- Joined
- Aug 2025
- Subscription
- Live
I am PhD student at Berkeley Law School focusing on AI at the intersection of law, philosophy, and psycology.
Admissions profile
Discussions
Hmmm I really wish I tried this question on my own before the explaination. I loved how JY layed out the rule/carve out and it made it all super easy and straightforward. But I wonder if I would have been able to approach it it the same way?
I diagramed this as a biconditional and that led me to choose A even though I had my alarms go off for "the only" being too extreme. But I got rid of my doubt becasue I diagrammed a bi-conditional when it is in fact a causal relationship. But even if it is fact a biconditional claim, A fails for another reason.
JY explicitly notes that this biconditional chain is only a map of historical facts for a specific "domain of discourse" (the decades between 1970 and 2010). It just means: During those specific years, whenever one doubled, the other doubled too.
Answer (A) takes that historical observation and tries to turn it into a universal law of physics for all of time. It says increasing transistors is the only effective way to do it, period. Even if they always happened together in the past, you cannot logically prove that transistors are the only physical way to achieve that speed in the future.
I was a bit confused about how we make the jump to the implicaiton that rigrous curcciulm does't address development neeeds. I think one way to think about is the word "Only" in
Rigrous curriculum --> short term gains
If the only good thing a curriculum does is produce short-term gains, then we know for an absolute fact what it is not doing. It is definitively not addressing special developmental needs. The word "only" locks the door and prevents it from doing anything else.
By limiting its benefits to just "short-term gains," the author implies that it fails the necessary condition.
Correct me anyone if you think this may be the wrong logic?
Can't believe this is a 5 stars quesiton. I feel like these lessons have been so useful. I was able to get this question right very confidently because I started being able to tune out the noise in the stimlus and kick ideas up the domain. Thanks JY!
#HELP I completely understand how the implied conditional works in this Florida Panther question. Because there is a strict mathematical/physical limit (the habitat maxes out at 100, but we need 250), it creates an undeniable logical requirement: 250+ Panthers ➔ Increased Habitat.
My question is: is this the only time the LSAT expects us to make this kind of jump? Do implied conditionals only happen when we are dealing with mathematical capacities, budgets, or physical limits? I'd love to know if there are other common scenarios where the LSAT hides a necessary condition without using indicator words so I can add them to my notes
Just to be sure. Do we need to do BR during the CC? I am doing all my drills untimed and each question takes me anywehre from 2-15 minutes so it is almsot like a BR from the first take and I have been getting it all right pretty much because it is untimed. So is it ok that I am skipping BR and checking my score?
@ripleyschultz Thank you for the explaination. I initially chose A. But I was not confident because I assumed A would strengthen if it said that those that have genetic disposition to Parkinson have more iron in their system (not diet) so limitng their iron intake would help reduce chances of getting parkinson. I felt using the word "in their diet" was trying to trap me.
I got this right from first try. But I think I somehow chose based on my intuition of what the assumption was and eliminating other answers. But I didn't have a clear articulation of why chose those answers. And I defintley didn't think about it the same way as Kevin or JY. What should I do?
I've been trying to break down the word 'replaces' in Tova's argument, and I want to make sure my logic is sound here. Does the word 'replaces' essentially create a counterfactual (an alternate universe)?
It seems like Tova is arguing that if computer communication didn't exist, these people would just revert to being asocial or antisocial, rather than having the intimate in-person interactions that Samuel assumes they would have.
Because Samuel and Tova have two completely different counterfactuals (different ideas of what would happen if we took the computers away), is that exactly why they are forced to disagree on answer choice (E)?
@ericdanielsilvagomez518 One clear giveaway is "some anthropolgoists claim" becuase in LR stimulus, when other people's claim is presented, the author will typically disagree with their claim. Here some anthropologists claim agriculture began under draught and hunger (aka scarce resource, /plentiful resources). What would you anticpate our author will conclude rejecting that claim? Well, that reousrces are plentiful. And C does exactly that.
I think the other good give-away is just the diagramming of the conditional. It makes it pretty clear that agriculature --> resources. But I understand that the diagramming was confusing for many people including me. I still got the question right but the order of the diagramming made it very confusing.
@7SageTutor I think for that first sentence, what helped me diagram it quickly is I have started to see a pattern where if a sentence has a "Cannot/Unless" construction, I immediltey diagram it as "A-->B" without having to use mechanical translation rules of choosing one side of "Unless" and making it the suffecient condition and negating it. So much easier to just think of it as A-->B.
Unpopular opinion: I like the AI Coach. It provided the following notes on Q2 because I skipped the predicate grammar lesson.
LSAT Grammar Shortcut: The Hidden "AND" (Modified Nouns)
The Rule: The LSAT often hides "AND" statements inside descriptive grammar. When a noun in the predicate is modified by a descriptive phrase (using words like with, who are, or that have), it acts as a hidden conjunction. To fit the description, the subject must be both things.
The Example: "All trees are perennial plants with elongated stems."
The Breakdown: Even though the word "and" isn't in the sentence, for something to be a tree, it must meet two requirements:
It must be a perennial plant.
It must have an elongated stem.
The Lawgic Translation:
Original: Tree → Perennial AND Elongated Stem
Contrapositive (De Morgan's): /Perennial OR /Elongated Stem → /Tree (Meaning: If a plant is NOT perennial, OR if it does NOT have an elongated stem, it cannot be a tree. Failing just one requirement is enough to disqualify it.)
The Takeaway: Whenever you see a noun glued to a description, ask yourself: "Does this mean it has to be both things?" If yes, instantly treat it as an AND statement so you don't miss the contrapositive flip
I thought I got fluent in Lawgic, diagramng, translation, and valid arguemtns and this was supposed to be a drill for that but defintley not helpful at all. The questions are a lot more complicated and it feels like the conditional logic don't get used the same way. In fact, I think trying to force using conditional logic made me miss the obvious answers and problems with the question.
@LowriThomas This is great, thank you very much! I also just completed the BR for my 150 dignostic and I got 171 BR. I am very happy with BR score. Any advice as to what this means? And how I can bridge the gap? I think during BR, I am able to disect the arguments a lot better and even the questions I got wrong, I was able to narrow down the correct answer to the top 2 choices.
@LowriThomas Thank you for your reply. The analytics doesn't show me my priority area by question type but it shows my priority should conditional reasoning and phenomena-hypothesis. The reason why I don't have a defined approach for each question type is there are so many of them, and it is hard to remember and not confuse how I am supposed to approach each question types, especially when I am taking a PT and there is time constraints and I just forget to even pay attention to questions types and just try to answer the questions intuitively. I haven't done my BR for the the PT I just took so that might show me a different experience.
7Sage has also changed quite a bit since I have last used it. I saw that there is a "Practice Block" feature that generates automatic practices. How do you suggest I use that? Do I make that my main study method? and go back to CC when I need to focus on theory or remember approaches to questions.
I am a bit worried about spending a few months on CC and theory only to forget them cause that was my experience the first time around. I felt like I was just watching lessons and drilling things here and there but never really internalized it.
Hi everyone,
A few years ago, I took a diagnostic test and scored 139. I then signed up for 7Sage and finished the CC in a couple of months but never PTed. Life got in the way and I stopped my studies. I recently picked it up again and started by reading the PowerScore LR and I really liked it. I just took a PT/diagnostic and I scored 150. Still not great but actually happy that I am not scoring 139 now.
Anyways, I am wondering what my studying should start looking like. I am starting my PhD in August and I am planning to apply for law school in the fall of 2027. I will have the next 6-8 weeks to study a bit, and also planning to block of next summer for LSAT. I am also hoping to find 1-2 hours daily during my PhD this upcoming year to study for LSAT.
For my study plan, I am wondering if I should start with drilling and practice with wrong answer journal or do I have to do the CC again? I don't remember much from the CC but I actually preferred PowerScore. When I took the PT, I honestly didn't think a lot about the different questions types and just tried to answer as quickly and as best as I can. So not sure what would be the most useful next steps.
Any advice would be appreciated!!
#help is it possible to add tags for "rule/carve out". This is extremely helpful approach in these videos.