thanks everyone. I'll take all this into consideration as I move forward
@ generally I feel like I am having trouble getting to the core of the argument which slows me down in real time trying to find the right answer. I'm having trouble with Flaw, MBT, and NA quite a bit.
Hey Everyone. So I've particularly been having trouble increasing my score for LR. I'm getting -10 to -13 and I feel really hopeless. Can someone perhaps give me some tips on how they are approaching studying for LR for better results
ahh ok. So what if the stimulas didn't say "one possible explanation". Would A still be correct?
Hey guys, I am having trouble understanding what is wrong with C. Even though I initially picked the right answer which is A I can't seem up eliminate C.
A) the proposed explanation for the decline in applications applies to this case
C) an increase in tuition and fees at the university would guarantee a larger applicant pool
the conclusion of the of this question is "so, if we want to increase the size of our applicant pool we need to raise our tuition and fees"
I just felt like A did a better job of capturing the relationship between the argument and the conclusion. Also even if C is negated it wouldn't destroy the argument because I can reply by saying "well it wouldn't guarantee but there is still a high possibility"
thoughts?
Thanks in advance
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-25/
Hi everyone I'm having trouble with this question. I think I sort of understand it but if someone can clarify any details Im missing I'd appreciate it.
Basically the citizen states he will do two things to ensure incumbents aren't re-elected. 1) campaign against all these incumbents 2) vote for the incumbent who represents his own neighborhood because she's the only one that knows what she is doing. He then goes on to argue that if everyone in Mooresville follows his example there will be a change in the councils membership.
the question stem then states "assuming that each citizen in Mooresville is allowed to vote only for a city council representative...."
so were proving what must be true for the council membership to change.
A) is true because the citizen in the stimulas is making the exception of voting for an incumbent in his neighborhood that he think will do a good job. But if everyone else from different neighborhoods does the same thing there stands a possibility that all the incumbents will be voted back in and do a bad job all over again in dealing with municipal finances so the voters in answer choice A shouldn't make the same exception that the citizen is making but instead the voters should vote for other representatives, which will substantially change the councils membership.
is this correct and is my reasoning of in any way...
Thanks
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-03/
thanks for the response!
Hi everyone!
Can someone please help me with this question. I can't understand why C is wrong at all. I got it down to A and C and ended up picking C.
cant C be correct because if drinking one glass doesn't cause deficiency in vitamin D, that means there would be enough calcium absorbed by an aging persons body for them to lower their blood pressure.
thoughts?
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-3-question-24/
thank you @ @ @. What I got from your comments are that I need to be more flexible in my way of thinking instead of assuming the LSAT will hand me the answer I'm looking for.
I understand the stimulas now. My way of thinking is only a partial explanation. Thanks a lot for you input!
Can someone explain to me how A is right. I understood the argument to be a generalization because it goes from talking about lowering dairy food intake to avoid heart diseases to talking about having good health in general
I understand why A is right, but is my way of thinking about the stimulas wrong?
http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-3-question-18/
PT19. S2. Q17
Hi everyone, I'm having trouble with this one. Here is how I diagrammed it.
premise1) devote to study natural process---- have leisure
premise 2) resources plentiful --- have leisure (------ note: i originally diagrammed premise 2 as the reverse of this statement but since it says "when" in premise 2 which introduces a sufficient assumption I changed it.
premise 3 + 4) early societies made complex discoveries - result of active study of natural process(/p)
I thought the answer was A) but its C. I thought it was A because when you combine premise 1 and 2 it creates a some statement between the two which I thought would be correct.
Can someone explain to me where I am going wrong.
Can someone please help me with this question. I've naarrowed it down to A and E. I understand why E is the correct answer but cant figure out why A is wrong
/control --- /morally responsible for it--- /responsible for any consequences
Even though its hard to determine if adults have control, everyone sometimes acts in ways that’s a consequence of treatment received as an infant and infants cant control.
Why cant I conclude A from this?
I really struggle with reading comprehension, and have been thinking of ways to improve. I have a few months before I write the LSAT and was wondering what some of you would recommend to get better.
I was thinking about subscribing to the economist and reading random articles that I find hard on a daily basis and using the 7sage reading comprehension method to really understand those articles. But I'd really like to hear from some of you who are killing the reading comp section. What works??
@ thanks. I definitely notice that I get sidetracked by the background information. I need to work on honing on on the core of the argument. I'll take that into consideration as I move forward.