This makes absolutely no sense. Isn't A a direct contradiction to the Editorialist? Money only exists as long as people believe in it. So how can it exist if people stopped believing in it?! Makes zero sense!
#help (Added by Admin)
This is an extremely difficult question. It should be level 5 difficulty, not 3.
I got this question right after being stuck between C and D. The reason I chose C instead of D is because, in the case of D, a "compelling reason" and "insubstantial reasons" are two separate things. In D, it immediately assumes that having a "compelling reason" is enough to be guilty of abuse of power, but it doesn't consider that one could have a substantial reason to withhold information even though it's not compelling. A substantial reason is SEPARATE from a compelling reason. So by eliminating this, C becomes the right answer.
What do you guys think? Does my reasoning make sense?
I don't understand this question at all whatsoever. Can someone help me? No matter how many times I watch the video I don't get why the answer is B.
#help (Added by Admin)
You have to make a MAJOR assumption to think that the steam carried the chemicals into the atmosphere. Nowhere in the passage does it remotely indicate that the steam carried them.
I really hate this question, it is extremely unfair.
I think C is wrong because it directly attacks a premise. It rejects the premise that the participants reported exercising 1 hour longer each day on average. That's why it's wrong.
Does anyone agree? What do you think about this explanation?
This is a principle question, not a Pseudo-Sufficient Assumption. I think you mislabeled it.
But the argument is not "failing to consider" that one phenomenon can continue even when being impeded upon by another. IT IS considering that. Last line says that despite ghost stories, people still gained scientific understanding. The point of the argument is to say paranormal TV programs will still allow for science to continue growing.
So why A is the correct answer is beyond me. I don't get it.
She is denying the conclusion though, wtf this question makes no sense!
Where does the author talk about the influence on later artists? Makes no sense.
#help (Added by Admin)
I'm doing the RC problem sets of the core curriculum currently and it seems like the RC passages are taking me a while. For passages that are 5 questions it takes me 10 minutes to complete that passage, and for passages that are 7-8 questions it usually takes me 15 minutes to complete.
How do I get faster at this? And what is a good time to aim for for each passage?
@ said:
Yes! You are given scrap paper that you can use for the entire test.
HOLY SHIT. That's a game changer for me. I'll literally be getting the vast majority of SA and MBT questions right now.
The reason B is wrong is simply because you have no idea whether the current administration is also economically successful. You can't make assumption. So C is correct. It's more provable.
@ said:
@ said:
Problem is on the actual LSAT I can't write down anything.
What do you mean? Why not? Writing a few things down on a difficult SA or MBT question isn't a bad idea.
Wait, you're allowed to have paper for the LR section of the LSAT? You're allowed to write things down?
@ said:
Have you tried diagramming the questions out? Are you able to get them right if you diagram them?
Most of the time when I do it untimed and I actually draw them out on paper, most of time I do get the answer right. Not all the time though. But doing that certainly helps.
Problem is on the actual LSAT I can't write down anything.
By far the hardest question type for me in LR is SA and MBT questions. I have learned the whole formula/diagramming/translation stuff that is taught in the Core Curriculum and I understand it quite well. However, I try to do it in my head (as one is supposed to do) then apply it as I'm doing each question to get the right answer. But I always get them wrong. These two questions types have me stressed out because I can't improve no matter what I do.
I should note I mainly have trouble with the moderate difficulty and harder questions (levels 3-5 on the difficulty scale). The easier ones I can do.
How do I improve at these question types? What advice or help can you give me? Perhaps other techniques additional to this?
I only got to the Logic Games section of the Core Curriculum two days ago, and I just finished Problem Set 4. The problem sets on the CC are all 2 games each, which should be done in 17.5 mins. However, I'm getting them done in like 30 mins which is way over the time limit, but I've gotten all the answers right (every single one) and my methodology is right.
Is it bad it's taking me this long to do them (as I only recently started), or am I expected to be doing them within the lsat time period (17 mins) as a beginner? Will my timing improve as I go on? I'm worried.
I accidentally hit the -6% time or whatever it was and it ended my preptest saying "time has expired" while I had 2 questions left. This was a mistake, how do I go back to the section I just "completed"?????
This is URGENT. I need a response ASAP
For the first question, where does it say she wants to reform the view? It doesn't say so anywhere explicitly, and barely implies it. That's why I didn't choose C.
#help (Added by Admin)
In LR, my worst question type by far is Sufficient Assumption questions. I know about the translations and the formulizing we need to do for that question type (as 7Sage/JY teaches us in the CC), but actually applying that while doing a convoluted question is very hard and it also takes up a ton of time, in that by the time I've selected the answer minutes have gone by. Sometimes I get confused while doing the translations and formula in my head as well.
As a result of all this, I end up getting a lot of the harder SA questions wrong. I can generally get the easier ones (1-3 dots on the difficulty bar) correct, but anything past that I almost always have trouble.
What can I do to improve on SA questions?
I'm done the core curriculum and I understand the Logical Reasoning lessons quite well (i.e. the translations, diagramming, formulas, etc) and always apply them when I'm doing LR questions. Regardless, however, LR is still my weakest section - I have a lot of trouble with it.
I've heard a lot of good things about this book "Loophole" and most people are saying they've drastically improved on that section, some even becoming LR masters. Many people have stated they get nothing under -3 on the section (which would be ideal for me).
So a few questions:
Is Loophole worth getting if I already have 7Sage and have learned all the LR-related stuff from 7Sage? Will I see a bigger improvement?
If someone (like me) doesn't have the time to read the entire book from cover to cover, and is thus unable to cover all sections of the book, what core parts of the book would you recommend I only focus on, to still learn the important elements and thus succeed/improve on LR?
Thank you.
What did you improve most on? And on those sections where you improved, what tips/advice can you give? Lastly, congrats!
I'm at the NA section of the core curriculum (almost done the problem sets) and so far these are the hardest question type for me.
What are some general tips/tricks you guys use to get the questions right (esp. hard questions)? I'm looking for a general rule or mindset to always have in mind as I do the questions to try and get them right.
The contrapositive of answer choice D is that the pollution of nutrient-rich sewage makes algae proliferate. This is completely in line with the argument. So why is D not correct?
#help (Added by Admin)
I got this question right in 30 seconds :) What's the name of this flaw though?
Why is the B the right answer? It doesn't have to be ONLY through neurochemical changes that a person's behavior improves. It's just one of the things that happen, there could be others. If you negate B, it's still consistent with the argument. This makes no sense!
#help (Added by Admin)
JY's explanation for why B is the correct answer choice makes absolutely zero sense. Still have no idea why B is correct.
#help (Added by Admin)
This is actually a really easy question. Classic cookie-cutter False Dichotomy flaw question. It fundamentally assumes that being unprofessional can be treated as either being fired or remaining in the job. Vernon was justly fired but others who were unprofessional were not, so this must mean that he should get his job back. This is what the argument is saying. It doesn't take into account that a third possibility could exist for Vernon or the others. So you get answer choice E as being correct.
Basic False Dichotomy flaw, I have no idea why so many people got it wrong.
I thought this was a strengthening question, I did it as a strengthening question and I got it right.
I got 7Sage about a year ago when they didn't have the timed feature layout that they have now. So before I used to do all the problem sets of each section in the curriculum in the PDF condition for as long as it took me.
I started 7Sage again about a month ago and now they have this timed condition layout for each of the problem sets.
So should I be doing the problem sets under the LSAT timed conditions (6:40 mins per 5 questions), or is it just as fine if I do it at my own pace?
In the flaw section of LR, I have a hard time understanding the common argument flaw of sufficiency-necessity confusion, as JY calls it. I never seem to recognize a flaw argument that is committing the sufficiency-necessity confusion flaw.
Due to this, can anybody show me an example of an argument that is committing this flaw and explain to me how it constitutes a sufficiency-necessity confusion? Thanks.
"Indian" is not an ethnicity. Are the LSAT writers that uneducated?
Why is this considered a level 4 difficulty question when 91% of people got it right...
Not to brag, but this was one of the easiest NA questions I've done lol. I got this right in 1:00. Why is this tagged as level 5?