JY states that the main conclusion is the first sentence ("a contention of many of my colleagues... is unfounded"), but the analysis of the stimulus states that the conclusion is "the high differential should have an opposite effect". JY's version makes more sense to be, but it would be helpful if the two could be consistent with each other. #feedback

#feedback I don't think I agree with the explanation for (E): The conclusion is about people who get CE. Whether or not people recover from OMS without treatment is irrelevant to the claim that CE becomes more dangerous at high altitudes.

I think that (E) is relevant in that it strengthens the argument (but ultimately, it is unnecessary). From the context, we know that cerebral edema can be life threatening without the correct treatment from the onset. If the symptoms for mountain sickness and cerebral edema are similar and someone displays these symptoms at a high altitude, then they might be misdiagnosed with mountain sickness, especially since it’s more common than cerebral edema. Wrongly attributing the symptoms to mountain sickness might lead to the person receiving little or no special treatment if (E) were true, which would be dangerous if they actually had cerebral edema instead. While this strengthens the argument, though, it’s not necessary. When stuck between (E) and (A), I searched for the difference between them and found that (E) could almost be considered a subset of (A). But while the negation test works for (A), it does not for (E). Even if (E) were false, the conclusion could still be true based on the premise as long as (A) stands.

(D) would've taken me a while to map out. When I come across a complex answer, I like to translate it to a more familiar example with a similar structure to better understand it under time pressure.

During the drill, the example that I thought of was, "If you can’t go to the store, then the only way to return the product is by mailing it back." In this case, there are only two ways to return the product: going to the store, or mailing it back. Similarly, (D) is saying that there are only two ways to detect sentient existence: the sentient communicating with us, or humans sending a spacecraft. 

Happy to talk about my study group in Chicago with other people from 7Sage!

@peter03.jin 7Sage has a lesson on biconditionals. The first clause was a conditional statement, and the second clause erroneously switched the conditions (sufficiency-necessity confusion). So, taken together, the author seems to think that "makes an agreement <--> obligation to fulfill it", which is a biconditional statement. Any two conditions that are always together and never apart are in a biconditional relationship. (The second type of biconditional is two conditions that are never together and always apart.)

@Colin Erickson HUGE timesaver for me, really appreciate it.

Also wanted to make a note for other users that it might be helpful to make a copy of the sheet and make edits. Since this sheet isn't from 7Sage, there might be some minor errors (like the or + negated example is incorrect; the example provided is the contrapositive rather than the negation). Not the end of the world, but helpful to make corrections as you go

This lesson says that the problem with the banana argument is that the two-year-old might not be aware that all bananas are fruits, so she can’t make the connection from “I’m eating a banana” to “I’m eating a fruit.”

However, even if she was aware, she might not be able to draw the inference, right? She's two. So I don't think it would be valid even if it were edited to be:

"My two-year-old believes she is eating a banana. She believes that all bananas are fruits. Therefore, my two-year-old believes she is eating a fruit."

@Kevin Lin Maybe they were thinking of the word "decreases" (verb vs adjective):

• Causal: Jumping into freezing water decreases one’s ability to perform well on the LSAT.

• Non-causal: Most people experience decreased mental functioning when they’re at a party.

#help Are there explanations on the new site for this? I see an explanation on the old site but I know it's shutting down in a few days. https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-2-question-17/

#help I am confused as to why we can assume that well-being has anything to do with whether something is a wise use of resources in (E). I originally eliminated (E) and chose (D) because of this reason. I now understand why (D) is incorrect but could use an explanation for why (E) is relevant/within the scope of the argument.

@Max Thompson

When you say "we have to think that if either of these researchers had found evidence like that, the author would have included it here", that seems to assume that if such evidence existed, it would've contradicted Temple's causal mechanism (i.e. if such evidence were found, it would strengthen, rather than weaken, the author's main point).

What if the evidence was not contradictory? Perhaps the researchers agreed with that evolutionary cause (dodos causing thicker walls), but found another way to explain the decline of the trees. Maybe the author chose to not include that concession point because it wasn't as strong as the other contradictory evidence.

I don't understand how we can exclude the possibility that the critics found evidence that identified the dodos as the cause, which the author might not have mentioned because it doesn't strongly support their main point.

#help Where can we find JY's description after reading passage B to decide between A and C?

#help When they say "surprising" in answer choice (C), whom is it supposed to be surprising to? Like is it saying the author is describing a development that was surprising to themself, or that the development is supposed to be surprising to the reader?

#feedback The explanation for D says that "the author doesn’t say anything about whether lawyers’ fees will be higher or lower under uplift fee arrangements, so this can’t undermine his criticism". However, doesn't the author say that these arrangements, in the case of a successful outcome, "require the client to pay the lawyer's normal fee plus an agreed-upon additional percentage of that fee"?

@Colin Erickson Thank you!!!

Why does this say deprecated? Is it outdated or something?

Do we know which LSATs will be disclosed ahead of time? It seems like there were none disclosed in 2024-25, so it would be helpful for this post to be updated to reflect the trend #feedback

@sparklespice4 Yeah using this approach after analyzing both passages and each question is both a bit boring and also not an accurate way to see if the sequential approach works better for us

@seleneb940 It might be that "tend" isn't referring to "regularly or frequently behaves in a particular way" here. Tend could also mean "go or move in a particular direction" or "be liable to possess or display". Those are definitions from the dictionary, which included the example "The road tends west around small mountains."

JY says passage A (ie. its author) agrees with (E), but we're technically not looking for the point of disagreement between the author of A and the author of B. We're looking for the point of disagreement between "the kind of objective historian described in passage A" and the author of passage B. We don't know the opinion of objective historians on the statement mentioned in answer choice E. #feedback

#feedback I wish they could mark the "you try" questions as "seen".

@lzagrodnik It makes sense given that before the "you try" questions, Kevin breaks down the passage piece by piece. We also have all the time in the world to analyze each paragraph. So, we have a strong understanding of the passage before even going into the questions.

@Alyssam can't it be both? perspective style: critique or debate, and engagement style: spotlight?

From this paragraph, how do you know that this is leaning toward spotlight rather than problem-analysis (problem = critics miss the point)? Bc I thought that the author's purpose for spotlight is about informing/explaining and problem-analysis is more about persuading. This paragraph seems persuasive to me

Can a passage be both problem-analysis and spotlight at the same time?

I know that (A) would be wrong either way, but how do we know that Chopin's work attempted to explore aspects of FEMALE consciousness? Was the gender of her protagonist mentioned?