I jumped from mid 140s to mid one 160s in less then 2 months, working on average 1 hour a day so it is definitely doable. In my diagnostic I got most of the Logic Games section wrong so when I improved there my whole score increased drastically. If you are in the same boat, it shouldn't be too hard since the games section is the easiest to improve

So I did choose A but my reasoning was a little different. I thought of anarchy producing chaos as a premise rather than as part of the conclusion. After all, it doesn't have anything supporting it. At the same time, it's a description of anarchy the existence of which can be seen as simply a characteristic of anarchy rather than a new definition. To me, the word that changed meaning was instead the word "not accepted". The author assumes the word " not accepted " means the same and shouldn't be considered any further. Does anyone have any thoughts regarding my reasoning?

#help (Added by Admin)

My score is the same as yours but LR is my best section.

Are you getting 100% on LR BR, if not, then there is probably a problem in your reasoning process. You deal with that by spending a LOT of time making sure you understand everything about every single question you do. If you get 100% on BR, then it only a time thing. Time can be improved by applying the same reasoning process faster(you achieve that by practice) and in some cases recognizing patterns you have seen before. Hope that helps!

When i tell you it is generaly accepted that killing is bad. Im not lying to you, however, im not telling you the all truth.there are cases in which it is actually considered to be okay(police killing to protect other people). This doesnt mean it is not true that killing is generaly considered bad, its just that there are certain circumstance which make for a small percentage of a situation in which the generaly accepted value is over ridden by a bigger value of protecting the safety of a countries citizens. Hope that helps.

I believe the reason c is wrong is because in order to be a target of something you do not need to be gulity of what you are being targeted for. Same way that making sacrifices for something doesnt require that thing to be a literal person. What matter's is only the belief that you are a literal person, or in our case that you are guilty of moral praise or blame. Only writting this because i thought C is the right choice!

i went through the core lr curriculum once and felt like I didn't improve at all. So i decided to go through it a second time. I only did quizzes when I felt like I could actually devote my 100 percent to them and also i looked at the questions after finishing the quiz with the idea to understand everything about them. This took me from a -7 in a test which i was familiar with some of the questions to a -4 in a completely new test for me. I recently bought the loophole and it seems to emphasize a lot the idea of trying to rephrase the stimulus after reading it.

just one question: why do we equal intrinsic merit with quality?

#help (Added by Admin)

I agree with you when you say that it requires a numerically bigger assumption for choice B. But I reasoned through that by not considering the percentage of the answer choice being correct as the deciding factor. But rather how many assumptions do we need to make for each and if those assumptions are true how strong is the premise against the argument. What do i mean by that?

A requires 1 assumption, if fish means that there was a sea nearby we are good to go. The problem with that is that even if this is true we still can only undermine one part of the argument, which says that there was not a sea nearby. But the other part that talks about it being cold is left untouched. The same thing with the heat answer choice, it only attacks 1 part of the conclusion.

Now let's look at B, despite it being low in probability as you mentioned, it still only REQUIRES 1 assumption, that the Indoeuropean language is part of the group AC B mentions. If that is the case then we can undermine the entire conclusion, not just part of it. There is no word for the sea because they fall in the category that AC B mentions, and at the same time, the fact that there are words for winter and snow doesn't mean that they are the predominant features of the place. Why? because we just said that this place doesn't have words for its predominant features, so the fact that it does have words for winter doesn't mean that it is a predominant feature.

So answer choice B does what A and D do combine with half the number of assumptions.

I know that was long but I hope that it helps

hey im interested in joining, im taking the lsat in November as well. I don't really know how the group studying thing works, can i join the group me?

By high score i mean above 164

same here

i eliminated A because it says that the fact that it could be true is taken to show that it is in fact true. This is not what the argument is saying. The first word is, on the basis of available EVIDENCE we believe this to be true. Not that this is 100 percent true, but since the evidence shows us that this is the best option we have we are going to go with it and create a hypothesis. Hope this helps!

Thank you for your response, since the question asks which answer allows the conclusion to follow logically I consider D to be a possible answer. At the same time, I agree with you that E is the more direct version. It seems that I will have to stop overthinking everything and just go with the answer choice that fulfills the requirements more efficently.

knowing a proposition to be true is impossible, only if it cannot be proven true by observation. So we are looking for something that if true would make the statement above absolutely true. The only way for a proposition to never be known to be true is if it cannot be proven true by observation. In other words, I tried the observation for proposition A and it happened that it couldn't be true therefore it is impossible for this to be known to be true. This is what *(D) is saying. The passage says that no mathematical proposition can be proven true by observation and the answer choice D tells us that if it can not be proven true by observation then it is impossible to be known to be true. So if this is the case it makes sense to say that it follows that it is impossible for any mathematical proposition to be true(which is the conclusion of the passage). So if I take answer D as true then there is no way in the world for anyone to say that you can not reach that conclusion.

So why is D NOT THE RIGHT ANSWER?

i understand why E also makes the argument valid, but D does the same thing.

I also understand how the lawgic rules tell us that this is not the right answer but If i forget about lawgic for a second and use my logic I came to the conclusion that argument D makes the argument valid.

if someone is willing to explain why D is wrong using words rather than logic i would greatly appreciate it.

the only reply i have against this is that if there is another way to prove the argument is known to be true other then through observation then D would not make sense, but that would require us to not consider D as absolutely true.

#help (Added by Admin)

i thought the same thing

I do agree with the reasoning behind the first 4 options but I do think that he is missing the point when it comes to option E.

First why I believe option E is wrong: the secret is the word "cause". If participation was not discouraged, this wouldn't cause isolation to be less than it currently is. This would mean that isolation is already less of what it is. And this sentence brings me to the second point of this reply.

Why the explanation for E is wrong.

As the speaker of this video mentioned: we shouldn't be biased in reading this passage, but think of it as being absolutely true in everything it says. Under such circumstances, as long as local politicians are isolated, people will be discouraged to participate. This is true despite any possible outside influence as the one mentioned in this video. Because if an outside influence can cause people to be encouraged, despite being isolated then that means that the passage is not 100% true, and that can not be the case.

I have only studied for logic games for a couple of hours but the main thing they say is that if A→B THEN it is also true that no B means no A(B→A)

if eating one candy gives me diabetes (C→D) then if I don't have diabetes that means I didn't have a single cand(D→C) bc if I did have a candy I would have diabetes so.........

if isolation brings discouragement ( I→D) then it is also true that no discouragement means no isolation (D→I) because if there is isolation there needs to be discouragement.

So E is definitely wrong, but i don't believe that the reason given in the video is the correct one.

If this way of thinking is wrong and we do not take things as absolutely true in the logical reasoning section pls reply to my comment as it would be a big help to me as i move forward with my studies.

Thanks

after reading some of the comments I have decided to present my own objective as to why I do not agree that c is the answer.

I will first start by explaining why I believe C to be wrong.

it is true that we are dealing with an example of a similar cultural change. What comes after that is where the problem starts: did not necessarily have a detrimental effect on the human mind overall.

1) who said it was detrimental and how do we know whether it was detrimental or not. Sure, it didn't corrode our intellectual skills, but at the same time nowhere in the passage do we see that change is a positive thing. We just can assume that change happened the first time, not whether that change was good or not. It may be good compared to our brains dying but that is not the comparison we are required to do. What if the change is for the worse and the way that things were before the change was better? then in that case it was detrimental.

Now I will talk about why I believe D to be right.

Almost everyone agrees with the first part of this answer choice so ill only focus on the second half. If we consider lost to be the equivalent of destroyed in this case (which is not a crazy assumption) then this choice is telling us this: you said it is going to be destroyed/lost.

That's an unwarranted assumption. Why? Because look at this past experience we had. It wasn't lost then it was merely altered, so it is not going to be lost now.