Hi all,

I am quite puzzled by the answer to this question altogether. The answer to this is answer choice A (circular reasoning of the first sentence and the last part of the last sentence following "because"), but I am not quite sure why this is circular reasoning. When I saw this question and when I stumbled across answer choice A, I eliminated this by:

seeing the premises as the first sentence and the part of the last sentence that followed "because" which both state "in order to succeed in today's society, one must have a college degree," while seeing the conclusion as "the skeptics objection of counterexamples are only apparent success (the conclusion indicator of however pointed to this)." Thus, the premise and conclusion were different.

even if we were to see the first sentence and the last part of the last sentence to be the conclusion and premise, this wouldn't be circular as the first sentence is a general statement of succeeding in today's society, whereas the last sentence discussed the concepts of : 1. "true" success (a matter of degree in the success), and 2. why a college degree was important (because it showed that a person did not have enough "education").

Again, even if we were to see the first sentence and last part of the last sentence to be the conclusion and premise (and assume that they are stating the same thing), it is not circular reasoning if you provide additional premises. It took me a while to find the 7sage lecture on this but here it is https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-2-question-09/ (see from the 2:20 mark).

So the structure would be like this:

Conclusion: In order to succeed in today's society one must have a college degree

Major Premise: The skeptics version of success is only apparent

Premise: without a college degree a person does not have enough education to be truly successful

The addition of the major premise would, according to J.Y., sidestep this from circular reasoning.

Any take on these three understandings of this question? Any help would be great!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-3-question-20/

Hi all,

I have a question on answer choice C.

I understand the flaw of the survey: how it fails to distinguish the residents who dropped out in its own schools and those who dropped out of schools from somewhere else. But, after contemplating the answer choices, I am reluctant to accept answer choice C as the correct answer (the part where it says: those who had received their schooling elsewhere).

To my understanding, if you "received your schooling elsewhere," this meant that you did NOT dropout. To "receive something" would be to finish in the transaction of getting that something. So, answer choice C would be pointing out a flaw of distinguishing that was incorrect. If the answer choice had said having "attended (which opens up the possibility of dropping out" instead of "received," then I would have no problem with the answer choice.

Any take on this? If my understanding of "received schooling" is incorrect, any explanation (or examples that can show the usage of the word/phrase) would be great!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-15/

I have a question for answer choice A for the second question on "mental contortions." Although I got this question correct, I was really hesitant on marking A the right answer due to the word "beforehand." In the context of the passage, it states that "judges' instructions to juries to ignore information learned outside the courtroom" could not be "relied upon," and such instruction would become "mental contortions" to the jurors.

In my mind, information learned outside the courtroom (where prejudice can be formed) can be formed not only before the trial, but also in the middle of a trial, and therefore, I thought answer choice A was incorrect as it limits the scope to only before the trial (hence, descriptively inaccurate). However, I eventually chose A because all the other answer choices also limited the scope to "pretrial," which really confused me...

I'm actually a native South Korean student, so I may be unfamiliar with the concept of a "trial." If we are to assume that there is a certain case that lasts several days, and the parties of the case go to court several times to dispute the case, to my understanding, this as a whole would still be one trial. Therefore, I thought that juror prejudices could be formed in the middle of a trial (or, during a trial), as they would go to court, and then go home (get information outside the courtroom), then go to court, then go home, etc.

I would really like some clarification on this and any help would be great!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-3-passage-1-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-3-passage-1-questions/

Hi all!

In the phrase "It is the national government that must save the environment"

Why is it that "save the environment" is not the necessary condition?

and rather

"save the environment -> national government" is the correct logical translation to this sentence ??

Intuitively I can understand why,

but it would help greatly to hear a clear explanation of the usage of "must" in this sentence

Thanks in advance!

Hi,

I'm aware that the correct answer is A, but while PTing I thought that the wording was too extreme. I do agree that the main point is to focus more on narrative than the characteristics of the novel, but what let me to confidently cross this out was due to the word "purely."

Where in the passage does it imply that the "best" approach is to focus "purely" on narrative? Why not 90% on narrative and 10% on the characteristics of the novel? Who is to say that a clear dichotomy can be drawn between the two? Any help is appreciated! Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-57-section-4-passage-3-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-57-section-4-passage-3-questions/

Hello,

During In-Out Games, I am consistently getting confused between the Not Both Rule and the Biconditional (Always Together/Never Together) Rule. I am aware of the fundamentals, but get quite confused when the wording is sometimes difficult to fully grasp the meaning.

For instance, in PT29 S3 Game 1, the second rule states "Bill 1 cannot be paid on the same day as Bill 5."

In PT26 S1 Game 4, the first rule states "Gibson and Vega do not serve on the panel in the same year as each other."

Both look quite identical, and I initially incorrectly interpreted the first statement as a Not Both, and the second statement as a Never Together. So my questions are:

Can anyone explain why the first statement is a Never Together while the second one is a Not Both?

I was wondering if anyone had some advice on how to quickly determine a rule as a [Not Both Rule] or a [Never together/always apart Rule], especially under timed conditions.

Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-3-game-1/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-26-section-1-game-4/

I noticed that the video interface has changed recently, and after the change I've been having serious lagging issues. This lagging problem especially prevalent when I put the video speed above the regular 1.0x. The video would run for ten seconds, lag for 3 seconds, run for another few seconds, then lag again....

Am I the only one who is having this problem?

Hi all!

I was wondering why answer choice C in question 27 was incorrect. Here, the word irony describes Tollefson's conclusion, which I thought was spot on.

Tollefson suggests major changes in the programs, yet he understands the complicated bureaucratic nature of the programs that may stifle such changes from happening. So to my understanding, there is a sense of irony in Tollefson's conclusion.

J.Y. explains that it is not ironic because the author agrees with Tollefson's conclusion and just wants better solutions. J.Y. further explains that had the author disagreed with Tollefson, it would be pointing out something ironic. However, why can't the author point out an irony while agreeing with Tollefson's conclusion? I can't quite understand why "a stance of agreeing or disagreeing with the author" affects "a method of pinpointing a drawback of an argument."

Can anyone explain why this answer choice is incorrect? Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-4-passage-4-questions/

I am having trouble understanding why answer choice A is a necessary assumption. I eliminated this answer choice because of the word ANY. I think it may be due to how I negated this answer choice, focusing of the "quantity" and not on the word "work well."

The way I negated it was: A type of school system that works well in one country will NOT work well in SOME countries." Even if this was true, I don't believe that the argument would be wrecked, as a country could just defer to the next best possible choice of system.

However, if I were to negate focusing on "work well": A type of school system that works well in one country WILL NOT ALWAYS work well in any country. Were this to be true, I can clearly understand why the argument is wrecked.

How are we to go about negating such necessary assumptions? I thought negating "all" was to simply state "some are not." Is there a rule to when we are to negate quantity or note?

Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-4-question-03/

Hi all,

For question 8, I confidently picked answer choice E and was stunned that this was correct. Upon looking into the explanation for this it seems that the line reference was at 47 to 48. While doing this timed, this was the exact line reference that I thought made answer choice E the correct answer (unsupported from the text).

Lines 47 to 48 state that : For drilling deeper wells, OBM is normally used.

I thought answer choice E was too strong as it states "required." Normally just states that it is more generally used, while required states a necessary condition. While a different mud recipe can be used (or may be more preferable) for deep oil wells to that of shallow oil wells, I thought "drilling deep oil wells REQUIRING the use of a different mud recipe than shallow wells" was too strong. Who is to say that there aren't other conditions for a specific deep oil well that makes the mud recipe for shallow wells more preferable for a specific case?

Thank you for your help in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-1-passage-2-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-1-passage-2-questions/

Hello,

I have a question on a reading comprehension question (PT 19 S3 Q18). I was really shocked to see that the answer was E. While testing, I thought this was a typical trap answer choice used in weakening questions on logical reasoning, and I can't seem to understand why this is the answer. With respect to the rate-of-speciation hypothesis, the author of the passage compares the arctic and tropics, stating that the "subgroups in an arctic environment are more likely to face extinction than those in the tropics," and that "the latter are more likely to survive long enough to adapt." (lines 57 - 61)

On the other hand, answer choice E states that "most of the isolated subgroups of mammalian life within a tropical zone are found to experience rapid extinction." In assessing this, I thought this had no bearing on weakening the argument made in the passage because it did not compare between the arctics and tropics. Who cares if "most" of the life in the tropics experience rapid extinction? I thought:

(1) most? if there were 100 million subgroups, and only 20 million survived, who is to say that this is not enough to create a new species?

(2) the rate-of-speciation hypothesis is in regards to the rate of speciation compared to that of extinction (lines 45 - 48). Even if there is a high rate of extinction, if there is a higher rate of speciation compared to that of extinction, the hypothesis would still hold

and

(3) as this answer choice does not compare arctics to tropics, who is to say that the arctics do not have an even more rapid rate of extinction? Therefore, there a more species in the tropics than the arctic.

Is there something that I'm missing? The only reason I can think of to why the answer is E is just that it is just the best out of the bunch. Still, I would like to think that if such a question were to appear on a logical reasoning question, it would be a wrong answer choice... Any help would be great with this question!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-3-passage-3-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-3-passage-3-questions/

I'm quite confused on this question. I was down to answer choice A and E, and ultimately chose A. I understand why E is correct, but I still cannot grasp why A is not.

I thought that the stimulus could be viewed in relations to not only "conclusion/premise," but also "phenomenon/hypothesis." The passage is telling us why "consumers are buying more durable goods" because they expect economic growth. And with this, the economist further explains/hypothesizes that "the economy seems to be heading out of recession. "

To my knowledge, providing any hypothesis to a phenomenon would be trying to explain the phenomenon, which is exactly what answer choice A states. For instance, if you see a phenomenon that whatever you drop from a building falls to the ground, by hypothesizing that there seems to be a force (gravity) that makes items drop, this would be providing an explanation to the phenomenon. Any help would be great!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-2-question-10/

Hi,

I understand that answer choice D is correct, but I have been struggling for quite a bit on eliminating answer choice B. Can anyone explain why this is incorrect?

When I was doing this question, I noticed two errors in reasoning, notably: 1) concluding a "must" causation from what people believed, and 2) that evidence of "historians" were being used to lead to a conclusion of a matter of natural science (or physiology).

Answer choice B seems pretty much right on the spot with the second. B reads: it cites the evidence of historians of popular culture (that people had a widespread belief on yawning was common in many parts of the world in the past) in direct support of a claim (that someone else yawning must be the most irresistible cause) that lies outside their area of expertise.

I took it to be true that discerning the physiological causation mechanisms of yawning is indeed outside the area of history. What may have gone wrong? Thanks!

I am having a difficult time trying to organize when and where the terms "some," "many," or "sometimes" can be used correctly or not, and this question came across my mind. Would my line of reasoning be correct if answer choices B, C, and E be wrong (not strengthen the argument) even if the wording of the answer choices be changed to corroborate the argument in the stimulus while leaving the words "some" and "many" intact? Would the answer choices be wrong simply because of "many" and "some"?

For instance, if we were to change C to read: Some automobile passengers whose inner ears indicate that they are *not* moving and who have a clear view of the objects they are passing get motion sickness

would this answer choice still not strengthen the argument? In other words, if the argument in the stimulus stated "We hypothesize that A -> B," and an answer choice stated "some A-> B," would the answer choice strengthen the argument?

Usually whenever I see "some" or "many" I become very cautious... now I'm having real difficulty in finding how "some" or "many" can be used correctly to become the correct answer choice... Any help would be great!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-1-question-18/

Hello,

I came across a puzzling question while I was answering this reading comprehension question. Just to be clear, my question is more a question on formal logic than that of reading comprehension. I was wondering if the following two statements (ideas) have the same meaning.

Statement 1: Since courts cannot decide such cases on legal grounds, for its resolution, they must consider exercising judicial discretion.

Statement 2: Since courts cannot decide such cases on legal grounds, they rely for its resolution only on judicial discretion.

These two statements are statements that I edited and recreated from the passage to fit the description of my question that came across my mind regarding conditional logic (the first hybrid statement is located at lines 24 - 29 in the passage, and the second statement is a hybrid statement of answer choice D of question 14). Using conditional logic, it seems that in both cases exercising judicial discretion is the necessary condition for the resolution of the case [Statement 1 has "must" and Statement 2 has "only"]. However, just intuitively, the first statement seems to imply that while judicial discretion is necessary, there may be more. On the other hand, the second statement seems to imply that judicial discretion is THE one and only necessary condition....

Is there something I am missing? Is there maybe a subtle difference of meaning between necessary condition indicators such as "require/must/only if/etc," and the indicator of "only"?? Or is it maybe because the necessary condition for the first statement is "CONSIDERING judicial discretion" while the necessary condition for the second statement is JUST judicial discretion? They look like logical equivalents, yet they seem to imply two different things.... Any help would be great!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-4-passage-2-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-4-passage-2-questions/

Hi all,

I have a question on how I am supposed to read a certain rule in sequencing games. The fifth rule in this game states: Each rock classic is immediately preceded on the CD by a new composition. I wrote it out as [ R -> NR ]

Looking at 7sage's explanation for this question, this rule limits the first spot to only N, because if you put R in the first spot you would be forcing an N to a zero spot, which is a contradiction.

I am actually quite puzzled by this rule because in an earlier PT (PT20 S3 Game 3), such mechanics did not apply. Rule 1 of this game states: If a purple bead is adjacent to a yellow bead, any bead that immediately follows and any bead that immediately precedes that pair must be red. I wrote this rule out as [ (PY or YP) -> R (YP or PY) R ]. Then similarly wouldn't YP or PY not able to go to the first and second spots, as this would force a R to a zero spot? But clearly, Question 13 allows P to be placed at first and Y to be second.

Why do these similar rules force out different restrictions? Is there something I am missing? Thanks in advance!

Hi

So, it seems that these circular reasoning questions are killing me... okay so I have a question on answer choice B. I am not quite sure why this argument is circular reasoning. The structure is:

Okay, so the explanation to this question states that it is circular reasoning with premise 1 (Violent crimes are rare) and the main conclusion (The claim that there is a large number of violent crimes in our society is false. However, the reasoning on why I eliminated this answer choice was:

So if we were to look at this argument structure specifically at the circular reasoning part:

This seems to be good inferencing to me? I recall a lecture in 7sage's logical courses.

Here, to say that it is not the case that all cats cannot bark can mean several things: few cats can bark, many cats can bark, or all cats can bark. Yet, we never question the inference made from this structure...

Even if we were to assume that those two sentences meant the same thing, it is not circular reasoning if you provide additional premises. See https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-2-question-09/ (see from the 2:20 mark). After doing several circular reasoning questions, this advice seems to not stand anymore... Some clarification would be great on this point that the addition of additional premises circumvents the argument from circular reasoning.

Any take on these two points? So in my view, I'm not sure but would like some clarification on this, is that even though we see an answer choice, and from mechanical thinking, identify the answer choice as circular reasoning, there are quite different nuances in each one. For instance, here is another answer choice that can be identified as circular reasoning.

PT17 S2 Q2

E) draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim given in support of that conclusion

If this wording for circular reasoning had been provided, it would definitely miss the mark, as being rare is NOT a restatement of not a large number.

However, if we are to look at the answer choice in question:

PT24 S2 Q8

This wording would be true for this argument. While the conclusion is NOT a restatement of its premise, it still does presuppose the truth of it (If the statement that violent crimes are rare is true, then without a doubt, the conclusion that there are not a large number of violent crimes is true, as "being rare" implies that "it is not a large number").

So my take on this is that:

Any feedback would be great!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-2-question-08/

Hi all!

I had a question on answer choice E with this one. To me, the reasoning of flaw in answer choice E was the same as that of answer choice D of the same PT same section question 20.

Looking at the explanation of question 20 (Morton: In order to succeed (...)) in other forums on answer choice D, the explanations state that Morton actually DOES consider the counterexamples stated by the skeptics (which is why D is incorrect); the problem was that he just did it through a flawed way. The structure of this passage was:

So, in actuality, this argument DOES consider the skeptics counterexamples.

Now coming back to question 22, in my line of thinking, the author of the passage does the exact same thing as that of question 20.

So, in line with the thinking of question 20, I thought that the author DOES in fact consider that it can be the real reason; its just that he supports it though a flawed way. Yet answer choice E (Does not examine the possibility (...)) goes against the line of reasoning of answer choice D in question 20....

Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-3-question-22/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-3-question-20/