1) All actors are exuberant people

Actor ----> Exuberant

2) All exuberant people are extroverts

Exuberant ---> Extrovert

Combined: Actor ---> Exuberant ---> Extrovert

3) Some shy people are actors

Shy (--some--) Actors

Combined: Shy (--some--) Actors ---> Exuberant ---> Extrovert

Does this help?

If you have a question about the answer choices, let me know.

You can memorize them, but its way more important to internalize the rules. Understand why the argument is or is not valid. Spend some time meditating on that idea.

I appreciate the thanks. But, your contribution to me and our study group far outweighs mine to you. You're going to battle with some of the greatest legal, philosophical, and academic minds of our generation. Your place is rightly earned. I'm so proud of you. Good luck man!

If you are still working on the core curriculum, absolutely. Just because you answered a question correctly, does not mean you used the correct reasoning to get there.

Just a heads up, a friend of mine sent me a few Princeton Review LG sections. The sections were riddled with mistakes. Some questions had two correct answers which obviously shouldn't be the case. I also double checked with my friends later, it wasn't just me being a noob. There really was mistakes.

It's not too complex. It's a god damn SAT word.

No cause no effect.

The curve is -13 for a reason.

https://officialguide.lsac.org/Release/SchoolsABAData/SchoolPage/SchoolPage.aspx?sid=137

@garicb485 check out the grid at the bottom of the page. One disadvantage here is you cannot see URM data.

Best of luck

Take a look at this concept summary from an audio book I've been listening to

There is an excellent case study of a baseball team where the team is split in to two and they are given varied practice regimen. First group practices 45 pitches evenly divided in to sets of three where each set has a specific type of pitch thrown. The second group also practices 45 pitches but this time, the pitches were randomly interspersed. After the training, the first group feels good about their practice while the second group feels that they were not developing their skills properly. However when it came to the final performance test, the second group performed far better than the first group. This story illustrates two points – first, our judgments of what learning strategies work best for us are often mistaken, colored by illusions of mastery. Second, some difficulties that require more effort and slow down apparent gains will feel less productive but will more than compensate for that by making the learning stronger, precise and durable. The more you have forgotten a topic, the more effective relearning will be in shaping your permanent knowledge. The authors also make it a point to highlight that if you struggle to solve a problem before being shown how to solve it, the subsequent lesson is better learned and more durably remembered.

It is always going to depend on how confident you are with the given answer choice. If you are only 50% sure, read on. If you are 90% sure, circle that bad boy and move on.

Your forum name is suiting for this post. It seems like this may be a reoccurring theme. See if you can embrace a more positive attitude, and detach yourself from your score. Looking through your other posts, they seem to indicate you may be working on the earlier prep tests. So the good news is, it looks like you have at least 40+ fresh PTs to work with. Young man (or lady) you still have plenty of opportunities left, and very long road ahead of you.

Try an honest evaluation of your study habits. How is your blind review? Are you truly sitting with a question until you are at 99% certainty? Or, do you just sit with a question until you are "pretty sure", and then you go and watch JYs video? Then after you watch JYs video and realize you were completely wrong, do you keep that question in a little inventory, or do you just put it aside, never to be seen again? Have you fool proofed every logic game that you can get your hands on? How about your reading comprehension score. During RC blind review, do you mark down in the passage where each answer choice is supported or the exact spot where it is not supported? How is your skipping strategy? Do you have a skipping strategy? Please tell me you have a skipping strategy.

Do some serious self reflection and ask your self, are you truly doing EVERYTHING you can to improve on this test. How passionate are you? A few weeks ago, I missed a medium difficulty flaw question, and that question prevented me from hitting my target score. I literally lost sleep over this. But, you better believe, I won't miss a question with that flaw ever again. After you have completed a self evaluation, come back here and change your name to LSATgonnakickyourass.

Keep in mind, a 160 is nothing to laugh at. You hopped over 80% of other test takers (if this is what you are scoring). The jump from 140s or 150s to the 160s is relatively faster than moving up from the 160s. Every point earned from 160 and up is a bitter sweet fight. To score in the top 1%, you must either have won the genetic lottery and be blessed with an exceptionally brilliant mind, or, you must push yourself to the level of understanding that 99% of other test takers failed to achieve.

Trust the process, and be sure you are doing everything to the best of your ability. You got this, you only needed a little bit of tough love.

Best wishes

Disclaimer: I wrote a lot. Don't let this overwhelm you!

A sufficient condition is something that implies if we have this thing, a necessary condition must come along with it.

If it rains, the ground must be wet.

A necessary condition is something that must be true when something else is true.

(Sufficient) If it rains, the ground must be wet (Necessary)

So if it rains, it must be true that the ground is wet! Why? because our sufficient condition guarantees the necessary. But what if the ground is wet? Must it be true that it rained? No! Just because our necessary condition is met, it does not mean the sufficient follows. But, if the sufficient condition is met, our necessary condition must follow.

By virtue of this logical relationship, our contrapositive must also be true.

If the ground is NOT wet, It must NOT have rained.

And to dive a little further than just sufficient and necessary conditions, lets look at sufficient and necessary assumptions.

A sufficient assumption is a missing assumption which, if provided, will take our argument to complete 100% validity

Premise 1: All Jedi use the force

Conclusion: All Jedi eat chicken wings

Wait! How can we conclude all Jedi eat chicken wings? We aren't given any information about chicken wings..

Well, we are missing a premise. Or rather, the author of our argument is making an assumption which isn't stated in our argument. If we supply a sufficient assumption, it will make the argument 100% valid. So what can our assumption be? Well, we have a couple of choices. But to keep it simple I'll just use the basic argument form.

If we are given the premise, All force users eat chicken wings, does that mean all Jedi eat chicken wings? Yes!

Premise 1: All Jedi use the force.

Premise 2: All force users eat chicken wings (sufficient assumption)

Conclusion: All Jedi eat chicken wings

More abstractly, our argument looks like this.

Premise 1: A-->B

Premise 2: B-->C (sufficient assumption)

Conclusion: A-->C

or

Premise: A-->B-->C

Conclusion: A-->C

Necessary assumptions are a little more abstract which tends to make them slightly more difficult. Also, necessary assumptions aren't required to get to the level of 100% validity, so keep that in mind.

So if I make the argument:

@jknauf572 is the fastest, strongest, and most intelligent athlete ever.

Therefore, @jknauf572 is the best basketball player ever. (Crazy because we all know Lebron is, GO CAVS!)

So what assumptions are necessary to make this argument?

Well, there is a bunch. I must assume you know how to play basketball. To go a little deeper, I must assume you know how to dribble a basketball, I must assume you know how to shoot a basketball et cetera.

Even though these assumptions won't move our argument to the level of 100% validity, I need to make these assumptions.

@zbpohlman247 said:

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it addressed the seeming contradiction in the stimulus by providing some clarification of how the two competing phenomena are not mutually exclusive. We'll notice that AC's A,B,C, and D all fail to

Agreed

Everything posted above by, @ryonseymore612 addressed your questions. A few side notes though.

@bswise2931 said:

@jknauf572

but it does get us to a point of high suspicion.

Maybe, but is our goal to weaken the argument?

@bswise2931 said:

I think the reason why C is "more correct" is because it might be "more necessary," if that makes sense. For example, even if we establish that all the faults are active, we would still need to establish the proximity assumption. If none of the nuclear reactors where near any faults, then I guess it would not make a difference if the faults were active or not. This might be one of those cases where we have to assess which answer is "more necessary."

For a necessary assumption question, the answers are either necessary or they aren't. There is no in between. If both assumptions were required by the argument, there would be two right answer choices.

So a conditional statement is a logically valid statement which means: If X happens then Y must happen. (If it rains, the ground must be wet) Well, given that we accept our conditional statement as completely true, we must also be able to also determine the opposite of our statement. (If the ground is not wet, then it did not rain)

So as a premise, we are given the idea that at MAX there is 1 earthquake every 100,000 years. Answer choice E, is saying at minimum there is 1 earthquake every 100,000 years. So if I negate that, or say there is at minimum 0 earthquakes per 100,000 years, how does that effect our argument?

Does our argument still stand without it? Can our conclusion: Out of all the potential nuclear reactor sites in such a region, the ones that are least likely to be struck by an earthquake are ones located near a fault that has produced an earthquake within living memory still be true? Is it absolutely necessary that we have at minimum 1 earthquake per 100,000 years?

@jordankennedy480 When I first started, I printed out the list of 19 common argument flaws JY posted in the curriculum. I then went down the list of all the flaws and created my own argument. This helped to cement the flaws into my head. It's something like the cookie cutter method many advocate for.

Best wishes

@danielmoshesieradzki129 What did you think about the post I linked?

@7sagestudentservices this guy will take care of you

@alarictaves950 said:

Thanks for the responses! @danielmoshesieradzki129.Sieradzki Thank you, that's exactly what I was looking for. I was making a point to try to stick to the basic conditional statements without quantifying over anything or using other connectives, but then the "some" notation was introduced which seems to be used sort of like a pseudo-existential quantifier. I'll definitely make sure I have the 4 groups down. J.Y. tends to go into such exquisite detail at times, which I think might be causing me to overthink this! :smiley:

Oh gosh, I was the opposite of you guys. I had very little training in Formal Logic. After learning some basic logic by studying the LSAT, I figured it would be fruitful to try and develop a deeper understanding. So I did what any wanna be academic does! Went to the library and checked out a formal logic book. Man, was I in for a rude awakening. It was like reading Chinese.

The LSAT authors will reward you for your deeper understanding of logic. So you are off to a great start and have a leg up on many of us.

Good luck in your studies!

Ahh yes. This problem is far to common. I'm convinced people who haven't ran into this problem, simply aren't taking PTs in a proper way. Read this post by 7sage instructor Jon Wang -

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/2683/tackling-the-break-a-dance-dance-revolution-inspired-approach

Also, what are you doing during the break?

@ji330 said:

Hey everyone,

A lot of speed in LR comes from our ability to quickly spot these patterns that are constantly repeating. These patterns are not about learning question types - the core curriculum does a phenomenal job of that - but more about argument types.

This is huge and often overlooked!

@dantlee14842 check out this thread. Someone was kind enough to compile a list of LSATs with nasty curves. I recommend bookmarking

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/9401/14-pt-curve-list

Hi all, thank you for your interest in the study group! I'm working to finalize the list and I will be messaging those who I have chosen sometime today with further instruction. If you do not receive a message, please join the open 7sage groups. If things do not go accordingly, I will be removing members and searching for new candidates based on your interest here. Due to an overwhelming amount of interest, I must turn away quite a few people who really seem like they would be excellent study partners. I encourage all of you to reach out to one another and form different groups.

Good luck in your studies and I wish you the best.

P.S. I deliberately wrote the instruction at the top of the post to say "post here AND message me". I did this to better see who reads closely and follows instructions. 95% of you guys failed this test lol