Just wanted to thank 7Sage for providing this service, especially the discount for those of us with less resources.
I started studying for the LSAT with 7Sage in June of last year with a diagnostic of 159, and I took the January LSAT after eight months of studying. I got a 171, and I recently was accepted into my first pick school!
Again, thank you for providing this service, as it has helped me immensely. Good luck to all future test takers!
What I don't get is how A relates to the "given the information in the passage" aspect of the question stem. It is completely irrelevant to the passage as far as I can tell. It's basically just an LR question tossed in. In fact, reading the passage would make this question significantly more difficult to answer. Just reading the question stem itself makes the answer obvious.
Coming in to explain my understanding of Q 13:
I got this question wrong because I didn't think that new evidence suggesting something to be true meant that it was a reasonable assumption that many experts in that field BELIEVE that something is true.
The key lesson to take away from Q 13 is that the LSAC thinks it's reasonable to assume that because some evidence simply suggests that some concept is true, many experts in the related field believe it's true, even if their beliefs are never explicitly stated.
TL;DR How was I supposed to understand this as a conditional claim that being educated guarantees a government investing in education instead of thinking it's the investing that causes the society to be educated? Thanks.
I mainly struggled with this question because I took the premise declaring that educated societies have governments that invest financially into education to be a causal relationship and flipped.
So:
gov-invest -> edu-society
This makes sense to me causally, but it completely confused me because answer B concluded X -> /B whereas my understanding of the premise concluded /B -> X. I literally took 30 minutes trying to see where I went wrong and just chose answer choice B simply because it was the closest to my understanding of the stimulus.
TL;DR How was I supposed to understand this as a conditional claim that being educated guarantees a government investing in education instead of thinking it's the investing that causes the society to be educated? Thanks.
Okay, PLEASE tell me someone else read this stimulus completely differently. I got this question correct and understood it completely, but this explanation seems so different from my understanding.
My understanding of the stimulus was as follows:
Conclusion: Person X is unlikely to be C
Premise 1: A negatively correlated with B
Premise 2: B negatively correlated with C
Person X being someone that does not have clear moral beliefs.
Answer B: The less likely some is to not have clear moral beliefs, the less likely A is true.
So Answer B essentially just plugs person X into our "causal" chain (correlative chain I guess), and the conclusion follows:
Ax negatively correlated with Bx (Bx more likely)
Bx negatively correlated with Cx (Cx less likely)
Person X is less likely to be C.
This was my understanding of the argument, and it still makes perfect sense to me. I understand this other interpretation of the argument as well and see how it reaches the same answer, but I've never had this happen where I have a completely different understanding of the argument and still got it right.
If anyone else has insight into this or had a similar experience, that'd be awesome to hear!
My best guess is that the logic of the argument works both ways somehow.
You can take the contrapositive either way. The problem is that B is in the wrong direction.
B, as it's written, says RigidArtifical->ClassroomEffective
Contrapositive is /ClassroomEffective->/RigidArtifical
That is the wrong direction. The conclusion is an ineffective classroom. If we rewrite B to "only if", it flips the direction, and we now get ClassroomEffective->RigidArtifical
Contrapositive is /RigidArtifical->/ClassroomEffective which would have bridged the argument.
Could I get clarification for question 11?
It says "fewer than half."
I take this to mean that there could be zero kittens taken home by children.
Is this the case?
Or does "fewer than half" inherently imply some?
Mainly because B and C don't make sense. Replacing the topsoil is supposed to curtail the growth of thistles and help revert the land to its natural state. B and C are the opposite of what would help that process according to the passage, so at best it's irrelevant at worst it would actually make the problem worse.