If you're still confused about how A → C can stand in for A and B → C, I have another simple analogy that might help:

Let's assume you can get a ball (C) at a store in exchange for a gold token (A). = A → C

But you know the store clerk well, so you decide to be generous and throw in a dollar tip (B). = A and B → C

Now, does adding the dollar make any difference? No, because you still get the ball whether you tip the clerk or not.

In this case, "and B" is redundant in that it does not affect the output of the logic.

Therefore, A → C is sufficient for us to conclude that A and B → C.

Got 24 wrong because I lacked understanding of the word "semblance," and somehow I associated it with a positive image.

I vote for the Personal Statement section of the webinar.

Too bad I didn't get to ask a question. Nonetheless I deemed it very helpful - definitely gave me some very useful insight on the admission process overall. Thank you for your time and look forward to participating in your upcoming webinars soon!

@ Hey, I purchased Ultimate+.

@ Basically I follow JY's method - I think there's a whole lecture on it that's definitely worth listening to if you haven't done so. After you finish a PT. go back to and work on the questions you circled on your timed run. Take all the time in the world, as it is very important that you understand the questions thoroughly.

As for RC, I would advise you to read a lot. You get a huge advantage if you're familiar with the topic of the passage - so read as many articles, blogposts, textbooks, etc. as you can, to broaden your background knowledge of relevant areas.

@ Took me about 2 months I think. I broke the 160 ceiling fairly early, but getting to the high 160's was the hard part.

@ @oshun1 @

Thank you all for your thoughtful advice! :smiley: I'll be sure to answer the "study interrupted" prompt on the application.

Like everyone says, don't bring it into the test center. Leave it at home or in the car if necessary. If you must bring it into the venue, follow the instructions of the proctor.

I'll share my experience here in case you have to bring your phone in no matter what. Just note that I took my test outside the US.

I brought both my backpack and phone to the test center because I needed to call a friend to pick me up after the test (the parking situation was just horrible at the venue, plus it was more accessible via public transport). The proctor simply instructed me to turn off the phone, put it in the bag and leave it outside the testing room. It turned out almost everyone brought theirs too.

So I guess it depends on the situation. But again, be safe and leave your belongings at home or in the car.

Here's another analogy:

P: Some people study hard and don't get 170 on LSAT.

P: Some people don't study hard and still get 170 on LSAT.

C: Studying does not promote scoring 170 on LSAT.

For Q13, Here's a slightly different approach I took in choosing (A) over (E):

Per dictionary definition, "postulate" means to suggest or assume the existence of something as a basis for reasoning.

If you substitute the word with this definition, the part in question reads: "she was unable to assume the existence of the mechanism by which to explain radiation."

Let's put in our two contenders here, (A) and (E).

(A): She was unable to assume the existence of the physical process.

(E): She was unable to assume the existence of the theory.

For me, it didn't make sense to assume the existence of a theory. On the other hand, assuming the existence of a physical process sounds perfectly reasonable.

Hope it helps!

*Flaws:

1. The premise offers an unrepresentative sample to support the conclusion: Most cases of insomnia that psychologists treat - do they represent all the cases of insomnia? Clearly not. They are too narrow of a subset.

2. Why can't sedatives be used to alleviate the stress?

3. What if psychotherapy doesn't work?

(A) is not the flaw, hence the correct AC. In fact, it is written backwards. It is stress that causes insomnia, not the other way around.

(B) Yes. This points to Flaw #1.

What if the treatment of the rest of insomnia cases (other than most cases that psychologists treat) requires sedatives?

(C) Yes. This points to Flaw #3.

(D) Yes. Flaw #2.

(E) Yes. Also Flaw #1.

This one felt more like an RRE question to me.

Count me in!

@ said:

@ said:

Took it in Korea.

Turns out I got an experimental RC, which I really hoped to be the real thing because I found it a lot easier than the first one. The first LR (the one with chimps learning to trade) was challenging, while the second (the one with jurors using cell phones in the court room) was a breeze.

Not so sure about LG... got stuck with a game pretty bad and had to guess 2-3 questions.

Do you remember having question in your first lr about fine thread and 60/90% cotton?

Thanks!

Yes, and since I had only 2 LRs, the one with fine thread and cotton was not an experimental section.

Took it in Korea.

Turns out I got an experimental RC, which I really hoped to be the real thing because I found it a lot easier than the first one. The first LR (the one with chimps learning to trade) was challenging, while the second (the one with jurors using cell phones in the court room) was a breeze.

Not so sure about LG... got stuck with a game pretty bad and had to guess 2-3 questions.

Parallel Flaw, Curve-breaker

B (ET) → B (UFO)

/UFO

Assumptions:

1. /UFO → B (UFO) false

2. B (UFO) false → B (ET) false

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

B (ET) false

Assumption #2 does not follow logically. We cannot say B (ET) false unless we confirm /ET (ET doesn't exist.)

The flaw here is that the argument mistakes B (ET) → B (UFO) for ET → UFO.

If we substitute the latter with the original premise, we get a valid argument:

ET → UFO

/UFO

/ET

(/ET → B (ET) false)

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

B (ET) false

.

(A) is correct because it commits the same flaw:

B (U) → B (C)

/C

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

/U

*The conclusion does not exactly say B (U) false, but recall the implicit premise that /X → B (X) false.

Therefore, /U → B (U) false.

Consider this analogy:

Radioactive waste cannot be recycled.

For this reason, we cannot recycle many spent nuclear fuel rods.

Unless the majority of the spent fuel rods are radioactive, then there is no point in saying that many spent fuel rods cannot be recycled for this reason (that radioactive waste cannot be recycled).

Eliminated E because I thought the conditional was backwards...

Now I see that E is not a conditional logic but rather a correlation (The longer in use, the more widely used).

Tricky question!

Thank you @ and @ for your advice!

I feel more comfortable now knowing that it's the nature of the relationship that matters more than the number of courses taken. I think I will send them an email next week to see if they're available for a meeting at the office.

3 PTs a week is way too much. I quote this directly from J.Y. when I met him in person last month.

I know this from my own experience because I was in the exact same situation earlier this year. I put in my next test date and the 7Sage Study Schedule tells me I have 3-4 PTs to take per week. My response was just go with it, and each week I was tormented with the stress of cramming taking a PT, BR, fool proofing LG, drilling, reviewing CC and so forth, times 3.

It was only last month when I met J.Y. (he visited my city to provide offline RC sessions) that I realized I had been doing it all wrong. He explicitly said 3 PTs a week is way too much. He added that taking 1 PT every week or every two weeks coupled with a thorough Blind Review + drilling is an ideal pace, provided you have laid down firm foundations through the Core Curriculum. If only I got to meet him earlier :(

I do not presume that his words would apply to everyone equally - laying out the study schedule really depends on your abilities and how much time you have left. But at the same time I do not think J.Y. would have ruled out the 3-PTs-a-week plan if it had a slight chance of working to the student's advantage.

Hi @,

Hailing from Seoul here. Glad to see other 7Sagers in the vicinity!

(D) proposes a counterexample:

Small studies are so damn common that there are 10,000 of them in total.

Large studies are not so common, so there are only 100 of them in total.

Let's say newspapers report on 40 small studies that are dramatic and 20 large studies that are dramatic.

Dramatic + small studies/All small studies = 40/10,000 = 0.4%

Dramatic + large studies/All large studies = 20/100 = 20%

In this scenario, large studies are way more likely to be dramatic in general, despite that newspapers report on more dramatic + small studies than dramatic + large studies.

Here is how I interpreted (D) as a strengthening AC:

If both groups rejected cereals low in sugar even when they were heavily advertised, that could mean that they have a natural preference for sugary cereal.

This leads to an alternative explanation that it was because of the children's natural preference, regardless of how many TV ads they were bombarded with, that they chose the sugary cereal.

(SA: Nations' economies prosper → Gov't economists examine every significant factor that affects economy)

P: International factors significantly affect nation's economy

ㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡ

C: Nations' economies prosper → Gov't economists must look beyond national borders (= must look at international factors)

This question might seem impossible at first glance, but if you look into it it's very cookie-cutter:

JPB → KLE

JPB ("as we sometimes are")

-----------------------------------------------------------

KLE

-----------------------------------------------------------

Not (KLE → /FP) = KLE & FP

Since we've established KLE, the sufficient condition we need is JPB → FP