No rabbit is white

Group 4-Negate Necessary

W---->/R

R----->/W

Now if you wanted this /R----->W

you could say "You are either a rabbit OR white"

which would be Group 3 Negate Sufficient.

I got this question correct, but answer choice D still kind of bothers me because it's unclear what the actual price for the equipment for oil is in relation to the equipment for natural gas. That is to say if the cost for natural gas equipment is $5 and the cost for oil equipment is $5Million. Then it's still unclear or could strengthen the idea that the switch is unlikely even if oil equipment has "fallen sharply". The Original price for the oil equipment could have been $10Million. If the price per barrel for Oil is $2 and the the price for Natural gas is $3 (based on answer choice D), not knowing the actual equipment costs I don't see how we can determine the move to be any more or less likely. This question makes the assumption that the price for oil equipment isn't significantly more expensive than the price for natural gas equipment.

JY this is hilarious!!!

so would the correct answer B fall under CAUSATION, Data Set? Red Wine----ReduceHeartDisease/Healthier. The correct answer shows another competing Data point?

I don't see how the phrase "of The Parties" eliminates any of the original ambiguity? To me this still could mean children conceived outside of the marriage. "of The Parties" referring to the two individuals and "for every child" meaning every child that the individual in the marriage fathered/mothered while in the marriage. Shouldn't it instead be "BETWEEN The Parties".

I would advise spending more time knowing the gist, evidence, viewpoints, structure and certainly the main points of the passage before moving on to the questions. You don't want to go back to the passage unless they give you a localized question (line specific) where you have to. I'm reading case summaries off Cornell's law website. It builds your reading comp and makes the passages on the LSAT seem much easier.

You have nothing to worry about. Take 20 preptests, blind review each of them then come back on here if you're still having problems. Earlier today one person said they took 45 practice exams! You are probably struggling with timing and the anxiety that comes with it. We all are. You can get over this by taking more timed exams and sections. Good luck.

@ for LG unlike SOME LR and RC questions, where you may be on the fence, that is picking the best answer out of a bunch of poorly worded answer choices, you should be ABSOLUTELY certain of each answer for logic games questions. You pick the answer and move on. When you get good enough you start noticing quickly the correct answers for Must Be True, Cannot be True and Could be True questions. For example if you're playing an In and Out Game, you fail your sufficient condition in a conditional rule you know that the necessary circled floater is the correct answer for a could be true question. You look through the answer choices only to find your answer, pick it, then move on. You should NEVER be guessing the correct answers for logic games questions.

Well for one, when doing logic games I would circle the correct answers and then after you've played that particular game transfer all the answers over to the scantron. For LR and RC I transfer over after every question.

you've done 40 to 45 practice tests?

I got this question wrong because I didn't understand the conclusion. I thought the conclusion was pointing out that it is wrong to assume that just because the number of surviving works by major artists equal those by minor artists, the two groups completed an equal number of works or even further that major artists played more of an influential role in creating landscape paintings.

So by this reasoning I chose answer choice C because if between the 17th century and NOW/present day paintings by minor artists were thrown out; had they survived, there would be more than there are in the present day total.

Now I realize even if I had interpreted the argument this way it would still be wrong because we don't know if paintings by major artists were also thrown out more or less often than those by minor artists.

@

To negate a conditional statement you have two options:

A) "Some [of the sufficient] is not [the necessary]".

Thus,

X--->Y

Logical opposite: X SOME /Y

B) "One can be [the sufficient] and not be [the necessary]".

Thus,

X---Y

Logical opposite: X AND /Y

Use B) when form A) doesn't make sense.

Think of taking the logical opposite or negating a conditional statement exactly like you would for the word ALL. ALL is a group 1 sufficient indicator and used in conditional reasoning. The logical opposite of the word ALL is "SOME...NOT".

"ALL" means 100 (it is an exact point).

"SOME...NOT" is a range 0-99.

Therefore, you can find the logical opposite of a conditional statement by also using "SOME...NOT".

Hope this helps.

You're assuming the OP intends to apply in February. You can take the exam in February and get it out of the way. The scores are good for 5 years.

I guess the one big assumption that we've all missed is whether or not this was a false alarm? Seems to me if the fire alarm went off they'd make everyone evacuate the building (think preschool). Did everyone stay seated? Did they add additional time on to the end of the section?

@.denny sounds like overall a really bad situation you were in. Hard to believe out of all test takers the proctor approached you like that and in the middle of a section to boot? I would have told to guy to have a warm cup of STFU.

As an aside, your post has me kind of anxious. If you don't mind could you tell me the testing center you were at? PM me if you feel more comfortable. Reason I ask is that I was planning on taking it in the Durham/Chapel Hill area.

@ no I don't see it that way. It is LSAC's fault because they set the the QC for administration of the exam. They could just as easily do it GMAT style where everyone signs up at a specific time/date and takes there test in a cubicle whenever they're ready. If the OP decides to keep his/her score and this incident is fully documented, IMO they should still refund his/her money for having to deal with this bull shit to begin with. An analogous example is going to the movies. If I spend $20 on popcorn and a drink and then people are loud in the theater and I can't enjoy the show I should not only be given a full refund for the ticket cost, but also I should be given a refund on the purchase price of the popcorn and drink (as I bought it with expectations of eating and enjoying it watching the film where no one is bothering me). Also I feel they should give me passes to the next show for free as I A) had to deal with this issue to begin with, B) took time out of my schedule (time is money) and C) used my own coin for gasoline, again with complete expectations of there being NO problems and enjoying the show. I don't look at this from the POV of being "entitled", just from a business perspective of rectifying a bad situation gone wrong where ultimately THEY (LSAC/Cinema) are in fact responsible.

@.denny sorry this happened. pretty inexcusable considering the magnitude of this test. IMO LSAC should compensate you for the cost of the exam regardless if you choose to cancel it. I also feel that on top of this they should offer you the next exam for free. You woke up early, spent your hard earned money on gasoline and then your performance was jeopardized because of quality control issues within the testing center itself. LSAC picks the locations of the testing centers and they are responsible for making sure it's right.

Does anybody know when this test will be available on the 7sage website? I would like to take it as a PT. Sounds like a beast.

well. LR counts 2X as logic games. You can get 100% on LG and still get a bad LSAT score. At some point I would start creating a schedule around LR. You still need to spend ample time each day with LG and RC but most of your time goes into figuring out LR questions.

@. That takes a special person and is quite an accomplishment!

@ how do you plan on going to law school with two babies?

what i plan on doing is going back and taking the test at my undergrad institution and staying in a hotel the night or two before to get away from everything. i will have it all mapped out beforehand including taking a prepaid taxi from the hotel to the testing center so that there is no chance of getting into a road-rage (or now more commonly known roid) incident. i will know the exact room location and start-time days in advance. headphones are a must. plug them in and do not speak to anyone in the morning. keep your eyes straight ahead and your head tucked low. nothing should be on your mind. anytime a thought of doubt or some other crap or annoyance in your life comes up immediately try to clear it out. put your stuff in your locker, let them frisk you, go in, sit down and stare at the desk. do not speak and say nothing. you are now mentally "in the zone". take your test and freaking dominate.

Conditional Reasoning:

---------------------------

Sentence #1

"Editorialist: Drivers with.....crime to go unpunished"

Thus,

DRR = Driver re-education recommended

Jail = Sentenced to Jail

/DRR→Jail

/Jail→DRR

---------------------------

Sentence #2

"Only if such drivers....recommended for them"

DRR = Driver re-education recommended

MMR = Made more responsible

DRR→MMR

/MMR→/DRR

-------------------------------

Sentence #3

"Unfortunately, it is always almost ...more responsible drivers."

L#DP = Large number of demerit points

MMR = Made more responsible

L#DP→/MMR

MMR→/L#DP

--------------------------------

A) CORRECT. So you connect the Last Sentence + Contrapositive of Second Sentence + First Sentence

L#DP→/MMR→/DRR→Jail.

B) INCORRECT. "Best Chance"? Huh? We are not told this.

C) INCORRECT. "Not Harsh Enough"? Huh? We are not told anything about the severity of strictness.

D) INCORRECT. Based on what we've diagrammed using conditional reasoning you can't link SDO up with anything.

SDO = Serious driving-related offenses

SDO→DRR

/DRR→/SDO

E) INCORRECT. Again incorrect because there is no break or split in the stimulus for Large number of demerit points and serious driving related offenses. There been no discussion separating the two and we aren't told what one should do if they have one verses the other.

D is clearly wrong, because you don't know the age of the zoo.

CASE #1: The zoo could be in business for 2 years and the new breeding program started on year 1, so some of the animals still alive and in the zoo were taken from the wild.

OR

CASE #2: The zoo could be 100 years old and the new breeding program has been going on for 50 years strong. Very few animals live to be 50 years old and most of the animals now in it were born in captivity through the program.

The former case though eliminates D from being correct.

For a MSS question you can't have any ambiguity or an unclear answer choice on both sides of the fence.

you definitely want to put in an experimental section. I might even recommend occasionally putting in a 6 section. @ this is a great strategy.