Just FYI, on the LSAT analytics for this preptest, the second LR should be section four, not section three. The LG is third.
In RRE questions, both ideas must be addressed with the correct answer choice.
Hi, I am trying to put in my answers for this test but there are no ovals to do so. Could Alan or someone else fix this troubleshooting error? Thanks.
Ah, ok, the wallet shrinks again...
J.Y. or someone at 7sage: are there preptest pdfs available pre-LSAT 36? I know that questions from those tests are built into the course, but it would be nice to have the entire test to download so that we can print out and practice multiple times, i.e. the games set from test 24, etc. Thanks.
I like what you guys are saying. We can do this. Step by step. Consistency is the key to success. I'm taking it in Oct also.
Great stuff! Love it.
This question is addressing the correlation/causation flaw, which is common on the LSAT. It is saying that there could be a third cause, and answer choice A models this perfectly.
The answer choice has to be both descriptively accurate but also address the flaw. Just because you don't take a certain action to either extreme doesn't mean that the natural consequences of going to either of those extremes won't still result. It just could happen through other means. D address this.
The idea here is that if C is correct, all countries that impose national tariffs think of themselves as self-sufficient, then that ensures that small countries are not a part of that definition (because they don't think of themselves as self-sufficient). Therefore, what some people argue, stated in the first sentence of the stimulus, is not correct because breaking up large countries does not increase barriers to free trade. Tough one here.
For question 4, we don't know that "many ministers" had sought office. We don't know what percentage of the ministers who sought election to political office were in comparisons to the number of AA congregations in all of Brooklyn. Say there are 60 congregations participating in this demonstration and 50 of their leaders had run for office in the past. But what if there are over 300 churches in all of Brooklyn. I don't see D making that distinction which I think is important. Can anyone help here?
In this question, we are trying to weaken the link between the premise and conclusion but here the conclusion is more of a hypothesis. So we are looking for an answer choice which might drive the potential conclusion in another direction, which A does. If there was a recession that caused a higher level of unemployment than in the year previously, then perhaps more people decided to stay in school because the jobs available were more scarce. What we are trying to do in weaken questions is make the premises less relevant to the conclusion.
Great posts and insight. Many thanks. Brilliant.
Isn't C a necessary assumption also? That's what threw me off.
Does Arjun really have to grant what D says in order to disagree with Yolanda? Clearly, Yolanda doesn't think that the unauthorized use of computers is as dangerous as joyriding. But the "as dangerous" part is the rub for me here. Couldn't Arjun disagree by saying that yes, physical harm is done by the authorized use of computers but no, it is still not as dangerous as joyriding. I don't see how those two ideas are incompatible, and I'm just not seeing an indicator with Arjun equating both joyriding and the unauthorized use of computers in terms of at least the same amount of physical harm.
I took the test in June, and on my LSAC account it says I took form #S5LSN113. For this form, the test was
Section 1: Experimental
Section 2: RC
Section 3: LR
Section 4: LG
Section 5: LR
So I was just converting those numbers by taking out the experimental. I have the four separate section pdfs through the LSAC website of this particular test.
Ultimately this isn't a huge issue though.