@ said:

@ What is your schedule for doing these and out of curiosity what are you working on!

Hi! As of now there’s no specific hourly schedule, but I do aim to do these M - F. Keep an eye out on these forums, or subscribe to my YouTube channel for an alert when I go live!

I’m working on Logic Games btw!

Cheers

@ said:

I am interested!!!

Great! I just posted the link for today’s live YouTube session

@ said:

I was trying to join you but it did not work.

Oh no! It seems that you may have to join outside of the 7 Sage app. Thanks for bringing this to my attention! I will be sure to paste the link in my future posts!

I think the biggest mind eff on this question is the use of the word "required" or "necessary" in the sufficient condition place.

We're basically saying, "IF something is necessary THEN it should be adopted."

I know that we weren't overtly taught to account for the idea of something's being necessary as a sufficient condition. It's normal then to think, "well...they're saying that if it's necessary..." and just be done with it, but the problem happens right there: overlooking the "if" in "IF it's necessary."

A says that something's adoption is sufficient to know that it's necessary. This premise, even if true, could be misused should an alternative idea be adopted, e.g., selling the city's bridge. If the adoption of this is sufficient to know that it's necessary, that means ANY idea could be adopted and be necessary for solving homelessness, merely through the act of its adoption. But this isn't what the stimulus says, and doesn't support that idea that we should adopt an increase in taxes. - Why would we do that when merely adopting the idea of making a wish is sufficient to know that making a wish will fix homelessness?

@ said:

@ said:

Are you still online.

I sure am!

Stopping my stream now! If you watched at any point, thanks for joining!

@ said:

Are you still online.

I sure am!

@ said:

Would love to join you! Just finished the core curriculum and starting to do practice tests and reading Loopholes in LSAT :)

I keep hearing about this Loopholes book! Let me know how it is!

@ said:

Missed your stream :( do you have a stream schedule?

Hey @ I am planning to be more consistent with the times! As of now, I’m aiming for a Monday - Friday stream once a day. Life is so complicated sometimes! Things pop up and I can’t reliably set a schedule now. I’ll be posting in the forums each day that I start my stream, so keep an eye out!

Subscribing to the channel should also alert you to when I start a stream!

Best

I think A provides more direct support, but I truthfully don't think D is the worst answer.

D could suggest that observational research yields information that surveys alone cannot provide because those conducting the research do a better job with data collection as a result of enjoying the work more, ie., if you like your job, you do a better job. This answer choice however would require that assumption (we would have to assume that enjoying one's job leads to a more efficient outcome AND that this makes observational research more effective than surveys alone). One could also argue that this answer choice doesn't necessarily support the idea that surveys could not provide certain information that observational research can, it's just that observational research is preferable to conduct and thus, results are better because of operator preference (aka, "human error").

A makes use of the word "reveal" meaning that the information gathered during observational research was not "revealed" during standard survey-based market research.

#help

Could we get some further explanation for why C. would not be a preferable choice? This question has haunted me for months. Out of the hundreds of LSAT questions I've done, this one seems the most like it could have gone either way.

The biggest common issue people seem to have with this question is the stimulus' mention of "hours after birth". I could easily see LSAC justifying their choice for the answer, C. - "The mention of 'hours after birth' was placed as a subtle hint that the behavior was not inherent. Why would the findings be that this behavior starts 'hours after birth?'"

Even J.Y. makes an assumption that "hours after" is too early to learn something. The answer choice C. also includes facial recognition in its logic through the association of necessities to facial recognition.

@ said:

Hey! Good luck on studying! I'm preparing for the January administration too, aiming for 165+

That’s a solid goal, @.ahn33 ! - I’m looking to take the test as early as April and as late as June-ish (whenever they announce the dates around then). I’d love to get my score up to a 165+ !

I finally understand the wording! Let me see if I can help anyone.

A.) Finding a claim to be false on the basis it would if true have consequences that are false.

- Finding a claim to be false: The original claim of the cold medicine being effective was found to be false by the skeptic

- on the basis it would if true: If the cold medicine's original claim were true, and the medicine was effective

- have consequences that are false: Then why are the consequences (that people would be using it if it worked) false (it's not the case that people are using it)

Basically the skeptic is saying, "Yeah? I think the claim is false, because if the claim were true that it did work, then the consequences of it working (people using it) would be false in that people are not using it."

If you want any further elaboration, please reply! I would love to keep fleshing out my own understanding of this problematic problem.

Best

I initially chose C. but traded for E. because I felt that C. referenced "research" that was not explicitly conducted.

The scientists "believe they have found the explanation" and "concluded" that there was a genetic link between penicillin and mercury resistance, but this conclusion could have been arrived at through hypothesizing. It wasn't definitively concluded.

But I suppose it's more accurate to consider their hypothesizing involved (or was defined as) research than to say that they "conclusively proved" anything...you LSAC BSACs...

For question 15.), I believe Ricks would agree that the “historical scholarship...absolves plagiarists of their actions” which is why he doesn’t believe in the Post-Modernist approach.

It’s not so much that Ricks agrees with the approach (as J.Y. interprets it as), but rather Ricks agrees with D.) in that D.) explains why the historical approach is at fault.

I initially chose D) under timed testing, but changed to B) during blind review. To better understand why D) is correct, I think what needs examining is part of the first sentence of the stimulus (the idea that the mall is part of the local economy [the mall is in the community]), the second sentence of the stimulus, and the wording for answer choice D).

"When a community opens a large shopping mall, it often expects a boost to the local economy..." - Because the mall is in the community, its profits are considered part of that community.

"Yet the increase in the local economy is typically much smaller than the total amount of economic activity that goes on in the mall." - This is a fact and conclusion given to us in the stimulus. This is not something to argue against. So what explains this fact?

"Most of the money spent in a large shopping mall is money that would have been spent elsewhere in the same community had that mall not been built." - Answer choice D) is saying that at least 51% of the money spent in a large shopping mall would have been spent elsewhere in the community had that mall not been built. 51% of money spent at the mall is diverted from the community, this money would have been spent without the mall, so this can't be part of the boost to the economy...

That last italicized part is very important to understanding why this is the correct answer. Why? Because this 51% of spending at the mall is not part of the boost to the local economy. This means at the most, 49% of spending at the mall is the mall's contributing boost to the economy, whereas the other 51%+ is just diverted money that would have been spent without the mall. - This difference in percentages alone is enough to prove that the economic boost is less than the mall's community diverted earnings, BUT we aren't even comparing how much is economic boost (49% or less) versus how much is diverted community funds (51% or more), we're comparing 49% or less to the 100% of economic activity at the mall.

Oh thanks so much for saying that! It took some work to figure out the streaming gear and software. The main point of this is to keep me (and hopefully whoever watches) accountable! So glad you said that!

> @ said:

> anne,

>

> The first uses "only" as a necessary condition indicator:

> BH->BE

>

> The second uses "the only" as a sufficient condition indicator:

> BH->BE

>

> They are both the same, then, logically. No?

>

> My question, more specifically, is whether the phrase "the only" changes to a necessary condition indicator when it is located in the middle of the sentence.

>

> The kids with brown hair are the only kids with brown eyes.

> Is it still:

> The only=suff, so

> BE->BH.

> If Brown eyes, then Brown hair.

*I'd really like to emphasize this distinction between "the only" and "only the" - The former is a sufficient condition indicator, as taught, but the existence of the latter ("only the") confused me. Thanks for this 6 year old post for clarifying this!*

I’m going to try to give all of the reasons why D) is not the correct answer choice:

The question stem asks, as flaw questions typically do, what the most accurate flaw is.

C) Is highly accurate because it captures a scenario that is specifically occurring in the stimulus: The argument is misconstruing the high occurrence of large coffee consumption in the insomniac group with high prevalence of insomnia in a group of large coffee consumers.

D) Is less accurate for a couple of reasons:

- There may be something, as @gioaragon95 explained below, in the order of wording in this answer choice. D) states the “evidence describes only the characteristics of a class of individuals”. Is large amounts of coffee drinking only applicable to extreme insomniacs? We do not know. The better way to have worded this may be “evidence only describes the characteristics of a class of individuals.” In this way, we better understand that the evidence “only describes” versus “describes only” characteristics of a class. - Additionally the characteristic, of being a large consumer of coffee, is not solely applicable to the class of individuals (extreme insomniacs), but is applicable to the individual in question as well (Tom), so this characteristic does not “describe only” the class, but also describes Tom (a reworded statement of my conclusion, yes, just for clarity).

- The stimulus technically only describes one characteristic of extreme insomniacs (that 90% consume large amounts of coffee), so the use of characteristics may technically be inaccurate. Nit picky, yes, but still arguable.

- This may be the author’s method of reasoning (@chaplin_), and may be descriptively accurate, but does not give enough detail to describe where the flaw is. To me, this reasoning is the same as saying, “the author used evidence that describes only the characteristics of extreme insomniacs ⁺ ”. Aaaand? Where is the flaw? Where is the link to flawed reasoning here? We need that reasoning that says that a connection cannot be made from the evidence cited and all we are seeing in answer choice D) is the admission of using this evidence. C) explains the flaw in misinterpreting this evidence ( ⁺ In my opinion, this can’t be the group of “coffee drinkers” as others have stated because the evidence is pertinent to extreme insomniacs not coffee drinkers).

I backed off of LR once I knew I had that section down. I think I'm around the same 2-3 wrong in that section at this point.

Maybe you're over analyzing? I know that my performance improved with speed, surprisingly. If I get too analytic I fixate on one question, which slows me down and probably hurts my performance on subsequent questions.

This advice isn't consistent with formulaic methods of learning, but try going with your gut on this section during some PTs. On some level of consciousness you understand the LR section, so see if your performance could improve with a more intuitive approach.

Alternatively, maybe the Analytics can point to certain LR problems that you're getting wrong? Try brushing up on the logic behind those types of LR questions.

I'm taking the June LSAT too! Good luck!

I chose B.

Here is why I thought it to be correct:

I’m not sure if it’s an incorrect use of the term “recollection” on my part, but I did feel that “recollection” could mean the stated remembrance of an event. In this case, I felt that the commissioner’s use of “you may recall...” was his statement of the recollection of a previous event minus the outcome of that event; was the jail relocation decision a good decision? What can we make of this “incomplete recollection”?

Here is why I believe it to be wrong:

I guess even if the word “recollection” was used in this case, as I believe it is used colloquially, we couldn’t determine whether this recollection was or wasn’t incomplete. The recollection also pertained to the audience the commissioner is addressing, and is not his own recollection. Additionally, there wasn’t really a conclusion drawn about the association’s recommendations (It doesn’t say that in general, the association’s recommendations are right or not).