I am scoring in the 165-167 range on my PTs and want to be hitting about 171 for the November LSAT. I am consistently missing only two questions on RC and getting them all right in blind review. On my last PT, the only reason I didn't get just one wrong on RC is because my time ran out and I couldn't answer it. My LR is obviously less consistent, (-3 and -8 on my last PT, 165). My question is whether I should focus all of my attention on LR in the next few weeks or try to get those easier-to-reach extra two points on RC first. Might be a dumb question just due to nerves kicking in, but curious what the best way to organize my study would be.
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Do you recommend flagging the question to return to if there is extra time at the end? Or should we just get returning to it completely out of our head?
It's the mechanism through which a larger cause causes the effect. For example, I eat McDonalds, it causes me to become very obese, and I become unhealthy. The obesity is the mediating cause of McDonalds making me unhealthy.
This was a very thorough and good lesson, thank you #feedback
#help Based on the fact that the correct answer on weaken questions only has to weaken the argument, not annihilate it, is it reasonable to assume that only one of the five answers will weaken the argument at all? Or might I ever have to decide which does it the most on a spectrum?
The way I'm reading it, the second would mean that no dogs are friendly.
No, because “some” could mean any amount between one up to all of the kittens.
I'm not from 7Sage, but my understanding is that several means more than one, not at least one. That's the difference I see between some and several. Hope that helps!
No, because "some" could mean any amount between one up to all of the kittens.
"Only if" is a group two indicator, meaning you put what follows it as the necessary condition.
Corrupt elites is negated, which means that you have to flip the positions of decline and corrupt and negate decline too. /corrupt elites -> /decline. It relies on a negation argument. I tried to use a normal conditional argument and got tripped up too.
It's not a sub-conclusion because there is no premise giving support to it. The preceding sentence only tells us what is happening. The fact that that is happening does not prove that it is not a sustainable solution. We would need something else. For example, if the first sentence was followed by: "Historically, restaurants that store their food waste in the backyard end up being consumed by a vat of acid" then that would add support to idea that it is not a sustainable solution. Then it would be a sub-conclusion.
No, the main point is the conclusion. This passage is just hard because the first two paragraphs make the author's argument seem broader than it is. The only thing they are trying to do is determine who has CONTROL over the distribution of the document, not to determine if there are ways to protect documents besides tightening copyright laws. Thus, the main point is A: the creator of the document has control, not hte person who links to it.
For the record, I got this question wrong originally and needed the video explanation to understand!
19 tripped me up because I did not realize that the main point of the passage is to figure out who controls distribution of the document, not to resolve the tension introduced in the first paragraph. So, it is important to look at what the author actually explains and concludes rather than what the author has simply mentioned. For this, it is important to distinguish what is context and what is the actual argument.
He cannot argue that the truth of the premises does not mean that the conclusion is true becaues not even the premises are true! It is the presmises that Gamba is trying to undermine. He is not saying that the premises are true. So C cannot be the correct answer.
Did the same thing lol