Question: 14 - POI

Stimulus Breakdown:

Walter says if there was really such a thing as extrasensory perception, public would accept it. Why? Because someone would be able to convince the general public by demonstrating the extrasensory perception.

Chin says that you are saying it doesn’t exist because no one has been able to demonstrate it successfully to general public as general public would have accepted it in case of demonstration. Well, you are wrong buddy. Why? Because It is impossible to demonstrate anything to the satisfaction of all skeptics. It will always be the case that popular media and public as a result will agree with skeptics.

Analysis/What I am looking for:

An answer choice saying that extrasensory power doesn’t exist because general public doesn’t believe in it.

Answer Choice Analysis:

A. None of the two that this phenomenon is real.

B. I chose this one. But this is wrong. Waller doesn’t say anything about demonstration to skeptics.

C. No one says this.

D. The is correct. This is the point of Waller. And Chin disagrees as he says that you cannot convince the general public.

E. Nope, no one says that.

Hi @

I’d be interested. Have already done 70 and 71, but hopeing if we can do 72.

Strength and weaknesses have changed over the prep period and currently I’m doing good in RC overall (comparatively). Struggling with timing, PF, and excep questions. Also consistently stuck on -4 on games. Hope to get better on these.

I think improving in LG is easiest among all three section for anyone. But it's not quick. Its tedious. and simple. Most effective prescription is to foolproof logic games PT 1-35. You might not have time for all 1-35 games but the more you fool proof the better you will get. I say start working now.

Personally, i was also worst at Logic games. before foolproofing entire 1-35 games, i was at around -15. No a disaster would have to happen for me to score a -15 in LG section. LG is my strongest section now.

I did this with the framework of co-incidence.

We have one insistence when we have seen fat loss with high-protein and low carb diet. It doesn't mean high protein low carb has caused this weight lost and at least it is not the most effective way.

I looked for alternative explanation and A jumped out.

Oh, i remember this one. B is really tricky and a perfect (very cookie cutter type) trap laid out by LSAT writers. It is pretending to attack the premise but actually failing to do so. For me this was enough to scratch it and move on.

Answer choice B does not show that people are in fact motivated by money in their job choices. It just shows that they have a preference for higher paying job.

I find C as better because this answer choice shows that other financial rewards also matter. And very subtly cast doubt on the argument above by showing that there are other financial rewards that are not covered under “salary” and those rewards could matter and make economists right.

@ thought i should copy you on this. I was confused aboout even if as well until i came across the discussion above. JY, himself clarified that even if is (for LSAT Purposes) not a logical indicator.

similar technology/apps already widely available (check Zip grade) Just a matter of getting that to work with LSAT scantron.

Congrats! It’s such a great school and city to live in.

Please PM me your state or LSN profile, if you have one. It would help. Thanks.

Deleted! False alarm. :smile:

@ I know this has been asked million times, but do you mind sharing your setup to record yourself while taking test? Thanks.

The subtle way this argument is structured, makes it really hard argument to understand and pinpoint the flaw.

Flaw is cookie cutter and it is "oldest trick in the book". But this argument, if you don't read it carefully, makes it feel like it's setting up two conditionals with two sufficient conditions that are negations of each othe.

Reading Word "hence" is really important because that ensures that these are not two distinct conditionals and instead a flawed sub-conclusion drawn from the first premise.

Also, main conclusion of argument has little support as legitimacy of law is not discussed. And that flaw comes glaring out and destroy you judgement of what is actually going on here.

@ said:

Orrrrrrr. You could bring an electric razor to the testing site and then shear it off in front of the proctor if they refuse to let you in and then shout "HOW BOUT NOW?"

I vote for above!!! Would be fun!!

:smile:

Question: 6

Stimulus Breakdown:

Context: After an oil spill, rehabilitation centers were set up to save sea otters by removing oil from them.

Conclusion: The effort was not worthwhile.

Premise: 337 affected otters (living) and 900 (died) were counted. But only 222 affected otters or 18 percent of those counted were rehabilitated.

Premise: Percentage of all those affected and rehabilitated was even lower than 18% as only 1/5 of others that died immediately were ever found.

Analysis/What I am looking for: We are supposed to find the question that challenges the evidence offered in support of the conclusion above. Such challenge could take various forms. For example how do we know only 1/5 of those who died were ever found? Do we know the number of sea otters in area of oil spill? How many in total were affected.

Answer Choice Analysis:

A. I think stimulus is not making any distinction of different species and talking mostly about all sea otters in affected area. Knowing about other species that were not among those that were in affected area won’t challenge the support presented above.

B. This casts doubt as mentioned in above analysis. We don’t know the total population. How do we know the validity of 1/5 number? I think this casts most doubt.

C. How is process of capturing sea otters cast doubt on evidence above. Irrelevant.

D. Irrelevant. We don’t give a shit about other species.

E. Again, we don’t care about cost.

Why I got this wrong/Performance Analysis: I took significant time to analyze this stimulus during timed attempt. This was the question that actually threw me off. I selected B, marked it to come back and kept B. This costed me a lot.

Please, please, please record tis and post this asap. Work will come in the way of me attending.

I will be at NYC forum!!

I would say at most 1/4 are based on pure science. Majority are social science.

I just wish majority or may be even 00% were science and 0% based on imitations of 15th century Italian paintings. haha!

"Sound Quality" phrase tipped me. I caught the correct flaw. But in AC A, i kept think what does sound quality has to do with inaccurate reproduction. If it was saying, "Tape recording made of it [george's speech] cannot not be of good quality" i would've chosen this.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-36-section-1-question-12/

I laughed out loud in a quiet section of library when JY discussed answer choice C of this question.

Joe Biden went to Syracuse Law. Ranked even lower than McKinney. There’s that!

I was having extreme trouble with flaw questions as well. Here is what I did. I took dozens of flaw questions. Hid their answers. And just analyzed stimulus is extreme detail.

I broke down reasoning structure and wrote details

On what is/are flaw(s) with the reasoning. After that I went and looked at the answers.

This helped me understanding how same flaws are presented again and again in different questions and how to spot them.

Second thing I did was to review grammar lessons. The answer choices are in abstract language using referential Phrasing refer back to stimulus. Paying at taney ion to grammar helped me get better at that.

Question: 13 – Parallel Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:

Premise: Philosopher is saying A just system of taxation would require each person to pay taxes in proportion to the society contribution to serve that person.

Premise: For purpose of taxation, wealth is the most objective way to determine how well society has served/contributed to an individual.

Conclusion: Thus, each person should be taxed in proportion to his or her income.

Analysis/What I am looking for:

First flaw I see is that income is confused with wealth. Also, there is prescriptive language in conclusion. Not a flaw but to be wary of. Argument laid out a principle. And objective way to do what principle asks us to do is mentioned. And then a different element (income) is prescribed to be used.

Answer Choice Analysis:

A. Correct answer. Speed is confused with acceleration. Structure is also same. Principle>Objective measure and then conclusion.

B. There is no confusion of key term in this one. Structure of conclusion and second premise also different.

C. Different structure and not the same flaw.

D. No principle. Instead a prescriptive first premise. Also, not the same flaw. No objectoove measure is described.

E. No prescriptive conclusion. No objective measure. No confusing of term.

A is wrong just based on Pollutants. Like we are talking about carcinogenic compounds and not pollutants. These two are different. Correct?

Question: 18- Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:

Premise: The probability of avoiding Heart disease is increased if one avoids fatty food.

Premise: One is less likely to eat fat, if one avoids dairy food.

Conclusion: Thus, probability of maintaining good health is increased if one avoids dairy food.

Analysis/What I am looking for:

I only saw one flaw and that is argument is shifting from avoiding Heart Disease to maintaining Good health. I though there is a presumption that avoiding heart disease is equivalent to good health. I mean one can have healthy heart but unhealthy body. Like brain is not healthy. But this is not the flaw they went for. And they put a trap answer choice to address this. And I chose it.

The other flaw is that arguments fails to take into account that avoiding dairy may lead to less fat but it can cause other nutritional deficiencies and thus may not help in maintaining good health.

Answer Choice Analysis:

A. This is the flaw they go for. Very subtle but perfect. This AC shows us that eliminating dairy might have negative consequences as well and argument doesn’t take that into account.

B. Yeah, but this is not the flaw.

C. There is justification that is avoiding fat leads to less heart disease.

D. I chose this answer (even in BR). But this is not correct as evidence is relevant although not very strong.

E. No, descriptively false.

Why I got this wrong:

As mentioned above, I pre-phrased the wrong flaw and chose the answer choice they put in their to trap people like me.

See if below helps you out:

In an argument part questions, we are essentially trying to find what role a statement is playing in the argument. We are not really concerned with analyzing the argument, but we want to ensure we can label each statement correctly i.e identify conclusion, premises etc.

In this question, the relevant statement is essentially context and other people claim (some say…) about context is given. The other people claim is trying to explain the context. And our argument tries to refute that other people claim by saying “however, there must be another….”.

B is simply wrong because it is not the reason given for claim of other people that our argument tries to refute.

E. This is correct because this shows that the claim (position) the columnist is trying to undermine is explaining this context.

Again an argument part question where only D is referring to what statement is doing correctly.

A and E are wrong because this statement is not a hypothesis. B is wrong because it is not even describing the argument correctly as the conclusion of the argument is not that a certain view is misguided. In fact, argument is agreeing with Malthus conclusion but just based on a different reason. C is wrong because argument is not saying that this statement supports Malthus conclusion. In fact quite the opposite.

It is a general fact (food production is increasing more rapidly than population) and argument concludes that there will be famines etc. therefore, this general fact will change as if increase in food production can continue there will be no famines.

Argument tells us that methane is also a greenhouse gas just like CO2. It says that ocean were not frozen because of a lot of green house gases. Then concluded that it likely that greenhouse gas was Co2. Well, why it was CO2. It could be methane or any other greenhouse gas. This is the assumption the B attacks by saying hey methane was much more present

PT 72 sounds good to me.