Congrats and good luck on the WLs and NRs! Just to clarify: "Boston" refers to Boston U. or Boston College?
Is there a way to manually (or otherwise) import PT score data--the final score result would be fine--from one's LSAT preparation outside of 7Sage into the 7Sage Analytics tool?
I ask because I have a number of PTs, which I took via Khan Academy, prior to enrolling in 7Sage. As I complete the 7Sage curriculum, I notice that I am re-taking PTs as a result of not being able to track which one's I already completed with Khan Academy.
I’ve been using 7sage for some months now and still don’t know what this column’s information references. Anyone know?
Weaken questions are pretty formulaic, but some can be extremely tough.
1)identify the conclusion of the argument
2)identify the premises
3)predict a hole/assumption between the premises and the conclusion
4)eliminate wrong answer choices. remember that the right answer choice will not contradict a premise. rather, the right answer choice will add some new information into the argument that the conclusion didn't account for.
If E implies that the cheapest appliances are therefore the least energy efficient appliances, then the price of an appliance is that appliance's most important consideration for a prospective consumer. Such a consideration (price) is a result of "the market." But E doesn't propose whether the appliance IS or IS NOT energy efficient, only that it is cheap at its purchase price. Therefore, E does not weaken the assertion that "decisions about energy use is best left to the operation of the market."
I have noticed that any given PrepTest on lawhub.lsac.org has a particular sequence of sections which differ significantly from the corresponding PrepTest on 7sage.com. For example, PrepTest 86 on lawhub.lsac.org shows that S1 is an LG, S2 and S3 are LR, and S4 is RC. Whereas PT 86 on 7Sage.com shows that S1 corresponds to S3 (second LR) on lawhub, S2 corresponds to S1 (LG), S3 corresponds to S4 (RC), and S4 corresponds to S2 (first LR).
Is there a pedagogical reason for this decision by 7Sage? Can one expect a materially different score by altering the chronology of the sections one takes in a given PT?
When I used "Lawgic" to diagram the stimulus, I came up with something very similar to what you have in your post.
P1 states that OldTreesDie-->Decompose-->Release CO2.
P2 (ultimately a useless premise) HarvestOldGrowthForest-->MoreYoungTreesGrow-->MoreEfficientTreesCapturingCO2
C states that HarvestForest(-->/Decomposition(=assumption))-->/Release CO2
ACs...
A--irrelevant
B--Correct, since it directly attacks the assumption that harvesting eliminates decomposition, which we learned decomposition causes the release of CO2. According to B, harvesting contributes to decomposition, which occurs after manufacturing of the tree into products--i.e., decomposition (and the release of CO2) occurs, but just later in the process.
C--The conclusion in the stimulus makes a claim about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, whereas AC C makes a statement about the amount of CO2 in a younger vs. older tree. If C is true, then the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere remains unknown, and possibly unchanged, with or without harvesting, since we don't know how many young vs. old trees there are.
D--A restatement of P1.
E--A tricky AC to easily eliminate, but it does not weaken the argument, since smaller trees over many years do not necessarily mean less CO2 capturing occurs as compared to before harvesting. In fact, younger trees are more efficient (P2) at capturing CO2, and their size does not necessarily contribute to their efficiency.