I see why B, C, D, and E are wrong and don't help to resolve the discrepancy. But A also seems inadequate because it's forcing you to make a bunch of assumptions:

1. deer = "most wildlife"

2. wolves = "most wildlife"

3. not being adversely affected by the now-banned pesticides = increase in deer population (what if the deer pop. just stayed the same??)

That must why the question stem is "most helps to explain".... none of the other four resolve anything, while A at least tries to. 😩

@-- thanks!

@ Would it also be possible to select multiple problem sets to delete on the "Show Existing Problem Set" page (similar to how questions are selected to create problem sets) instead of having to open each problem set to do so? Sometimes I just want to do a set for practice but don't need/want that data. Being able to delete a bunch of practice sets at the end of the day/week would be a huge time saver.

OR, an ability to sort problem sets into folders? idk. The "Show Existing Problem Set"page is already a little unwieldy already with all of the core curriculum sets, and it gets exacerbated when I make my own, even with my careful titling to keep everything organized.

Yes, I second what @ has said with you having mixed up what you can/cannot do. I also wanted to add that I recently read something on this relationship that really helped nail down the inferences you are able to draw validly with these words. It's essentially the same as what previous poster has said, but in a different presentation. (I'm a visual learner, so drawing this out on paper was helpful.)

Think of them as a hierarchy/ladder and inferences flow top-down:

ALL

MOST

SOME

All encompasses Most and Some. It's at the top and is the most "powerful." This means from an All statement, you can take a step down and infer a Most statement. You can also take another step down and infer a Some statement.

(For example, you are given the statement "All apples are fruits." You could technically also say "Most apples are fruits," and still be correct. You can also say "Some apples are fruits.")

Most encompasses Some. It's in the middle, so not the most powerful but still something. This means from a Most statement, you can take a step down and infer a Some statement.

(Example: Given "Most apples are fruits." You could also say, "Some apples are fruits," and this is also still correct.)

Some does not encompass any other term. It's kind of weak and this means that you cannot infer any other information from a Some statement other than interchangeability. You can only stay on that same level. Flipping the items in the Some statement doesn't move you up or down.

(For example: Given "Some apples are fruits," means you can also say, "some fruits are apples"...but that's it.)

Alternatively, if you want to read the structure from bottom to top, you could think of Some as the bare-minimum foundation.

Given"All apples are fruits."/ "Most apples are fruits." At the barest minimum, you have to have at least one (aka Some) apple that is a fruit.

rewards your ability to weed through a pile of sh!t and narrow it down to the least pile of sh!t

My sentiments on this test exactly 😂

Bumping this thread for anyone who's looking for RC help. @ has been a fantastic resource & just wanted to vouch for him and his method.

I have a literature background, so RC was a fairly ok section for me but my scores would fluctuate depending on the passage selection. I'd get anywhere between 2-8 wrong/section, so it was frustrating. This new method I'm practicing is more technical so I'm now finding the subject matter to be less of an issue. I only miss 1 or 2 on single practice passages, if at all. My timed PT section scores are stabilizing around -3/-4, so with more practice I'm sure I can get to -1/-0 soon.

I will also add that, no matter how skilled a tutor you can find, you have to be willing to practice and apply the things they're telling you. As with all things LSAT (and anything worthwhile, tbh), you ultimately get what you put in!

Congrats! Would love to hear how long did you work through your plateau and what helped you get past it?

Hi @ What happens to our data once a monthly subscription ends? Could we have a monthly account, allow the subscription to lapse, and resubscribe a few weeks later and still see our same data when we reactivate?

If you are losing understanding while you read the stimulus, you should not continue with this method. Your goal is to earn points on the test. The best tactic to use right now is the one that will get you the point on the SA question.

At the very beginning of my studies, I started off reading the stimulus for understanding first, and then returning to re-read and diagram on paper. This was because my conditional logic skills weren't great yet. Over time, I have gotten better and now I read the stimuli while also seeing the conditional chains. As I've gotten more proficient, I diagram less. Basically, your approach will match your level of proficiency, and it will be a natural switch over.

You have to do what works for you right now to get the point. It doesn't help you to be worried about time when you should actually be worried about getting the question correct. Speed follows accuracy.

@ & @ Yes, I did mean to ask whether it was common/acceptable to attack the relationship between premise and sub-conclusion. Both of your responses were very helpful. Thank you!

@ Perhaps the questions you're looking at fall under a third method of reasoning category? There are three main ones on this test: conditional reasoning, causal reasoning, and comparative reasoning.

Congratulations & thanks for the inspiration!

yaaaaaaaas

@ ooh, I only saw one of those two flaws so you're ahead of the game. 😊 But I think if you make up an example of an appeal to ignorance ("I don't believe other people's claim about A, so they're wrong"), the same mistaken negation of /A --> /B might be a little clearer? It seems to me if we start to recognize these two as the same/similar flaws, we won't need to keep two different ideas in mind-- just one! Haha, I'm all about efficient thought processes.

This is how I understand NA questions conceptually.

Imagine the argument as a Jenga tower you're trying to build. Each premise is a layer you put down, so you build the tower up and up. In this way, you build an argument up and up as you provide more premises. The conclusion will sit at the top of the foundation of premises.

A necessary assumption is the one premise/block that the entire structure depends on. It is the one piece that keeps the tower/argument standing upright. Removing this one super important piece is equivalent to negating it. You take out/negate this one single piece-- the argument tower topples. That's why this one piece was so necessary to the entire structure.

I don't think I would have gotten this question, even if I knew how to approach it the way JY did :( Here's my explanation because I haven't seen anyone else describe the argument this way:

The method of reasoning used in the stimulus is causal due to the phrases "leads to" in each of the first two sentences:

Compare (to more succ.ful person) causes SD

Compare (to less succ.ful person) causes DO

Conclusion: Compare causes SD and DO

At first I thought it was an incorrect negation because I hadn't caught on to the causal reasoning, but I didn't see anything like my pre-phrase in the stimulus.. and I got the question wrong.

But now I see the flawed assumption here is that if you remove the causes (Compare to more/less succ.ful person), you will remove/avoid the effects. We know that's a silly assumption because you could still have an effect without the cause (a classic way to weaken a causal relationship). And this is what D says: SD and DO can still occur as a result of something other than comparison.

Oh yeah, totally. Save your 70s and 80s for when you're getting close to a real test date.

70s and 80s are definitely more recent. I also consider 52 and up "modern" LSATs because they have comparative passages, so I'd use those for full PTs. Anything below 52 I'd categorize as older (but still highly valuable) drilling material.

I think the target times are there to give you a general idea of the timeframe to solve the problem in. Every test-taker is different/has different levels of understanding, so I think it's ok not to hit the target times. I'd think of them as suggested guidelines, not prescribed targets.

On a related note, I actually had a similar question a few days ago about how the target times are calculated. I searched the forums and found this explanation from a 7Sage admin answering the forum post:

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/25465

The system calculates your target time based on collected data from top scorers. However, if the target time is missing on some questions that is because the system doesn’t have enough data yet to generate a “target time”.

Target time for LR is the median duration for students who got the question correct. For LG/RC, it's the median time for students who got -2 or better on the game/passage. The target time for each question is different. Some might be more than what you actually spent and some less.

The post is just 9 months old, so I would guess the info still holds true... unless 7Sage has changed how they calculate this stuff. Hope it's helpful.

Keep going. Your score is the last place you will see improvement, especially in such a short time frame. While it is important & the ultimate goal of our studying, a score increase is only one way to measure progress. Are you getting correct answers faster? Are you able to see the gaps in reasoning faster/more easily? Are you understanding stimuli and passages with more clarity? Sometimes you are improving on the intangible, unscored parts of the test that will add up and translate to a better score over time.

Oh yes, the analytics are great. Definitely do PTs online. But actually this convo inspired me to do some drills on paper (I have a couple of the Ten Actuals books) because I don't need data on my practice drills. 😊 Happy studying!

Spend a week or so doing them on paper if that helps you learn better. It would be a good idea to switch to online (or do a hybrid of paper & online) at some point because being able to read text on screen for hours is an unmentioned skill in itself on this test.

I love the Powerscore LR Bible, along with LSAT Trainer and 7Sage. I agree with the person above; you should finish a book/course before moving on to another. It's just helpful to hear all this same information presented in different ways. My study buddies found The Loophole to be very helpful, though I can't say much since I haven't read it.

As far as C goes, isn't it weak to say that the revision is in progress? What if revision takes 1000000 years? Sure, they will eventually eliminate the problems... but in that extended time span, wouldn't public confidence still be eroded as they wait interminably over many generations for the revisions to be ratified?

I'm just playing devil's advocate. The other four answers definitely do not weaken the argument. C "most seriously undermines," but I still hate it lol.

Happy to help!