A question for those who do well on RC. Do the top scorers avoid subvocalization? I've been tinkering with methods that work best for me on the RC section, and I'm curious if top scorers say the words in their head when reading through RC passages.
I got tripped up with this question because I didn't think "strongly drive" indicates necessity... Is that supposed to be a common sense equivocation the LSAT expects of us ?
For AC (E), I do not understand how "The pumping costs increase with the distance the water is pumped." is not evidence for the claim "The greatest expense in irrigated agriculture is in pumping the water." That seems like direct evidence as to why the greatest expense in irrigated agriculture is in pumping water (because distance).
Any help is appreciated.
Is ac (A) not directly attacking the premise?
I got this question right during my timed run, but it took me way too long as I had difficulties eliminating answer choice E. I easily identified the flaw as sufficiency vs necessary, but my problem with ac C was that it's referring to the "natural world as a whole" as an object. This made 0 sense to me.
Thoughts?
So "how to be a good son or daughter" is not a topic that students involved in the study think that a parent and child would be most likely to discuss when speaking Spanish for AC (D)??
I got this question wrong during the timed run and BR. I'm having a very difficult time understanding how the conclusion "funding for children's athletic programs should not be eliminated" can be understood as "adopting a policy." I think its a stretch to assume that saying we shouldn't get rid of something is the same as being in favor of adopting a policy.
All because I think my middle school shouldn't have gotten rid of hot fries at lunch doesn't mean I'm necessarily pushing for them to remain as a snack option.... I could just be indifferent...?
I broke down this question during BR and made a prediction for what I believed the role played in the argument was as follows: It's a statement that the critics try to bash, but the teacher ultimately uses to establish her main conclusion that funding for children athletic programs should not be eliminated.
This led me to AC "D".....
@
I'm having trouble wrapping my head around "precondition" indicating a necessary condition. Doesn't precondition mean something "that happens before another condition in order for something else to happen." Sounds like our textbook definition of a sufficient condition...? In need of some help please.
I really don't think A is a very bizarre answer choice at all. I missed this question during my timed run but answered correctly during BR. I think ac A would have been the correct answer and completely consistent with the stimulus if the word "perform" was switched out with "observe."
During BR ac E was clearly the correct answer. Under timed conditions I was trying to move too quickly and fell in love with ac A without reading thoroughly through the entire ac.
So I got this question correct by using POE, but I'm still having trouble seeing how a conflation between "competitive sports" and "any sport" is the flaw.... I guess what I'm trying to figure out is how can a sport be non-competitive? I just don't find it to be unreasonable to assume that a sport is necessarily competitive.....? Idk
Hello all! I have a quick question. I'm in the PT phase of my studies, and I'm wondering if 7sage has a tool that shows all the questions I've marked with a star? I typically star the questions I've got wrong on my first go around, and was hoping I could see a full list of those that I marked over the course of my studies thus far. I figured this would be a good strategy for addressing my weaknesses before I continue to move forward. Not sure if this is a thing or not, but any information/advice is always appreciated!
Would like a little help on Question #4. I was between C and D, but chose D. Wasn't the takeaway from paragraph 3 that we need to take oral testimony with a grain of salt because a person will tend to over-exaggerate the details of the events as they occurred? I used lines 37-43 to support answer choice D, that we shouldn't use Tuckers' historical account of the events as an objectively accurate report, which is what D states......
I contrasted this with answer choice C, where I felt it was a stretch to say that lines 16-18 "help shed new light on a part of U.S. entertainment history about which, so far, there has been insufficient scholarship" can be said to be "significant information." My rationale was just because the work of Tucker helped shed new light on a part a history that nobody cared about previously, doesn't necessarily mean it was a significant amount of information... It could have just been a minor detail. I understand the passage later goes into greater detail about the authors study and Tuckers' work, but I felt as though it's more of a stretch to call these findings "significant detail" in contrast to answer choice D that seems to me to be directly supported from paragraph 3.
Any help is appreciated. Thank you
This makes much more sense. Thanks guys @ @
Hello all,
I’m seeking some clarification for the following argument that is given as an example of a “Belief vs Facts” flaw in the Core Curriculum.
Admin edit: Removed. Please link to the argument and do not post things directly from the course.
My breakdown of the argument is as follows:
A (FRB) is a (X)
Dr. L knows that her colleague’s lab detected a (FRB) earlier this year
Therefore, Dr. L knows that her colleagues lab detected an (X)
The curriculum says the conclusion does not follow because it’s not clear that Dr. L knows what (X) is, except that her colleague’s lab detected one. So my question is would the conclusion follow if it instead said “Therefore, Dr. L knows that her colleague’s lab detected a (FRB)”, rather than an (X) that was erroneously concluded? I’m just a little tripped up because the argument is concluding that Dr. L knows that her colleague’s lab detected something (X), which follows from the premise that Dr. L knows that her colleagues lab detected an (FRB), which is an (X). I feel as though my lack of understanding for this flaw is exploited time and time again on LR questions so any additional insight is appreciated. Thanks!
I got this question wrong during the timed run, and even after getting the correct answer during BR, I think AC (B) makes an unfair presumption that children who are antisocial in school are more likely to act out/be disciplined. My common sense knowledge of the world actually makes me believe otherwise. I find it more reasonable to believe that the children who are social are more likely to act out/be disciplined than the quiet/antisocial children. Never in my years would I believe an antisocial child is more likely to be disciplined than a social child. Coming from personal experience, myself and my friend group were the "social" kids always acting like assholes causing chaos and getting in trouble.. wheres the "antisocial" kids were consistently the least problematic....
I've grown to love the LSAT, but I sometimes find it unreasonable how the writers decide when/what to pick and choose what common sense outside knowledge is reasonable to presume.
This question taught me a great lesson not to be so quick to throw away an answer choice because the first half is complete trash. After reading the first sentence, I failed to give the rest of the AC the respect it deserved and eliminated it, ultimately falling for trap AC (A) through POE.
I feel as though I missed Q13 during my timed run and BR because I was too quick to go right to the only place I knew 1989 was mentioned, and got stuck on just that area of the passage. I find that the newer passages use this tactic to easily trap test takers into focusing too narrowly on where a date/phrase was mentioned. The answer is clearly E, and is supported from lines 33-36. This is simply an adjustment that we have to make as test takers, at least for me.
Can somebody give me some assistance as to why answer choice A is incorrect? Seems to me as if we are denying the necessary condition of efforts necessary, but still satisfying the sufficient condition of following a leader... J.Y's explanation of A makes no sense to me.
Hello all,
I’d like to start off by congratulating those who just finished taking this past June administration! I’m taking the LSAT this September, and I’m looking for some advice as far the PT phase of my prep. I’ve been fortunate enough to have access to every published PT, so I’m wondering if it makes sense to take every single one of them. Sticking to my original plan of taking every PT, I would be taking about 4 PT’s a week up until the September administration. I took PT’s 1-3 so far and my scores have thus far been sporadic, and much lower than I’ve anticipated considering where I believe my level of understanding actually is with the LSAT, and also having been through the curriculum twice with months of previous preparation.
After having taken PTs 1-3 so far, I feel as though the LR sections in particular have been substantially different from the questions I’ve been prepping with through the curriculum, JY’s videos, the LSAT Trainer, the Power score Bibles, and foolishly enough…. a Kaplan book or two (lol). So really my question is, from the experience of others in the community, if it makes sense to take the earliest PT’s, and if BR’ing and learning from the questions will actually be of use for my upcoming September administration? Or if I should limit my focus to the more recent exams… say around 20 or so, and to retake the PT’s in the 60’s and 70’s if I have the time.
A thank you in advance to any of those who take the time to respond, any advice is appreciated.
For #10 I don't understand how lines 45-53 is not a textbook analogy.... "Naomi's reacquaintance with her past is compared with the biblical story of turning stone into bread.... But implicit in these hard facts, K suggests, is also the "bread" of a spiritual sustenance that will allow Naomi to affirm the durability of her people and herself." I chose (D) for #10 because I thought this was a clear example of an extended analogy.
I do not understand.
Got this question wrong solely because I failed to equivocate skeptical with critical...... I guess that's a common sense presumption in LSAT land. Nice
A day or two before the exam on Monday would be ideal =))))) @
bump. Will the explanations for this PT be available before exam day next Monday? @
So is certain the only word that makes B incorrect and A correct ?
I was between C and E, but unfortunately chose E. I felt as though the conclusion in the first sentence: "I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson" doesn't necessarily imply that the attorney is saying "he did in fact threaten her." Building the bridge from the attorneys asking to find Mr. Smith guilty to the answer choice that he did in fact threaten her felt like an assumption to me which is why I didn't choose C...? Any additional clarification would be appreciated.
I am having trouble with Question 1. I felt as though when the author says "The images WERE PROBABLY intended to make these animals vulnerable to the weapons of the hunters...." most supports B. I figured that saying something is "probably the case" is most likened to "hesitant agreement" in AC B. I was between A B C and couldn't decide, so I used lines 43-44 to support hesitant agreement.
Thoughts anyone ?
For answer choice (B), would substituting the word "accidents" for "injuries" make this correct?