- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
Some silent films have survived into the current century.
Some films that have survived into the current century are silent films.
The argument: Because there are more instances of negative coverage of the opponent (reason), this news coverage reflects the reporters' biases toward the incumbent conclusion).
The conclusion is not convincing because the news coverage could be reasonable and unbiased, and the opponent happened to have more negative things for the news to report. (B) addresses this - the news coverage could be fair, and we can't assume that it's biased.
(C) says that the argument assumes that bias in reporting is bad, however there is no indication in the stimulus that any bias in the news is harmful or bad. Descriptively, (C) isn't what's happening in the stimulus.
I overthink apparently easy questions too. I interpreted the first sentence more so as "Despite [attempts]..." so I don't think that the refuge needs to fulfill being part of a set of efforts. The AC could have said "Species that would have become extinct have been saved due to the establishment of conservation centers," and it would still be correct. I think lol
It's more broad than claiming one side is correct. All we know from that is that the perception is not accurate.
Our aim is to weaken the relationship between the conclusion and the premises, even if it's just by a little bit, like in this question. The argument: Because their extinction rates continue to increase (reason), the efforts to protect the endangered's natural habitats was for nothing (conclusion). To weaken this, we need something that says that the efforts being completely wasted doesn't necessarily follow.
(B) shows that some species went against that trend of extinction, demonstrating a benefit that came out of these efforts. We don't need to completely negate the conclusion by saying that the 'efforts weren't wasted because natural habitats were restored.' All we need is to show that the efforts weren't completely wasted.
I struggled with this for a long time and still do. I've certainly not "mastered" this test, but I'll share what helped me break from 150s to 160s. Before, when I'd go over explanations by JY, PowerScore, LSATHacks, etc, I'd often react "how'd they get that from the stimulus?"
That's because, while I was good at identifying which sentences contained the conclusion and premises, I wasn't picking up on the key features of the argument. So the transition was going from "this sentence is the conclusion; these are the premises," for example, to:
The premises make a comparison between X and Y
The premises are descriptive, but the conclusion makes a prescriptive claim
The conclusion introduces a completely new concept that's not mentioned in the premises
Pointing out these things helps me anticipate what needs to be in the correct answer.
This video helped me look at conditionals another way that became more intuitive
>
I'm down! I posted this a week ago. We can connect on discord if you're interested.
https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/37196/dallas-study-group-for-the-june-2024-lsat-with-160-scorers-in-person
Discord: https://discord.com/invite/vtUaHu8E
If you’re still looking for a study group in Dallas, check this out.
https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/37196/dallas-study-group-for-the-june-2024-lsat-with-160-scorers-in-person
Hi Anna! I'm Petra, and I'm looking for a study group in Dallas too. I just posted a discussion - feel free to check it out, and see if it's a fit for you. While I'm taking the June LSAT, the focus of the group will be on LR and RC.
https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/37196/dallas-study-group-for-the-june-2024-lsat-with-160-scorers-in-person
🔢 I'm currently scoring: 160-165 (Goal: 170s)
📆 My planned test date: June 2024
📈 To study, I have been: Drilling untimed and timed
🔑 My goals for this group are: Each participant will teach and take away a strategical approach to a question type. Ideally participants in the group have completed the core curriculum and have a good grasp of the different question types in LR and RC.
🔍 We'll focus on: LR and RC
📚 When we'll meet and what we'll do: Everyone takes the same PT before meeting up. At study group, we will discuss the questions we missed, focusing on optimal strategies for each question type. This can be on a weekly or biweekly basis.
✅ How to join: Join the discord: https://discord.com/invite/vtUaHu8E
I think the study group will be more effective when everyone gets a chance to discuss, so I'd like to keep this group relatively small. A group of 3-4 is great, max is 6.
@yuezhuchen0721897 thank you! Would you want the table to contain only questions that you got wrong? Do you ever take notes on questions you got right?
I break down questions I got right and wrong and also use the table as "scratch paper" to break down questions untimed. I do all that in Excel.
My LSAT notes are in Obsidian because of the easy-to-use subheaders that allow me to open and close subsections within a page. This is helpful for different LR question types and key takeaways by PTs. The side-by-side layout for the menu and page also makes switching between folders really easy. Some of my main folders in the menu are Question Types, Technique/Approach, Progress Tracker, PT Review, and subfolders of each LR question type to break down my analysis of actual LSAT questions. What I really wish it has is a table feature for a wrong answer log. Currently you can create a table, but it's cumbersome because you have to build it with html.
Examples in-and-of-themselves do not prove, rather they attempt to provide support. Sentence 3 further explains the premise in sentence 2, and sentence 2 explains sentence 1, making sentence 1 where we would find the implication for the conclusion. A conclusion needs to be supported by premises. You can test which one is the conclusion by asking yourself, 'does sentence 1 support sentence 3, or does sentence 3 support sentence 1?'
The premise can also be read as “If the plaintiff qualifies as a suspect class, then the plaintiff must show that the characteristic is an immutable trait.” Also, “must” is a necessary condition indicator.
The phrasing "if... is adopted" threw me off from the big picture of the argument. It can be understood this way:
P: proposed package –> inconvenience
C: proposed package –> /adopted
SA: inconvenience –> /adopted (D)
A comment by Tim Hortons below explains a solid approach to understanding this argument by parsing out the context from the premise.
Here's the conditional:
P: proposed package --> inconvenience
SA: (inconvenience --> /adopted)
--
C: proposed package --> /adopted
I diagrammed it the way JY did when I was working this question and didn't land on the right answer. But when I took a step back and ignored the conditionals, (D) made sense intuitively because I realized that the stimulus is talking about the criteria for "adopted," aka what's necessary for "adopted."
This video explains this kind of diagramming well:
I think it's the latter because "which were built to prevent soil erosion" modifies terraces.
So "there are soil erosion-preventing terraces" negates to "there are NO soil erosion-preventing terraces."
That part can also be read as the following, which make its biconditional nature more obvious:
...a given PS is produced if and only if certain ECF exist.
...a given PS is produced only by certain ECF but not other factors.
I think you're on to something with negating the wrong thing. "Not" modifies "acquire" instead of "rational." This is the grammar parsing of the sentence:
Subject: not acquiring such information
Predicate: is rational
A sentence that conforms to your translation would read, "It is not rational to acquire..."
Is this a valid breakdown and contrapositive of the prescriptive statements? #help
Argument
P: no health --> happiness unobtainable
C: should not sacrifice health for money
P --> C
If happiness is not obtainable without health, one should not sacrifice health for money.
/C --> /P
If one should sacrifice health for money, then happiness is obtainable without health.
(E): You should acquire money only if happiness is obtainable.
I had a similar train of thought. The only way for D to be wrong is that "possibility of acting as if true" is not synonymous with "/everyone knows it's not true." Thus, someone could still act as if it is true, even if they know the claim to be false.