- Official Score
- 174
My name is Rachel Greenbaum and I’ve been teaching with 7Sage for over two years. I graduated from UC Davis in 2022 with a triple major in Philosophy, Cognitive Science, and History. I am currently a 2L at the University of Virginia School of Law and loving every minute of it.
When it comes to the LSAT, I’m all about making hard concepts feel doable. I love figuring out how each student learns best and turning abstract logic into practical, easy-to-follow strategies. My goal is to make the test less intimidating and (dare I say it) kind of fun.
When I’m not teaching or studying, you can usually find me baking something sweet, hiking with my dog, painting, or pretending I’m good at rock climbing.
Discussions
Hi!
The question stem is asking us to undermine the justification given for why the practice is justified. They are saying it is because of the valuable training so that is why the low pay is justified. (A) does not help us weaken that the lower pay is justified for valuable training as the senior reporters are making as much as the competitors. The stimulus also states that any shortfall that might exist in the reporters’ salaries is compensated by the valuable training. (A) is just saying senior reporters get paid the same as the competitors so there wouldn’t necessarily be any shortfalls in their salary. This also does not account for more junior reporters and their salaries that may make up a decent portion of the staff
Hi!
For questions like this, you don't necessarily have to use lawgic to explain the answer! Sometimes trying to make into lawgic makes it more confusing than it has to be, especially on questions like weaken. In this case, we just see an example that would counter the claim in the stimulus
Hi!
If you don't brush your teeth --> cavities. The contrapositive of this would be if you do not get cavities --> you brush your teeth! The cavities would be the necessary condition for not brushing your teeth. In the contrapositive, brushing your teeth is the necessary condition for not getting cavities
Hi!
I think you may be overlooking a key part of the question stem. The question stem says "Which of the following principles most helps to justify the conclusion above?" With these types of questions, we want an answer that (if true) would make the argument make sense. So we want an answer choice that would justify the argument's conclusion of "Earlier ignorance of this connection does not absolve T's manufacturer of all responsibility." We want to justify the conclusion. The stimulus is telling us that they should be considered responsible and our answer choice is something that justifies the conclusion the stimulus made.
I hope this helps!
Hi!
I think you may be overlooking a key part of the question stem. Our question stem is asking "...would do most to justify the claim that the price of halibut will increase?" In so, we are only concerned with the price of halibut, not necessarily the fish overall. (C) is not relevant as it says that the loss of halibut will not be replaced by other fish. But we are only concerned with the loss of specifically halibut and why that price is increasing.
I hope this helps!
Hi!
Our stimulus is not trying to show what 'should' or 'should not' be thought of with respect to the nations. We are only really concerned with what the nations can or cannot do with their beliefs. It is the word 'should' that is the biggest red flag in this case!
I hope this helps!
Hi!
Your interpretation requires the assumption that the senior reporters at the newspaper also worked as (underpaid) junior reporters at the same newspaper. But the stimulus offers no support for that necessary assumption. It's equally possible that the senior reporters were hired externally. Effectively, (A) just states that a certain subset of the newspaper's staff make the same as a certain subset of the competitor's staff. It doesn't specify that the subset in question (senior reporters) includes any of the real subset of interest: reporters who are, or have been, underpaid by the newspaper.