Could someone tell me if my negation of D and E is correct? I don't really understand how to negate E actually! #help#help#help

D) If more of the British people of 30 years ago to vacation abroad, more people still would not have vacationed.

In other words: Ok makes sense why this is correct. This leaves open that people 30 years did not want to vacation for some other reason (preference etc.) so money is not a determinant, 30 years ago they could have still been hella rich.

E) If British people are wealthier now than 30 years ago, they don't have more money to spend on vacations now than they did 30 years ago.

In other words, wait what??? #help#help#help

Q6- FLAW

Context- there are new reports of the health risks of some substances like coffee and sugar.

P: One year, report said that coffee is bad for one’s health.

Next year, report said that coffee has some benefits for one’s health.

C: From these contradictory opinions, we see that experts are useless for guiding one’s decisions about one’s health.

Flaw prediction: (1) Takes for granted that experts are the only people writing the reports.

(2) Fails to consider that results may be contradictory, but the experts don’t have to be useless! They could have just found competing information.

(3) Fails to consider that something be bad but also have some benefits? Having a lot of coffee is bad for me, but it can also be beneficial in SOME (atleast one) respect! (This is AC E)

The key to this question is understanding the two populations being compared: households w/ cats and households w/ dogs. During timed practice, I made the dumb mistake of putting both the percentages in a single population bubble, that led me to A and E!! Just reading and parsing out the grammar of the stim got me to B.

@ said:

@ Where do I find the podcast? Thanks

Hi, i just googled "Accounts Playable 7sage podcast" and it showed up as a soundcloud link!

#help When you do a RC section, do you decide which passage to start with based on the number of questions? or do you just do them in order?

Hi, I am happy to know that I am not alone!!!! I am taking the test in October and I am in a similar boat as you, performance wise and goal score wise. Two weeks ago I was scoring -10 / -11 on LR, -9/-10 on RC and -5 LG despite doing much, much better during BR. This week I scored my first 161 and I think I broke that rut of mine. Here are some things that helped me-

(1) Once I realized I was just making dumb mistakes in LR, I reversed the timing aspect of the section by using a stopwatch instead of a countdown timer. I realized a lot of my stress came from the timer, so I did a few practice sections with a stopwatch to ease my nerves and reassure myself that I actually do know the material!!!

(2) I also started forcing myself to enjoy RC lol. Similar to you, I don't like the abstract/ science passages much (some of the abstract legal ones are tough too for me) so what I try to do is having a running real life parallel that I compare the abstract words to. For example, I did a passage on free will and the law and I was legit like ????. But i just used a real life parallel in my head. I do this with plenty of tough LR stimuli too.

(3) Finally, I stopped trying super hard. This may seem really counter-intuitive, I know, but I have been consciously trying to stop racking my brains over every question and beating myself up over every wrong answer. This has been the hardest thing for me to do, and its honestly a battle everyday. Once I start panicking during a section and I hear myself thinking, "uh oh, i'm gonna screw this section up", I force myself to take a few seconds, roll back my shoulders, and take a breath. Then I get back to it. This helps like 9/10 times.

I hope this helps in some way. Please share some of your tips too!

Hi! I am taking the October exam and just had the same issue after taking a PT yesterday. I am still at the score I was at a month ago, despite studying full-time and as effectively as I can. Reading this makes me a little happy that I am not the only one, and also more encouraged! All we can do is keep going and not give up. Good things (and scholarships ;) ) take time!!

@ said:

@ said:

Blind review like your life depends on it. Review that lesson on how to properly blind review.

This.

Listen to the @ episode from the 7Sage podcast to get a good idea of the depth you should try to get to during BR.

I just listened to the podcast and you are right, it was super helpful! Thank you.

Yea...... I skipped this one

Got this question because I simply misread so many things about this stimulus and the ACs!!! Arrghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

#help Would (B) be correct if it said "takes for granted that technology beneficial to society cannot also be motivated by considerations of personal gain?", or "takes for granted that technology motivated by considerations of personal gain cannot also be beneficial to society?"

Q19 was easy for me as I had drilled and annotated JY's phenomenon - hypothesis structure

Just wondering, how long did this passage take you 7sagers? I am having a tough time pacing myself with passages

#help #help #help #help For Qns 13 what evidence/ how can we infer that biologists initially thought that all genes were inherited vertically? In fact, I cancelled that out because in line 9 it says that biologists never believed Lamarck that " the inheritance of acquired characteristics" could occur.

How I understood (A):

"Mistakes a condition that sometimes accompanies unsafe levels of smog (hot days) for a condition that necessarily accompanies unsafe levels of smog." (in other words, if you see unsafe levels, hot days MUST accompany it / unsafe levels -> hot days). Is this what the argument is doing? No it is not! It is descriptively wrong.

I think this answer choice is subtle and very clever. I ended up correctly picking (B) because I have gotten used to visualizing most of the some/most relationships using the bucket theory, so the 'set' abstract language was easier for me to comprehend.

This answer choice would be correct if it said "Mistakes a condition that sometimes accompanies unsafe levels of smog (hot days) for a condition that necessarily accompanies accompanies hot days- our chain would be E ←s→ U→ H , from which you can conclude E ←s→ H.

But again, this is not even descriptively accurate to the argument!!

this question made me really mad at the LSAC

Could someone explain 25 please? I thought the answer was E! :( #help

Yes! I take a PT in the morning, break for lunch and then BR two sections. I finish the rest two / three sections and also review/make notes the next day. Giving myself space from the test helps me retake my circled questions with fresh eyes and also my brain doesn't get fried :smile:

Hi! I used Kaplan and switched over to 7sage in June. I found myself letting go of Kaplan's methods the more I drilled the CC- I made notes, flashcards, and did all of the practice sets. I also participated in a lot of the comments and that helped too. Now, I'm in my PT stage and I am surprisingly using both Kaplan and 7sage depending on the question type. (Kaplan's approach to predicting flaws in their PT explanations are helpful for me)

My current issue is that I can easily predict spot out the flaw in my prephrase (like for this qns I knew it was suff vs necessary flaw), but I have a problem when seeing that flaw translated to an AC. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to improve on this? #help

The lawgic was helpful, I guess I just need to fine tune when I apply it without paying much attention to the detail. I think my strategy from now on will be if after reading the stimulus twice I am not able to understand it AND I can see the clear use of cookie cutter words, then I will attempt this strategy of using only lawgic.

Now for why (B) is wrong, as per the detail of the stimulus:

Sentence 3 of the stim is saying: IF the media looked at a range of opinion that was much narrower than what the consumers have (Media considers only opinions #1 - #3 on gun control, but consumers of the media actually have opinions #1 - #50), then we can say that the power of the media to impose their opinion on us is too much.

But this assumption is untrue. Now, what does it mean for "assumption to be untrue?"

It means that it is not the case that media looks a range of opinion that is narrower than what the consumers have. The media's range of opinion could be atleast as broad as the consumer's or even broader.

All the things wrong with (B) :

1. It is descriptively wrong. From the negation above, we never established the 'right' amount of exposure ("at least as much exposure as they should? We don't know that). The assumption is a purely comparative statement between the media's opinions and the consumers, and there is no mention of that in the AC.

2. Finally, even if it was descriptively accurate, I still do not think it would be the correct answer because this is challenging the premise only. The point of flaw questions is to accept the premise as correct, and see whether it supports the conclusion.

Please let me know if I am correct!!!?

Argh I chose (E)!! Here is why I was wrong-

"Undermine some of Anne's evidence" - but where?

Anne's evidence: HC recently flared brightly enough to be seen by a telescope. No comet has ever been observed so far from the sun before"

If Sue was undermining the evidence, she could say- "HC was not actually that bright, accord to science stats." OR "Actually, in the 1895, we say a comet from the sun"

Sue actually says that no one actually bothers to check! It could actually be a very common sight.

"...while agreeing with her conclusion" - oh really?

Anne's conclusion: HC is very unusual.

Does Sue thing the HC's flare is unusual? We don't actually know! At most, we could probably infer that the observatory tracking the HC ery carefully is unusual, because usually no one bothers to observe such comets. But for all we know, the actual flare of the HC is very common to other comets that are at a similar distance from the sun.

#help Is this a type of question that you skip and come back to later?

P1: We want to assure max total utility -> pure free market economy.

P2: Although there other types of economies might be able to achieve it. (One of the few times, the LSAT tests you on this part of a sentence, isn't it usually just filler?!!)

C: So, A country that has a highly controlled economy is not acting in the way that is most likely to bring about max total ut.

Thought process:

From P1, A country that has a highly controlled economy pure free market economy -> cannot be assured of max total utility.

But we know that other types of ecos could achieve. So how can we say that a highly controlled eco will most likely not achieve it? For all we know, after a pure free market, the next type of eco that can make max total utility the most likely is a highly controlled economy!

An analogy: I think the key to this question is identifying the shift in certainty and keeping in mind the contrapositive of P1.

We want to be assured of a 175 LSAT score -> study for 10 hours a day and drink 4 cups of coffee.

Although there are other methods of studying to achieve a 175 score.

So, if I study for only 5 hours a day and drink 2 cups of coffee, I am not acting in the way that is most likely to bring me a 175 score.

How can we be so sure! I might not be assured of a 175, but it sure as hell is more likely!

Conclusion: Moore is a bad plumber, he cannot do a good job!!

Premise: Every complaint that has been filed against a plumber has been about him.

Thought process: Wait a second, how many complaints were actually filed? Like 2 complaints? That is not enough to decide.

Also, how many plumbers are in the town? If Moore is the only plumber in town, and the complaints were all about him, then duh, we can't decide. (Maybe he just had a bad day, and someone took it out on him!) Conversely, what if there were 100000 plumbers in the town, and every complaint was about Moore! Then, we can convincingly say that Moore is not good at his job.

I initially chose (E) thinking that it reflected the first flaw of the number of complaints against Moore. But it actually does far from that. (E) considers the motivations of the people who filed a complaint, i.e., their dissatisfaction. It leaves open the possibility that there were other people who were dissatisfied and didn't complain, and/or that there were people who weren't dissatisfied but still complained. Regardless, it does not address the main issue at hand which is that the # of complaints (regardless of motives etc) cannot be used exclusively to decide if Moore is a competent plumber or not.

Thought process for this question: Price of one bottle now and in 1991 :

10$. Profit per bottle = price - cost of single bottle.

Cost = glass bottle (3$) + cork (2$).

So my profit should be like 5$. But wait! between 1991 and now, costs of the corks have nearly doubled (from 2 to 4$). So clearly, my profit has fallen.

First step, identify the subject in all of the answer choices and see if they are relevant to the inferences made. Only (B) and (D) remain! Both (B) and (D) talk about profits decreasing, but (D) touches on aggregate profit, which is all the bottle combined (Can other things impact aggregate profit? We haven't touched on the number of bottles sold between 1991 and now! (B) talks about per bottle which remains in the purview of the stimulus. so that is the correct answer.