Thank you!

Could you please elaborate on "don't think faster, but sooner." I am having a hard time during timed section because I am either too slow (and run out of time), or too fast (nothing registers in my brain). What is "thinking sooner"?

The argument concludes that bulging or slipped disk could not lead to back pain based on half the people in the study who had these conditions but reported no pain. Argument is trying to establish that B/slipped disk did not cause back pain. Our job is to weaken this argument by finding an answer that will establish that there is a relation between these conditions and back pain.

I know we are not to bring in real-life example but when I read this argument I thought Just because some people with these condition doesn't have pain does not mean that others who have these condition are not going to feel pain. I am sure you also thought that but the answer choices get confusing the way they are worded.

I will split Ans B in two parts-

(1) "A factor [bulging/slip disk] that is not sufficient to produce a certain effect [pain]". we know bulging/slip disk is not sufficient to cause back pain because the argument cited 1/2 in the study who had these conditions but reported no pain. If these conditions were sufficient to cause pain, then everybody should have experienced pain including those in the study.

(2) that factor [bulging/slip disk] "may nonetheless be partly responsible for that effect in some instances." Meaning, just because you cannot see the relation (between bulging/slip disk and pain) in some people (1/2 the people in the study) does not mean that the one cannot cause the other.

Putting it all together; Ans choice B is essentially saying that the speaker failed to consider the possibility that just because bulging/slip disk is not sufficient to cause pain in some does not mean that it will not cause pain in others.

I find it hard to pin down the structure of an argument when I read it exactly. I think paraphrasing is a good idea just circle all modifiers or get a clear idea of what is causing what.

Structure- the argument is noting 2 things about a certain bacteria; A (exposure to heavy metal) and B (resistance to antibiotics). We have to strengthen the idea that A promoted B.

At first, like you, I also paraphrased the argument as resistance to HM promoted resistance to antibiotics. I was also between A and B. Even if you did all of that, Ans B is still better. Ans A says that bacteria that are not resistant to antibiotics are not resistant to HM poisoning. I eliminated A because the order of the relation is reversed (don't you think?). We are trying to strengthen the idea that HM promoted resistance to antibiotics. If you examine bacteria that are NOT resistant to antibiotics, what good will it do? Answer B in effect is saying that when the cause was absent the effect was also absent, strengthening the cause effect relation. Bacteria living in HM free environment show no resistance to antibiotics.

As a disclaimer, I struggle with the causation-correlation idea too. It is so intertwined with the cause-effect idea making it hard to tell which direction to take. In addition to the 3 common rules to strengthen/weaken argument about causation-correlation, it will be a good idea to keep the rules regarding strengthening/weakening cause-effect argument in your bag of tricks.

Examine PT45 first section of LR Que no.12 (reproductive abnormalities in fish). It is a very difficult weakening question. I think the structure of Que12 is very similar to 64-sec1-22.

I framed the argument like below trimming out all the details

Premise- Journalists are getting valuable training

Conclusion- lower salary is thus justified

I think C needs a big leap in assumption. You have to assume that "hitting a plateau" affects the ability to provide valuable training. As you noted, that is not true. I do not think B needs any further assumptions. it is just saying that the newspaper's employees do not need any training. So the newspaper's claim is not justified. Does it matter if the newspaper is evolving or not? Your task is to poke a hole in the link between premise and conclusion.

You are on the right track. I think the problem was with the way the answer is phrased. Some of the resolve-reconcile and strengthen questions present answer choices like this by not making the meaning obvious (vs. answer choices that need further assumption).

Here are some more points to consider- the amount of reading you have to do in law school is overwhelming. In some cases close to 100 pages per day (per class). With an infant it will be hard to get enough sleep and it will be harder to manage your classes without good sleep. Additionally, what are your child care options? Infants fall sick a lot if they are in daycare (more sleepless nights for you). Also, you need to consider launching your career after school. That means finding a way to get an internship with a law firm during summer.

Hi,

I categorized this question as cause-effect (with a weak conclusion "does not significantly affect"). In this case, no-cause-effect. The argument claims that advertising does not significantly affect children's preference. You can weaken this argument by showing a way in which TV can influence. Ans A does that.

bswise2,

Thank you for taking the time. I see where I got confused- a silly mistake and I did not even realize it. Your response made me look at the argument again. Thanks again for the explanation and your time.

Hi bswise2,

Thanks for the response. I wish 7sages has not edited the subject of my post (it said clarification for video explanation). Yes, I did the CC and understand what you are saying. Watch the video posted right under my post. I think you got one of the conditional statements mixed up here. Are you saying that "S --> 3+" is the final conclusion? or intermediary conclusion? Because I see 2 conclusions in the argument given. I completely agree with everything you have written. My question is very, very specific- how does Answer choice B show that there is a necessary-sufficient confusion in relation to the premise given. The some statements you given here as example is the same as my statement about "P --> Q does not preclude the possibility of R --> Q" (I am just looking at this from a different angle). Could you please watch the video link and let me know what you think? I appreciate your time.

Sweetsecret think about the numberline JY uses in the lessons. I think that is the best way to remember this.

I believe there is no need for the not here

Between 0-50% of the trade goods that came into western Mexico centuries ago were [not ]transported by boat.

Thank you guys

I am interested in this study group. I am preparing for Sep 2017. Mom of 2 here

I think one is the contrapositive of the other. As described in the comment above, it conveys the idea that the 2 pieces are always apart. Here is how:

(1) /J ----> L = /L ------> J (2) (either or)

(3) J ------>/L = L ------> /J (4) (not both)

If you look at representations (1) and (4), you will see that the arrow is going back and forth (so to speak). Same for (2) and (3). Thus, if you find two separate statements or a statement with "either or.... not both" in it, you can set it up this way and conclude that the pieces are forever apart.

Hope that helps. If I am wrong, I am sure @pkmenonmenon196 will let us both know.

The second one is not a valid form

@jclaridge202 you might not be as bad as you think. I struggle with all the issues you have written here with the difference that your score is still much better than mine. So it is possible what you are doing is working. Just that you have to keep doing what you are doing a bit longer.

Regarding timing for LG. Like you, I can solve any game, but not within the time limit. I guess there is a correlation between strategy and timing. Previously my strategy for game was "solve game using whatever strategy that comes to my mind on any given day." What i am doing now is trying to learn the 7sage strategy through repetition. May be there is a benefit in not recreating the wheel. Also, I work with the same game over and over (and not using new ones)- quality over quantity.

For LR, have you tried watching some of the webinars available- like the one for flaw?

Good luck.

Regarding the tutor question, I will say do not waste your money just yet. Wait till you are closer to your target score. I tried 2 tutors. I wish I hadn't. I found 7sage a bit late. The cc plus the video explanations helped me more than the tutors. Also, when you finally make that decision, hire someone from here so you do not have to learn a different strategy to solve problems.

MrYC, you are correct about the split

thank you