Discussions

User Avatar
dfukata785
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free
PrepTests ·
PT133.S3.Q18
User Avatar
dfukata785
Sunday, Sep 14 2014

No prob!

Disclaimer: I'm a student like you (and not a high scoring one at that) and I can't speak for Jon's explanation, but I'll try to share my reasoning as to why I eliminated D.

First, I would reason the same as you in that the evidence appealed to (i.e. the premises, or that eating dairy leads to increased intake of fat) IS relevant to the conclusion asserted (i.e. that decreasing your dairy intake will lead to a decrease in heart disease.) The reason I eliminated it is because it fails the first step of the two-step test for flaw/descriptive weakening questions in that it is not descriptively accurate. In other words, the argument does show that the evidence appealed to is relevant to the conclusion and therefore it gets eliminated.

As for distinguishing between claims and evidence I can't really say. I tried to Google LSAT claims vs evidence but much of what turned up was just about premises and conclusion and I just ended up becoming more confused.

Finally, you can also use lsathacks.com for a different perspective/LSAT explanations for PTs 62 - 72. Greame, the guy who runs the site and also a former instructor here at 7sage seems to think also that the evidence/premises directly supports the conclusion. I find it kind of intriguing that different instructors will have different interpretations of the answer choices.

Hope this helps and happy studying!

1
PrepTests ·
PT133.S3.Q18
User Avatar
dfukata785
Thursday, Sep 04 2014

Hi,

I think I finally figured out where I went wrong with this question and I'm hoping that this explanation will help you as well.

The conclusion tells us that avoiding dairy can lead to the increased probability of good health (for simplicity, I went with a decreased probability of heart disease as a subset of good health.) The stimulus is so conveniently worded such that you are able to diagram it out using Lawgic. However, I have a feeling that the stimulus is subtly telling us that the three ideas, eating dairy, eating fat, and heart disease are casually related. So if ED → EF → HD is true, then conversely, the reverse is also true in that ED→EF→HD. In other words, if you eat more dairy, you are likely to eat more fat thus resulting in an increased risk of heart disease. Where I went wrong was that I couldn't see past avoiding making a mistaken negation.

Answer choice (A) is correct because of the reverse being true, that of eating dairy will lead to an increased probability of heart disease. So, a practice (of eating dairy) may have potentially negative consequences (increased probability of heart disease) but it's elimination may also have potentially negative consequences (as Jon mentioned, decreased bone density and what not.)

0
PrepTests ·
PT133.S1.Q18
User Avatar
dfukata785
Tuesday, Sep 02 2014

Is the principle in the stimulus written as an embedded conditional, or could it be diagrammed as such? I diagrammed it as follows:

IDAO = identify description as opinion, DAMB = deliberate attempt to mislead bidders, M = guilty of misrepresentation

IDAO → (DAMB → M)

IDAO & DAMB → M

Since the application in the principle gives us IDAO → M, we just need to find something that says that Healy's deliberately attempted to mislead others, which E does quite nicely (relative to the other answer choices, anyway.)

0
General · Finished all 7sage lessons. First timed PT came back the same as cold diagnostic. How do I proceed?
User Avatar
dfukata785
Monday, May 12 2014

First off - holy crap, I got J.Y. AND Jonathan to respond! I feel blessed!

With that out of the way, thanks everyone for your pointers and words of encouragement.

A big part of the problem I've come to realize is that I enrolled in this course in early February thinking I would have adequate time to sufficiently study for the June LSAT. This caused me to haphazardly blow through some of the lessons, resulting in the material not really sinking in. I know, I fucked up big and now I'm paying for it (especially since I blatantly disregarded JY's advice to take a year to prep.) But now that I've decided to push back the LSAT to September, I'm going through some of the earlier lessons and it seems like things are finally starting to become clearer.

Again, thanks everyone for your replies. I really do appreciate it.

3

As the title says, I just completed all of the 7sage course lessons and took my first timed PT last week ago. I blind reviewed this PT as well. The timed and blind review scores came back the same as the cold diagnostic (about mid 140s and mid 150s respectively.) Needless to say I was pretty disappointed.

Today I tried to take another PT (62) but in the middle of it I blanked out. I started off strong with the RC section (mainly because it was topics with which I am familiar, or that I actually give a crap about), then I started gassing through the first LR section and by the time I got to LG (section 3) I completely lost motivation. By the second LR section I was running on fumes and I wasn't particularly confident in my answer choices. It didn't help that I was having issues with the proctor app which kept freezing on my phone, making me go over the allotted time. I'm feeling pretty discouraged at this time since its seeming like all this coursework was for naught. I also decided to scrap PT 62 entirely since I was feeling pretty disgusted with myself by the end of it.

I had originally planned to take the June LSAT but I don't think I'll have enough time between then and now to sufficiently address all of my issues so I'm likely going to reschedule to September.

So with all of that I could really use some pointers as to how to proceed with my studies. As JY mentioned in one of his blog posts, there are only a limited number of PTs available and I want to make the most efficient use of them so that I don't fuck it up for myself come October.

Edit: Sorry, I meant to say that ideally I'd like to correct some of the mistakes I'm making, whether it be from not getting mentally fatigued so quickly to working on weak spots before I resume PTing.

0
General · Has anyone taken the LSAT Starter ?
User Avatar
dfukata785
Saturday, Apr 05 2014

I am currently going through the starter course myself. I think JY mentioned elsewhere that the only difference between the three is that you get more problem sets (which come from PrepTests 29 through 38) and access to more PrepTests with the premium and the ultimate. Other than that, access to all the lesson materials remains the same.

I had already purchased The Next 10 Actual Official PrepTests book from Amazon prior to enrolling here and being that I have access to most of the other LSAT PrepTests I opted for the starter.

1
PrepTests ·
PT107.S1.Q23
User Avatar
dfukata785
Friday, Apr 04 2014

Indeed. I also diagrammed this using logic and it helped me immensely in picking the right answer choice. I did:

S → /AP and S most L.

I noticed that the stimulus concluded the negation of /AP and the antonym of L (AP some I?), so I diagrammed all of the answer choices and found the one that tried to conclude the same.

0
General · Formal Logic Books
User Avatar
dfukata785
Wednesday, Apr 02 2014

According to one of the comments in the video lessons, Introduction to Logic by Harry Gensler is supposed to be good.

1
PrepTests ·
PT107.S2.P4.Q26
User Avatar
dfukata785
Friday, Mar 14 2014

Hi lsat prepper,

I am two months late to the party but I thought I'd give a crack at your question anyway in the hopes that it'll still be helpful to you (and failing that, other students who have trouble with this question.)

First, if you re-read the beginning the passage the author notes that for some time up until 1970 there was a lack of published material that included actual court cases regarding medieval English law and how it affected women. I'm not so sure the author was stating the desire to write a comprehensive history, more pointing out that there is a deficiency in published material.

With that in mind, I reason that answer choice E is wrong because second half says that scholars want to write a comprehensive history of medieval law as it APPLIED to women. The author notes though that scholars are already well aware of how medieval law applied to women by consulting treatises, commentaries, and statutes and for this reason answer choice E can't be correct.

Admittedly, I actually forgot what the author said in the beginning of the passage and what I really did was used the referential phrasing in the passage and traced it back to the end of the first paragraph where it mentions the quantitative studies of court records (basically what JY did in the video.)

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?