👁️ ooooo la la i didn’t know Jon D. left powerscore that’s huge that’s a new development and that’s kind of spicy lol did 7sage poach? Their quest to be the ultimate LSAT prep solution continues! The Crystal Ball and 7Sage united will be so excellent

The link to the livestream is down it seems/the video was removed? I was one of the video submissions but I thought the episode was at 3pm PT (i see now that 5pm = 2pm PT lol) so I missed the entire episode 😅 would love to still catch it somewhere!

Phenomenon-Hypothesis is a subset of casual reasoning. If we have a phenomenon and we are hypothesizing about what caused the phenomenon, it’s a causal argument!

honest and fair

i read the RC passage first, why not the stimulus in LR as well? When I try to read the question stem first, I always forget to do so, and then I end up still reading the stimulus and flitting back to the question stem and then back to the stimulus haha. I’ve accepted that my mind simply insists on continuing to read from left to right, the way i’ve read all my lifeeeee

always a treat!

have you tried the LSAT Arcade games? it’s nice to use for practicing skills instead of having to do full questions

I really really really want this feature. It is especially helpful for the broader advanced classes that feature different question types and concepts. I am not sure why they stopped tagging classes. It makes an already cumbersome viewing experience (no functionality to see which videos you’ve already viewed, no ability to make playlists) even more cumbersome! Just gotta click and see what they surprise you with!? Tagging the video content just makes sense! Why have that filter option if it’s not going to be consistently applied? It makes the tag filtering semi-useless and severely limited. Sigh sigh. I hope they hear our cries.

I leave a comment on every post about the Live/Recorded sessions to help boost visibility.

I’ve really enjoyed Eric Wang’s content — great strategy and breakdowns! Rahela is another favorite. She speaks slowly which is perfect because if I need it slow then i watch the vid on 1x but if I watch on 1.5x, i can still understand everything! I like that she consistently brings up helpful strategies across all of her classes so if you watch several of her videos you really get the hang of her approach to different techniques!

got this wrong because i thought the main conclusion was the last sentence :/ hate to see it

i’m down! i’ve been making my way through the recorded sessions but i don’t know if i can commit to a 2 hour meetup afterwards haha i would be down to share notes/timestamps with the juicy bits!

i’ve come back to this question a few times and finally realized a simple non-diagram way to look at it.

the argument rests on knowing that if we can verify selena’s claims, we will have definitive proof of psychic powers.

this only makes sense if selena could actually potentially have powers for us to even verify

i read this post from start to finish (but will pretend i didn’t read the SCOTUS line because i don’t want to hate you lol) and was engaged the entire time. the LSAT isn’t everything — if your personal statements read like this, i have to hope that will carry some weight with your program of choice too! I don’t presume to know anything about anything though and I’m taking the exam tomorrow, but I just wanted to wish you luck 🍀

read through some of the comments and now i'm second guessing my approach here lol. I got this right under semi-timed conditions (untimed drill, but I self-timed to get a sense of how long 1-2minutes actually feels when I'm struggling with a question!).

My thought here was that the argument is putting forth a (dubious) correlative premise, and then arriving at a prescriptive causal conclusion. If everyone in the world wants to be happy as possible (not just happy), they should consider Not having a pet. Implicit here is the assumption that pet parenthood negatively impacts happiness relative to non-pet parents.

So answer choice D says actually - for most people, having a pet is a positive causal factor towards their happiness. They are happier (not just happy) because they have pets.

interesting argument where I definitely see the causal vibes (lawyers' bad behavior Causes hinderance of correct jury verdict), but the conclusion reads more like a conditional statement. When lawyers bad → reasonable to doubt verdict. So AC D gives us a case where Lawyers Bad, but the outcome is not what the conditional would've had us assume. Which weakens!

@sarahmacrorie819 it's more of an argument-specific flaw than a cookie cutter flaw type, but if I had to shoehorn it into one of the 19, it's somewhat of a false dichotomy? Or maybe hasty generalization?

The argument only gives us support for knowing about Stars, Planets, and Generating Light.

• If Star → GL || If No GL → definitely Not a Star.

• If Planet → No GL || If GL → definitely Not a Planet

• and if you're a Celestial Object, you're not a Planet (at least within this galaxy/the domain of this argument)

Author then concludes that Celestial Objects must generate light! But they also aren't stars. (?) Which is weird.

What made it click for me is realizing the author is trying to draw an arrow between two sufficient conditions. He's drawing an arrow between CO and GL. Both CO (celestial object) and GL (generating light) are sufficient to know that you're Not A Planet. Author then says okay so CO and GL must be related - If CO → GL! If CO, you're not a Planet, you must generate light.

But planets don't have to be the only things that do not generate light.

If you're a celestial object, we have no premises to support the assumption that you generate light. For all we know, from the given premises, CO → GenerateLight is a fair game.

The author's flaw is failing to rule out (failing to consider the possibility) that a non-planet, non-star, Celestial Object doesn't HAVE to generate light. They could also not generate light, despite not being a planet.

@LevinKin7sageLSATDESTROYER very old comment so I'm more-so asking the general 7sage public - PT126.S4.Q5 was anyone else able to connect this to this PT158 question? I feel like I'm missing something. Is the connection here that both correct answers are approaching the stimulus from a "trust the experts" pov?

I need help - I am violently overthinking and it's costing me level 2 questions :( somehow I read this and came to the conclusion that the author's conclusion is "the opponents should admit that my thesis is correct" -- NOT "my thesis is correct"

I see now that obviously the thesis being correct is nestled into the larger conclusion that the opponents should admit the thesis is correct...

but this being the 26th question, I really thought I was doing something smart here with AC C -- I thought we don't know whether the Astronomer's thesis actually is correct at all!

@MichaelWright i just have to say how helpful it is to see these links and examples lol i am creating a drill with these questions right now because this pt 158 question really f'd me up

But I thought Pulford did state the principle explicitly? Pulford's last sentence is the principle that he is using to support his conclusion no?

realizing that if i had read the paradox statement as "why did the foundation chose to build a modern organ despite their goal of reconstructing the church to its original form?" - AC A makes more sense.

I had interpreted this paradox more from the angle of "why did the foundation choose to Not rebuild the old organ despite their goal of reconstructing the church to its original form?" - and that's how I waltzed myself into AC D.

@mateoking same same same. I thought I knew - but I did not know. I thought "angler" was short for anglerflish, i'm pretty sure i only know about anglerfish from finding nemo? in my mind, those are the fish with the weird illuminating hooks hanging off their head but what do I know. I literally don't know and it cost me this question lmao

i got this right but felt like i just got lucky.

I understand that AC A saying “most people” is an issue … but I also feel like saying “People” is like saying “in general, typically, usually” etc, all which imply “most” ?

I ended up eliminating AC A because it said that the argument used a claim about what most people appreciate—to me the argument only said that people “MAY” appreciate.

@nnglara1211 they really played me but your explanation was quite helpful

@SeanStrauss this was my first time getting -1 on RC so I won’t pretend like I have any wisdom to share haha pretty sure it was mostly luck. I still struggle with Implied questions but progress is in progress! The worst feeling is going through blind review and seeing all of the bars turn from green to red sigh I switched from the right answer to the wrong one and I need to stop psyching myself out! I try to come up with a prediction before looking at the ACs but I will admit I sometimes panic about timing and so then I go into the ACs and hope for the best — not -0 behavior that is for sure lol. Thank you for the response!