I honestly didn't see the flaw when I first did this question and am wondering how people who did see the issue manage to go about solving these questions.

Are these two questions basically twins? Or are they different? If they are different, how are they different? I honestly got them mixed up and got both incorrect and I think a large part of it was because of my pre-phase. My pre-phase going in was just all because you have an imperfect correlation doesn't mean there is NO causal relationship. For the question in PT 62, I narrowed it down to A and B and was unable to tell the two answers apart.

I also watched the video explanations for these so there's no need to put the links here, admin!

So for 24, I was confused by the question stem. When it says support the position of Passage B over that of Passage A, does that mean we are trying to strengthen B and weaken A? Or just strengthen B and have neutral effect on A? Confusing AF. And I got stuck between A and D. I understand how D strengthens B but what does it do to A? And why is answer choice A incorrect? Doesn't Passage B state that flat tax proposals are supposed to bring in the same amount?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-1-passage-4-questions/

I understand why the correct answer is correct but I’m still iffy about answer choice A. Every website I check has different reasons for why it’s incorrect. I’ve read that it’s because the choice says beverage which doesn’t necessarily include coffee but is that a legitimate reason? It seems like nitpicking to me but if I’m wrong I’d like to know. I picked A because I thought the different levels of exercise could explain the discrepancy in arthritis between the two groups. Looking back I think I misread A as saying people who drink decaf are more likely to exercise than those who drink regular coffee. Would that make the choice correct or no? Why or why not?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-69-section-1-question-05/

So I've been at this test for a long time and I want to get this over with in January but I'd like to end strong and have a score I can use for T-14. I've worked with tutors and they've helped but I'm kind of at the point where I'm not sure how much more tutors can do for me. I get questions incorrect, review with them and they answer me, but then I take another test and still get the same number and type of questions incorrect. I'm fine with games; I'm at the point where I can solve them on my own without watching the 7sage videos but I'm just not making any progress on LR and RC. I break even on every exam (like -3 to -4 on each section and -5 or -6 if I get stressed). I post on the forum but it's a crapshot whether I get an answer and even when I do, I'm not sure if the answers I'm getting are even correct. Could someone give me non-generic advice? Please don't tell me to practice/drill more or to read the Economist/Loophole. And please don't tell me to just delay another admissions cycle. I've done all of that. I've been through so many PT's the questions are getting muddled up.

As the header states, I didn't see any blatantly wrong with the argument. It was just a causal chain (Global warming causes temperatures to increase which causes greater proportion of precipitation to fall as rain which causes faster melting and more flooding and less storable water) and I didn't notice any significant gaps and so all the answer choices just looked and sounded correct. What do I do in a situation like this? I also thought JY's explanation for answer choice A was a stretch. I think it's correct to assume precipitation in this instance is referring to rain.

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-71-section-1-question-12/

So I was utterly confused after reading the first sentence. I just didn't get how they were able to use the color of gazelle teeth to tell whether a group of humans were nomadic or not. I just don't understand how this "support" supports the conclusion that N was nomadic but C were not. How would the color of gazelle teeth tell you anything about human lifestyle?

What are you even supposed to do after reading an argument like this and being utterly confused? I can skip but that just delays the inevitable. I have to come back it. How do you talk yourself out of confusion?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-c2-section-2-question-17/

I'm a bit confused about the last paragraph. It states that the soil that was taken from land that's been out of production for twenty years contains beneficial microorganisms in the first sentence but when I go further, it states that beneficial microorganisms are lacking (Lines 45-50) so which is it? I thought lines 45-50 supported D but then the first sentence contradicts D so idk what's going on.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-65-section-3-passage-4-questions/

My understanding of the stimulus is that since 365 isn't exactly divisible by 7, that leaves an "extra" day which causes the calendar to shift forward by 1 day every year and the author proposes to change that by removing that "extra" day and making it a sort of twilight zone where it doesn't fall into any year so we are left with exactly 364 days which means that January 1st and any other date will be on the same day each year. The part I am baffled by is what exactly happens to those "extra" days? Are they shuffled in before January 1st? If December 30th and 31st still exists, are they still part of the calendar year or do they fall in that twilight zone? If December 31st is the last day of the year wouldn’t this be the “extra” day in the first year?

The furthest I got to solving this question was diagramming it:

mR-s-/best

mR=mT

Beauty=truth----> mR=best

Beauty=/=truth

Is there a structural way to approaching this question? Because the overlapping terms are very confusing.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-49-section-4-question-16/

The title says it all but I'd really like to know what exactly do you do when you get questions incorrect for RC, especially confidence errors? I have questions where I literally cite the lines I get my answers from and it still turns out to be...incorrect. My first instinct is to look at the answer key after BR and the 7sage video but I'd like to get any tips on how to improve my protocol because the routine I've been doing isn't getting me beyond the mid-160's.

And as always, if anyone reading this post is exceptional with RC, I am also open to any one-on-one tutoring you could provide. If that is the case, I would like to see your score first and have a trial lesson before I fully commit. I want someone who could teach me some overarching concepts about RC because I've been mainly focused on trying to understand the content of the passages alone and it isn't working. I categorized this post as RC but honestly, it can extend to LR as well. And I will pay you by hour after the session is over before we log off zoom.

My issue with this stimulus is about the term consent versus consult. If ANY of the members had said "No" to the release of this report, would that still mean the chairperson consulted them?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-2-question-12/

What should your thought process be on a question like this? On easier RRE, I could often come up with a paraphrase, but it definitely wasn't the case here. I felt like I was going into the choices blind.

I thought we weren’t supposed to pick answer choices with “some” in weakening and strengthening questions because the choice would have little to no effect on the argument. Is that a rule of thumb I should forget about? Because this question appears to break that “rule.”

So I’ve posted once before and would like to get a new perspective on this question. I thought the second sentence was supported by the first and so picked answer choice C. Why is that not the case? Could I have someone who truly understands the question break it down completely so this post thread doesn’t get too long? Like break down the role each sentence plays? I thought it was premise (people only care about what’s an obvious threat) subsidiary conclusion (that’s why people see contaminated water as a threat rather than ozone) then main conclusion (why we won’t have a grassroots movement to combat air pollution anytime soon) but that’s wrong apparently.

So the biological species concept is used by "lumpers," or people who like to group similar but different species together into one species, and is the idea that if there is no SIGNIFICANT interbreeding among members of different groups in the wild, then they should be considered distinct, or different, species because they are reproductively isolated.

How do I differentiate between B and D? Both talk about interbreeding among members of a species...if members of two different populations do interbreed, what would a lumper do? Would he stuff them together? Is that why D is correct? But D doesn’t mention whether the populations are wild or not. In terms of question type would this be comparable to a mss question?

If anyone could give a breakdown for these two questions, it would help a lot! For #13, I was able to narrow it down to A and B but don't understand what makes B correct and A incorrect and I'm at a complete loss for Q22.

For 13, I picked A because the passage presented markets as this self correcting thing. It showed how inside information seemed to just spread amongst investors and so I thought the situation in the question stem matched that as well.

As for 14, I thought thermometer matched because the markets according to passage B just gauges majority opinion of investors but why does thermostat match passage A? And what is the difference between a typewriter and a word processor?

For 22, I picked A thinking if it were difficult for international agreements to be put in place to protect endangered species, wouldn't that mean more species would bring about more endangered ones? E just doesn't make sense as an answer to me but it's correct so...

Is the first sentence the conclusion?

And what is the "contrast'' mentioned in the answer choices? Is it between modern and ancient languages?

Could someone who got the question correct help please?

I thought B and C both worked. Wouldn't the first sentence explain why the public is so concerned about water issues when pollution is just as serious an issue?

Could someone who go the question correct help?

People be telling me the first sentence is a principle or it isn’t…which is it? Does any of this matter? Ugh.

Is the comparison between the logicians and doctors an analogy or only a comparison? What is the problem with the comparison/analogy?

Could a Sage help? Thanks

Hi, could someone who understands this passage thoroughly translate paragraphs 3 and 4 with me? JY's explanation video for this passage zoomed through the last paragraph and I was still left pretty confused.

I do understand that overall, this passage is detailing Meyerson's critique of CLS and Paragraph 3 gets at one of her main issues with a key tenet of CLS, namely that just because we have two equally compelling solutions to a legal question, it must therefore mean that any choice between the two must be random or irrational and I get that she clearly doesn't agree but what I don't understand is why M would choose to bring in an "utterly unreasonable answer" to help decide between the two solutions. Like how would that help?

And for the last paragraph, is that first sentence just a really long-winded, abstract way of saying that the legal process is not necessarily moral? I also am confused about the whole who endorses the rules of the game in the final three sentences. What is the actual point of all this?

And I get it, during timed conditions I cannot hope to understand every detail but I'm reviewing right now and would like to try.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-3-passage-3-passage/

Hi everyone, I hope your New Year is off to a great start.

I am looking for a study partner for all three sections who is currently trying to break the 166+ range (which is where I scored this past November) and wants to go on to 170+ this year. I want a partner who is interested in dissecting the stimulus and not just looking at the answer choices; I want someone who is willing to talk through everything and will consistently answer their phone and messages and be honest and straightforward about what they want. I am breaking even on all three sections (-5) and am looking for help and to help. Instead of solely doing questions based on PT, I'd like to try to approach things by category (strengthening, weakening, miscellaneous games, etc) but I'm willing to adjust if needed. And if you are interested, please let me know what you scored on your test admin date or what your recent PT's are. My LG is solid and I am happy to try it out live: if you pick out a game, I could probably do it and explain it...but my RC has been stagnant for MONTHS and I'd like to improve on that and help you as well.

I am looking for someone who has been studying for the LSAT in the mid-160's and who is enrolled in Live Classes and is a fairly regular attendee and by regular I mean at least one session a day. I am looking for someone to talk to during class and by talk I mean exchanging specific questions about what the instructor is covering because I have noticed many times, questions and comments being lost in the chat, and they are never addressed so I hope this will help you as much as it helps me. if anything, it will help us to keep focus at least. and I mostly want to try to answer your questions so I won't be messaging you questions. the only exception will be during office hours because for those I leave once I have my question answered. And there aren't any obligations with this commitment; if for any reason we try this out and it doesn't work we don't have to have a formal discussion about stopping, we could just stop. During live classes, my name in the zoom will always be Ashley.

None of my friends are taking the LSAT and so can't relate, I already wired my tutor the money and he isn't responding to my emails and text messages, my study partner is all business, I've been staring at a blank Microsoft Word document that is supposed to be my personal statement for the last six months, and I've gone through literally a dozen practice tests in the past twelve days missing too many questions, and my score won't budge. Probably the most out of place but genuine post I've made in the past three years. Anybody want to have a casual conversation that ISN'T about why A is wrong and D is right or how much is your hourly rate?

Or can someone just post a bunch of questions they had from the PT so I can tell myself I'm being productive by writing out solutions?

I just couldn't anticipate the flaws with either of these questions and would like to know how people who got these correct went about doing them. My pre-phase going into the answer choices was that there wasn't a perfect correlation in the premises and so the author is incorrectly concluding that therefore there was no causal relationship. Is this the correct pre-phase? Is there a better one?

Admin Note:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-58-section-1-question-11/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-4-question-19/

So I had a really difficult time with this question because of answer choice A. When it says "takes for granted," is that saying the author is assuming the information in this choice to be true? And why isn't the information in A pointing out a flaw? If it were the case that a different advertising campaign would do better than the one LRG went with, wouldn't the marketing consultant's conclusion be invalid?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-2-question-15/