https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-49-section-2-question-21

We are told that Sugared beverages can be helpful in avoiding dehydration AND sugared beverages can delay muscle fatigue.

However, the stimulus denotes this is BEFORE one is dehydrated.Or at least that was my reading.

If you are already dehydrated, we are not told sugared beverages beverages with any level of sugar will help.

Thus for B, if you have problems that have come as a result of being dehydrated, how would taking in lightly sugared beverages be of assistance? If anything, it would seem they would make your problems worse every time for it would be drawing water from the blood to the stomach.

I might be interpreting this incorrectly.

Any and all help is greatly appreciated.

So. I've been in the LSAT/Law School admissions process for a while.

But something happened that I've never seen before today.

A friend of mine applied to a T20 law school.

He/She has solid softs, great life story, and her/his numbers put her squarely in the medians for the school.

He/She has one more LSAT take left and was training hard for her/his take in February.

My friend received this message from the school:

" Hello (Name),

Thank you for your email. If you would like your file complete now, you will need to cancel your February 2017 test registration and email a confirmation of the cancellation. Feel free to contact our office if you need additional assistance.

Best regards,

(admissions person) "

Is this normal??????

It seems like some type of garbage way to yield protect.

Would love some insight on this.

This is a two part question in reference to the embedded conditionals video.

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/mastery-embedded-conditional/

Part 1:

Put the following sentence into Logic and contrapose it:

If the seeds are planted in the winter, then flowers will not blossom unless fertilizer is applied.

SPW --> (~FA-->~FB )

which more clearly is:

SPW and ~FA --> ~FB

contrapositive:

FB --> ~SPW or FA

Part 2:

Down in the comments someone asked:

What if the parenthesis are around the 1st and 2nd elements? ie. [A -> B] -> C.

JY responded with:

Original: (A–>B ) –> C

Contraposed: /C –> /(A–>B )

Group 3: /C –> /(/A or B )

De Morgan’s: /C –> (A and /B )

Simplified: /C –> A, /C –> /B

Or alternatively, we could have applied

Group 3 translation rule first: (/A or B ) –> C

Simplified: /A –> C, B –> C

Where did the Group 3 come from????

I got lost in his explanation there.

Can someone answer that question or maybe explain it in a different way. I feel like it's very obvious, I'm just not seeing it right now.

Thank you!

For those of you who applied and go in to Berkeley/have legitimate insider info, how critical is it have a 3-4 page Personal Statement?

I've seen conflicting information online. Some say it's fairly important to make sure it's longer, others have said avoid adding fluff if you do a solid job in 2 pages.

So, I've done this question many many times. And I've never felt great about it. Can some run it down for me?

Specifically, answer choice A.

Here's what A looks like:

A:

Writer has right ---> Author granted writer the right

I believe A is incorrect because "Writer has right" should not be in the sufficient condition.

Rather, to be correct, A should look like this:

Author granted writer the right ---> Writer has right

Is this accurate?

(if you want to add anything else helpful, it'd be greatly appreciated).

Currently PT-ing in the 161-164 range. Have been here for a while.

My goal is to take the test in Dec. I plan to crack 170.

I'm not asking if it's possible. I figure everyone is different. Rather, my question is if anyone has witnessed a 6-8 point bump within two months of rigorous studying.

Also. Any and all words of wisdom are welcome.

Hey Everyone,

Could anyone give me an example (whether on some test or just an example you could make up) of this valid form:

A --> C

B --> C

~A some ~B

I know it abstractly, but I struggled earlier to give someone a decent example and explanation earlier. So, I feel that means there's a hole in my knowledge.

And don't say "because of it's ranking". I'm just curious based on your goals why you're choosing a particular school(s).

"Starting with the 09/17 LSAT, there will no longer be any limit on the number of times a test taker can take the LSAT in a 2-year period."

https://twitter.com/Official_LSAT/status/864501182202556416

In real time, I was down between B and D. I chose D because it "felt" correct.

In regards to actual reasoning, I'm assuming D's appeal to authority is illegitimate because something like smell is so subjective and appealing to an expert wouldn't make sense?

I am not certain on B.

Any help would be appreciated.

The correct answer here made zero sense to me.

In answer B, he says she says "Hey, recycled paper isn't necessarily lower quality. In fact, the best paper was made was made from recycled materials..."

How is that irrelevant?

Frankly, all the answer choices seemed a bit zany in this one.

Roses are red

Violets are blue

You should be studying

And I should be too.

Hope everyone has had a decent holiday!

Keep grinding!

I just noticed after months (lol years) of prep that in argument part questions, you'll get a question stem that says something to the effect of: "blah blah blah plays which one of the following roles in the argument"

Occasionally, you'll see an answer choice that says something like "it is information that the argument takes for granted"

"takes for granted" is just another way of saying "assumption." If this is the case, then surely these answer choices must always be wrong because assumptions are, by definition, unstated premises.

Has anyone else found this/contradiction of this?

Thanks.

I'm looking to find someone to study regularly with either online or in person for the June LSAT.

Shoot me a message on here!

Admin edit: Please do not post LSAT questions word for word.

I'm having trouble with this Fact Pattern and Question Stem.

I'm assuming it is supposed to be faulty because the FP makes the switch from talking about tall tulips to tall plants.

However, we know that tulips are the ONLY plants in the garden. And we also know they are all tulips. How is it faulty to make the step that the only plants in the garden are tall plants?

https://today.law.harvard.edu/gre/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=hls-twitter-general

I wonder how many other schools will make this change and how soon.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-23/

Here is my conditional reasoning:

teachers are effective ------> when they help students become independent learners

teachers have power to make decisions in their own classrooms ------> enable their own students to make their own decisions

become independent learners -------> students' capability to make their own decisions

teachers are to be effective --------> have power to make decisions in their own classrooms

Apparently my conditional reasoning in line two is incorrect??

But I don't understand why it would be.

"Yet not until teachers have the power to make decisions in their own classrooms can they enable their students to make their own decisions."

This looks like: Not until TD can they enable SID

"until" is group 3, negate sufficient

So negate "not TD" which would make it just TD and keep it in the sufficient spot which would turn to TD --> SID.

But this screws up the chain.

Can someone explain?

Literally, No idea.

Oxygen.18 is a heavier-than-normal isotope of oxygen. In a rain cloud, water molecules containing oxygen-18 are rarer than water molecules containing normal oxygen. But in rainfall, a higher proportion of all water molecules containing oxygen-18 than of all water molecules containing ordinary oxygen descends to earth. Consequently, scientists were surprised when measurements along the entire route of rain clouds' passage from above the Atlantic Ocean, the site of their original formation, across the Amazon forests, where it rains almost daily, showed that the oxygen-18 content of each of the clouds remained fairly constant.

19. Which one of the following statements, if true, best helps to resolve the conflict between scientists' expectations, based on the known behavior of oxygen-18, and the result of their measurements of the rain clouds' oxygen-IS content?

(A) Rain clouds above tropical forests are poorer in oxygen-18 than rain clouds above unforested regions.

(B) Like the oceans, tropical rain forests can create or replenish rain clouds in the atmosphere above them.

(C) The amount of rainfall over the Amazon rain forests is exactly the same as the amount of rain originally collected in the clouds formed above the Atlantic Ocean.

(D) The amount of rain recycled back into the atmosphere from the leaves of forest vegetation is exactly the same as the amount of ram in river runoffs that is not recycled into the atmosphere.

(E) Oxygen-18 is not a good indicator of the effect of tropical rain forests on the atmosphere above them.

20. Which one of the following inferences about an individual rain cloud is supported by the passage?

(A) Once it is formed Over the Atlantic, the rain cloud contains more ordinary oxygen than oxygen-18.

(B) Once it has passed over the Amazon, the rain cloud contains a greater-than-normal percentage of oxygen-18.

(C) The clouds rainfall contains more oxygen-18 than ordinary oxygen.

(D) During a rainfall, the cloud must surrender the same percentage of its ordinary oxygen as of its oxygen-18.

(E) During a rainfall, the cloud must surrender more of its oxygen-l8 than it retains.

A friend and I were discussing PT68, Section4, Game 3. I was trying to articulate why a chart was needed in that particular game and when to use charts in general. And I discovered that I couldn't explain it clearly. And I think that's a problem. In my mind, it indicates a lack of mastery.

So, if someone asked you when it's necessary to use a chart and when not to, how would you respond?

(for those of you who don't know what I mean by "chart", check out the game I mentioned earlier.)

GTown has been knocked out of the T14

Wo.

Can someone please explain this question.

admin note: please don't post full questions on the forums!

Per Spivey Twitter:

“This is huge and breaking news. In multiple tweets. The ABA Council has recommended...

...that every law school can determine what makes a test valid and reliable for itself or whether or not it will even require an admission test...

As of this moment we are unsure of this recommendation needs to be finalized, or if it is a final decision.”

Thoughts?

Can someone break this down for me?

I was torn between 2 different answer choices.

I mean I can see how B is correct, but I also thought D had merit.

For this question (it's helpful to watch the video), JY does the logic and it comes out to this:

Capable and (PI or 500) --> Report

~Report

not (capable) or not (PI or 500)

From this point, JY says that you implement the group 3 rule. meaning that you have to either negate the (capable) or the (PI or 500). But when you look at the problem, why couldn't you negate both? If they are BOTH negated, Ted would still not be required to report?

Basically, I'm not sure why you suddenly would need to implement group three on this problem when it seems you could absolutely negate both and still have the sufficient condition (~Report) stand correct.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-1-question-24/

Sentence:

If I don't see food, I am sad.

~SF --> S

would the negation be:

SF and S

I can see food and be sad.