I am confused about the logic translations seen in the video explanation for a particular LR question:

LSAT PrepTest 49, Section 4, Question 16

Link: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-49-section-4-question-16/

There are two statements in this question where I don’t agree with the video explanation’s interpretation.

“Since the most realistic pieces are the most truthful”

The video explanation translates this statement as Most Real = Most Truthful. Why are the two concepts equivalent instead of existing in a conditional relationship? When I did this question, I diagrammed the relationship as Most Real → Most Truthful. We CANNOT say that “the most truthful pieces are the most realistic” given the above statement, correct?

“The most realistic pieces of art would be the best”

Again, the explanation diagrams this statement as Most Real = Best. It is my impression that from this statement, we CANNOT say “The best art is the most realistic.” Why is the equal sign used in the diagram, instead of a conditional arrow?

If someone can let me know why = signs are used rather than conditional arrows, I’d greatly appreciate the help.

A bit of context: I am currently 2+ years out of undergrad. I worked in a summer research program during undergrad where I worked closely with a graduate student, who was on a PhD track and one of the principal researchers on the project. In addition, I spoke every 2 weeks with the supervising Professor on the program to touch base with him about research progress. The graduate student was my main mentor, and he had daily insight into my daily research work.

From what I gather from online sources, a professor in my major would be the optimal person to write my LOR. However, I feel that the graduate student who supervised my daily work is much more familiar with my work ethic and research abilities. Would law schools view a personalized, well-written letter from a graduate student mentor/instructor less favorably compared to a more general, but still overall positive LOR from a professor?

Thanks!

In another discussion post about this question (the only other post about this question), one of the responses stated:

the crux of the argument lies in the second part of the second sentence where the author makes an explicit attempt at underlining the underlying logic: "but the absence of sightings cannot prove that it does not (exist)".

In lawgic that's: if there's absence, then we cannot prove non-existence.

Absence --> /prove

In order to weaken the argument, we need to find something that's loosely along the lines of: if there's absence, then that might actually mean non-existence.

(E) encapsulates this best.

But his underlying logic doesn't really make sense to me. If Absence of sightings -> cannot prove yeti does not exist, then the contrapositive is: prove yeti does not exist -> some sightings. The contrapositive doesn't make intuitive sense. If we prove that the yeti does not exist, then there must be some sightings of the yeti? That sounds like the complete opposite of what is necessary to prove something does not exist.

How does answer choice E weaken the argument? Is focusing on the underlying logic in the final sentence the best way to approach this question?

How do I tell if I need to pick all the game pieces that could fulfill the given condition, or if I need to select the answer choice that is a valid scenario? For this question (Which one of the following could be all of the solos that are traditional pieces?), I thought I needed to list all the solos that could be traditional pieces, which would be "second, third, fourth, fifth." But that wasn't an answer choice and I got extremely confused. I ended up rereading the game and all the rules a bunch of times and ran out of time for this game. For this question, I believe I simply needed to select the answer that depicts a valid game board. What is the difference between this question and a question that requires listing all possible solos that could be traditional pieces? I often cannot tell apart the wording between these two question types.

Thanks.

Does anyone know when we are supposed to receive the email for choosing our test date, and if that email will have an option to select our test time as well? I believe the email is supposed to come from ProctorU.

I am also wondering if we will need to download any software before the test date - I assume the email will have more detailed instructions. Thanks, and good luck to all taking the September LSAT!

Hi All,

In 7Sage's "Learn" section, there is an option to create a custom study schedule either based on Start and End dates or study hours per week.

To make the most of this feature, how many weeks before my test date should I set as my "study end date" in the Study Schedule? My assumption is that I should leave at least 2 months or so for nothing but Prep Tests and Blind Review.

Should I also be supplementing my studies from the Syllabus with at least 1-2 Prep Tests every week? Or should I hold off on Prep Tests until I make it through the entire Syllabus?

Thank you,

Daniel

Hi All,

I reviewed for the LSAT using 7Sage last year, didn't get the score I wanted, took a break, and am now studying again.

I'd like to use the beta version of Core Curriculum V2 to review core concepts and bring myself up to speed. However, I understand that the CCv2 is missing lessons and might contain mistakes, albeit very few. I'm wondering what critical LR concepts/lessons from the original Core Curriculum are missing from the V2 beta? After going through CCv2, I want to return to the original curriculum to review LR concepts that were skipped in the beta.

Thanks!

Hi 7Sagers,

How would the following statement be diagrammed?

"The tornadoes in the area are not the only natural disasters happening in the country."

Does this statement have a useful representation using conditional logic? How would "not the only" be represented when diagramming a conditional statement? This was not pulled from a PrepTest, just something I thought of while going through the Logic section of the CC.

Thanks!

Hi 7Sage peeps, does anyone know if we're allowed to use a monitor while connected to a laptop? Specifically, only the monitor screen will be in use, while the laptop screen will be completely off. ProctorU states:

"Multiple monitors/displays are not supported. If you have more than one monitor, you will need to disconnect all but one."

In my case, where only the monitor screen is on and the laptop screen is off, would that be an acceptable setup according to the requirements?

According to a previous discussion post, the user was told on test day that he could NOT use a laptop/monitor setup, despite verifying with ProctorU that his setup was acceptable prior to the test. That post can be found here:

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/29956

Any answers that could shed some definitive light on this question are greatly appreciated!

Answer is C: I actually eliminated C pretty quickly on the grounds that the answer choice alleges the ethical principle does not help the journalist, whereas Anita states that the guidance is inadequate. If something is inadequate, I take that to mean it is insufficient for achieving a purpose. However, something can be inadequate but still help in a situation. If I say "the water from one fire hose is inadequate for putting out the forest fire," it doesn't mean that the water from the one fire hose does not help in extinguishing the fire. It most definitely helps, but is insufficient to achieve that purpose.

Can someone tell me why answer choice C is correct? I ended up eliminating every answer choice in this question and just guessed since I was stumped.

Admin Note:

Deleted the stimulus because it is against our Forum Rules to post LSAT questions on the forum.

Hi all, so I noticed that some PTs are labeled with letters (PTB, PTC, PTC2). Is there anything special about these practice tests, such as experimental sections, or questions that were tossed out on them? Just curious why these PTs were labeled with letters instead of being regularly numbered like the other PTs. Are they good tests to use to gauge my scores?

Explanation (2 mins): https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-40-section-1-question-21/

Question 21 on PrepTest 40 Section 1:

Pizzerias are the only restaurants that routinely record the names, addresses, and menu selections of their customers. Simply by organizing these data, they can easily identify regular, average, and infrequent customers. Therefore, pizzerias utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively than do other restaurants.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the argument's conclusion to be properly inferred?

The answer: Answer choice E

Restaurants that routinely record names, addresses, and menu selections of their customers always utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively than do any other restaurants.

What? How are we able to conclude such a strong statement?

From my understanding, the argument structure is very simple. The second sentence in this question is complete fluff. The first sentence provides the premise and the third sentence is the conclusion.

Let's use variables to diagram the logic:

A = Restaurants that routinely record

B = Pizzerias

C = Utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively

First sentence gives: A -> B (Restaurants that record -> Pizzerias)

Answer choice E provides: A -> C (Restaurants that record -> utilize direct-mail)

Conclusion says: B -> C (Pizzerias -> utilize direct-mail)

But using the premise in the first sentence and the assumption provided by the answer, we only get B some C. We can conclude that SOME pizzerias utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively than other restaurants. The conclusion is a general blanket statement that would include all pizzerias (I think).

What am I misunderstanding here? This question has been giving me a lot of headache, thanks to those who took the time to discuss in advance!