I think that if you study harder and do more PT's, there's room for improvement.

Don't blame the exams' curves though. Each exam's curve reflects a specific standard of difficulty; the exams are supposed to be equal in difficulty. So a -12 on one exam and a 14 on another merely reflects the way in which theyve accounted for potentially easier questions on one section. It is equally difficult to get a 170 on every exam. Thats how it works. Preptests 72 and 73 aren't and harder than the one's you've taken in the past.

Seriously? Wow. I'm a sabbath taker btw. How can you be so sure, just out of curiosity?

Here's my favorite moment.

For those who have taken the test, you may recall a sticker that seals the test book itself. Typically, the proctor instructs you to remove this seal as part of the lengthy directions that precede the actual taking of the exam. Ample time is traditionally given during the period before testing actually begins (numerous friends have corroborated this for me) to make sure each student removes this sticker (it is likely there to prevent one from surreptitiously opening the test booklet during the period in which you write in your information).

My administration was different. After asking whether we had any questions, the proctor immediately said "begin", forgetting to instruct us to remove this protective sealing. Having had no time to remove this sticker, and having just cut my nails the night before, i found myself unable to quickly remove the sticker with my nails. I decided to furiously rip the front page off in an attempt to hasten this process, but ended up ripping the whole front page of my test booklet off. It was a nightmare; i expected to be swarmed by proctors who suspected me of cheating. But to my surprise, the same problem had plagued my peers (none of whom ripped off the front page of the book, however!).

I was allowed 15 seconds of extra time and my book was replaced. I scored in the 99th percentile and was admitted to a top school (thanks to 7sage, of course) but it made me quite jittery and nervous during the exam itself. So the moral of the story: be prepared for anything. And keep one of your nails sharp for that sticker.

Good luck to all those studying for this year's exams!

Would love some info on this also

Same.

I had an amazing experience with testmasters, i'm sorry the rest of you didn't. I don't believe TM's quality was superior to 7sage, but i appreciated having an expert clarify anything i was unclear about. I'd recommend getting feedback on a specific instructor if you elect to take a TM course, as my guy was stellar (he scored a 180, although that isn't necessarily indicative that a tutor will be good.)

When i was doing this question, i was thinking "JY is definitely going to mention Dramamine and/or the stretching-jogging question from preptest 64 section 1 question 13 when he explains this video".

It's not a licensed LSAT test question. Its a game manufactured by a test prep company, so you'd probably be best to stay away and stick to the licensed questions.

Really helpful explanation. When I was doing this question I was thinking about whether the argument intended the reader to accept the (flawed) argument that constitutes the argument for the intermediate conclusion. This is something that's definitely rare, but I was actually thinking about a different question while doing this problem. PT65 S4 Q26 is very similar in that an intermediate conclusion is established through faulty logic (a blatant whole to part flaw), and whose conclusion is used a premise to support the argument's main conclusion. Definitely something you don't see every now and then. Thanks again!

https://7sage.com/question/PT135.S4.Q26/explanation

Preptest 9 Game 3

Preptest Feb 1997 Game 3

Preptest 20 game 3

Preptest 23 game 4

Preptest 72 Game 4

Preptest 77 Game 3 [Added by Admin]

There may be more, but i think that's either all of them or at least most of them.

Absolutely can be learned.

Drackedary, your username is hilarious.

Hi James,

I'm not JY, nor do i claim to have the exceptional educational prowess that he does, but i would nonetheless like to take a stab at answering your question.

I'll address both parts of your question:

A. What's the problem with this argument

B. How answer choice D communicates this problem

The argument notes that school's beginnings were facilitated by the availability of printed books. This is something we must accept as fact. The author of this argument tells us that books facilitated school's creation. Now however, the argument concludes that traditional school is doomed. Why? Because media is taking over books' communicative role.

If you don't see the problem, don't get too worried, as its heavily masked. The argument confuses sufficiency and necessity. What you should keep in mind is that sometimes, conditional logic is very easy to see in an argument. It'll say something simple like A->B, B->C, therefore A->C. But this argument conveys conditional logic in a much more subtle fashion. Implicitly, the argument is saying that books were responsible for the emergence of the traditional school. It is saying they caused schools to come about. But that's the thing; whose to say something else couldn't have played that same role? Maybe aliens could do it as well!

So essentially, the argument is at fault for assuming that if a condition that caused school's to come about is gone, then schools are done for. That's faulty logic! The argument didn't say schools needed books; it just said that books made schools. The premise is essentially that:

Books->Schools

But the argument notes that in our world, ~Books is occurring (negation of books).

So therefore, the argument erroneously presumes, ~Schools.

This is the idea of confusing a sufficient condition for a necessary condition. Namely, i'm assuming that a sufficient condition (books) are actually necessary. But they aren't necessary. They're merely sufficient. I'm looking at a sufficient condition, and assuming its necessary.

Note that this is very different than confusing necessity for sufficiency. That would involve stating that A->B, B occurs, therefore A. Confusing sufficiency for necessity is different. It means that we have A->B, we're told A happens, and we conclude B happens. This is what our argument does.

"Mistakes something that enables an institution to arise for something necessary to the institution" is a fancy way of saying mistakes a sufficient condition for a necessary condition. Think long and hard about that sentence. If i say that i mistake a tiger for a lion, i'm accidentally assuming a tiger (that actually is a tiger) is a lion. Enables is a language of sufficiency. Sufficient means its enough to make something happen (to enable something to happen).

Its one thing to be good at identifying sufficiency necessity flaws. Its another thing to have a deeper understanding of it that will allow you to see how a convoluted answer choice describes the flaw.

Word of advice: Only read the explanations by users with the title "LSAT Geek" in their profile. The others are just by students and probably aren't as helpful.

I think you make a great point about this question.

Implicitly answer choice A does accomplish the task you have correctly identified as being the core assumption this argument makes. The argument's justification for its assertion that the artifacts should have been left there is that we (archeologists) have learned everything they need to, and other archeologists will be misled by their absence. The argument's very narrow focus assumes archeological needs are the only criteria that can determine whether the mosaics ought to have been left in place. That implicitly rules everything else out, making the argument sort of 99% in the way a PSA traditionally does.

But you are correct in asserting that a more traditional PSA question would have included the "if removing artifacts would have a potentially misleading effect". Implicitly, the answer choice suggests this, although not in as direct a fashion as we are used to. That's precisely why this is a PSA question rather than a SA question. It isn't a perfect argument.

There are definitely some PSA questions that are not very PSA-esque in the same way this one is. I don't want to spoil anything but a question in preptest 70 section 4 is very weak in this same way.

This preptest is 64, so i think its fair to say that some PSA's aren't as formulaic as they used to be. This is especially interesting since in my experience alot of the recent preptests actually have an increasing amount of those standard, logically rigorous PSA questions. A good example is the pizza parlor question in section 3 of this exam.

I think the takeaway is to really be on your toes when you see a PSA stimulus. You can reasonably expect a more standard one, but be aware that you can see a much weaker one than you might expect. Not sure if you've done 70 yet, but the example i mention really through me off for this precise reason, in the same way doing this question made me think of how uniquely non powerful this PSA answer choice is.

Stimulus:

Labyrinth display ➞ Well Crafted (WC)

Labyrinth display←s→ halogen lamps (HL)

Conclusion: (HL) ←s→ (WC)

If you're unclear on why that conclusion follows logically, review your lessons.

Answer choice D:

Lakes←s→Minnows

Lakes → Teeming with healthy fish

Conclusion: Minnows ←s→Healthy

Not the same thing; in fact, it is a flawed argument. Teeming with healthy fish isn't equivalent to the idea that every fish in the lake is healthy. We would need the argument to say that ALL the fish in the lake are healthy.

I wish they'd used a fish that was a little more obviously a fish. Like salmon. I didn't really know what a minnow was but needed to assume it was a type of fish.

Great advice, Chrijani. Memorizing them without understanding them will also cripple you if a harder question really requires you to understand what's going on in terms of the logic involved.

Hey Quick Silver,

Your analysis is correct and your allegedly inappropriate 'real world logic' is actually quite LSAT-esque and pertinent to this problem (i completely disagree with the above comment, and you should too. No offense intended though, just speaking for the sake of our LSAT knowledge). JY actually alludes to your reasoning while pointing out something else you may not have noticed. At minute 2:00, he says that the sample is likely to be unrepresentative because the respondents are from a group of people who already own it, and ON TOP OF THAT (he says this) they are unlikely to be representative (alluding to the respondent discrepancy you pointed out). However, while alluding to your absolutely valid explanation of the answer choice, JY seems to prefer the respondent/non respondent discrepancy as the main thrust of his video's explanation.

It is definitely the case that this argument fails to account for the possibility of sample bias; namely, that these businesses were already in a position that made these systems better for their particular businesses. To use your scenario, perhaps the GPS owners like them because people who love GPS's refuse to purchase cell phones. There are a host of reasons why the group of video conference system owners are unlikely to be representative of businesses in general.

I actually agree that it may not be the case that the LSAT was intending readers to identify the respondent/non-respondent discrepancy. I've never seen a flaw question using samples that are flawed because of the respondent/non-respondent discrepancy, but i actually think it may be something we're supposed to keep in mind.

If you take a look at the June 2007 LSAT, look at question 15 of the 2nd LR section. One of the answer choices (that actually turns out to be incorrect) raises the possibility of a respondent/non-respondent discrepancy possibly weakening the argument. From that answer choice, it does seem like the LSAT writers may indeed be thinking about this. It seems like the LSAT defines a survey as something that participating in is optional, so it would be wise to actually keep this in mind. Maybe that's a bit of a stretch. What do you think?

Assessing passage difficulty without reading and answering the questions is not possible, period. Even if a brief glance reveals it is a science passage which may have you thinking you'll flunk it, that is not necessarily the case. Nor is question quantity a reliable indicator of difficulty, as some of them may be extremely easy. Nor are comparative passages definitively more difficult, as some of their difficulty levels have paled in comparison to other passages in the same set (mirrors, anybody?) There is no strategy through which you can infer an optimal order through which to approach the passages, period. Do them in order, and do them right.

I agree that this is tough to understand.

Think of the reasoning structure of the argument. Essentially, the argument has presumed that because this practice doesn't result in unreasonable prices, its acceptable.

So the assumption necessary to the argument is that if a practice doesn't result in unreasonable prices, it is acceptable. E has you worried because it says 'Any'. Seems too broad for a necessary assumption question, right? Of course this is a sufficient assumption. But necessary?

Is any too broad?

Well, yes and no. Yes because we just need it to apply to this situation. But no because the situation at hand is using the fact that is doesn't result in an unfair situation as the argument's SOLE justification of the practice's acceptability. In other words, the argument assumes that we need just one trigger in order for it to be acceptable: It doesn't result in unreasonable prices. Don't think about the outside world. Don't think about whether it makes evil rich people richer at the expense of the poor. Just understand that the argument is assuming that this condition is sufficient to trigger acceptability.

So the assumption must be that not resulting in unreasonable prices, by itself, is enough to make a practice acceptable. It's sufficient to drive to that conclusion of acceptability no matter what.

You ask a really good question and you are on top of your game for questioning this.

I think JY has cursed in videos about two to three times at max. And your argument presumes both a specific definition of professionalism and also that its presence is inappropriate to an audience of college students.

The argument's contrapositive would probably be more rigorously compatible from a logical perspective if this were a must be true question, but its a MSS question, so your threshold of acceptability for an answer choice cannot be validity. There is no question, however, that 'fairly stable' is undoubtedly in the realm of possibly being an opposite of a 'dramatic shift in climate'. That which isn't a dramatic shift is the logical negation of a dramatic shift; anything that isn't a dramatic shift falls into the realm of its negated form. Negation doesn't imply opposite. The negation of sweet isn't sour. The negation of sweet is not sweet, which can include salty, mild sour, or plain. The same applies here; fairly stable is definitely not a dramatic shift.

You may have overlooked or not focused sufficiently on the phrase during the recycling process , as it is precisely what demonstrates the fact that sterilization is a part of the process of recycling. That indicates that it is a part of the process and something that, if easier in one process, may possibly account for a greater proportion of that product's recylcability. The answer choice is quite explicit in telling you that sterilization is a component of the recycling process; no assumption needs to be made. You may argue that sterilization doesn't necessarily correspond to burning off contaminants, but i think its pretty clear the answer choice intends for these ideas to correspond. Perhaps it would have been easier if it'd read 'cannot be heated enough for them to be burnt off', but the answer choice is nonetheless still explicit in its presentation of heating as component of the recycling process, thereby telling you everything you need to know and keeping assumption making to an absolute and reasonable minimum.

You're expecting way too much from a necessary assumption, and way too much from LSAT arguments that are supplemented by a necessary assumption in general. What i mean by this is that LSAT arguments will usually be very poor in terms of their logical force, and even the supplementation of a necessary assumption will not elevate the majority of these arguments to the status of validity.

You are right to continue questioning the extent to which E helps prove the author's conclusion, but wrong to be overly critical to the point that its inability to make the argument perfect makes it an inappropriate candidate for the correct answer choice: a necessary, though not necessarily sufficient, assumption.

The reason for this is at the argument is awful; it merely appeals to a similarity to another animal without even discussing the other animal in sufficient detail. At the very least, however, the other animal in question must be sufficiently comparable to the Plesio, which is what E says. It asserts that the two body parts affect movement in the same way. Obviously our argument is still poor, but this basic assumption - unstated in the author's argument - is needed at the very least. Even with it, however, the problems you raise are still present. But that's the difference between sufficient and necessary assumptions; questions that ask you for the latter need not be restricted to arguments that only require one assumption to get to the point of validity. The necessary assumption in question could be one of many needed by the argument.

You'll get what you are getting on preptests, most likely a bit less. Just keep that in mind.

Any 7sage staff members want to make a case for buying it?