Subscription pricing
It'll help me in a research project designed to make 7Sage better.
(◍•ᴗ•◍)♡ ✧*。
PT Questions
kevinlin124
- Joined
- Sep 2025
- Subscription
- Free
kevinlin124
Wednesday, Aug 28 2024
If instructors/tutors are allowed, Kevin7Sage
kevinlin124
Tuesday, Aug 20 2024
It's going to be 169 (plus or minus a few, perhaps). The 244 included the old RC that was going away; it became 169 because the old RC is now not part of the v2 syllabus anymore.
kevinlin124
Tuesday, Nov 19 2024
Many assumptions are both sufficient and necessary.
The sufficient assumption you describe happens to be necessary, too. That's why the negation of that statement hurts the argument.
Whether a statement is NA and whether it's SA are simply separate inquiries that have no relationship to each other.
Does the negation of the statement weaken the argument? If yes, it's a necessary assumption. (And whether yes or no, this doesn't tell us anything about whether the statement is also a sufficient assumption.)
Does adding the statement to the premises make the argument valid? If yes, it's a sufficient assumption. (And whether yes or no, this doesn't tell us anything about whether the statement is also a necessary assumption.)
In many cases, on both NA questions and SA questions, the correct answer happens to be both NA and SA.
kevinlin124
Friday, Aug 16 2024
Yes, in fact, it will be removed by the end of the week. So no need to work through this section.
kevinlin124
Wednesday, Mar 12
@ said:
Do we just message you to request?
You can request by going to Discussion --> Study Buddies --> Scroll down --> Input KevinLin7Sage --> invite.
kevinlin124
Wednesday, Mar 12
Ah, study buddies aren't yet ready on the new.7sage.com website. Yeah, I'm only looking for study buddies for "Current" on this older site.
kevinlin124
Wednesday, Mar 12
If you have analytics for the "Obsolete" version as opposed to "Current" version, that won't be as helpful. So no need to request in that case!
kevinlin124
Sunday, Jun 09 2024
Claude AI's eulogy:
Alas, poor Logic Games! A mental bane
To sighted souls - but shackles far more cruel
Upon the blind, who could not rightly view
Your visualized constraints and rules.
What chance had they 'gainst diagrams and grids
Depicting campgrounds or singer seating?
Thy wicked shapes were sight-bound vicious lids
On fair ambition. Justice came unsleeping.
The sightless brought their grievance keen before
The halls of law, crying "Discrimination!
These mind-games are but visions at truth's core -
Hat colors mocking at our life's privation!"
The Council ruling saw this bias grave
Against those lacking sight's interpretive glass.
No more shall logic's blindness hold the brave
Unseeing av'riced from justice's paths.
So thou art banished, riddling haunter fell!
From Theron's bowers no more art thou exempted.
Arrangements and groupings, we knew thee well -
But fair equity can never be pre-empted.
The sightless mind's sharp wits shall now prevail
Unplagued by thine unfair perceptive veil.
No more these brain-knots buntingly enmesh
The blind's feree to join the lawyerly flesh.
kevinlin124
Monday, Sep 09 2024
OP, good question. The issue is that "without" is sometimes used to indicate conditionality, and sometimes used simply to mean the absence of something.
"I always sleep without wearing a shirt."
Here, the "without" is simply part of a description of something that is true when I sleep. When I sleep, my shirt is absent from my body. But "without" is not establishing that "wearing a shirt" is necessary for something else.
"You can't enter the restaurant without wearing a shirt."
Here, the "without" does introduce conditionality. "Cannot ... without" establishes that "wearing a shirt" is necessary for entering the restaurant.
I'm pretty sure the different uses of "without" boil down to whether the the other part of the sentence asserts that something cannot happen without something else (in which case "without" is used just like the Group 3 conditional indicators), or whether it says that something can/does happen without something else. (in which case "without" operates as the negation of a concept, but not as a conditional indicator).
kevinlin124
Thursday, Sep 05 2024
I understand where you're coming from. I think the LSAT would say that the author's intention in bringing up the psychological explanation is that it's an example of a non-economic explanation. Notice that in your own interpretation of the question, you're already generalizing from the idea of events caused by early childhood experiences to events involving a psychological explanation. Why didn't you think the assumption was even more narrow -- that the argument only had to assume that the first doctrine precluded explanations based on early childhood experiences (rather than all psychological explanations)? If you understand why you didn't think the assumption had to be that narrow, I think a similar framework can help you understand why the assumption isn't just narrowly tailored to "precludes psychological explanations."
Another answer is that the assumption technically isn't about economic explanations and psychological explanations being mutually exclusive. The assumption is about how we should interpret the first doctrine. Consider these two examples:
#1:
Doctrine X believes historical events must appeal to economic factors. However, they're wrong. We know some events appeal to psychological factors.
#2:
Doctrine X believes historical events must appeal to economic factors. However, they're wrong. We know some events appeal to BOTH economic and psychological factors.
Do you see a subtle difference between the two? In #1, the author interprets Doctrine X accurately, and is trying to show that the doctrine is wrong by providing an example of an event that does NOT need to appeal to economic factors. Under this interpretation, #1 is assuming that if an event appeals to psych factors, it cannot appeal to econ factors. Here, I'd agree that we should be careful about extending this assumption beyond psychological factors.
But in #2, the author isn't trying to disprove Doctrine X by providing an example of an event that does NOT need to appeal to economic factors. After all, the author's own premise involves an appeal economic factors. So why then does the author think the premise about events involving economic and psychological factors disproves Doctrine X? Because the author misinterprets the Doctrine X as saying events must appeal only to economic factors. With that misinterpretation, we can see why the author believes her premise is relevant. Now, you could say, "But isn't the author's misinterpretation just that Doctrine X believes all explanations must appeal to economic factors and cannot appeal to psychological factors"? The problem with that characterization of the misinterpretation is that it's weirdly and unreasonably specific.
Consider:
Doctrine X believes John likes Italian food. But, the doctrine is wrong, since, although he likes Italian food, he also likes sushi.
What's the flaw in this argument? The author misinterprets Doctrine X as asserting John likes only Italian food. This is why the author thinks bringing up the fact John likes sushi somehow disproves the doctrine. So, a necessary assumption would be "Doctrine X precludes John's liking of non-Italian foods."
Would you have the same objection you raised in your original post here? Someone might say, doesn't the argument just need to assume that Doctrine X precludes John's liking of sushi? Or precludes John's liking of Japanese food? But doesn't need to be so broad as to preclude John's liking of non-Italian food? How would you react to these questions?
My response is that the author isn't suggesting there's anything special about sushi that conflicts with Doctrine X. She brings up John's taste for sushi because it's an example of a non-Italian food, and due to the author's misinterpretation of Doctrine X, she thinks this example disproves the doctrine. But the author could have pointed out that John likes hot dogs or tandoori chicken and her reasoning would still stand. It would be unreasonable to think that the author's interpretation of Doctrine X was just "John likes Italian food, but not sushi. (But he can like other non-Italian, non-sushi foods.)" Her interpretation of Doctrine X was "John likes only Italian food."
kevinlin124
Wednesday, Feb 05
It's normal in that there's nothing wrong with your account! (I'm not in a position to opine on whether you're going crazy.) We just added a few lessons involving LR questions to the Foundations Unit. Expect a few more in the next ~2 weeks.
kevinlin124
Friday, Oct 04 2024
This is a feature we're actively developing! It hasn't reached all questions just yet, that's why it's not showing up in other problems you've seen.
kevinlin124
Friday, Aug 02 2024
Take and review a few PTs and reassess based on how you do! No need to go through the new curriculum just yet if you've already completed the old.
kevinlin124
Thursday, Aug 01 2024
Yes, it was just added, and we'll be making quality of life updates over the next few days! Sorry about the "1 minute" estimates; those will be updated.
kevinlin124
Thursday, Aug 01 2024
Sorry about the change! For those worried about how long it is, please don't be! The new curriculum takes you through 10 RC passages; the prior curriculum used 7. The # of lessons looks large because many lessons are breakdowns of an individual question or paragraph in a passage.
kevinlin124
Thursday, Aug 01 2024
It takes you through 10 RC passages! So just a bit longer than what you had planned, I think. The old version had 7 passages.
There's 3900+ LR questions, so you'd only run out if you did this every day for several years straight!
As long as you reserve ~8 PTs to use as full PTs, I wouldn't worry about spoiling questions. Even if when drilling you end up doing a problem you've seen before, chances are low that you'll actually remember the answer; you still need to think through how to solve it.