@ said:

Thanks for the reply, I appreciate the detailed information. I think I will just purchase some recent PTs from LSAC directly and use those in combination with the 7Sage PTs I already have. Curious if you have any strong opinions about studying for the digital LSAT using paper PTs?

I definitely think buying a few recent exams is a better strategy than not seeing them at all. But I would argue that you're still missing a lot by not having the 7Sage explanation videos. I think you can buy individual PTs from 7Sage and would strongly recommend doing that if it's an affordable option. Otherwise, if you can't get them from 7Sage, just be sure you're doing the strongest and most disciplined blind review possible. Really make sure you've broken down and analyzed the exam questions before looking at the answers.

As for the paper vs. digital prep, I think digital prep is really valuable and would say that the more closely you simulate the real exam-day scenario, the better you will do. I think you have to be more than merely comfortable using the digital interface, it has to be second nature so that on test day, you're running on auto-pilot to navigate between questions, flag, and highlight text. Everything needs to be force of habit so you don't waste a second adapting to an unfamiliar interface. For example, I've found that highlighting in the digital version (both 7Sage's and LSAC's) is too clumsy and not nearly responsive enough to use on RC. In fact, the only time I use the highlight function is for LR argument part questions.

If you absolutely must use the the paper exam for some reason, I would be incredibly strict with yourself and not markup the stimuluses or RC sections.

Yes, it's suggested under testing conditions. I'm pretty sure they are based on his own time. The ideal times for the four games in any given LG section cumulatively total 35 minutes, so you might be +1/2 minutes on one kind of game, but -1/2 minutes on another.

You're likely to get a lot of differing views to this question. But to put my bottom line up front: yes, I think you are missing out by not seeing any PTs in the 60s, 70s, or 80s. If you're aiming for a score in the mid-160s, I would argue that you absolutely need exposure to the more recent tests, though that doesn't mean that you should neglect the older exams.

I've taken close to 20 practice tests ranging from PT 36 to PT 87, and also took the actual LSAT in both September and November (i.e. yesterday). So take my advice for what you think it's worth.

Games: First, the LG substitution and rule equivalence questions are introduced somewhere in the 60s. You're practically guaranteed to encounter this question on the real test, it's quite common these days. Not having practiced this kind of question often could cost you a question or two on test day. That said, they also tend to be the curve-breaker questions. Even JY says that unless you're very good at LG (and shooting for a high score), you should strongly consider skipping the rule equivalence questions. Second, although they didn't show up on the last three LSATs, the "miscellaneous games" are increasingly common. These games don't qualify as grouping, in/out, or sequencing. You'll see a few examples in the 30s-50s, but not as many as on the more recent PTs.

LR: I agree with JY's analysis here, which is that at their core, all LR questions are testing the same core concepts no matter how old. At a fundamental level, if you're solid on your logic and follow the 7Sage method of diagraming arguments and identifying assumptions, you're in good shape. That said, I believe JY has said that the newer LR questions seem to ask questions in a slightly different way. I totally agree with him, but it's hard for me to put my finger on the precise differences. There generally seems to be fewer questions that make use of conditional logic and more arguments that involve contrived situations and scenarios. I don't think it's fair to call the newer questions more difficult, but they do require you to quickly ID assumptions to strengthen/weaken, identify the NA/SA, or resolve the paradox (RRE). I also think the argument part questions have become much more difficult on the very recent exams. It's no longer as simple as identifying a premise or conclusion, but in some cases explaining how the premise supports the conclusion or determining whether a premise receives any support from elsewhere in the argument.

Reading Comp: The general consensus is that the reading comp sections have become more difficult in recent years. I agree with this. Moreover, the "split passage" section is introduced somewhere in the 60s, I believe, in which a single reading is split into two passages by different authors. All recent LSATs have included a split passage reading, so you will definitely want to get comfortable on the 7Sage strategy for attacking these kinds of passages.

I hope that's helpful. To repeat my bottom line: if you're aiming for a 165+, I don't think it's possible without exposure to recent tests. That doesn't mean that you should neglect the older exams - they all complement each other and play a critical role in preparing you for the real test.

#A: This information was already given to us in the last sentence of the stim. Merely repeating it isn’t going to help us draw that conclusion because Kapp realized his action was putting people at risk, then it was therefore wrong for him to do so.

#B: This seems like a necessary assumption as opposed to a sufficient assumption. It certainly doesn’t allow the conclusion to be properly drawn.

#C: Who cares…. next!

#D: If P→C. Great!

#E: This also reads like a necessary assumption. Regardless whether Kapp knew (or ought to have known) that using the inferior materials would put people at serious risk, we still need to connect the idea that Kapp putting people at seriously risk is wrong to do so.

A couple observations about the last two answer choices:

I think #E is trying to confuse us by suggesting that alcohol and dieting doesn’t bring about impairment in the same why (physiologically speaking). But so what?! The conclusion never said that dieting causes impairment in the same way as alcohol. It just said that the net level of impairment was roughly equal. So even if dieting causes impairment by lowering glucose levels whereas drinking causes impairment by slowing the central nervous system, both things are still causing impairment! #E is just explaining the physiology behind how dieting causes impairment, which at the end of the day, is helpful in explaining the results!

As for the correct answer... one way in which I think this question is cookie-cutter is that the LSAT repeatedly baits us into being irrational conspiracy theorists. #D is baiting us to suspect that because the pilots were curious about the implications of dieting, perhaps subconsciously they performed worse knowing that that dieting would negatively affect their flying abilities. But this is a giant (conspiracy theorist) assumption. We have no idea! It’s equally possible that under this scenario, the pilots were aware that they were at a distinct disadvantage because they were dieting and sought to make up for it by being extra-careful and cautious while flying. Either way, #D doesn’t help explain the results.

Ok, so we need support for the notion that giant slots were killed off by humans, not by climate change/end of the ice age.

#A: Wait a minute, I thought we were trying to strengthen the argument that humans killed off the slots, not weaken it! Definitely eliminate this.

#B: Who care about smaller tree-dwelling sloths. I’m not a sloths expert and have no idea how similar or dissimilar small sloths are from giant sloths. It’s totally possible that they are dissimilar enough that whatever was responsible for killing off giants sloths didn’t affect small tree-dwelling sloths at all.

#C: How much less adaptable? Significantly less adaptable or marginally less adaptable? If the latter, then this doesn’t really weaken the argument much or at all.

#D: Now our argument becomes even more mysterious. Was it the end of the ice age or the humans? No idea!

#E: Perfect. This is independent evidence that supports the scientists’ belief that it’s humans, not the end of the ice age, that is to blame!

The other ACs would be correct if instead the stim had said:

#B: “Honey Oats cereal is made with whole-grain oats, which experts agree improves your overall health if consumed in cereal. Sugar Bombs cereal does not contain whole-grain oats. Therefore, Sugar Bombs cereal cannot possibly improve your overall health.”

#D: “A recent survey revealed that nearly all Olympic Athletes start their day with a bowl of Honey Oats cereal. Olympic Athletes are among the healthiest people on the earth. Therefore, it must be true that Honey Oats makes you healthier!”

#E: “Honey Oats cereal is healthy because it’s good for your health.”

(As for #C, are there even two distinct meanings of “healthful”? I’m not sure!)

My analysis of each answer choice:

#A bolsters the argument. It’s basically re-enforcing the results observed in M and F, and saying that not only did officials in those cities have success convincing many regular donors to increase their donation frequency, but this translated into actual increases in the blood supply. Thus, all things equal, it ought to work in P too.

#B bolsters the argument as well. If convincing regular donors worked in M and F, and they have proportionally fewer regular donors than P, then it seems logical that it would definitely work out in P as well (since there are proportionally more regular donors to work with).

#C is another option that strengthens the argument. So not only do recruiting regular donors produce an immediate increase, but it also increases the long-term blood levels too.

#D is irrelevant. We don’t care about the number of sporadic blood donors; that’s not who the argument is talking about. It’s talking about the regular blood donors! Move on.

#E is correct by POE. Read it really quickly to confirm, but don't spend too much time considering it. Upon further analysis, #E is calling out a giant necessary assumption made by the argument, which is that P’s regular blood donors are able to give more. (If this was an NA question, the assumption would read, “Most of Pulaski’s regular blood donors are not already giving blood as frequently as is medically safe.”)

I totally appreciate JY's technical explanation of the logic, I think it's important and I like the exercise he suggests by coming up with parallel analogies to the B*/B' comparison in the stimulus. That said, I thought about this a little differently on timed/BR. My line of thinking was that if meeting high ethical standards is primarily a matter of refraining from unethical behavior (what #B says), then how is the news media possibly going to publicize this fact to help people patronize those businesses? What's the story going to be? "Business X didn't undertake a massive money laundering scheme to cheat the government." "Business Y didn't lie to its customers last year." "Business Z hasn't gruesomely murder the CEOs of its main competitors yet." If #B is true, then I cannot possibly imagine a world in which the media could feasible do this. It would never work!

#A: Yes, the owners will certainly receive a citation. If they can demonstrate extenuating circumstances, then they won’t be fined. But they will still receive a citation!

#B: Wrong because the city merely “has the right” to clear sidewalks still covered after 24 hours. It doesn’t mean that the city will necessarily clear all sidewalks and bill the owners.

#C: Again, the city merely “has the right” to clear sidewalks still covered after 24 hours. The stim says nothing about physically clearing sidewalks after 48 hours.

#D: Not necessarily true. What if nearly all landowners can demonstrate extenuating circumstances? Then they would not be fined.

#E: This is also a mashup of different ideas from the stim. Landowners demonstrating extenuating circumstances are exempt from receiving citations – not from being billed for the removal service.

#A is irrelevant because it’s talking about something else entirely (healing the underlying injury). Whereas the argument in the stim is talking about relieving lower back pain. Therefore, it's the correct answer to this question.

#B yes, this is absolutely a flaw! It could be pure coincidence that the athlete applied the heating pad when the injury was already clearing up.

#C yes, exactly! Another glaring flaw! You can’t generalize based on this one little case. (What statistics calls a “small ‘n’ problem"!.)

#D is absolutely calling out a problem with the stim, because the stim concludes based on this one specific case that heating pads are more effective. But it’s making a massive generalization about just this one case!

#E is another great point calling out a weakness of the argument. What if the person in this example was just terrible at stretching?

Down to C and E.

#C supports the hypothesis because it supports the notion that seals instinctively swim away from any killer whale chatter the first time they hear it. It’s only after they learn that a particular chatter is innocuous that they begin to ignore it. In other words, it’s not because the seals are young that they show aversion to all killer whales, it’s actually that they’re just not familiar with the various dialects yet. They can’t distinguish which ones are safe and which ones are harmful.

#E doesn’t make much sense to me. It seems like in order to develop an ear for killer whale chatter, a particular seal needs to nearly be killed to death by a friendly whale? Was the seal trying to avoid the fish-eating killer whale at the time? I don’t really see how this supports the hypothesis.

Conclusion: One should choose a career in a profession other than art.

Premises:

- It is unacceptable for one’s pay to be determined by subjective evaluations of one’s work.

- Whether and how much artists get paid is determined by subjective evaluations by viewers or audiences of their work.

The argument is saying that one should avoid a career in art because it is unacceptable for one’s pay to be determined by subjective evaluations. But this requires the assumption that other careers do not have the same problem, which is that one’s pay is determined by subjective evaluations. #C calls this out.

#A: To be correct, the stim would need to say, “One should not choose a career in art because the art profession does not pay well.”

#B: To be correct, the stim would need to say, “…Whether and how much artists get paid is determined by subjective evaluations by viewers or audiences of their work who will either all consider your work incredibly beautiful, or else no one will consider it so.”

All arguments by analogy break down at some point – you just have to drill down far enough to the point where you can show that the two things being compared (in this case the usefulness of dictionaries for law and periodic tables for chemistry) are dissimilar. The stim tells us that periodic tables are “agreed-upon background information” that can help solve chemistry problems. So, the correct AC will likely dispute this characterization of a dictionary.

#B does this very well. It reiterates what we were already told in the stim, which is that there is consensus about the periodic table (“agreed-upon”), but that lawyers disagree about the different definitions of words in the dictionary. And indeed this is a great point! A periodic table is the same no matter what source you use to look it up – but dictionaries vary widely in the definitions they assign words, depending on the publisher! This is a great weakening answer choice.

#A isn’t helpful because, while it distinguishes periodic tables from dictionaries in one sense, it doesn’t seem relevant to the argument in the stim. If instead the stim had said, “The periodic table is useful for chemists because it presents a clear pattern that is vital for interpreting the relationships between elements,” then perhaps this AC would be more apt.

#E just because dictionaries aren’t currently used primarily doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be! The stim isn’t making the argument that they are similar because they are both used as primary sources. Rather, it’s making the argument that they can be usefully applied in similar ways.

“… and the most common form of this enzyme (CYP2A6) eliminates nicotine from the body the fastest.” This is what we’re looking for, an indeed nearly exactly what #A says. Great!

#D: The stim never says anything about the quantity of the enzyme that people produce. So, we can’t make any judgements about the quantity of CYP2A6 that people produce.

My analysis:

#A: This seems well supported. If some doctors believe that VC can be useful in treating the symptoms of some common illnesses, and VC is crucial in some way to the body’s connective tissue and bones, then it seems highly likely that the illnesses are themselves involved with this connective tissue and bones.

#B: No, it doesn’t need to be the only substance that produces and maintains collagen. Perhaps there are hundreds of other substances that produce and maintain collagen, but just at a really minimal level. Perhaps AC is the best of the hundred or so substances that do this; that could be the reason why some doctors believe that VC can be useful.

#C: This seems to be a bit circular. If VC is producing more collagen, and collagen is involved in the connective tissue and bones, then why would this be helpful to increase the body’s ability to use certain vitamins? Moreover, which vitamins are we talking about? If “certain vitamins” means VC, then this really doesn’t make any sense. VC would be strengthening the connective tissue and bones to increase the body’s ability to use VC to in turn produce collagen to… support tissue and bones? What’s the connection to illnesses?

#D: No, this would be supported if instead the stim had said, “…For this reason, some doctors believe that VC is the only useful substance in treating the symptoms of some common illnesses.”

#E: You can stop reading after the first half of this AC. “Some doctors believe that any illness that can be ameliorated with VC…” Wait, what? Since when are there illnesses that can be ameliorated with VC? The stim only said that VC can be useful in treating the symptoms of some common illnesses.

Kevin could in turn reply to Sabine and rightly criticize her reply by saying, “You’re assuming that just because my barber stands to profit off the sale of the herbal supplement, that the supplement doesn’t prevent baldness.” This is what #E calls out.

The other ACs would have been correct if instead Sabine had responded with:

#A: First, Kevin would need to say something like, “My barber told me about a study in which people who took an herbal supplement did not suffer from hair loss.” Sabine would need to reply: “That’s simply not true. The fact is, your barber is not a scientist and therefore his claim must be false.”

#B: “No that’s not true and, moreover, using the herbal supplement is dangerous to your health because your barber’s claim cannot be verified.”

#C: “That’s simply not true.”

#D: I think in order for #D to be correct, we also have to change what Kevin says. He wouldn’t specify that his barber sells the herbal supplement (and thus stands to profit off of its sales). So instead:

Kevin: “My barber claims that herbal supplement X helps prevent baldness because it contains an enzyme that blocks the formation of a chemical compound that causes people to lose hair.”

Sabine: “That’s simply not true. The fact is, your barber makes money by convincing people to buy that product.”

→Here, Sabine is assuming that Kevin’s barber sells the supplement and stands to profit off of it, even though Kevin never actually said that his barber sells the supplement.

Analyzing each of the answer choices:

#A: Would be correct if instead the stim had said, “Consumers who are informed about the nutrients in food they purchase should choose healthy foods.”

#B: Would be correct if instead the stim had said, “manufactures should use healthy ingredients when producing food.”

#C: This makes a predictive claim that is not paralleled in the nutrients section of the stim. The stim would have needed to say something like, “Printing nutritional information on the packaging of foods would reduce the negative health impact of unhealthy food in people’s diets.”

#D: This prescriptive claim is not paralleled at all in the stim’s discussion of nutrients and food labeling.

#E: Requiring manufacturers to label their products with information about the amount of energy used to produce them is exactly parallel to requiring food manufactures to print nutritional information on their products’ packaging. Printing the ingredients allows consumers to make informed decisions, just as labeling products with information about the amount of energy produced allows consumers to make informed decisions about which products to use.

This one was deceptively difficult. Even after JY's explanation, I was still left a little puzzled. I think because Marisa's statement is so clear, and Tyne's misinterpretation was so bad, that I was left scratching my head. But it's clear now that Marisa is referring to the dollar-value of undeveloped property, while Tyne is referring to the intrinsic, environmental value of untouched land.

#A: This is way off because West doesn’t make a circular argument. Had West made a circular argument, he would have needed to say something like, “Haynes is the worst quality control inspector because he’s bad at his job.”

#B: In order for this to be the correct AC, Young would have needed to say something like, “But is the total number of product returns a good measure of job performance for quality control inspectors? I think a better measure is the percentage of inspected products that were ultimately returned.”

#C: No, Young is not disputing the accuracy that half of the returns were inspected by Haynes (the one stated premise in the argument). Young is saying, “OK, yes, even though half of the returns were inspected by Haynes, that is not a big deal because Haynes inspected more than half of all the appliances.”

#D: In order for this to be correct, Young would have needed to say something like, “But Haynes inspected more than the other two inspectors. So while he may have been bad, he might not have been the worst.”

#E: Yes, Young is denying the (unstated) presupposition that Haynes had the worst return-rate of the three quality inspectors. Young points out that Haynes inspected more than half of the appliances – so more than the other two QC agents – thus it could be true that he wasn’t at fault for a higher percentage of the defective products that were returned.

Extra Practice:

Conclusion: A government monitoring conversations on the internet would be a setback for democracy.

SC/MP: The right to have private conversations unmonitored by the government is essential to democracy.

Premise: Democracy requires that there be no restrictions on the ability of citizens to share their ideas freely, without fear of reprisal.

Necessary assumption: Citizens cannot share their ideas freely if they are monitored by the government.

Weaken: Citizens are still able to share ideas freely, without fear of reprisal, even if the government monitors their conversations.

The difficulty with this question is separating a weather pattern from a weather cycle. Think of a weather pattern as consisting of rain and cloud cover, whereas a weather cycle consists of high/low pressure. The argument is saying that the existing seven-day weather cycles of high/low pressure are too insignificant to cause a particular seven-day pattern of sunny weekdays and cloudy weekends. But what if there is a five day cycle of high/low pressure that results in a seven-day pattern where the weekdays are sunny, and weekends are cloudy? This is what E picks up on.

Extra Practice

A similar flaw: "Ten percent of all drivers in this state will get into an accident within the next year. However, of the drivers who took a defensive driving course, 20 percent will get into an accident within the next year. Clearly, then, taking defensive driving increases your odds of getting into a car accident." This is an absurd argument. Like the question above, the argument is inferring a specific causal relationship from a correlation that likely arose from another cause (accident-prone drivers are more likely to enroll in defensive driving).

It’s hard to come up with arguments that would fit A and B. But in order for C to be correct, the stim would have needed to say: “Within the school district overall, 11 percent of high school students drop out. Billy participated in a work internship and didn’t drop out. So clearly participating in a work internship decreases the chance that a student will drop out.” And for E: “Participating in a work internship decreases your odds of dropping out of school because it increases the chances that you will graduate.”

Extra Practice:

Conclusion: It is better that graphic designers not remain anonymous.

Premise: Anonymity undermines effective graphic design by making it difficult to hold them accountable for their work.

Necessary assumption #1: The benefits of holding graphic designers accountable for their work outweigh the consequences of drawing attention away from the product or service being advertised.

Necessary assumption #2: There are no other easy ways to hold graphic designers accountable for their artwork besides having them sign it.

Sufficient assumption: If a particular action makes it easier to hold graphic designers accountable for their work, that action should be undertaken.

Conclusion: Allowing coal mining would create new jobs, but if it is permitted, the number of jobs in the region will decrease overall.

SC/MP: Coal mining would force many local businesses to close

Premise: Local businesses depend on our region’s natural beauty.

The part of the argument in question is a premise that is used to support the sub-conclusion/major premise, or the ‘statement that is used to support the argument’s overall conclusion.’ We know this because if you ask yourself “why should I believe that coal mining would force many local businesses to close?” We can answer that with the premise that ‘local business depend on the region’s natural beauty.’

We know it doesn’t directly support the overall conclusion because if you ask “why should I believe that the number of jobs in the region will decrease if mining is permitted?” You cannot answer this with ‘many local businesses depend on the region’s natural beauty.’ There’s not enough information here and hence it’s not providing direct support to the overall conclusion.

Extra practice:

Necessary assumption: The number of jobs brought in by coal mining, if permitted, would not exceed the number of jobs lost by the local businesses that would be forced to close as a result.

Strengthening: In a neighboring town, most local businesses were forced to close down after coal mining was introduced in that town.