I think there are some necessary assumption questions that require us to fill the gap. For example, there were occasions in which the correct answer to na question was both necessary and sufficient. Also, all of the logical reasoning questions with arguments in them are flawed. So, I think it’s safe not to assume the argument as complete/valid.

@ said:

I'll give this a shot.

Depends on if the question is a strengthening or weakening question. If we are talking strengthening, then you will be looking to block an alternative theory/cause. You want that single coincidence to be the reason that the causation happens

Now on the other hand if the question is weakening, you want to undermine the relationship between the two items of interest which there are multiple ways to do it; can be an alternative theory, reverse causation, no relationship, etc.

There is a good chance that an alternative theory would be the right AC and you are correct to have that in the forefront of your mind.....but it isn't the only way the question can be right. I listed a couple of other ways that the LSAT writers can weaken that relationship.

(P.S. anyone is welcomed to fill in any gaps that I missed haha)

Hope this helps!

Hi!

Thank you for your response!

So, I am asking when there a coincidence is given as opposed to correlation, it seems like I've rarely seen a case where the correct answer was no relationship, reverse, or third common cause. It's almost always alternate theory whereas when a correlation is given, I have seen correct answers being reverse, alternate theory, third common cause, etc...

Sorry if this is not making sense..please let me know!

Anyone?

@ @ Hey man, I also had similar question on this one, could you please elaborate what you meant by this question requires you to make an extra assumption?

Also, this is how I approach this question:

~DBH (Cannot distinguish between homophones)

IRU (Improved to recognize and utilize blah blah)

AT (Accurately translate blah blah)

Premise: ~DBH

Conclusion: AT -> IRU

I equated DBH and IRU because I mean if it cannot distinguish between homophones such as "their" and "there," doesn't that also mean it will not accurately translate a computer user's spoken words into written text?

So the two ideas are essentially saying the same thing, so new diagram is as follows:

Premise: ~DBH

Conclusion: DBH -> IRU (or ~IRU -> ~DBH)

Therefore, the necessary assumption needed is that without IRU, ~DBH, which is what answer choice (A) states.

Is this a okay reasoning? I feel like this question was atypical since the assumption required was just showing that the necessary condition of the conditional conclusion was indeed necessary whereas other N/A question answers normally bridge the gap between premise and conclusion.

@ Looking forward to your response!

@ Hi, thanks for the response. Sorry, I meant like when the word "do" appears after the logical indicators like always and must, what should be the approach?

In PT 34, the indicator was always, and in PT 73, it was must. I understand "do" alone is not a logical indicator.

So, would it be correct to say these two questions had basically the same argument structures? and also can (B) in PT73 still be correct if the order was reversed as a necessary assumption answer choice? The reason I am asking this is because when I see a clear gap in necessary assumption questions, the correct answer is almost always the one that fills the gap. For example, the stimulus says A and concludes B, the correct answer is A -> B (which can also be a sufficient assumption at the same time). However, this answer choice was atypical as the order was reversed.

Thanks again.

Also interested in this.

Speed reading

@ said:

@ said:

I am about to start to work for one of the big 4 in China. My first concern after reading this is that, the busy season is coming... how do you balance the test preparation and work?

I am also working at big 4 right now for 4th year. To be honestly, if you are really committed to study hard, you can manage the preparation. First year in big 4 isn't that stressful since you don't know anything anyway.

To be honest, I am not sure not knowing anything is relevant to the discussion of how best to balance work and studying. He might not know anything, but 1st year can be still stressful. But I agree with you that "if you are really committed to study hard, you can manage the preparation."

For me what worked is studying in the morning, as opposed to after work. Whenever I came home from work, I was just so tired and couldn't really focus. I would wake up around 5ish and study about 2-3hours and then go to work. In this way, when you come home from the work you can review what you've learned in the morning, go to the gym whatever. The only downside is that around 8-9ish, you are basically done for the day, can't go out (guess its an upside after all when you are studying for an exam like LSAT).

But this is what worked for me. Also, by the way, during the busy season, I only studied about 1-2 hours per day including weekend. I don't know how long the busy season is in China, but hours get better in April here, so if it's the same there, aim for June 2018 LSAT.

@ said:

@ said:

Is it possible for law schools to see the scores before they come out?

Yes, but only slightly and it is not so much that the schools see them as that the candidate referral service sees them and sends fee waivers based on them.

So you are saying, CRS sends list of students to law schools based on the schools' request without disclosing the scores before the release date? (like above certain LSAT scores)

@ said:

Can you provide an example a question where this comes up?

Sure. https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/attractive-subway-system-sa-question/

.

can anyone confirm if LR section with a question about 7pm and 6pm was real?