Im in Toronto & interested!

#help

In regards to answer choice B, it seems to me that it does not strengthen the argument but weakens it. I understand JY's explanation but the thought process I had while doing this question was different and seems more realistic to me.

Premise 1: some animals exhibit a mild reaction to this chemical that is produced by plants.

Conclusion: this chemical probably did not evolve in these plants as a chemical defense.

AC B: # of diff animals use these plants as food sources.

My thought process: Now consider a real-life example (ik we aren't supposed to bring in outside information but this seems like a perfectly valid assumption). When a plant is eaten by a number of different animals, how can it help prevent/reduce itself from being eaten? Well, if the plant starts to evolve and release this chemical that creates a mild skin reaction for some animals, then it will deter these animals from choosing this plant as their food source. Answer choice B is stating that a number of different animals eat this plant. I get that if the plants evolved to use the chemical as a defense mechanism, then animals would stop eating it, but it doesn't mean ALL animals would stop or it doesn't mean it would be as effective as it hoped to be. It could just mean that this chemical was only "strong" or effective enough to produce mild skin reactions.

Thoughts?

@ said:

You can for sure improve to a 160+. I've been in your shoes for a long time, so I know how it feels to not do so well and want better. What I did was focus HEAVILY on LR since it is half of the test. You want to be very very very strong in LR because it is half of your score. Go through the CC LR stuff and drill each question type that you go through right after doing its lessons. Don't leave RC aside though, do it once in a while so that you don't completely get screwed with that section. So do RC in between LR and LG lessons/drills as well for sure. Regarding LG, it is in fact the most learnable section of the test. 7sage is extremely well known and respected for their LG content. I personally didn't do the CC LG stuff, I just watched their free vids before I bought a package, but I highly recommend you go through the CC LG stuff! With enough LG practice, a -0 is definitely possible! I can't offer much about RC since it's my weakest section besides just drilling a ton of passages and realizing what methods work for you and which don't.

As a small side note of encouragement though: my cold score, if I remember correctly, was slightly lower than yours and I just recently scored a 170 on a PT. So there's some encouragement, I hope (:

Best of luck!

What did you find works best for you while studying & how long have u been studying for. I just started studying for the LSAT about two weeks ago and i've been learning the basics and different question types and doing questions. & what exactly does "drilling" mean?

whats the best watch to use if not the perfect watch?

can we say that L and N can tie with any of the others except K because the rules dont specifiy "no ties" ?

Hey, im interested

just want to clarify this. so this watch is still allowed right?

https://www.perfectscorewatch.com/products/perfect-score-watch-version-3-for-the-lsat-exam

Why can E not be inferred?

IF LRAL - > PA & LRAL-> S with the conclusion saying WLM ->(many) LRAL

If the conclusion is true then, can't we conclude there is some sort of intersection between WLM and any/all of LRAL's neccessary assumptions.

WLM ->(many) LRAL -> S

E says: WLM ->many S

If all LRAL are S's then why cant WLM and S interlap like E says.#help

Regarding answer choice B using Jy's logic/explanation:

NOT some interaction -> nations are bound to find it difficult to extended sympathy and justice to one another.

NOT nations are bound to find it difficult to extended sympathy and justice to one another -> some interaction.

Here it clearly contradicts the premises in the stimulus. The second conditional statement which is the contrapositive of the first clearly contradicts the premises. According to the stimulus, with little interaction it would mean little knowledge which means no/little sympathy and justice.

Also if you decide to look at the first conditional statement:

NOT some interaction could either mean no interaction or a lot of interaction. Regardless of which extreme you take, it still does not add up to " nations are bound to find it difficult to extended sympathy and justice to one another:

A lot of interaction -> nations are bound to find it difficult to extended sympathy and justice to one another

No interaction -> nations are bound to find it difficult to extended sympathy and justice to one another

(only this would make sense) But are we supposed to make this assumption that negating some = none.

I think I do remember in the negation part of the CC stating that the negation of some is none but if you decide to use "nations are bound to find it difficult to extended sympathy and justice to one another" then the conditional makes no sense.

NOT nations are bound to find it difficult to extended sympathy and justice to one another -> some interaction.

#help

@ said:

I do not have the CC. What exactly is Reference Phrasing?

A phrase or word that stands in place of somethings that has already been said.

Typically, these are pronouns.

Example:

Tigers are beautiful but vicious animals. THEY hunt and kill their prey..blah blah blah.

Who/what is "THEY" refering to? It's refering to tigers. This was a very simple example. The LSAT writers are much more creative and deceptive in the way they use referential phrasing.

I'm confused on the wording of the premise and conclusion in this argument. The premise states "more likely to develop kidney damage," whereas the conclusion states "heightened risk of kidney damage."

If something is correlated as the premise states, then isn't it logical to conclude that if you partake in drinking this tea, then due to this correlation, you do infact heightened RISK of kidney damage. The conclusion isn't saying that you WILL get kidney damage but instead it is saying heightened risk.

Also, does "can result" imply causation or does it imply increased probability, meaning it could or could not cause something. For example, eating apples can cause cavities, but it doesn't mean that if you eat apples that you will get cavities. To me, the "can cause" is showing that probability and that it is possible to have the cause without the effect.

Please help me figure out where my reasoning is going wrong. Thanks & happy studying.

#help (Added by Admin)

for Question 3, answer choice b, why can't premises be issues?

#help