All three questions were pretty tough for me as well. I bought 7sage's PT71, and I highly recommend that you buy it if you're having more problems!

Q13 - the "games that are intentionally commodified" are [some] of "most multiplayer online games" that "encourage" "real-world trade in virtual items" by "granting participants intellectual property rights in their creations" (sorry for the quotation marks everywhere. To answer this question, you want to organize the first paragraph of Passage B this way). So the the right answer is D.

Q16 - I think this was a hard question because it really had to depend on your ability to infer from not just one or two sentences but both paragraphs 2 and 3 (and a bit of 4). The author notes how there has been little systematic research on superior performance, and when the recent research shows that superior performance is most always correlated with extensive training. Note that while the whole time the reader feels like "ok, I get it, success is not due to innate talent," the author never explicitly says, "innate talent is not the cause." The closest thing he says is "evidence does not support the claim that a notion of innate talent must be invoked in order to account for the difference between good and outstanding performance." And we know from all the flaw questions that "no support" does not mean "does not exist." So what he is basically showing through paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 is that extensive training is such a big confounder that we can't deduce whether innate talent IS a significant factor. E is wrong because of the very strong language "exceptional skill does not depend in ANY WAY on innate talents of individuals." We don't know this.

Q22 - Passage 4 was a TOUGH passage to understand for me, and if you felt the same, I highly highly recommend just purchasing the PT71 to see JY go through it. Basically paragraph 2 outlines the "front-to-back" explanation of mirrors. Then, it says "this explanation appeals strongly to many people." Why? because "we are accustomed to dealing with our mental constructs of objects rather than with the primary sense perceptions on which those constructs are based." So when question 22 asks what this facilitates our ability to, it facilitates our ability to understand the front-to-back explanation of what mirrors do.

I felt like this was one of the most difficult LSAT passages I've seen particularly because the author's opinion was so hidden. Unless we really understand what's going on in each of the hypotheses, it's really hard to tease apart what the author thinks about the second hypothesis. :(

It makes me so happy when I hear "I think it's a tough question" at the start of the video. But I should have caught that if any of the 20 trucks were sold before the diesel-powered trucks were sold, some could have been diesel-powered.

I got this question right by eliminating everything else, and A sounded close... but your explanation definitely, definitely helped. Everything makes complete sense and the world looks better.

Ahh I see. The key idea is that the answer choice has to correspond to the causal reasoning author is trying to set. And tricky choices like C, D, and E all use correlational language while B is the only one that says melting of the snowpacks LED to greater spring flooding and less storable water. This was a difficult question. Great explanations :)

Timing will improve if you keep practicing taking tests under timed conditions. Trust me. You will get into a habit of identifying flaws and assumptions quickly, and eliminating the answer choices just as quickly.

I feel stupid. I thought Main Street location meant "main location" like some kind of headquarters and that Walnut Lane was the name of the location... Definitely need to read stimulus more carefully.

the curve is -12 because the highest score 101 - 12 = 89 -> 170

you see a lot of:

flaws and inferences (4~6) > necessary/sufficient assumptions (2~5)> strengthen/weaken questions (2~4) > supporting principles, conclusions, main point, disagreement, explain discrepancy, matching flaw/reasoning, and functions (0~2)

This is what seems to occur generally

@: Maybe I'm not studying too intensely--I don't see logic game hypotheticals everywhere I go. But good for you if you do!

@: Only 11 hours? 15 hours is the minimum. Who studies less than 12 hours a day?

I'm clearly being sarcastic. I kind of hope you are too... if not, impressive.

Hi JY,

so after reading the stimulus, I came down to two assumptions that the author is making here, one of which you stated in the video, but am not sure of the other assumption that I thought of. Here are the assumptions:

1) actions of polluting air, water, and depleting soil = irrationality, or not having capacity for well considered thinking and behavior. (flaw: there can be so many other ways humans can be irrational/rational)

2) rational ⇒ superior. This is the one I wasn't sure about. I thought, "Even though the author says this is “supposedly the difference that makes humans superior to other animals” it might not be the only difference. There can be many other ways humans can be superior than animals, even if we are not rational" and then I thought…"But wait, does “supposedly the difference” (as a premise, not sub-conclusion or conclusion) mean that without this rationality, there is nothing that makes the two different?" Sorry for the quotation marks everywhere, but "supposedly the difference" function here as "the only difference" when it is used in a premise?

***

And just like Elizabeth, I thought C was a really attractive answer. I chose E because E had the "right flaw" but couldn't rule out C until after I came back to the question after the test. By any chance you are still reading this comment, you don't have to read this because this is gonna be really long. I'm just going to explain why I chose C and why I think it's not right so that I don't forget this question and for anyone else who had problems with C.

I think answer choice C was attractive for me because 1) the conclusion “thus, humans are not rational, so it’s absurd to regard them as superior” was unconsciously understood as “thus humans are not rational, so they are possibly less superior.” With this unconscious (and dangerous) interpretation in mind, I moved on to answer C. 2) Upon encountering choice C, I thought, “yeah, if animals ALSO performed these actions, then they are also irrational. So we can’t actually say humans are less superior, because animals are just as irrational!”

So here is how to make choices like C less attractive:

1) Read the conclusion carefully. The author is simply saying “humans are not rational, so it is absurd to regard them as superior to other animals.”

2) Let’s say that let’s say that the author does show that animals also do irrational things. But the author has already said in the stimulus that animals do not have rationality (or not as rational, either way, they don’t have this “difference” of rationality that makes humans superior).

3) We can’t conclude anything from the fact that animals are also doing irrational acts because the author already said animals are irrational/less rational so this doesn’t bring anything new to the argument. Humans are still acting irrationally, and so are the animals. So what? Animals acting just as irrationally as humans DOES NOT make humans superior.

Great explanations. E is wrong because [extended hospital stay (1981-1986)] is narrower than [hospitalization or death (1986-1990)]. If the the category gets broader, it means more accidents could be classified as "serious." So the fact that the number of accidents actually went down means it is likely that 1) the decrease in accidents is real and that 2) there was something involved that caused the decrease.

I have a question:

I was debating between B and E, because I thought when Randi referred to "but that applies only to vocational books" he was denying relevance Helen's analogy of reading books and investing money because it does not pertain to fictions. I was 99% sure that B was the correct answer, but from the way I saw it, E also seemed to be at least 50% correct so I ended up ruling it out by telling myself "Helen is providing analogies, not examples".

So I guess what I'm asking is,

1) Can you elaborate on how Randi does not talk about relevance at all? Maybe I'm just not getting this.

2) Can Helen's analogy be considered as an example she uses to support her argument?

Thank you!

Wow C was such a tricky answer choice. Great explanations though! It just came down to weakening the idea that "this (particular) practice" of manufacturing and exporting pesticide increases health risk to US. If other countries manufacture it as well, we would still have the health risk no matter what.

I'm just commenting so I don't forget this weakening question.

Hi JY, I have a question. I was wondering if you put "meat" on these conceptual ideas during the test as well. Of course, it takes much more time to explain to us than just thinking about it in your head, but assume that even thinking about it takes a few seconds or so. Do you recommend students do this?

I was very, very confused for the most part on this question. I was too hesitant to connect the idea of genuine happiness to happy life and felt like there were just too many unlinked ideas... Here's what I got so far (most of the ideas are written in variables to simplify things):

Author's conclusion is: happy life consists of B (something that looks related to A).

Why? Genuine happiness consists of A.

In order for the premise to have any bearing on the conclusion, the author needs A to be B. (this is the part I'm most confused about)

But I still feel like genuine happiness and happy life are two very different constructs, and I feel like the argument:

X consists of A, thus Y consists of B

will not work even if

X consists of B, thus Y consists of B

I'm guessing that the conclusion doesn't have to work just by (A is B) since this is a required assumption and not a sufficient assumption?

Or I guess, I don't know why A needs to be B.

Is it because we need at least the slightest, slightest bridge for the premise to support the conclusion? That if we make this connection, we may have a slight chance of establishing Y consists of B even if X does not necessarily connect with Y?

Sorry about (probably) confusing you. I want to understand the logic I need to have to understand this question but feel like I'm in no way close..

I got this question wrong because I conceptualized the flaw too vaguely, and got trapped in the wrong answer (C) but this is what I think of the question (correct me if I'm wrong):

flaw: there is nothing we know about apples 5,000 years ago. This is just purely wrong to compare what we know about apples today to what apples would have been 5,000 years ago.

Reason why B is right: this tells us that the author fails to consider, for any reason (this is how I thought of the whole short time/long time thing.. this is actually not important; the information is just there because the author fail to consider any particular reason for the conclusion to not be the case), a cultivated apple may not resemble a wile apple. Basically, the author assumes a cultivated apple should be different from wild apple from what we know of today. But since we are thinking of apples 5,000 ago, why should they be any different?

Reason why C is wrong: Just like JY says, the author simply does not take this for granted. For the author to take for granted that there exists only two sizes, the author should have mentioned it, or the author would have rejected something being an apple based on a size that different from the two.

Ooooh I can't believe the circular logic game isn't the dummy. I actually did totally fine on the circular game, instead, I totally ended up guessing on the grouping game for some reason. I probably missed an important inference and spent way too much figuring out. Which sucks because on the other LG I had about 10 minutes left, while this one I ran out of time and ended up guessing 3 questions, which is something I've NEVER done before. :'(

I know from experience that the day after I've done a PT, I get really tired to do another PT, so I noticed that it's probably a bad idea to do a PT before the day of the test.. hope this helps.

the experimental section for last december was RC for me. And it was tougher than the actual RC passage. It had a complex econ theory passage right in the middle and ate up my time - one of the biggest reasons why I ended up cancelling my test right at the center. I had two RC back to back, and my energy was drained out that I didn't do that well on my last section, which was LR. I'm telling you, be prepared for ANYTHING.

+ I just want to say a huge thanks to JY for providing many examples and especially breaking down "the only" into two grammatical usages!

Wow thanks so much for the posts guys! Had difficulty gaining access to wifi in my area for hours after the post and look at this :) This was very VERY helpful.

I agree with lsatisland. Slightly easier LR, although they take more time because we don't have one of those read-one-stimulus-and-answer-two-questions LR questions. MUCH easier LG if you get down the rule equivalent questions, and more difficult RC due to more time it takes with comparative readings and generally tougher inferences.

Thanks!

I think you could definitely do better on the LG. It's much easier than rest of the sections, in my opinion. What helped me initially before watching any of 7sage videos was basically doing a game, and then after doing the problems, I wrote down KEY IDEAS that should have helped me solve the game faster and easier. There will almost always be a key inference that will help you solve games 1~3 minutes faster for each game, whether it's a big block of people you have to group together or three or four conditionals that eliminates some people quickly. Figure out what you SHOULD HAVE SEEN at your initial set up, and do that game again. If you couldn't get it, see JY do it and follow the foolproof method for LG.

For RC, it's always a gamble for me... Sometimes I do as well as -0 but sometimes, like you, I get more than -10. I decided that I won't let RC become a part of my LSAT stress and "control what I can control" and go with studying hard core for LR. But make sure, after doing an RC, do the same one the next day until you get a -0. Even if it's out of you having memorized the right answer. That will give you confidence.

I think what LR comes down to is solving a lot of questions and learning what answer choices the LSAT writers believe are the "correct" ones, as opposed to the "incorrect" ones. Lots of it comes down to learning the LSAT language (especially abstract ones).

Also, considering the limited time that you had (3 weeks), you can't possibly expect to jump a huge score. How many hours a day are you studying? I find that for LR, consistency is KEY and you have to do at least a section in the morning and another at night to keep your LSAT rhythm going. This is just me though. And this should be done only after you're pretty set on how to tackle different question stems with specific mindsets.

First of all, not all claims are conclusions. There can be as many as 3~4 claims written in the stimulus that the author opposes or may use as a support, or as a conclusion.

In this case, both the main conclusion and the premise/subconclusion are claims that the author is making. In this case, I don't think the LSAT writers were counting the "farmers have to use~~" as a conclusion because it is a premise/subconclusion, and authors weren't counting subconclusion as a conclusion.

I'm curious, what did you put down as your answer? By your reasoning above, you still should have been able to eliminate A, C, D, E.