Discussions

User Avatar
RyanKelly
Joined
Dec 2025
Subscription
Core
PrepTests ·
PT107.S4.Q18
User Avatar
RyanKelly
Yesterday

All As are Bs, since any As can be Bs. Just because everything can be a certain way does not mean that they are all that way.

1
PrepTests ·
PT130.S1.Q9
User Avatar
RyanKelly
5 days ago

This argument sets a fairly high bar by saying, "N5 is of no use" which basically means it has completely no use to people who want to reduce intake of fate and consume fewer calories. This can be seen because N5 does not decrease caloric intake. But it could still be of some use if it decreases intake of fat.

1
PrepTests ·
PT137.S3.Q19
User Avatar
RyanKelly
6 days ago

Chef: There are two theories about why a cake rises: one attributes the rising to the presence of baking soda, while another attributes it to the combination of ingredients used in the recipe. To test the role of baking soda, I baked several items, each containing only one ingredient from the recipe: one with just flour, one with just sugar, one with just eggs, and one with just baking soda. None of these items produced a cake. I therefore conclude that the ingredients in the recipe are not responsible for a cake’s ability to rise.

1
Feature Request · Timer & Personalized Drills
User Avatar
RyanKelly
Friday, Jan 09

You can hide the on-screen timer by simply clicking on the timer

5

I wanted to suggest adding a way for users to see their overall average time spent per question for Logical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension across all drills and practice.

Ideally, this could appear in the analytics section alongside existing stats like total questions attempted, accuracy, questions answered per day, average scores, etc. Having an overall average time per question would make it much easier to track pacing improvement over time and understand how close a user is to test-day timing.

It could also be very helpful to break this timing data down by question difficulty (Levels 1–5). Seeing average time by difficulty would allow users to identify whether they are spending too much time on easier questions or over-investing in higher-difficulty questions, which directly relates to pacing and skip strategy under timed conditions.

Since 7Sage already tracks both question difficulty and time spent on individual questions, this would be an aggregate view of data that’s already being collected. I think it would be a useful addition to the analytics tools, especially for students like myself who are working to improve their timing.

Thanks for considering this.

1
Lessons · Theory - Part 1 (NA)
User Avatar
RyanKelly
Tuesday, Jan 06

I think of Necessary Assumptions as the foundation an argument depends on in order to function at all. A necessary assumption is something that must be true for the reasoning to apply, even if it does not guarantee the conclusion. For example, consider the argument: “All human beings are moral; therefore, I am moral.” A necessary assumption is that I am a human being. If that assumption were false, the premise would not apply to me, and the argument would collapse. The assumption does not prove the conclusion by itself, but without it, the argument cannot even be made.

2
PrepTests ·
PT142.S1.Q21
User Avatar
RyanKelly
Monday, Jan 05

The conclusion uses the word “unfairly,” which is a comparative term. To say the dogs were treated unfairly means their behavior must be explained by being treated worse than another dog, not simply by not receiving a reward. If dogs stop obeying commands even when both dogs receive no reward, then the decline in obedience would not show an aversion to unfair treatment, but only a response to the absence of rewards. Therefore, it is important to know whether obedience also declines when rewards are withheld from both dogs.

2
PrepTests ·
PT146.S2.Q7
User Avatar
RyanKelly
Monday, Jan 05

The big word in the stimulus is "pretend". If you're capable of pretending then you are capable of deception. In other words, pretending is sufficient for deception.

1
PrepTests ·
PT143.S1.Q22
User Avatar
RyanKelly
Tuesday, Dec 30 2025

The original argument assumes that because food co-ops are generally cheaper than other stores, they must also be cheaper than supermarkets, without directly comparing food co-ops to supermarkets. Choice C mirrors this flaw by concluding that bicycles generate more pollution than public buses based solely on a general claim about private versus public transportation, without directly comparing bicycles to buses.

1
PrepTests ·
PT107.S1.Q23
User Avatar
RyanKelly
Monday, Dec 29 2025

@megshirian I noticed the same thing when answering this question. I was going through the answer choices I noticed how AC B said “adults” and then “children” rather than just “not adults”. However, after going through all the other Answer choices I noticed that they all lacked the correct formula that was in the stimulus. I chose B because it was the most parallel to the stimulus argument formula. It wasn’t exactly what I was looking for but it was the best of the worst.

1
Lessons · You Try - Storytelling
User Avatar
RyanKelly
Friday, Dec 12 2025

I was able to rule out D by realizing that something can be a "universal aspect" regardless of how important or unimportant it is. blinking is a "universal aspect" even though its fairly unimportant.

2
Lessons · You Try - My First Teacher
User Avatar
RyanKelly
Wednesday, Dec 10 2025

The passage wants us to believe this: participation --> performance. However, if most of the parents participating in the program have prior education experience then the causal chain would look more like this: Parents w/ prior education exp. --> participation --> performance. Think of A-->B-->C. Therefore A-->C. Therefore, Parents w/ prior education exp. --> performance.

3
Lessons · Similar Causal Relationships
User Avatar
RyanKelly
Wednesday, Dec 10 2025

Informal Logic is based on a gradient spectrum: Weak or Strong? Formal Logic is based on a binary system: True or False. Weak or Strong Does NOT equal True or False. But it does point towards whether its True or False.

3
Lessons · Quantifier “Many”
User Avatar
RyanKelly
Tuesday, Dec 09 2025

"some birds migrate south." All that we can logically conclude from that statement is that at least 1 bird migrates south. If we say: "many birds migrate south." Then we can logically conclude that more than 1 bird migrates south. Essentially, on the LSAT you will only want to conclude the least amount of information possible. Dont try to figure out if all birds migrate south or if most birds migrate south because the only information that is gauranteed is what is stated in the sentence.

2
Lessons · [OPTIONAL] Quantifier “Overwhelming Majority”
User Avatar
RyanKelly
Tuesday, Dec 09 2025

"most" = more than half or 50%+1. If "overwhelming majority" = more than "most. Therefore, "overwhelming majority" > (50% +1). According to the example in the video, an "overwhelming majority" could be 52% since its more than "most" which is 51%.

3
Lessons · Rules and Exceptions
User Avatar
RyanKelly
Monday, Dec 08 2025

All residents of The Beresford are prohibited from keeping pets in their apartments unless the animal serves a legitimate medical purpose. /purpose and resident -> prohibit. However, just because the animal does not serve a legitimate medical purpose does not mean "someone" is prohibited from keeping pets in their apartment. That "someone" must be a resident of The Beresford. If they have an animal that does not serve a legitimate medical purpose but are not a resident of The Beresford then the rule does not apply and they are not prohibited from keeping pets in their apartment. This may seem obvious in this example but the LSAT will try to trick you by having one part of the sufficient condition achieved but not the other.

1
Lessons · Kick Up Conditional Conclusions
User Avatar
RyanKelly
Monday, Dec 08 2025

Similar example: I live in the USA. Therefore, If I have the right to freedom of speech then I can say whatever I want. The missing link is between living in the USA and having the right to freedom of speech. Facts: USA. Conclusion: Freedom of Speech -> Say whatever I want. We can rewrite this using the "kick it up" method by saying: I live in the USA. I have the right to freedom of speech. Therefore, I can say whatever I want. Facts: USA and Freedom of Speech. Conclusion: I can say whatever I want. The assumption in my original example necessary for the conclusion is that living in the USA means I have the right to freedom of speech. These Types of questions will show up on the LSAT that ask something like: "Which of the following must be assumed in order to justify the conclusion?"

10
Lessons · Example Argument - The Toppled Trash Bin
User Avatar
RyanKelly
Monday, Dec 08 2025

@DanielleMeuret There is doubt. It is possible for Ellie to have bought her plane ticket without Alaska points. Mabye Ellie used a friend's credit card, sent in a check, or simply purchased it with cash. The conclusion would have to be true if the premise had said: "Members and non-members can only buy their plane tickets through purchasing the flight with their own money credit-card or Alaska points." Within these premises, Ellie could only purchase her plane ticket with a credit card or Alaska points. She does't have her credit card therefore she had to use Alaska points. This is the difference between formal and informal logic. The original version relied on assumptions that the premises didn't guarantee. By restricting the possible actions is how necessity is formed: Credit Card or Alaska Points. Not Credit Card. Therefore Alaska Points.

2
Lessons · Negative Comparatives
User Avatar
RyanKelly
Sunday, Dec 07 2025

@EvanNabil the key phrase is "no more". Think of it like this: X is no larger than Y. From all the information we have, we can only conclude the following: X is either smaller than Y or X is equal to Y. X can't be bigger than Y. Therefore X is less than or equal to Y. Y is greater than or equal to X. Replace X with "economic disaster" and Replace Y with "military invasions."

1
Lessons · Concession
User Avatar
RyanKelly
Sunday, Dec 07 2025

Example: Yes, I know the Patriots have gone to the playoffs every year within the past 5 seasons and Tom Brady is an elite quarterback. However, the Patriots don't have a better defense than the Seahawks. Defense wins championships. Therefore, the Patriots will lose to the Seahawks in the championship.

4
Lessons · [OPTIONAL] Context Indicators
User Avatar
RyanKelly
Edited Thursday, Jan 08

The context is not related to the argument in the way that the premise is connected to the conclusion. To demonstrate this, I could say this: Most people say burgers are better than hotdogs. But, hotdogs taste better than burgers. Therefore, hotdogs are better than burgers because hotdogs taste better. What other people say about hotdogs vs. burgers has nothing to do with my conclusion. It is simply outside information that introduces the topic and sets up my argument. I can make the argument without the context but I can't make the argument without my premise or conclusion. Think of context like adding 0 in a math equation: 1+1=2, and (0)+1+1=2. The result is the same whether the 0 is there or not. Context works the same way in that it helps introduce the topic or make the argument easier to understand, but it does not affect the logical relationship between the premise and the conclusion.

5

Confirm action

Are you sure?