I was stuck between B and C, and ultimately ended up going with C. I immediately crossed out D because I didn't think it was relevant. Would really appreciate someone's insight.

I have been reading through some of the previous posts regarding this question, and they have really helped me understand the stimulus and why it is wrong. Basically, the author gave us the following premise:

S= support new tax plan

E= chance of being elected

UE= understand economics

P1: S----> /E

P2: UE----> /S

C: E-----> UE

In order for us to get to the author's conclusion (E----- >UE) we should've had the following as our premise:

E-----> /S -----> UE

Valid Argument #3- A--> B--->C

If we had been given this premise, we would have been able to validly get to the author's conclusion.

The author's error is that he is treating UE -----> /S as if it were the same as /S ------> UE. To put it in more simple terms, the author's flaw was a mistaken reversal error (in premise two).

However, I am really confused when it comes to the answer choices. I don't see how answer choice "D" describes the error that has been identified. I have found that for the harder flaw questions, LSAT writers tend to write the answer choices in very convoluted/ abstract manner. It has really been a struggle for me to get past this. Would greatly appreciate someone's help.

I am really struggling to understand why B is incorrect. Would greatly appreciate someone's insight.

Why is E the better answer when compared to answer choice D? Would really appreciate someone's insight.

Diagraming this stimulus into conditional logic was hard for me. I started with the second sentence:

Unless= G3= negate, place in sufficient

/heat to cause volcanic action -----> /renewed surface

For the third sentence:

Any= G1= sufficient

Since it used the idea of "/renewed surface" , I was able to chain it up with the second sentence:

/heat to cause volcanic action --->/renewed surface ------->heavily pockmarked

When I got to the last sentence, I got lost. I didn't know how to diagram it. I feel like the last sentence plays a role in the chain from above, but I don't really know what that would look like.

Would really appreciate some clarification on how to diagram this stimulus. Thanks in advance!

I interpreted "D" as saying that new fields had been found since "oil that is considered unextractable is now considered extractible." For "D" to be correct, I thought we had to make the assumption that the shift between unextractable to extractible was referencing the oil fields that have already been found. I would really appreciate some clarification on why "D" is correct. Thanks in advance!

I really struggled to correctly diagram the stimulus, specifically the second premise. The second premise tells us that "only a small portion of CA can be considered MR." I was looking at PowerScore's explanation and they diagramed this premise as:

CA -----some-----MR

When I read "small" it didn't register that it implied a "some" relationship between these two ideas. I guess I can see how "small" can imply some, since "small" can imply that at least 1% of contemporary advertisements can be considered MR. However, this was not instinctive for me. I think after going through all the CC lessons, I tend to focus on a more mechanical approach. I look for words key words like "some"/"most"/"few" to determine the presence of an existential or universal relationship.

Any tips on how to not get so stuck on mechanical approach for these types of scenarios?

Honestly, I might just be overthinking this:/

Based on my understanding of the stimulus, the flaw is that the author is assuming that what was true in the past (CPUE is constant= X number of sharks) is still true in the present (because CPUE has remained constant, we must still have X number of sharks).

From an abstract point, in order to weaken this we must say that something that could potentially change the conclusion has occurred in the present.

With that in mind, I narrowed down my answers to D and E. They both talk about a change. However, I really struggled to see which of those two changes could potentially change the conclusion in the present.

I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my train of thought as was as explaining why E is a better choice over D.

Thanks in advance!

Would really appreciate someone's explanation on why "C" is the incorrect answer choice

Also, if you have any tips for RRE question stems, they would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-1-question-04/

Why are answer choices A and D incorrect? Thanks in advance!

When will we know if the August 2022 LSAT will be online or in person?

Would someone explain what D is saying and why it is the incorrect answer choice? Greatly appreciate anyone's input.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-2-question-25/

Would really appreciate an explanation on why E is the correct answer choice. The use of math in the stimuli always kills me:/

I recently finished my second go at the LR portion of the CC. Up to this point I have been drilling untimed and by question type (PTs1-11 and 20-35). Doing this has allowed me to become more comfortable with LR. However, I am not sure what my next move should be. Should I do a timed section of LR? I have saved PTs 12-19 for section drills, just not sure if I am ready for that yet. How do you track your improvement on timed sections? Do you use data from timed sections to go back to drill by question type? I would really appreciate any insight.

I was stuck between answer choice B and E. E was really tempting because in paragraph three it says that, "in general, biochemists judged to be too ignorant of chemistry to grasp the basic process." Would really appreciate clarification about why E is incorrect. Thanks!

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format "PT#.S#.Q# (P#) - brief description of stimulus"

I noticed that for this question we are being presented with a principle in the stimulus. The principle used conditional logic:

Intended General Audience ------> book has to discuss aesthetics and utility

In order for the conclusion to be true, the principle has to then be "activated." In order for that to happen you must either 1. satisfy the sufficient or 2. negate the necessary. The answer choice ended up satisfying this sufficient.

This isn't the first NA question that I have seen structured this way. I am not sure if this is an observation worth noting for future NA questions. I have only done a handful of NA questions so far, so I would definitely appreciate some insight.

Also, if there is a flaw in my reasoning I would really appreciate the feedback:)

Thanks in advance!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-3-question-06/

Does anyone happen to have a list of LR questions that include conditional logic flaw in the stimulus? I'm trying to get better with recognizing when the main flaw has to do with conditional logic. I ran into question 18 from section 3 of PT 31, and the stimulus includes conditional logic. I was able to make a conditional logic chain and I was forcing myself to look for a flaw in the conditional logic. It turned out that the flaw had nothing to do with conditional logic. Instead the flaw in the stimulus dealt with a part to whole error. This isn't the first time that I try to force the conditional logic flaw, so I'm planning on drilling this weakness. However, I would greatly appreciate having a list of questions with conditional flaw. Thanks in advance!

I'm currently working on drilling NA and have gone back to re-do the CC lessons on negation. I have slowly started to find success in applying Ellen Cassidy's strategy of finding the loophole in the argument. For this stimulus, my loophole was: What if psychotherapy helps treat the chemical imbalance? Just because you don't know about the imbalance doesn't mean that there isn't a possibility that the current treatment would help address it. After reading answer choice A, I immediately circled it. However, I decided to read through all the other answer choices. I was able to easily eliminate B and C. B addressees a comparative issue that was not directly addressed in the stimulus. Meanwhile, C simply did nothing for the argument. I was left with A, D, and E. A fit my loophole nicely, but D seemed so tempting. I ended up negating the answers, but it seems like I negated them incorrectly. Would appreciate it if someone could check my negations:

For A, I negated it to:

Treatment by psychotherapy can produce some effective reduction in or correction of chemical imbalances ......

For D, I negated it to:

Either psychotherapy is more effective or there is a tie between the effectiveness of medication and psychotherapy, in regards to trying patients with mental disorders.

How would you negate answer choice "E"

Also, why are D and E worth eliminating?

Thanks in advance!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-4-question-08/

The stimulus tells us that property rights are super important to the city council. Then we are told that for that particular city, there are restrictions that prevent property owner from doing anything to their property (other than cutting their grass and getting rid of weeds).

I am not well-versed on how zoning laws work, so I wasn't sure who holds the power over enacting zoning laws. I got the feeling that it was the city council members, but I wasn't sure if we were allowed to make that assumption.

Going back to the paradox, I anticipated that a possible resolution was that there were other people in local government who had a say on whether or not to pass these zoning laws.

When I got to the answer choices:

A- "sometimes allowed exemptions" this further shows that the city council is restrictive. Just because they make at least one exception, doesn't erase the fact that they're almost always restricting the property owners' rights

B- I chose this answer choice. My reasoning was that property owners actually wanted things to be this way, despite the council members cries that the zoning laws were too restrictive to meet the needs of property owners. If that's what the people want, then is there really an issue? As I'm writing this out, I'm wondering if that's where I went wrong. Equating issue with paradox? The contradiction could still exist even if the people being affected by it don't see it as an issue, right? Ugh...I feel like I'm overthinking this:/

C- I saw this as a contradiction to our premise that says that, "property rights is of the utmost importance to city council"

D- I felt that this answer wanted us to assume that every time your neighbor does something to their property, it affects your own property. Which i don't think is a fair assumption. What if someone is adding an extra room to their home, which is located on three acres of land and the nearest neighbor is miles away? I could see how putting up a fence could have a direct impact on your next-door neighbor, but the fact that it's not something that happens every single time that you do something other than cut your grass or get rid of your weeds, really confuses me.

I felt that without the assumption that I pointed out, this answer wasn't strong enough to resolve the paradox.

E- I thought this further emphasized that property rights were being restricted, and thus deepened the mystery behind the contradiction

I would greatly appreciate clarification on why D is correct and why B is incorrect. Thanks in advance!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-4-question-17/

For answer choice A, I seemed to struggle understanding how it strengthens the argument. Is answer choice A saying that the more "good" cases that you have, the higher your productivity score at your firm (I am assuming that a high productivity score is a positive attribute to have)? What if one takes on a computer-fraud case (which according to the stimulus take more time than the average fraud case) and it's a "good" case (i.e. you win the case)? Won't this increase my productivity score? Would greatly appreciate clarification on this answer choice.

Hi there,

I have noticed that the questions I get wrong on RC are always the inference based ones. Anyone have any advice on how to improve on this particular question type?

Thanks in advance!

I have been focusing a lot of my studying on LR and LG and have neglected RC for quite a while. I am looking to complete at least one RC passage a day. However, I do want to make sure that I am being strategic about my game plan. In order to get there, I have a few questions that I am hoping to get some input on.

I greatly appreciate any input.

Hi there,

Working full-time and trying to manage the LSAT has not been an easy journey. I'm looking to find one or two other people in the NYC area to do in person study sessions. Ideally, I'm looking for someone who would be down to meet at a coffee shop once a week to study (even if it's just as accountability budies- like we each do our own thing) .

I am in the Manhattan area and would love to connect with other people in the area who are also on this LSAT journey.

Happy studying!

-Miriam

I've done this question a couple different times, and each time I get wrecked.

Stimulus

To have the most successful economy you need to train as many people to:

Japan seems to be thriving in regards to the standards set above.

Europe, on the other hand, is in a weaker position :

There aren't enough scientists to research and develop tech. It also lacks labor to use the tech.

Then we are told that Japan has a shortage of "technically qualified" people. They have a lot of people qualified to complete menial tasks.

A couple of things that I was still confused about:

Answer choices:

A. "worldwide shortage" - in the stimulus we are only told about what's going on in Japan and Europe so we can't make any inferences about what's going on worldwide

B. I went with this answer choice, because of the sentence that said that Japan didn't have "technically qualified" people. I did question whether or not you needed to have qualified people in order to meet the criteria that was outlined in the first sentence, but it seemed like a better answer choice than the others

C. "highly skilled labor" - all we know about Japan's labor is that it's based on people who aren't "technically qualified"

D. I confidently eliminated this because the stimulus said that Europe had a shortage of scientists who could research and develop new tech. I thought this implied that there was a shortage of new tech. If there's a shortage of new tech, why would you need more people to apply new tech? If you hired a ton of new people there wouldn't be any tech for them to work with, right?

E. "other countries" again, we don't know about other countries. The stimulus only tells us about what's happening with Japan and European countries.

Would greatly appreciate an explanation on why D is correct and C is not.

Thanks in advance!

I'm really struggling with trying to intuitively figure out if conditionality is relevant to the flaw for the argument at hand. There are certain stimuli that include conditional indicators that seem to be linked together. When this happens, I immediately go and try to diagram it, to try to see if there is in fact conditional reasoning. Sometimes, I am correct and there is conditional reasoning that deals with the flaw. However, there are many more times when I am incorrect and I end up spending so much time trying to force a diagram. I'm struggling to zoom on the gap in my understanding. I thought I had a solid understanding of conditional reasoning, but clearly it's not the case. Has anyone run into this issue before? Any advice is welcomed. Thanks!