- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-1-question-17/
Conclusion: Hans purple was probably created by accident while someone was trying to make white glass.
Reasoning: Hans purple uses the same chemical ingredients and a similar process as making white glass.
When I first came across this question, my eyes immediately made their way to answer choice D. D states that the ingredients involved in making Hans purple and white glass were easily obtainable during the relevant time period. I reasoned that if the ingredients were easily obtainable, then people may be less cautious, and thus, an accident is more likely to occur. I guess I was just focused on the word, "accident".
But A is correct because it ties the two creations geographically. I understand this is a "hidden assumption"--if Hans purple was made on accident while someone was trying to make white glass, then it helps if the two come from the same place.
How did you guys fare on this question? Did you spot the problem immediately? I was also thrown off by the phrase, "small geographical region" in answer choice A. I thought to myself, "Who cares if it's a small region? Irrelevant."
Reading this thread, I was really concerned, until I read cmb_1992's response. From my understanding, LSAC does not send out anything until after it has received all of your information, LSAT score, transcripts, etc. And without LSAC, the law schools do not have much to review.
I think the reason you have asked this question is because you could plausibly have a scenario wherein Y, Z, and W are the three in and all the other items are out. Whereas, in the video, J.Y. threw out W right off the bat. But J.Y. was just showing you a possibility where the combo Y and Z can work (be a part of the three pieces that are in), not saying that W has to be out.
If that is not the case though, I am more than happy to revisit your question. But yeah, it appears J.Y. threw W, S, U out right off the bat because by doing so it renders the remaining pieces into floaters, which are easier to deal with than W, which if in, is sufficient to trigger that R and T are both out. It's just less things to have to account for and worry about.
If you are in the Orange County area, preferably in Yorba Linda, Anaheim Hills, Irvine, or Fullerton, and would like a study buddy, please get in touch with me. Also, it would be nice if you have not been exposed to PrepTests 62-71, since those are the ones I am about to "indulge" in--and Preptest 73 when 7Sage puts it on sale on Nov 1.
I would love to help you with anything you may have a question on, and likewise, would love to learn anything that you have to teach. I currently get near perfect scores on the games section, do well on the LR sections (usually -3, -4), and am focusing mostly on the RC section, since that is my biggest weakness.
With a group, we can hold ourselves accountable to our study schedule and have fresh eyes to tackle the questions that we missed. Ideally, we will meet up, take a preptest with the 7sage proctor in the background, and then blind review it individually--leaving time to ask questions about the questions that we missed. Or we can split this up to two separate days, day 1: take preptest, day 2: blind review, etc. I am open to suggestions, but would like to get through at least 2 preptests a week.
My e-mail: matthewray1287@gmail.com
Thank you, you answered both questions perfectly.
To clarify though, I meant that all the sections are in the same booklet; not a separate booklet per section.
When you are taking the LSAT, is it in a binded, book-like format (you know, with the spine still attached)? Or is it just stapled on the upper left corner like any other standardized test?
Also, is each section independently separated from the other? Or are they all attached together?
Originally, I was set to take the LSAT for September, but I am just not feeling too confident.
My scores have been ranging from mid/high 150s to low 160s. The blind-review method has improved my LR sections substantially, but I am getting slaughtered in the LG and RC sections (I usually do not finish either section with the time constraint). I feel that with more time and practice I can also improve my LG and RC, but I am concerned with rescheduling to December. I am worried I may panic during the actual test and may need a "fall-back" test date. I am also concerned about how much it will affect my likelihood of being accepted due to the "rolling applications" process.
What do you guys recommend?
I have two questions in regards to this question, and both of them pertain to answer choice D, I know the right answer choice is A but the translation for D and why its wrong has been bothering me, specifically because I have seen something similar in other answer choices:
1. What about the use of the word "could" in answer choice D, doesn't could mean it's just a possibility, and therefore it is not a requirement? I eliminated answer choice D because of this reason, so if it's not the case, I need to know.
2. When I try to translate the first sentence in answer choice D, I get two very different statements, please tell me what I am doing wrong.
First method: Group 4 (Negate Necessary) as you did in the video:
"No one [without a deep desire to communicate] can be a [blues musician.]"
Original: /DDC→/BM
Contrapositive: BM→DDC
Second method: Group 3 (Negate Sufficient)
"No one without a deep desire to communicate can be a blues musician."
/DDC without BM?
Original: DDC→BM
Contrapositive: /BM→/DDC
What am I doing wrong here?
I honestly did not even bother to consider the contrapostive because the question seemed to be wanting a sufficient condition for whether something was justified or not, but at any rate, answer choices A and C did not use the contrapositive.
The first conditional statement as covered in the video is:
/CFO → /J
The contrapositive of the first statement is:
Justified → Done out of concern for others
J → CFO
Answer choice A states:
Premise 1: In organizing an illegal but peaceful demonstration calling for the return of democratic leadership, Keisha acted purely out of concern for the people of that country.
--------------------------
Conclusion: Keisha's protest was an act of justified civil disobedience.
What is the problem with this?
They did the reverse of the contrapositive. Instead of using J → CFO, they used CFO → J.
In other words, they used the fact she "acted purely out of concern for the people of that country" as a sufficient condition for concluding that her act was justified.
Answer choice C states:
Premise 1: Georgette organized an illegal protest against the practice in her country of having prison inmates work eighteen hours per day.
Premise 2: She acted out of concern for her fellow inmates rather than out of concern for herself.
------------------------
Conclusion: Georgette performed an act of justified civil disobedience.
Same thing here, they used the reverse of our contrapositive. Pay attention to what the conclusion is, the sufficient condition makes our conclusion valid, but if the sufficient condition is the conclusion, it either better be a subsidiary conclusion or it's wrong.
Finally for answer choice D:
Premise 1: Though her interest as an owner of a publishing company would be served by repeal of the law, Maria violated the law because her conscience required her to do so.
---------------------------
Conclusion: Maria's deliberate violation of the law, blah, blah, was an act of justified civil disobedience.
This uses the second conditional statement:
CR → J
Notice why this is right? The sufficient condition is a premise that validates the conclusion, and in this case, conforms to our principle.
Wow, I missed all but the last two questions on this passage.... I got all the other questions right on the previous two RC passages, so I am going to second the motion and say this passage truly was a nonsensical one. I really do hope I do not see something like this on the actual LSAT I will have to take, otherwise, I am skipping it altogether.
In my opinion, the difficulty between old PTs and newer PTs is miniscule, if even existent. It just goes to show how consistent LSAC is in making these tests. Your opinion may vary though, so, you should check out both.
Sure, the newer ones have a comparative reading section, but I actually found those easier than some of the passages on the older PTs.