@kimberleemcmillin935 Oh I remember that one! Haha, thank you!
I was wondering if anyone has encountered a similar LG to PT34.S4.G2? It's the game that talks about different lectures/ speakers/ philosophers... The wording of that game really threw me off the first time. I wanted to get practice with other confusingly worded questions like that one.
Would appreciate any help team!
One tip is to break it down as JY does when he reads. For instance, he noted the "should" and thinks-- oh there's a goal/ there's a recommendation. And then he asks, what's happening with this goal? Surely enough, the following statements indicate that the goal is not working because of... the focus on competitive sports.
Good points! Just to add onto this, D seems like a benign, generic (oh, that seems like common sense) kind of answer. However, if we refer back to the stimulus, choice D is unsupported. Nowhere in the stimulus does it state that gov't sponsored research FREQUENTLY gives rise to inventions-- we only know of 1 instance. And nowhere does it say that they are a "great benefit to society". If you think the stimulus said that, that was all in your head!
Interested as well! :smile: Free anytime on weekends and evenings on weekdays~
I also pinpointed "But we need to determine whether the changes are warranted, taking into account their price" as the MP. I think that because it talked so much about "price" in stimulus and they noted "taking into account their price" in the MP, it led me to choose D.
Looking over D again and referring to the MP, they do not match. D states that imposing restrictions on science would be very expensive. It's an assertion that it'd be expensive! But the MP states that we need to determine.....
It's helpful to break down the MP-- "we need to determine whether changes are warranted" (and how do we do that?) "[by] taking into account their price." Choice E basically says the same thing: "we need to be aware of the impact of change in science before changes are made."
Bump! Anyone? :3
I got the MP but I wanted to further analyze... Could someone review my thought process please? (This is a question in CC!)
Part of the stimulus: "But there is a positive role to be played even by these extremists for the social &political inertia that attends environmental issues is so stubborn that even small areas of progress can be made only if the populace fears environmental disaster..."
Does "only if" introduce necessary condition? Thus would the diagram be the following: Small areas of progress can be made --> populace fears environmental disaster (or the other way around...?)
Since it's a conditional statement, it's wrong for A to assert that "little progress that HAS BEEN MADE in improving the environment is mainly due to the fear created by radical environmentalists." We don't know in the stimulus if the progress has actually been made-- it just gives us a conditional. Is it safe to say that (A) requires you to assume something that we have no basis or support for?
Someone had commented, "(For the sake of practice) Notice the gap in the argument – author assumes that the radical environmentalists incite fear in the populace through false extremes (possibly about unlikely environmental disasters) and thereby, allows the possibility for small progress to occur (this is the positive role)." Is this correct? Could someone shed more light into this gap in the argument/ any other flaws?
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-2-question-18/
@marine4life6798246-- are those test masters proctored exams free?
Flaw Question-- calling all folks who are a beast at LR:) HELP?
I understand that the answer is C but I want to make sure that I'm breaking down the argument correctly:
*Best way to understand --> Direct Empathy (that's what some psychologists claim, and we're supposing they're right)
*/Direct Empathy ("since it's impossible to gain a direct and complete grasp of another person's motivations" aka Direct Empathy-- I believe this is what the author takes as the truth)
THUS, no way at all to understand (already problem here, it should have been THUS, "no best way to understand" rather than "no way at all to understand")
But that's not even the main conclusion...
*Understand ("One can understand other people"-- again, this is what the author takes as the truth)
THUS, the psychologists' claim is wrong-- it's wrong to state that (best way to understand --> Direct Empathy)
The problem is that the author cannot state that the psychologists' claim is wrong because the author's evidence is flawed--- assumes there's no way when the psychologists are only talking about best way.
However, I'd like to go deeper into this question and modify it-- what if the author correctly said it was "best way to understand" as opposed to "no way at all to understand"-- would the argument be valid then??
*Best way to understand --> Direct Empathy (that's what some psychologists claim, and we're supposing they're right)
*/Direct Empathy ("since it's impossible to gain a direct and complete grasp of another person's motivations" aka Direct Empathy-- I believe this is what the author takes as the truth)
THUS, there's no best way to understand
*Best way to understand (my modified premise-- "But there is a best way to understand people")
THUS, the psychologists' claim is wrong-- it's wrong to state that (best way to understand -> Direct Empathy)
In this case, is the argument's conclusion valid? It's TRUE that the psychologists' claim is wrong because ultimately what we have is... we know it's true that /Direct Empathy & there is best way to understand ... so we can't validly get to "Best way to understand --> Direct Empathy"
(Am I thinking correctly? lol)
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-2-question-11/
I was wondering if anyone has heard of Nathan Fox's tutoring? I've heard mixed reviews about the on-site classes. I'm currently debating between signing up for the on-site classes with him and signing up for Ultimate+ with 7Sage. I do work full-time so I'm not sure how much I trust myself to go with online classes-- if I go with Fox I know that I'll have to at least sit there on the weekends. Any Bay area folks have any more insight on this? Any resources you all have used or are using? (Are there any study groups currently for folks in SF?)
Appreciate any input! :)
Hi! Do we have to be enrolled in a 7sage course in order to join a study group?
This is helpful. I think I was confused with this question because it had lots of information and it's about science, which is not a super interesting topic to me. While I was reading this, I did make some notes-- "they thought MS might be caused by infections so they tested gamma, which fights infections, but it make MS worse."
B: This could be true because the stimulus never talked about administering gamma to those without multiple sclerosis. We only know about what happened by administering gamma to those with multiple sclerosis (it made it worse).
D: This would make sense because since most multiple sclerosis sufferers do not have chronic viral infection, it explains why they became worse when they were tested with gamma, one of the body's antiviral weapons. The source of MS isn't viral infections.
E: If the drug prevents gamma, it's good because gamma made MS worse.
I was stuck between A and C.
C: It's possible that this is a possible attribute/ explanation for gamma having a negative effect. Gamma isn't good in stimulus so that idea helps explain why having high gamma levels are increased even more just before and during multiple sclerosis attacks.
A: If gamma stops white blood cells from producing myelin-destroying compounds... (keep in mind that myelin is good-- it protects nerve fibers according to stimulus) then gamma should be good. But it's clearly not good in stimulus.
JY's thought process for A: If gamma stops white blood cells from producing myelin destroying compounds, then MS would be cured or at least not as bad. But people who had MS who received gamma got worse. Thus, gamma could not have stopped the white blood cells from producing the myelin producing compounds.