For this question here:

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-2-question-21/

My question:

If E is right, it didn't resolve this discrepancy. Because E implies "if all and only those who ate a particular seafood dish at the restaurant contracted the illness", which only prove that contaminated dish caused the illness. But what official believe is that "contaminated seafood caused the cases of illness". "seafood" and "dish" is not a same thing.

Stimulus:

New Age philosopher: nature evolves organically and nonlinearly...

Flaw question.

I am down to B and E

B: overlooks the possibility that the overall structure of a phenomenon is not always identical to the overall structure of the reasoning that people do about that phenomenon.

I don't know why B is wrong. It seems to me that in the stimulus philosopher claim that the overall structure of a phenomenon (Nature) is organic, holistic, nonlinear. And also philosopher recommend we use the identical overall structure of the reasoning(organic, holistic, nonlinear) to understand that phenomenon, which is exactly what B says.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-49-section-2-question-18/

Some classes of animal are so successful that they spread into virtually every ecosystem...

Answer: the argument is flaw because "what is true of a whole is also true of its constituent elements"

However, It seems to me that the argument is quite valid. All insects are so successful and ants are the most successful among insects, we can conclude that ants are also successful, which means is not a threatened species. I can't find "whole" "part" flaw here. Anyone help me ?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-1-question-17/

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-43-section-3-question-10/

Can anyone help me about the PT43-S3-Q1?

I understand A can fill the gap but it seems more like a sufficient assumption because of the word "only". So if I negate A and financial reward is not the only incentive, the conclusion seems to be ok. Because, you know, what if financial reward is the primary incentive?

and I chose c because when I negate c, I ask myself what if the cost is more significant than the future profit? the conclusion seems to fall apart.

Many Thanks.

Philosopher: It is absurd to argue that people are morally obligated to act...

I am totally lost in the last sentence of this stimulus. Can anyone clarify the meaning of last sentence to me ?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-3-question-20/

Today I do PT46, which is the first PT I do after diagnose.

I got actual 159(76 right), BR 167(87 right).

Actual Reading 19/27, Game 20/22, LR 19/25, 18/26

Blind review: Reading 23/27, Game 21/22, LR 23/25, 20/26

Time management is still a big problem, I can't finish every section except games.

Is it possible for me get 170 on October? I plan do 3 PT a week with Blind Review.

I wonder if we have PT69 and can we can the explanation for that one ?

I remember the Inference, sufficient assumption question should be the freebies for 170.

I feel great pressure and can't even sleep well at night. My aim is above 170 and now I am around actual 155, BR 165. Can I really reach my goal on the test day? I really doubt about that and feel hopeless. I spend all day long to study LSAT alone but efficiency is really low. OMG.

Please first take a look at two really tough question PT53 sec1 Q16 and PT55-S1-Q21

For PT55-S1-Q21, it seems to be most supported question, but actually it turns out to be sufficient assumption question, which the correct answer build up the gap between "many people took certain action" and "everyone ought to take action".

For PT53 sec1 Q16, I think if LSAC change the question type to necessary assumption this one will become way easier. But instead of asking assumption, they just throw Must Be True question in front of you. That makes this question much harder.

For most of inference and most supported question, there is no argument. So we can just draw the conclusion or reference based on the stimulus. But for some special inference and most supported question, there did exist an argument, sometimes with terrible flaw or gap, and then the question require you to draw the inference, then the right answer choice about this type of inference about should be the choice that build up the gap.

This type of question is really tough cause it is counter-intuition and against our judgement about the question type. They turn inference question to be assumption question.

Any thoughts? comments?

How about this question.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-1-passage-3-questions/

I still confused about A and C.

In actually test, 54% people choose C and A only 31%

I still feel C make senses.

I have been frustrating all day to get on 7sage today. Finally after redirected 7sage to new IP address, I succeed!!!

Today I learn a big lesson that 7sage is so precious and We never know the worth of water till the well is dry.

Love 7sage!

I am trying to figure out which one is experiment section and trying to score myself.

Any advice, suggestion and idea?

Today I have a big progress in weaken/strengthen question.

I find in most weaken/strengthen question, there exists a presumption and the only thing answer choice do is to give an example to answer the assumption in the stimulus "it is the case, it could be possible"(strengthen) or "it is not the case.(weaken)"

For example, in PT37 S2 Q20

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-37-section-2-question-20/

We an see choice A talks about the horses, which at first glance is irrelevant to the stimulus argument cuz stimulus talks about the Antarctic seals. But this choice answer to the presumption in the stimulus "yes it could be possible"(animal can store oxygenated blood in their spleens)

For instance, in PT 52 S3 Q19

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-52-section-3-question-19/

We can see choice A mentions"large mammals", which also seems to be irrelevant to the argument cuz the stimulus talks about dinosaurs, however, choice A answer to the assumption in stimulus(any animals dead in contorted position cuz they eat poison food) "it is not always the case".

Also, in PT 52 S1 Q21.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-52-section-1-question-21/

Choice C talks about modern writer, which again seems to be out of scope cuz stimulus talks about Homer, but it rebut the presumption in the stimulus"any work has such a difference can't be the same author."

For all three questions here, including numerous strengthen/weaken questions, I think the trap here is at first glance it seems to be irrelevant and you may eliminate them quickly. However, for strengthen/weaken question, we can have those example or similar parallel to answer the presumption in the stimulus, which seems at first not perfect enough. That's strengthen/weaken question you don't need to make a perfect argument or destroy an argument.

Hope helps.

Any comments ? Any thoughts ?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-3-question-19/

You can look at the stimulus in this link.

I believe Jon's explanation for B is wrong because an editor may modernize spelling without providing an explanation, for instance, if similar modernizing has been done in more than one quotation, then you can modernize them just inserting a general statement in the preface.

I know why D is right, but still don't know why B is wrong.

Can anyone help me clarify it?

After going through all the courses in 7sage, I found myself still confused about causation and conditional logical, especially how to know the relationship in stimulus is causation, condition, or premise and conclusion. Anyone can help me clarify it?

An artwork cannot express an emotion that the artwork's creator is incapable of experiencing.

How to translate this sentence into logical condition?

If artwork's creator incapable of experiencing, then artwork cannot express an emotion.

Am I right?

Which word is the logical indicator in this sentence?

I thought cannot is the indicator means group 2. Am I right?

Many thanks!