Stimulus can be diagrammed as so:

P1: /violated -> negotiations begin

P2: negations held -> other countries pressure

agreement -> other countries continue pressure

P3: negations held -> demon. counter -> suppress incentive

There's couple things that need to be assumed to link these conditions up, "common sense assumptions", like:

negations begin -> negotiations held -> agreement

OK. Now that we were able to chain some links, let's put it all together in one fat chain + our P3.

/violated -> negotiations begin -> negotiations held -> agreement -> other countries continue pressure

AND we also know:

negations held -> demon. counter -> suppress incentive

Since the question gives us the condition that negotiations are beginning, we can just follow our chain. AC A is the only one that we cannot follow from our chain and also because it is a mistranslation of P1.

amazing job!! 🥳

wish i could upvote this 100x !

wow why did i understand "the earnings of these people" as a reference to the earnings of the people who work at specialized centers :'(

https://7sage.com/discussion/59980/how-to-close-the-gap-between-score-and-blind-review

^linking an old post I made where people left helpful comments :)

https://7sage.com/discussion/59980/how-to-close-the-gap-between-score-and-blind-review

^linking one of my previous posts where a lot of people shared really good advice! hope this helps :) happy to chat as well since we're in similar situations!!

E is correct because it introduces an alternative explanation for why the number of meals sold decreased in the restaurants in operation both last year and this year. Maybe it was because people ate out less due to a severe decline in income, not necessarily a decrease in desirability.

stimulus can be organized as so:

some counterfeit cash involves precise copying of pics on real cash

therefore, to prevent counterfeit cash, it must be difficult to precisely copy the pics on real cash.

/counterfeit cash -> /measure accurately

• really, we only get one sentence (the conclusion) that we are able to work upon. the first sentence acts as context.

AC B is correct because it says:

if there is precise copying of pics on counterfeit cash, it is enough to act as a counterfeit cash.

measure accurately -> counterfeit cash

• it is a contrapositive of the conclusion, which allows the conclusion to follow!

the key to understanding this question was really parsing through AC B and understanding that:

"no further impediment" = no further barriers aka nothing else is holding it back from being counterfeit cash

hope this helps ~

omg misread last sentence !! "any two people who do NOT dislike each other " to just dislike... sadness

C is more like claiming that the coach says since the professionals are doing this, our team is reasonable to do this as well. HOWEVER, this is not what happens in the stimulus. Rather, the coach uses the reference of the professionals to make a claim that his team is not acting unprofessionally/rudely because professionals are even more enthusiastic. There is a comparison being made and not an application of "oh they did this so we can do this too".

i was so stumped on why I got this question wrong but after a while.. I realized that it was a grammatical problem!

i read "either a natural gas-fired plant or a waste-to-energy plant that would serve as both a trash incinerator and a power plant." as:

BOTH natural gas-fired plant AND waste-to-energy plant would have the functions to serve as a trash incinerator and a power plant.

but it is to be understood as:

natural gas-fired plant OR waste-to-energy plant (that would serve as both a trash incinerator and a power plant)

that's why C is the correct answer because even though the waste-to-energy plant produces x3 more air pollution, it could replace the existing trash incinerator (since it's one of it's functions- assuming that the natural gas-fired plant CANNOT).

rahhh hope this helps someone!!!!

@BelovedAlmond

hello! A is wrong because we know from lawgic that if:

A-> B

A-> C

-- B -s->C

In this question, we can draw the conclusion that there is a some relationship between original ideas (B) and influential art (C).

To answer your questions,

1. No, it is not possible to conclude that some art can be influential and not original. That would look like:

   • influential -s-> /original OR

   • original -s-> /influential

     • It is not logically possible to come to this conclusion from what is provided in the stimulus.

2. What you mentioned, "Art cannot be great without being both influential AND original. right?" is diagrammed like this:

   • great art -> influential + original

     • which is not what the stimulus says. this is a conjunction relationship stating that it is necessary to be influential AND original to be great art. the stimulus merely states that they separately necessitate great art.

hope this helps!

i think during the take, i just had beef with the fact that it went from professors of biology to biologists, rather than professors of biology who do research.

but under further review, I see that we are trying to attack the assumption that research is positively related to your chances at an admin position. whether you're a biologist or professor biology who does research- you both do research.

AC B shows that someone who does do research actually doesn't have a better chance at the admin position, which directly attacks the assumption!

@patrique Hi patrique! From what I've learned about the LSAT so far, you are supposed to take everything presented in the stimulus as fact and try not to include any outside assumptions. Here's how I approached this question:

In this particular case, we don't know how the vaccine is supposed to prevent infection, but we do know that the argument is presenting a discrepancy in that both the experimental group and control group exhibited symptoms. I don't know if vaccinations are supposed to prevent symptoms or not- but the structure of the argument presents this phenomenon as a discrepancy that has to be solved. Additionally, we are provided with the fact that the vaccine did prevent infection from the virus after it was prescribed.

From this information, we have to try to explain how it is possible that both groups exhibited symptoms.

AC D does a good job resolving this by explaining that those who received the vaccination were already previously infected.

1. It explains how their group exhibited symptoms (when they supposedly should not have)- because they were previously infected already before the vaccination. According to the first sentence, the symptoms appear 60 days after they were infected. They could have been affected on Jan 1, gotten the vaccine on 3/1 and then noticed symptoms on 3/2.

2. It does not contradict or clash with the statement that the vaccination is completely effective in preventing infection. We don't know about the vaccination's effect on those who were already infected. It only makes a statement about preventing the infection post vaccination.

hope this helps! lmk if there's anything else i can clarify ~

hi would love to join but your link is expired!

@nikki I also selected C for the same reasons ;_;

@Stas1973 i think you meant tadpoles = baby frogs!

hi alex !! congratulations on the W !!

Would love to join your discord, do you mind sending a fresh link? the old one expired! :)

@businessgoose thank you for the breakdown, it was super helpful!!

yes this also happened to me as well for PTs !!

@MichaelWright

hi Michael, this video was so amazing !!!! it was eye-opening to hear you draw the distinction between the different targeted ways to improve on content and execution skills and it has definitely changed the way I view my BR score. the tangible suggestions are also something i will definitely include in my prep!

thank you for taking the time to respond!

@PhoebeHopp

hi Phoebe, thank you so much for the advice!! having a game plan for specific question types is definitely something i'm going to implement into my prep! :) thank you for taking the time to respond!

@haena

hi haena! thank you so much for the in-depth response and the great insight<3 i will definitely start implementing BR into my drills (i have not been doing that :o ) and hopefully see where the underlying problems are :') good luck to you as well, we got this !!