Hi could someone help me out with the diagramming on this one? I found it absolutely confounding and I'm usually pretty decent at conditional phrasing.

So what I took away from this after looking at this thoroughly was that the original logic chain is something to the effect of:

P1: EW (Weak Economy) -> PRC (Prices Remain Constant) and UR (Unemployment Rises)

P2: UR -> ID (Investment Decreases)

P3: /ID

What I got from this was: EW-> PRC

-> UR -> ID

Arrow in the second line after the blank is supposed to symbolize the "and." (And is split after, Or is split before)

From there: /ID ->/UR ->/EW

PRC seems irrelevant now since you've already failed part of the "and". Sufficient (EW) is already failed by /UR, therefore PRC floats. It can do whatever.

How do we get from /ID ->/UR ->/EW

to /EW -> ID must be false

Not sure how this is correct. Obviously, since we know ID is stated in the stimulus, this must be true. Then it says EW, which we know not to be true.

Similarly, with D, we know that the economy is not weak, must be true, but prices remaining constant, I have no idea how this figures in.

Same thing with E. Either unemployment is rising, and we know that it isn't, or the economy is not weak, which also must be true. We know both of these must be true. Still not sure how this translates into an either...or statement.

What am I missing here? Is it something to with the either...or statements?

Can someone explain how they were able to tease out the conditional elements in this stimulus?

I'm having trouble seeing how the second sentence fits into the conditional framework. It doesn't seem like it plays a role there.

All I can see with this, and it leads you straight to the answer, is:

Sentence 1: PPS-->MA

Conclusion: SA-->MA

Answer A: SA-->PPS

The negation didn't help me here since I didn't understand the conditional language at first, which is why I picked the wrong answer. If someone can explain why the negation would hurt the conclusion here, I'd be very grateful. Thank you.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-52-section-3-question-07/

Just curious. It said I'd used 5/6 tests or something at the bottom. This seems strange. Also, is there a way to identify your most missed question types via analytics?

Thinking about asking past bosses who are now pretty high up in tech and entertainment (Apple, Production Company Owner, Best-Selling Author who was my former editor). These are two fields I'm interested in working in with copyright and IP, but I realize this won't be enough.

I need some academic letters and I'm coming up short on where I might find one, since I've been out of school for 10 years now and didn't form any relationships with my professors. The one exception is an advertising professor in the Communications department. Other than that, I don't really anyone in academia except for my ex and I'm definitely not going down that road.

Only other option I can think of is that I was employed in a workstudy program for 3 years and worked under a couple different Deans (engineering and biochemistry), both of whom I presume hold me in high esteem. But again, I haven't talked to these people in years.

Are these options even worth a shot? Or should I just find some people to pay off?

This is my biggest problem at the moment, and I don't recall this being in the curriculum. Could someone point this lesson out if I'm missing it? Seems like a pretty big part of the test.

I understand the flaw in the correct answer choice, but not how it applies to Tom's argument in the stimulus.

D : "Fails to apply a general rule to all relevant circumstances" is the correct AC here.

Conclusion: No it isn't the the best one to rent

Premise/Sub-conclusion: The yard isn't as big as it looks.

Premise: Property lines in Prairieview start 20 feet from the street, so what looks like part of the yard is really city property.

Rolanda points out his flaw: "That's true of all the other properties we've looked at too."

What is true of all the other properties we've looked at? General rule: Property lines start 20 feet from the street, so what looks like part of the yard is really city property. The yards aren't as big as they look. (Is this last sentence included in the general rule?)

Would this still be flawed if Tom said "None of the yards are as big as they look?" I do not understand where exactly this flaw is committed in his argument. If someone could point this out, I would be very grateful. Thanks.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-65-section-4-question-11/

When I first started out studying last year, I wasn't notating at all and I was only missing -2, -3 on a section. I was reading a lot of books before then, so I think I was able to intuitively connect paragraphs and recall the most significant pieces of information.

But as I got further into my studying and began notating based off the curriculum and part of Nicole's presentation, I noticed an immediate drop in my scores. This was right after I began notating. I continued with this method until today, when I got a -9 on a timed RC and -3 on BR. Right after that I drilled a new section with no notes at all and got -4 timed.

Notating just slowed down my read, clouded my interpretation and bogged me down in details rather than reading at a consistent pace with no breaks for underlining, circling, and writing down details on the side. This all slowed me down and caused me to break in the middle of sentences, in between sentences and in between paragraphs. Not only did it slow down my read, I wasn't able to fluidly read a passage and ascertain the content or the main purpose or structure.

Breaking at the end of the passage to solidify your understanding is helpful and writing that down might help sometimes, but maybe for some people notating just isn't a good idea. You might have to return to the passage a bit more, but the time saved during the read more than makes up for it.

If any of you have similar problems, don't feel bad about not notating because I guess it just doesn't work for some people.

Onward and upward.

Hi I was just hoping someone could help me sort out the conditional logic in this stimulus. I feel like there's a gap in my understanding of the first sentence of the stimulus.

The first statement is about archaic spellings being preserved if they are infrequent and do not interfere with reading comprehension. I think the negation of preserved is modernized.

F: frequent

I: interfere

M: modernize

I originally diagrammed this statement as:

/F & /I -> /M

M -> F or I

The correct diagram is:

/M->/F & /I

F or I -> M

What is the difference I'm missing here?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-3-question-19/

I've weaved my disability into my personal statement pretty well, but I just wanted to know if I should write a diversity statement as well. I'm not sure what I could discuss that isn't already included in my PS.

What's going to give me the best chance of standing out and getting extra funding? Thanks!

Looking for some feedback on my personal statement.

I'm also willing to trade statements if you would like me to review yours. I'm a former journalist, so I have some nice writing experience and good eye for typos.

DM if you're interested.

I find myself frantically scribbling everything down like a doctor and never looking back at my notes during the questions. What should I actually take notes on to make this worthwhile? This is just hogging up time for me right now, but I found it to be very useful when doing sections untimed.

Query failed: connection to 172.31.3.4:9312 failed (errno=111, msg=Connection refused).

Seeing this when I search the forum. Cleared cache. Rebooted. Turned off VPN.

Anyone?

Thought it was strange that no one reached out to confirm my accommodations for Saturday like they usually do. So I reached out to the supervisor here in Louisville, and someone in her office notified me that I am scheduled to take the test next weekend (23rd) instead of this weekend, even though my ticket said the 16th.

This seemed strange, since when I took the test last December, there was not a separate date for accommodated testing. But after speaking with the administrator directly, I found out that they had to reschedule at the last minute because there were not enough proctors. Just a few minutes after we spoke, I received an email from LSAC containing the updated information.

From the LSAC Accommodations page: "Additionally, your test may be scheduled for an alternative, later date."

This is just a reminder to everyone with accommodations that you should confirm the details for your test with the administrator. There may be some last minute changes that you aren't aware of. They had apparently lost my contact info, which is one of the reasons I wasn't informed until this morning. But she also mentioned that this happened with another person, so I hope whomever that is gets the message as well.

Can someone please explain how we arrive at answer choice D from the stimulus?

If I understand correctly, not routinely unpunished (/RU) equates to sometimes unpunished.

We get /RU by negating the chain presented in the stimulus which is /CH->MG->/RU

From there the author shifts from "routinely" (/RU) to "never" (/U).

So why does the correct answer say confuses "routinely" with "sometimes"? Since the conclusion says never unpunished, I figured it would be confuses "never" with "routine" or "sometimes."

JY's video explanation offers no insight here, but I'll post the link anyways.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-1-question-22/

Hi. Just having trouble distinguishing answer C from D in this question. I think D is wrong only because it is plural. Can someone please confirm? I think it's saying the same thing as the right answer (C) in a different way. Please explain if I am wrong.

D. Takes for granted that threat (increased encephalitis) that is aggravated by certain factors (rain) could not occur in the absence of those factors (rain.)

Takes for granted that increased encephalitis that is aggravated by rain could not occur without rain. IC can only occur with rain. No other factors.

C. Ignores the possibility that a certain type of outcome (increased encephalitis) is dependent on more than one factor (rain).

Ignores the possibility that other factors (that aren't rain) could contribute to IC. D says increased encephalitis could not occur without rain. No other factors seems to be established in both answer choices.

I don't really see much of a difference in the meaning here. Please tell me if I'm interpreting this incorrectly.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-4-question-17/

This guy JY shifts from a correct CBT answer choice to a MBT answer choice in the question straight after. I understand why some of the elements might be fixed in certain positions for the GLQ arrangement on Team 1 in Q23, but wouldn't you have to test all of them to make sure they must be true?

Sure, for Q24, G & K are positioned in the same way as they are for the correct answer on Q23 (E: L and Q). I get that. How would you know that every other element in that setup must be true? I could understand one noticing one as you're going through the setup on Q23 but this approach doesn't seem like it would hold true in all scenarios.

I understand why the answer is right, but this approach just seems a little sketchy. I don't know how you can say something that could be true also must be true. You would have to test it to make sure unless you knew from the setup.

Hi. I've been studying for the LSAT since July, and since I completed the curriculum about a month ago, I'm having a very hard time setting an effective, dedicated routine.

I am not employed and my schedule is completely open. I usually wake up around 8 or 9, meditate, run, eat breakfast and then read for an hour before starting. Then I'll BR a logic game from the day before, drill a new one, and then watch a webinar or study the curriculum to focus on my weak spots. And then I BR an LR drill from the previous day and do a new one.

I did very well with the LR sections in the PTs offered with the curriculum, but I think they were retakes or some of the questions were used in the curriculum, because my scores on 45-48 have not been nearly as good. Went to from -3 avg. o -6, and I'm drilling LR every day. No days off. I did a PT a couple weeks back after finishing the curriculum and got around a 168 (target is 175), but again it was a PT with some questions I was familiar with. The LR questions I'm currently missing aren't really a specific type, though I'm having trouble with flaw questions regularly and sometimes it's hard to identify conditional statements.

So now I'm planning on doing one PT a week for the next month and then bumping it up to two a week in April. What would be an effective way to use my time during those days between PTs. My blind reviews take up a lot of time, and I don't know how and what to study in the time I'll have left after that.

Attended the post-curriculum seminar already. Please help. I do not want to waste all of this time that I know I could be using more wisely. I'm testing with accommodations, 50% time. I usually dedicate around 6 hours a day to studying, and my scores are not reflecting much improvement, though I'm up a little bit from the 158 I got in December.

I've only come across this type of flaw a few times, but I'd like to understand the structure behind it. The explanation and example offered in the curriculum are not very clear. Is this similar to an is vs. ought flaw? Can someone offer an additional example?

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/19-common-argument-flaws/

I'm curious if anyone has researched schools with Technology programs. The program at USC is what I'm most interested in. It's a mix of Media, Entertainment and Technology with a focus on Intellectual Property.

I'd really like to focus on Technology though. Also, can anyone comment on schools with good networks of graduates in Silicon Valley or Silicon Beach? Thanks.

Found this earlier and it's working quite well so far. I've been dealing with birds and landscapers for the last couple days, and I know I'm not the only one with this problem.

But if any hunters want to come deal with the bird that flies in to my windowpane at 3PM everyday, feel free to swing by. Very bizarre, annoying phenomenon.

Title says it all. I'm having trouble finding an answer through Google.

Can someone please confirm that I have this chain correct? I became confused with the "cannot" in the first premise. Now I'm presuming "cannot" is modifying the sufficient clause since this premise includes "unless." Please correct me if I'm wrong. I was initially under the impression that cannot was modifying the necessary clause since it is a group 4 indicator.

AV (Aesthetic Value)

WM (Whatever Meaning Reader Assigns)

OE (Objectively Evaluated)

Premise:

AV--->~WM

I was very unclear on the wording in the necessary clause. After looking at this for a while, I determined that at least two readers agreeing on the "correct" interpretation appears to be the logical opposite of a poem having whatever meaning a reader assigns. Still a bit shaky on this though.

Conclusion:

EO--->~WM

Answer Choice D

EO--->AV

Chain:

EO--->AV--->~WM

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-3-question-24/

So how should I space out these last three PTs? I'm thinking it might be wise to take 2-3 days in between so I can drill and focus on weaknesses, but I'm also curious about when I should take my last PT before the test date.

Do you all have any suggestions for a solid schedule for the remaining two weeks?

How concerned should I be about BRing around this time as well? Should I just take a hard look at the questions I missed and didn't quite understand so I can save time for drilling? A complete BR usually takes a couple days for me and I feel like I won't have much time for drills.

Thanks. You all have been a big help.

Still trying to tease out the stimulus on this one. I don't understand what the two different DNA tests are or how they are confused or what the assumption is.

Premise: DNA tests can't distinguish among samples from different people. Samples A and B are both different, but test says they are both A.

Conclusion: You can't exonerate someone because their DNA did not match the DNA at the scene of the crime. Sample A did not match Sample X (crime scene), thus, one would expect A and B to be exonerated since they were both identified as A. Or that B would be exonerated anyways because the tests says his DNA is also A. But the author is saying, no, you cannot exonerate sample B because B was misidentified as A, so B could still be the assailant.

I was able to eliminate all the other answers. This is just one where I can't understand why AC B is correct. Let me know if I misunderstood the premises here.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-45-section-1-question-24/

My big issue with this question is about why B is the correct answer. It seems to equate "exploiting" with "destroy" and I'm not sure how reasonable of an assumption that is to make. Since this is a logically inferred question, I assumed that the right answer would have a higher degree of validity than an MSS answer choice.

But answer B, the right answer, seems to combine the two groups of environmentalists into one group, and I'm not sure that's implied anywhere in the argument. Noneconomic justification appears in the second sentence with the many group. The defensibility of exploiting features appear in the previous sentence with the some group.

How are we to infer that we have to combine these groups? Does it have to do with the economic costs in the last part of the second sentence?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-3-question-08/