Hi guys,
I am planning on taking the LSAT in Sept and was wondering if anyone knows what the Marymount University in Alrington, VA testing center is like? I want to go there to do some practice tests but I'm not sure which rooms they used. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
How did you determine that "best consequences" had to be linked and not "morally right"? Thanks!
/I thought the premise should be diagrammed as /CGOB-->C. I am unsure how the conclusion should be diagrammed and I don't know if I agree with the comments below. Can someone please provide further guidance? Thanks!
When I was doing this problem, I took "beyond the ordinary" to exclude people who may have problems that lead them to a sedentary lifestyle. So when the conclusion came up stating "people" I thought it to mean ordinary people who lead sedentary lifestyles not those who are predisposed to sedentary lifestyles. Can anyone explain what I did wrong in thinking that way?
Thanks so much for organizing this!!! Looking forward to working with you all!
I am interested as well! Just jumping on @nicole suggestion, I think it'd be wise to start to April to account for holidays, etc.
Would anyone know how to breakdown M's argument into conclusion and premises? I actually had some trouble figuring it out. Thanks!
Hello all,
I thought I'd share my difference between my timed and blind review score. I apologize if this has been brought up in previous discussion threads. I have finished most of the curriculum and plan on taking the test in June 2016.
I took PT 56 (Dec 2008) and my timed score was a 152 and my BR was a 173. To me, this is a huge difference and I honestly thought my BR was a fluke. I was not expecting to see that big of a jump. I was wondering if anyone else has been in my position and how they were able to close the gap between their timed and blind review scores. Any strategies/anecdotes would be helpful!
Also, what lessons should I take from these scores? Does the blind review mean it is possible for me to hit a 170+? And as a person working a full time job (I study after work and on weekends), is it possible to improve that quickly by June?
Thanks again for your advice and thoughts!
Hey guys,
I was going through Advanced Logic: Quiz on Mixed Conditionals and got mixed up on #20. Hopefully someone could help me out here.
Except for the days where there is a zombie apocalypse, every day is a good day to study for the LSAT.
JY diagrammed it as
GSLSAT ↔ /ZA
Contrapositive: (/GSLSAT ↔ ZA)
However, I thought that "every day is a good day to study for the LSAT" is a conditional statement (embedded conditional), so you would instead diagram it as
(D→GDS) ↔ /ZA
Contrapositive: /(D→GDS) ↔ ZA = (D←s→/GDS) ↔ ZA
When I translated my diagram back to English it still makes sense to me.
Please let me know what I'm doing wrong. Thanks!
Hi all,
I hope someone may be able to clue me in as to what I'm doing wrong with this problem. This is a MBT.
Special kinds of cotton that grow fibers of green or brown have been around since the 1930s but only recently became commercially feasible when a long-fibered variety that can be spun by machine was finally bred. Since the cotton need not be dyed, processing plants avoid the expense of dyeing and the ecological hazards of getting rid of leftover dye and by-products.
So I understood how to diagram the stimulus. "Spun by machine --> commercially viable"
When I looked at answer choice (B): Green and brown cottons that can be spun only by hand are not commercially viable" I diagrammed it as "Spun by hand --> /commercially viable". In order to get to answer choice (B), you would need to negate the sufficient and necessary which gives "/Spun by machine --> /commercially viable" which is an invalid argument form (mistake in negation).
What am I doing wrong? I am having a hard time seeing how answer choice (B) can be diagrammed as "/commercially viable -->spun by hand" Thanks!
What is the proper way of diagramming answer choice (B) into lawgic? I thought it would be spun by hand →/not commercially viable. The stimulus states spun by machine → commercially feasible. It seems to me that answer choice (B) is a mistaken in negation from the stimulus. Please let me know what I'm doing wrong. Thanks!
Hi
Thank for the replies. I'm finding it hard to see how /TW-->P and TW-->/P are contrapositives of each other.
/TW->P (/P->TW)
TW->/P (P->/TW)
So if there there are two logical operators (Only and cannot) I should use only as the necessary indicator and cannot as just a negation?
Thanks!
Only poetry cannot be translated well.
Why is it diagrammed /TW-->P?
I thought that with cannot we pick one idea, negate it and make it the necessary. So if I chose poetry to be negated, why can it not be TW-->/P. Some help would be great. Thank you!
Hi guys,
For question #2, we are asked to break down this argument into premises, conclusion, and context.
The common procedure for determining whether a food additive should be banned from use is to compare its health related benefits with its potential risks. Yellow Dye No. 5, an additive used to color lemon soda, might cause allergic reactions in a few consumers. For most consumers of lemon soda, however, the coloring enhances their enjoyment of the beverage. This particular additive should not be banned, therefore, because its benefits greatly outweigh its risks.
This was my answer:
Context: The common procedure for determining whether a food additive should be banned from use is to compare its [food additive] health related benefits with its potential risks.
Premise: Yellow Dye No. 5, an additive used to color lemon soda, might cause allergic reactions in a few consumers.
Premise: For most consumers of lemon soda, however, the coloring enhances their [most consumers] enjoyment of the beverage.
Premise/Sub Conclusion: because its [Yellow Dye No. 5] benefits greatly outweigh its risks.
Main Conclusion: This particular additive [Yellow Dye No. 5] should not be banned.
J.Y.'s was different. Can people explain to me why my answer is wrong? It makes sense to me since the first two premises explain why the sub conclusion (Yellow Dye No.5 benefits greatly outweigh its risks) which then in turn supports the main conclusion. Thanks!
Admin note: This is the lesson:
http://classic.7sage.com/lesson/quiz-context-identification-1-answers/
Hi E.CH. Poon,
Thanks for the reply! The way I worded my question was poor. What I meant to ask is how does the language used in "The physiological factors that cause permanently high blood pressure generally make people quick to anger" indicate that physiological factors caused both high blood pressure AND people quick to anger. Based on the wording, I was able to understand how physiological factors cause permanent high blood pressure, but it seems to me, based on the wording, that the high blood pressure makes people quick to anger rather than physiological factors. Thank you in advance for your helpful replies!
Can someone please explain to me for answer choice (E) how physiological factors both cause permanent high blood pressure and generally make people quick to anger? I read (E) as physiological factors --cause-->high blood pressure --likely-->easily angered. Or are they the same thing? Thanks!
Thank you very much for your explanation! Definitely helpful.
Hello 7sagers,
I just signed up a while ago and thought I'd give this forum a shot. I was wondering on logic games, when do you create a table between the game pieces and the base set like in the Feb 1993, Logic Game #4? Sometimes I'll create a table when it is not needed. Thanks for all the help!
For "anywhere else" in answer choice (C), do they mean places where cities have large amounts of soot but little other air pollution, or it also means places that don't have a lot of soot?
Does the answer choice allow for a situation like this?
City A has 0% soot and 0% other pollutants and 100 people have asthma.
City B has 70% soot and 0% other pollutants and 100 people have asthma.
The frequency of the ailment in city B is at least as high in city A but this situation would lead one to think soot isn't the cause.
Thanks for your thoughts!