then your intuitive understanding is likely strong enough to handle what you'll see on a test: https://7sage.com/lessons/foundations/conditional-and-set-logic/intro-youtry-1-pt123-s3-q22

https://7sage.com/lessons/foundations/conditional-and-set-logic/conditional-youtry-1-pt111-s3-q18

https://7sage.com/lessons/foundations/conditional-and-set-logic/drill-pt124-s3-q19-pt110-s2-q23-pt112-s1-q14

Study --> Analytics (Questions) --> Search bar in top right

This searches the stimulus text, question stem text, and answer choice text

You can also search by identifier (PTX.SX.QX or PTX.SX.PX.QX for RC)

@tspinnanger Yes, for context, I am starting off pretending that the stimulus says the following is true:

Red --> Happy

In other words, let's say we know as a fact that "red" is sufficient for happy.

Does that prove that "red + blue --> happy"?

1. Don't we know that "red" is sufficient for happy? In other words, that anything that is red is happy? Yes.

2. So doesn't it make sense that anything that is "red" - regardless of what other qualities it has - is happy? Yes.

3. So, we can prove that something that is both red and blue, or red and tall, or red and hairy, or red and a zebra, etc. --> is happy.

Now, the analysis above is a separate inquiry from what must be true from the statement "red and blue --> happy".

Let's say I start off knowing that "red and blue --> happy".

In this case, I do not know that red by itself --> happy. So if all i know is that something is red, I do not know that it is happy.

But do you see the difference here? If we start off knowing the "red --> happy", then we also know that "red and [literally any other quality] --> happy" because red already guarantees happy by itself. Adding on some other quality on top of red changes nothing.

If we start of knowing "red and blue --> happy," this doens't tell us red by itself can prove happy or that blue by itself can prove happy.

@Sarah975248 The flaw lies in your combination of "/beehives (no presence of bees)."

We are told in the second sentence that beehive ensure presence of bees. But that doesn't mean no beehives implies no presence of bees. It's still possible to have bees without beehives.

@LiviaLSAT But if there's a situation in which the judges are independent but the legal system is not good, how does it make sense to say "where the judges are independent there will be a good legal system"? It seems we'd have a counterexample to that statement in the situation you describe.

There's an implicit "all" here, because when we say "Where condition X is true, Y is true," we're not moderating the claim with "usually" or "most of the time." It just seems to be a blanket statement about situation where condition X is true.

@CMas You're interpreting "(red AND blue) --> happy" as if it means "red and blue" are both required to be happy.

But that's not what "(red and blue) --> happy" means. It just means that if someone has the qualities "red" and "blue", then they must be happy.

If we know that "red" guarantees happiness. Then it must be true that someone who is "red," regardless of what other qualities they have (such as being blue), must also be happy.

So we can prove "(red and tall) --> happy" or "(red and hairy) --> happy" just from the statement that red guarantees happy.

@AlexanderFry I interpret distorting someone's argument as a situation in which other person said "X" but you claim the person said "Y." In other words, you're claiming they said something they didn't.

But claiming that someone made an assumption isn't a distortion of the other person's argument, even if it's wrong to say that the person made a certain assumption. (In this case it's also not clear that it's wrong to say the other person's argument made the assumption the author claims it makes. But even if it were, it's not a distortion.)

This is because you're still accurately portraying what they said. You may be wrong about the idea that what they said requires some other belief, but you're not changing what they said.

@KR It seems like you're saying lower supply leads to lower demand? I think the LSAT would say that's not a reasonable expectation. It's been a while since I've studied economics, but my impression is that the supply and demand curves are somewhat independent. Lower supply typically doesn't change how much people want the good.