@BABAHUMMUS (D) attacks the premise. The stimulus says that animals with dense blood vessels imply that they're warm-blooded. So (D) saying that that some warm-blooded animals don't have dense blood vessels directly contracts what is stated as fact in the stimulus. But we are also never told that some warm-blooded animals can have growth rings. We cannot make the conclusion that the birds were warm-blooded because we are still missing the piece about the growth rings; it doesn't matter if they have dense blood vessels.

(E), on the other hand, does not attack the premise. Instead it's presenting an alternative explanation, that some cold-blooded species can have BOTH growth rings and dense blood vessels. This reconciles BOTH characteristics that seemingly contradict one another by allowing us to conclude that having both IS possible in some cold blooded animals.

Let's compare the two campsites:

1. Neanderthal

   • The teeth found had a certain color, maybe like a brown color. This brown color indicated that the gazelles were hunted throughout the year, implying a temporal element.

2. CroMagnons

   • The teeth found looked different from the ones at the Neanderthal campsite. Maybe instead of brown, they were white. Either way, this difference implied that these gazelles had been killed during the same season.

   • We know that the CroMagnons are nomadic, meaning they moved around and didn't live in one campsite all year round.

So how do we get to the conclusion that the Neanderthals were NOT nomadic and instead lived year round in the campsite?

The author is saying, well, if they were nomadic, then the Neanderthals would've had the white teeth that the CroMagnons had. But since we have a bunch of the brown teeth that are lying around, we can conclude that the Neanderthals must have stayed at the same camp long enough to have hunted throughout all of the seasons. Why else would there be all of these brown teeth lying around?

It's an awful argument, that's why it's so hard to parse through. But couldn't it be possible that the Neanderthals were nomadic and hunted year round? Or couldn't it be possible that the Neanderthals were nomadic and hunted in one season, but held onto the brown teeth for some other reason?

(C) gives us reason to doubt the author, at least by making us question whether we can really assume the type of lifestyle based off of the coloring of the gazelle teeth. If the Neanderthals were the type of people to collect gazelle teeth for reasons beyond just hunting, then it grays the area a little of whether we can deduce that they were nomadic of not.

@isafav Our conclusion doesn't have an "if" statement; moreover, this stimulus is exemplifying a causal relationship (phenomenon-hypothesis). We also don't know if the vegetation undoubtedly depleted the CO2. It could be the case that vegetation happened to occur at the same time as the CO2, but something else cause its depletion. That's why it's a hypothesis, and not a definitive fact that can be proven true.

(E) actually exemplifies the 'some doubt' that you mentioned, which is that the vegetation "almost certainly" caused the ice ages. It leaves room for a little doubt, but it presents the hypothesis that is made by the scientist.

@AndrewWiedenkeller The part where he says "it is widely accepted" is not his conclusion. His conclusion is that democratic governments should not inflict strict control over clothing and grooming. That's why it's not a strategy supporting his conclusion, the generally accepted attitude is being applied to an analogous case.

@ak2 I picked (E) at first too, but I think it's wrong because we don't know if pro-punitives would have approved of punishing all employees. We just know that it's one of the criticisms made by anti-punitives to justify why the traditional bankruptcy laws failed. Just because all of the employees are considered to be equally negligent, it doesn't necessarily mean that we must use the traditional means of punishment. I chose (A) the second time around because it's stronger ("repayment is impossible), and it points to a consideration that isn't really addressed by the author. What if the debt is too great for us to be giving out lenient punishment? That would defeat the point of striving to maintain a healthy economy. Whereas with (E), it's really only addressing one concern that was made by the anti-punitives.

@crose I used a Kaplan prep textbook (honestly it's not very helpful, but it's called 180 Practice Drills for the LSAT if you're curious)! But you can do it on 7Sage too, just take one of the older PTs and go through the questions, only diagramming the stimuli.

I hated using lawgic at first, but it gets easier with practice! I just forced myself a couple times to do diagramming drills (strictly stimuli, no answer choices or questions). The abbreviations were really confusing for me and made me lose track of the each of the conditions. I just write full words or at least a few more letters, and it helped me save time even if I have to physically diagram more. It will also eventually get easier to do in your head, once you get the hang of lawgic.

That being said, not everyone likes lawgic! I saw some people on Reddit say that they did the whole exam without diagramming or anything, so it is possible. It helps me with learning if anything, and organizing the stimulus in a digestible manner.

Hello! I also have ADHD, and I have chosen not to have accommodations (although this can be an option for you). I don't personally follow the study plan, as I tend to do better scheduling on my own; however, I am also able to study full time so it may be beneficial to follow a guide that will help keep you accountable when you're working. You can customize your study plan to include less practice block drills, and start doing more timed practice with WAJ (wrong answer journal review) -- that's currently what I am doing. You have three full months until June, so I would try to break up the next fifteen weeks into manageable goals per week (i.e. setting a target week to reach 160, 165, etc). This may make things a little less overwhelming!

You're definitely not overreacting, and you may feel a little impatient -- it's part of the process! Wishing you luck!

@Shrimpi I'm not sure about the exact logical rule, but I think you may be misinterpreting "can" in this context. Usually, we remember conditional relationships to be "If this happens, then that must follow."

But what is necessary for a cat to be a good hunter? It must be ABLE to kill prey up to half their body weight. "Can" is a conjugated present tense version of "to be able." The stimulus is not arguing that that cats MUST kill prey up to half their body weight to be considered good hunters, just that they need to be able to.

Another example would be: Good athletes can run a marathon.

I am not saying that athletes cannot qualify to be good without running a marathon. I am only saying that athletes must be ABLE to run a marathon to be considered good.

"Can"/"cannot" is much more powerful in its use on the LSAT, and it can often feel very different from conversational grammar.

I took a peek at your analytics, I think it would be helpful if you did more drills and timed sections! This will help both LR and RC.

As for RC, what kind of questions are you missing? It seems like you're missing the first and last questions, this might be indicating an issue with understanding author's point or inferences. What kind of passages are you struggling with, and what kind are you comfortable with?

If you find LR more comfortable, my best advice is to treat RC as LR. They are targeting the same underlying skills, but RC obviously requires reading and identifying the tone of a passage. I found that once I got better at LR, my RC also improved.

I still struggle from time to time with RC, but it depends on the passage. Some part of it depends on luck I think, but I try to approach every passage methodically and the same way as I do with LR stimuli.

I'm also trying to read more outside of studying, I get the Daily from NYT as a light easy read on my phone, and I read literature on my kindle. I'm not in school anymore so I have to be more motivated in finding scholarly articles, but there is definitely a wide variety of subjects to choose from on Academia or JSTOR.

But overall, I think more practice under timed and untimed conditions will be your best bet.

@CMas I think the biologist is trying to say that there is no noticeable difference in the skeletons between individual and pack hunters. We only know which animal is individual and which is pack based off of our current day observations of their hunting. We can't do this with animals that are extinct, but we also cannot conclude whether they hunted individually or in packs solely off of their skeletons.

I chose (C) because the conclusion is about what paleontologists can or cannot reasonably infer solely on the basis of skeletal anatomy. (C) guarantees that we can draw the conclusion, that if skeletal anatomy cannot sufficiently determine hunting behavior, then it is not reasonable infer that dinosaurs hunted in packs. (C) is also strong enough to cover ALL animals, regardless of whether they're lions or dinosaurs. Rather than having to determine if their skeletons are similar enough to make a comparison, we just have an overarching rule about all hunting animals.

@JordanPodolak Intermediate conclusions serve two purposes as a premise and as a conclusion. So technically, as an intermediate conclusion, it is supporting the main conclusion as a premise. Indicators also are to be used as a helpful tool, but they will not always fit into the categories that we want them to.

@Mina.G (A) and (C) are very similar, but they have switched sufficient necessary conditions. If you had trouble differentiating between the two, then I think it may be an error from chaining/diagramming or misreading the answer choices.

@HeathHughes The author justifies his conclusion, we should demolish the old train station, not because it will impede new development, but because the local historical society have an underlying lack of concern for economic well being. The impediment to new development part of the stimulus is a minor premise to support the fact that the local historical society don't care for economic health.

The flaw here is not a part-to-whole one, it's an ad hominem. We are trying to attack the part of the argument that is directly used to support the conclusion.

(B) doesn't have an ad hominem flaw, but it also doesn't really make much of an argument at all. It says we should properly preserve documents in general for our posterity. Then, it states that we must preserve every single document for the integrity. If you ask yourself "but why?" after each of these sentences, you will find that we are never given an answer.

(C) on the other hand, gives us an ad hoc attack. The conclusion is to cut your hair no more than once a month. Why? Because beauticians have an underlying motive to have their clients come in more often and generate more business.

Both (C) and the stimulus commit the same flaw of using the alleged motives of people to justify against action. What if the local historical society don't care for economic health, AND they still shouldn't accept the proposal? What if the beauticians want to generate business, AND it is beneficial to cut your hair twice a month? We cannot justify an argument solely based off of an underlying incentive that someone may or may not have, because there still may be a rational reason behind it.

@CarolinaGarcia156 The flaw is that half-horse, half-human creatures reflect the people's unconscious fear of the horse. So if we take your interpretation of the flaw, which is that the violence could come from the humans, we have no reason to believe that the half-horse, half-human creatures have to be representative of horse fears at all. The author fails to explain that the half-horse, half-human creatures can only represent the horse. That is what (A) is saying, that the creature is being taken to be solely representative of a horse, despite the fact that half of it is also human.

@SophiaOrlando I diagrammed the stimulus first and then realized that there was a conditional negation error. Then, I scanned the answer choices for a conditional error/illegal negation, while eliminating anything that does not match. If mental diagramming is a bit difficult, I would keep practicing as eventually it will quick. Ultimately that will save the most time for you, and recognizing conditional patterns will be almost immediate. I wrote out the thought process for each answer choice, so I apologize if it's overwhelming!

Stimulus:

• financial value --> isolated social units

• if /financial value (as in, how it appears in nonindustrial societies) --> /isolated social units

• Okay, so we're looking for: A --> B; therefore, /A --> /B.

AC (A): Does not match structurally:

• if different genera --> /interbreed

• but since J and W are same genus, this is not sufficient information to determine if they can or cannot interbreed (also (A) has no flaw). Eliminate!

AC (B): Comparative, and conflating probability:

• if close to equator --> more species

• if close to poles --> less species

• therefore, sahara desert species > siberia species

• First red flag for me for (B) was the proportional relationship between location and number of species. Our stimulus doesn't have this. Eliminate!

AC (C): Part vs. Whole error:

• insect --> maturation process

• insect --> arthropods

• therefore; arthropods --> maturation process

• There could be other types of arthropods that do not go through the same maturation process; insects are only one subset of arthropods. Eliminate!

AC (D): A --> B; therefore, /A --> /B.

• poets --> nonliteral

• /poets (aka journalists) --> /nonliteral (or, just literal)

• Illegal negation, which is another form of sufficient necessary confusion. Good!

AC (E): Comparative, and conflating probability:

By the time I get to (E), I am very quickly skimming it just to double check, but I have already chosen (D) in my head and moving on.

• if sophisticated --> more trouble

• if simpler --> less trouble

• Since computers are more sophisticated than pencils, they are more troublesome.

• Same thing as (B), it's creating a proportional relationship between the sophistication of technology and how troublesome it is. Eliminate!

@Sarah975248 I got this one wrong too! I think I got tripped up here because it sounds contradictory, but it helps to see it in lawgic:

(A) is saying:

• evaluate morality --> intention

Stimulus is saying:

• /intention --> /morality

• /morality --> consequences

It's confusing because it sounds repetitive/paradoxical, but (A) is just reaffirming the conditional relationship between our premises (/intention --> /morality). The principle itself also helps us justify our conclusion because we could ask, what if we can evaluate morality without knowing the intention? By clearly stating that we must know the intention, we are forced to reach the conclusion that we should evaluate consequences and not morality.

@BraulioSuarez It's under "Foundations" in the Lesson Library section of the Study Tab! All of the things I mentioned should be in that section.

@BOBLOBLAW The assumption of increased arrests correlating with rate of violent crime is unwarranted in this stimulus. The commissioner is arguing that the drop in violent crime is from the new sentencing law enacted last year. What if there was another law two years ago, or five years ago? What if there was an additional deterrent of violent crime, i.e. increased law enforcement? We only need to weaken the claim that the decrease was necessarily caused by the policy change last year; (E) introduces another explanation from two years ago as to why violent crime decreased.

@AluGator (B) says that "one needs to consider carefully all of the information one has," which does not trigger our condition that we need to "seek information." It also doesn't specify whether all of the information that one already has is sufficient to make a decision, whereas (D) explicitly states that "one's personal experience with cars" is "inadequate."

I'm also curious about the PT Equivalent Scores!!

@AngelPerez You can also think of it in everyday situations:

If I ask you, "hey, do you have some gum?"

And you reply, "no."

I take this to mean that you have no gum. Not that you have most of your pack of gum or you still have many pieces of gum, but that you have no gum to give me.

@msfro Maybe, I eliminated (E) because 'species of rodents' was out of our scope. We only care about high blood pressure in rats and a high-salt diet. If a different study with squirrels gave them extra salt and it didn't affect their blood pressure, it doesn't disprove the link that was discovered in rats.

@kae The researcher says that the exercise in the afternoon creates an effect that lasts until sometime after bedtime. For example, if you exercise at 4 PM and your bedtime is 11 PM, the raised body temperature lasts until 12 AM.

(E) is suggesting that if you take a warm bath at 10:30 PM and your bedtime is 11 PM, you will likely have a similar effect that will last until 12 AM.

@EKiene Wrong Answer Journal! Here are some helpful links from 7Sage:

• https://7sage.com/blog/wrong-answer-journals-and-you

• https://7sage.com/blog/building-a-wrong-answer-journal

There's no right or wrong way to making a wrong answer journal - I personally believe that as long as I am doing some sort of review, I am still gaining the benefits of deep review. I don't keep at WAJ for RC, but it's helpful for LR to keep track of repeated mistakes or common question types that I get wrong. A WAJ is just a place for you to reflect on what went through your mind while answering questions and how to improve going forward. Even if your errors come from misreading a word or rushing through answer choices! It helps you gain insight to the types of errors you are making.