Stimulus:
a contract exists when two parties engage with each other for reciprocal benefits
Application:
accepts support from public funds --> unexpressed contract with self and public
public can expect to benefit from artist's work
Error in reasoning:
I may be mistaken, but I think the error is that the public and artist never engage with each other? And that we don't know if the artist accepted public funds with the understanding that he is benefitting from it and agreed to make work that will benefit the public.
CORRECT AC B:
This is why the answer is (B); the author jumps to the conclusion that this is a contract, even though we are only given information that the artist accepted public funds.
WRONG AC C:
I was down between (B) and (C), but I went with (C) because I assumed that all types of contracts involve contingencies and need to be judged on a case-by-case basis. But the author is not saying that they don't involve contingencies and case-by-case judgement, but that we have enough information to conclude that the artist and public have a contract when we don't.
Favored (Old) Theory:
dinosaur extinction was caused by asteroid
evidence: dust laid down worldwide at the same time as event
New Theory:
not asteroid at all, but massive volcanic activity
dust in atmosphere cooled the planet
Deccan region: volcanoes occur same time period as asteroid
Assumption:
that the asteroid could not have caused massive volcanic activity
if the asteroid colliding on Earth triggered some sort of massive volcanic activity, then the new theory would not be correct because it eliminates asteroids as a potential cause.
WRONG AC (B):
The critics only mentioned the excessive intrusion of private lives as a criticism for the radio station. The broadcaster addresses this, saying that they had an obligation to public interest. He doesn't ignore anything.
I fell for this answer choice because I liked the wording, and I didn't love the other choices. But he definitely doesn't ignore any grounds for criticism, he directly responds to them.
CORRECT AC (E):
Our radio station has a responsibility to serve the public interest... the overwhelming public interest in these matters makes it our responsibility to publicize them.
Public interest is very ambiguous; it does not guarantee any reason that the radio station HAS to fulfill this interest, except for the fact that public likes it. He absolves the radio station from any real responsibility by turning the fault to the public, and saying that their job is just to give the public what its want. It's a weak defense, though a very commonly made one!
(A) I think the critics are the one who are assuming that there is a right to privacy? I also think that this broadcaster would have still made his argument even if he was assuming that these celebrities had a right to privacy.
(C) The fact that he says that their intrusion in celebrity lives was excessive (even if he's quoting the critics), he is implicitly accepting that it was excessive -- he just claims that the radio station had an acceptable reason in spite of the excessive intrusion.
(D) Legal responsibility is not specified, nor is moral obligation. I don't think that the broadcaster is justifying that the radio station had a moral obligation, he was just saying that they had an obligation to the public. It is also not stated that he is legally obligated to refrain from publicizing private lives of local celebrities.
Domain: 2500 survived first heart attack
Premise:
if /smoke --> first at median age 62
if 2 packs a day --> first at median age 51
Conclusion:
Nonsmokers have first heart attacks around 11 years later than do smokers
CORRECT AC (E):
Data on people who did not survive a first heart attack
It could be the case that of the people who survived, the nonsmokers had first heart attacks were around the age 62. But what about the people who did not survive?
Tricky choice, because this argument begins with discussing those who survived first attacks and then making an illicit conclusion about just first attacks.
Maybe those who did not survive first heart attack was 40? Or 70? This would skew the comparison of ages between nonsmokers and smokers.
WRONG AC (D)
I couldn't figure out what the exact assumption the argument was making, but I think I was trying to poke at the medians for nonsmokers and smokers. I thought that the assumption could maybe be that the median for smokers was 51, but maybe had a ton of outliers that could skew the results. But this is still incorrect because the argument makes a conclusion about all subjects and not just the ones who survived.
I eliminated (A), (B), (C) because the study was only examining causes and progression of heart attacks, and our conclusion is not about the actual heart attacks or the aftermath of the heart attacks.
I think that's super common! You can try skipping the first few questions until you find a question that is easy for you to solve and then come back to it once you've settled in.
Very normal! It sounds like that LSAT content is still pretty new, I would definitely go through the foundations first. I personally don't study well by watching the video explanations, so I skimmed through each lesson and took notes of important concepts. I retook notes over and over until I memorized them! I would also recommend developing a rough timeline of when you would like to take the exam and when you would like to apply to law school. That way, you can determine how much time you should be dedicating per day, how often you should take PTs, when to start drilling. I think many of the other 7sagers agree that you should really understand the foundations before you start drilling, but I also think there is some merit to seeing what the questions look like too!
Once you start understanding the foundations, the answers will begin to come more intuitively. I highly recommend doing untimed drills and really focusing on accuracy on each question! And process of elimination will be a helpful friend :-)
Hello! Just was wondering if the new released disclosed PT (I think it's the April 2025/Feb 2014 exam) will be uploaded to 7Sage sometime soon? I would like to take this before the January exam, but I would prefer to take it on the computer! Thank you!
I also struggle with feeling discouraged from fluctuating scores! But keep in mind that you have jumped 20-30 points already since you've begun studying! This is a wonderful accomplishment and a testament to your strength and improvement.
My tutor suggested to me to stimulate testing environment for every PT (if it is possible). This can help with your anxiety by establishing a comfortable routine. For example, if I schedule a virtual exam for 10 AM, then I will wake up at 8 am, eat a hearty breakfast, do some breathing exercises and stretches, and sit down for the exam at 10 AM sharp. I try to schedule bathroom breaks to align with testing day, and I "pack" snacks and water like I would on testing day.
I also heard that beta blockers can really help with testing anxiety too! I would speak with your doctor about it first, but you can add beta blockers to your simulated exams as well.
Wishing you luck on your journey! Law schools appreciate improvement in score, so do not fret just yet!
I have a similar issue!
Do you find yourself 'rereading' the passage when you go to answer the questions? I try to mentally mark where important parts are in passages (i.e. main conclusions, counterarguments, studies conducted, author's opinions), this saves a ton of 'searching' time when I'm answering questions. I still definitely look back at the passage, but usually I just jump to the paragraph that is of concern instead of re-skimming the passage.
Other than that, my tutor just said it was just consistent practice ㅠㅠ
Everyone's journey is different :-) If you feel anxious about starting the PTs, you can start drilling some questions or doing sections so that you are still getting exposed to the exam while you are reviewing the core. Keep your head up, you're doing great!
I'll be honest, I am not super sure how to use all of the analytics too! But this is what I do for LR:
I have a small bank of PTs that I use for drills specifically. I build drills with about 10 questions that focus on one or two of my weaknesses untimed, and I focus solely on accuracy and aim for 10/10 correct. The drill accuracy percentage can be helpful for big picture stuff, but if I get a lower percentage for drills I try not to be too concerned.
If your PT scores are going up, then that is great news! It may the case (for example) that you have a weakness for MSS, which appears only x amount of times per section. But an MSS drill with only 10 MSS questions might just point to that weakness if your drill accuracy isn't going up.
If you haven't done so already, I would also adjust your goal score in the priorities by tag section of the analytics tab. It helps me keep things in perspective about how far I am from my goal.
Wishing you luck on your journey! I would appreciate any other tips from others too! :)
If it's a full PT, I like to do it the next day! Not sure if this is necessarily better for everyone, but I find that it helps to take a short break and come back with a fresh mind. If it's sections or drills, I review the incorrect ones immediately after and try to see if I can get them right the second time around.
I'm in the same boat! From what I've seen online, you should be okay :-) I'm worried about any score release holds that could delay the application process, but if you are applying to schools Feb-Mar 2026, it should be out by then!
Hi! Don't save the drills! This test is just as much content as it is practice! I personally like to do a couple LR sections timed, then see what kind of question types I get wrong. For example, I got a bunch of Weaken questions wrong on a previous PT, so I just made a untimed drill of Weaken questions from one of the earlier exams (anything under PT120). I then try to recognize what kind of habits I'm making with Weaken questions, noticing any patterns for wrong answers and correct answers. I made the mistake of doing the most recent PTs when I was first starting out, but 7Sage recommends saving PT140+ for an accurate read of how you will do on the actual exam. PT120-140 are good for practicing sections, both timed and untimed. And don't forget to blind review and to make a wrong answer journal! Wishing you luck!
Hi! I think it's good to review the core curriculum, especially if you feel like you are second guessing a lot of logical reasoning. I think doing drills with the most common question types you're getting wrong and then moving onto untimed/timed sections will help! I currently do one full PT a week, on a Saturday or Sunday, and I do a couple drills and sections with blind review/WAJ each day. I also struggle with reading comp, but I've been trying to read more newspapers and books with unfamiliar language. You definitely don't need to know any outside knowledge for this test, but I found that it makes me read a little faster and with less anxiety if the text is something that I am already familiar with. Full disclosure, I don't work full time right now; but I hope that this can help you explore a few options for study plans! Wishing you luck!
I was similarly confused by the assumption that working there for ten years means that they are no longer receiving valuable training, but I think I finally understand it:
Let's say that Newspaper A pays reporters an average salary that is much lower than the average salary of reporters at Newspaper B. In other words, on average, people at Newspaper A tend to have lower salaries than people at Newspaper B.
Okay, so back AC (B). If most people at A had worked there for 10+ years, and most people at A have lower salaries than B, then at least some people at A have lower salaries and worked there for 10+ years.
Now, you can make the argument that many of the reporters at A can still benefit from the training ten years later. But (B) is also saying that most of the reporters have been there at a MINIMUM of 10 years. Most of these poor reporters have at least 10 years of experience, and Executive A says that they are still receiving valuable training as compensation? Good grief!
With weaken questions, it is also important to note that we don't have to completely destroy the argument. We are simply trying to poke holes in A's justification. If it was revealed that most of his employees were there for more than a decade and still receiving a much lower salary that B's employees, then Executive A will look very suspicious indeed. It may be the case that the industry standard of training is 20 years, 30 or 40 years. But that's why (B) specifies that they've been there for more than ten years. The argument still stands. There are some employees who've been there 20, 30, 40 years and still make awful money. It can be the case that some of his employees who have been there for 10+ years do gain a very real advantage of valuable training. But it does still raise your eyebrows at his justification that all shortfalls are fully compensated by the training. That's all we need to weaken his argument.
Hi, this happened to me too (and still does)! Nothing is wrong with you, this is just the unfortunate part of studying for this exam. I found that once I actually started learning the material and doing the steps to solve a problem, I was getting more of them wrong -- either because of timing or because I just applied the wrong skills. I don't think you need to restart with fundamentals if you feel like you have grasped them, but I think that practicing more targeted drills and completing sections before building your stamina for full PTs will help! Also, you did your first PT only a few weeks ago! Give yourself some grace, you are doing great at the pace that you are going :)
I think that this is an illegal negation aka sufficient-necessary reversal.
This is how I mapped it:
if planned locomotion --> internal representation and send messages --> central nervous system
This is the conclusion made in the argument:
if /planned locomotion --> /central nervous system
Or:
if A --> B --> C
---------------
/A --> /C
This is an illicit conclusion because the conditions are not switched. The correct conclusion would be /C --> /A, or that if an organism does not have a central nervous system, then it is not capable of planned locomotion.
When you are taking the contrapositive of an argument, you must negate and swap the conditions.
A --> B
/B --> /A
If you don't negate:
B --> A
Or if you don't swap:
/A --> /B
Then you are confusing sufficient-necessary conditions.
Hope that helps!