Subscription pricing
Hello! I'm doing a late night study sesh on 7 Sage, and the drilling section keeps refreshing and reloading-- I can't even access the explanation videos right now. Is anyone else having difficulties?
PT Questions
danielleiebradley834
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
danielleiebradley834
Sunday, Jun 08 2025
I hadn't struggled with the curriculum until now-- flaw questions are the bane of my existence.
danielleiebradley834
Sunday, Jun 08 2025
Am I the only one who was skeptical about the author's choice to use public opinion on high taxes generally to support a more narrow application of reducing high taxes?
For instance, no one wants higher income taxes on their own personal income, and may therefore respond to the poll stating 'no' to higher taxes. However, the author seemed to misinterpret this generalized definition of 'taxes' in the poll and apply it to support his conclusion on the narrow scope of 'corporate income tax,' which we were not given insight on.
To me, it seemed like the flaw was between the subject shift from 'high taxes' to 'corporate income tax.' I picked the wrong answer choice, 'C,' for this reason.
Are we just to assume the author is correct to conflate these two things? I'm not seeing how this subject shift is permissible, when in other question types this would be a glaring assumption to bridge.
#help
danielleiebradley834
Thursday, May 29 2025
The phrase 'presumably cogent' in the correct answer choice seems to indicate that the analogy supporting the main conclusion is unsupported, or baseless. In other questions, we've seen arguments presume validity in the form of baseless or unsupported conclusions (i.e. "author takes for granted"). This seems markedly different from other 'presumably cogent' arguments.
Here, we're given a clear example of why the arguer makes the conclusion that one's account of their physical environment is inaccurate. The analogized argument about physical environment is supported by the phrase "since it occurs from one particular perspective." This doesn't seem 'presumably cogent,' as the author does offer some support. I'm still not understanding why this phrase would not be proper grounds to eliminate answer choice 'C.'
danielleiebradley834
Sunday, Apr 06 2025
Definitely agree on this point. I'll usually try and solve the question untimed through viewing the question on the 'Quick View' tab.
For me, a useful technique has been to solve the question, and then write a brief sentence or two next to each answer choice as to why I deemed it correct or incorrect. This has helped when going into the video tutorial-- I can see if my evaluation of each answer choice was similar to the tutor's reasoning. Additionally, it helps to recognize common patterns in certain question types. Also, this strategy is helpful for keeping me engaged when the video tutorial starts discussing the other answer choices-- otherwise, after the tutor finishes discussing the choice I selected, I'll tend to zone out.
Everyone's study method is different, though. Best of luck to you! We got this.
danielleiebradley834
Sunday, Mar 30 2025
I got this question correct, and I understand the pattern of reasoning to get to the correct answer; however, I do have a question about the approach used during the question stem analysis. I notice this is a 'Most Strongly Supported' question type; however, the tutor in the video keeps stating and implying that this is 'Strengthen' question, and essentially treats it as such. I'm wondering if, moving forward, I can treat the two question types the same, or if there are circumstances where I should not conflate MSS with Strengthen questions.
#help
danielleiebradley834
Wednesday, Mar 26 2025
You had some intuition that your original answer was not exactly compatible and adjusted accordingly-- it's a sign that you're on the right track!
When answer choice A states "people correctly believe," it's essentially stating that the belief that people hold is objectively truthful as well. A statement can be a belief, and a belief can be right or wrong. For instance, one can believe something inaccurate, "I believe that the sky is green," a belief can also be correct too: "I believe that the sky is blue." Therefore, answer choice A is simply stating that people's general feeling that technological innovations lead to job loss is not only something considered to be true subjectively, but also is true in a very real and objective way.
A similar statement may be (and I suppose can be considered controversial in today's political climate), "I believe that pollution contributes to global warming." This is a belief that one holds, and this belief is also true according to objective metrics-- this can be something that is "correctly believed."
Thus, answer choice A introduces an alternative hypothesis; the belief that people have about new technology contributing to job loss (which we know from phrase 'correctly believe' to indicate that this is objectively true) is what led to the strong resistance of new technology rather than social inertia leading to the strong resistance of new technology.
danielleiebradley834
Wednesday, Mar 26 2025
I agree-- I also think it depends on what type of reading you're engaging in outside of LSAT studying. Shorter, factual articles from news sites are somewhat similar to the RC section of the LSAT and can be an engaging way to pick up reading comprehension speed. I think that The NYT, The Economist, New Yorker, and Associated Press, are good sources for this material. Good luck!
danielleiebradley834
Wednesday, Mar 12 2025
No I made a similar mistake, it totally flew over my head. For some reason 'domestic workers such as housecleaners' didn't register... I misread it as 'domestic workers who work as housecleaners' as in like, cleaners for like hotels or businesses. You're not the only one, we got this!
danielleiebradley834
Wednesday, Mar 12 2025
I picked C initially for a similar reason-- I thought that C was a valid explanation for what appears to be a correlative relationship (microchip computing speed increase → price of production increase), since C states that the correlation in speed and cost was a consequence of computer engineers '[not] making any attempt to control the cost of producing them [microships.]' But, upon review, it seems like D also provides a sort of explanatory hypothesis, that the correlation between speed and cost is actually due to the fabrication of additional transistors needed during each new microchip computer release.
Since C and D both have a similar function (providing an explanatory hypothesis to explain the present phenomenon), I thought of it in terms of which answer choice requires less assumptions. For instance, answer choice C requires us to assume we know what the computer engineers attitudes are towards fiscal responsibility of their product-- we can't peer into the conscious minds of these engineers. We can't know this, we have to assume they were willing to forgo higher costs in preference for better speed.
D, on the other hand, provides an explanation that is based on information directly in the text, that transistors doubled as microchip speed (and therefore, cost) doubled. Thus, D is more directly supported as a viable inference in relation to C because it requires less assumptions.
danielleiebradley834
Sunday, Mar 09 2025
Sorry, I meant to say answer choice E, not D lol.
danielleiebradley834
Sunday, Mar 09 2025
I need some help figuring out where I went wrong here.
I selected D because the last sentence seems to present cultural conditioning as a necessary condition for violent behavior. Specifically, the stimulus states: "Human beings in certain situations react to unpleasant stimuli with violence-- but, only because they are conditioned by their culture to react in this manner."
I interpreted this as: "React with Violence → Conditioned by Culture," which is consistent with what the tutor states in the video, that the anthropologist is suggesting that violence is not a genetic phenomenon, but rather a consequence of cultural conditioning (contrapositive: conditioned by culture → react with violence).
Therefore, it followed that D could not be inferred by the passage since it states that "Violent behavior is a product of one's cultural environment," or, "Conditioned by Culture → Violent Behavior;" D therefore, seems to be mistaking the necessary and sufficient conditions from the stimulus.
I see how B is correct; however, I'm not sure how I can explain how D is wrong.
#help
It would have been useful for the tutor to use diagramming or some sort of visual to clarify his explanation, especially since this question uses formal logic signifiers; and, according to 7Sage's own metrics, this is a particularly difficult question.
#feedback
danielleiebradley834
Friday, Mar 07 2025
Yes, I had a similar result.
I got the correct answer, but I didn't link the statements the same way as the video. The video uses the following relationship structure:
Label Caffeine Content → Easier Limit (But not Eliminate) → People ←s→ Limit (But not Eliminate) → Health Improves
When I diagrammed this prior to watching the review video, I came up with the following:
Label Caffeine Content → Easier Limit ←s→ Improve Health
I kicked. 'but not eliminate and 'people' into the domain.
And then to get the correct answer, used the following inference:
Label Caffeine Content ←s→ Improve Health
But I know that this isn't a correct use of formal logic because, in an earlier lesson, we learn that "All Before Most/ All Before Some" does not yield a valid conclusion.
I see now that kicking 'people' into the domain may not have been correct here because it removed a necessary part of the overall structure. I guess I need a bit more work on knowing which items can be omitted/included...
https://7sage.com/lesson/all-before-some/
#help
danielleiebradley834
Thursday, Mar 06 2025
I think normally the typical test taker would not need to map this out at all; however, I think the purpose is just to try and get familiar with using logic and diagramming relationships. Especially since this question is part of the larger curriculum-- most of the time, for questions with simple logic structures, the explanation videos don't really dive into concepts like 'kicking it to the domain.'
This is a very easy question with a discernible structure; however, if you're new to formal logic, it can still be worthwhile to diagram easy questions in preparation for future questions with more confusing formal logic elements present.
danielleiebradley834
Thursday, Mar 06 2025
No tell me why I deliberately use the LSAT as an excuse to not date ...
danielleiebradley834
Sunday, Mar 02 2025
I also selected 'B' and came up with a an example of standards of proof, which I'll post below:
In a car accident, the common procedure for demonstrating the 'fault' of a driver is determined through various pieces of evidence (eyewitness reports, camera footage, impact analysis, ect.) which is analyzed and used to create a determination of who the at-fault driver was. This is a lower standard of proof in comparison to seeking punitive damages-- if the driver is accused of doing something intentionally and knowingly that harms the other driver (i.e. driving under the influence). In circumstances where the not-at-fault driver seeks punitive damages, then there needs to be additional proof, in addition to being at-fault for the accident, to demonstrate that the driver was being intentionally and knowingly reckless (e.g. sobriety test), this would be a higher standard of proof.
Thus, one could succeed at demonstrating the lower level of proof (that someone had caused a car accident), but still fail at achieving the higher level of proof (that an intentional action by the driver caused the accident).
danielleiebradley834
Sunday, Feb 23 2025
I know on the actual exam, you have the ability to highlight in three different colours and to underline the passage. It's not the same as annotation, but it's helped me to devise a colour-coding method-- yellow for supporting claims, pink for the conclusions, underlining context, ect. I'm sure you can experiment with using the tools available to help come up with your own form of short-hand annotation during the test. 7 sage also has the same tools on their practice drills/exams to practice with.
It takes a bit more time to colour-code, but in my opinion it does make the answer selection process much easier especially when you need to refer back to the passage.
danielleiebradley834
Wednesday, Feb 19 2025
I agree-- I think the tutor in the video also mentions that 'C' is not the 'ideal' answer choice that we tend to think of with Main Conclusion answer choices. One thing I've noticed is that easier Main Conclusion questions will have answer choices that are textually similar to the conclusion presented in the passage-- using the same sentence/phrasing/wording. Generally, Main Conclusion questions on the LSAT tend to be easy, there are only a handful of difficult Main Conclusion questions that make it on the LSAT.
Harder Main Conclusion questions, like this one, are made difficult due to the answer choices not aligning perfectly with the passage conclusion's scope-- for instance, in this question, the main conclusion ("without some qualification this teaching is bound to be misled") is a component of answer choice 'C,' "though the statement that the assassination started the war is true, the term 'cause' more fundamentally applies[...]," however the scope of answer choice C is larger than the main conclusion because it directly mentions the premises which support it.
Another thing to keep in mind, all Main Conclusion questions will state something along the lines of "which answer choice is most accurate." Meaning, especially for difficult questions, there may not be an answer choice that is completely accurate, but is still more accurate relative to the other answer choices.
The method used in the video, process of elimination, is the same method I used for this question because it helps to evaluate the accuracy of each choice and make a decision on which is most suited to the passage. I don't think you can 'hunt' for the correct answer choice just from reading the passage alone until there's a lot of familiarity with this type of question style.
danielleiebradley834
Monday, Feb 17 2025
No, I don't think this is bad at all! I'm not sure how far along you are in the process of studying, but early on in the curriculum it's completely normal to use process of elimination to make sure that you're arriving at the correct answer choice.
When you've mastered the different question times and built familiarity with the 'cookie cutter' types of answer choices for each question type, it gets easier to hunt down the right answer without needing to manually eliminate every other choice.
For right now, using process of elimination can be a useful tool for understanding why each choice is wrong, which will allow you to better identify wrong answers choices in the future.
Just focus on accuracy, clarity, and understanding before getting overly concerned with timing.
A time saving tip though, for Main Conclusion questions, if you're really in a bind, is to look for answer choices that match the strength and tone of the passage.
danielleiebradley834
Monday, Feb 17 2025
Hello!
I used this thought process to eliminate 'D' as well, which states "most criticism of Handel's aria is unwarranted." I think you're absolutely correct in your use of modifiers to eliminate D, we're not sure what the other criticisms of Handel's aria exists, and we are much less sure if the arguer believes that these other criticisms are warranted or unwarranted.
In my notes, I wrote down why I eliminated each answer choice. For 'D' I stated "too strong/extrapolative."
danielleiebradley834
Wednesday, Feb 12 2025
No the 'ultimate form' thing pissed me off so hard, what is that supposed to even mean
danielleiebradley834
Wednesday, Feb 12 2025
Once upon a time, I got this question wrong for the same reason most commenters here have.
The shift from the phrase 'ill-advised' in the passage to 'should not' in the answer choice seems like an assumption, something to be cautious about because, as a test-taker, we're cautioned against making assumptions when evaluating question choices. In fact, the tonal difference between 'ill-advised,' which seems neutral, to 'should not,' a clearly declarative stance, is a difficult thing to simply dismiss in the answer selection process.
Reviewing this question a few months later, I think the best way to proceed is through a process of elimination, because the other incorrect answer choices are easier to evaluate.
Answer choice B is a restatement of the premise/contextual information in the first sentence, the framework and conditions which the argument operate under. It simply tells us "hey, this is what is going on with book reviews in newspapers, and now I'm about to make statement about this situation." Definitely not the conclusion.
Answer choices D and E are summarizations of the evidence/support provided in the last sentence, we know this is evidence because it supports the idea that removing book reviews is 'ill-advised.' This is not the conclusion either,
Which leaves answer choice A, which is perhaps a stronger restatement of the conclusion ('this move is ill-advised"), but still the only choice that actually derives its claim from the arguer's main conclusion
danielleiebradley834
Wednesday, Nov 13 2024
I think that the arguer implicity assumes that farmland indicates whether a region is flat or not flat. It's something that isn't particularly important to the question, and an assumption that we have to make as the reader if we are to proceed with the rest of the argument. If this were an answer choice, then yes, the idea that Dooney County's farmland is representative of the entire county's topography is another assumption we have to take.
I picked the correct answer through process of elimination, but I'm not understanding how answer choice 'C' is indisputably correct.
The arguer does not seem concerned with whether the test is reliable at all, but instead is simply concerned with whether there is broad consensus on the known reliability of that test.
I thought of it like a rule application prompt, almost. In order to be used in Court (for criminal cases), the evidence's reliability must be agreed-upon by the scientific community.
In this case, it seems like this is not flawed, I fail to see how the premises don't support the conclusion. It seems like the argument is ironclad in demonstrating how DNA evidence fails to trigger the conclusion which would allow its usage in Court. Just because DNA evidence is seen as reliable, it still fails to meet the conditions needed for the rule to trigger here.
#help