I'm following.

@ said:

@

It's doing several questions from the same question type, repeatedly until you feel comfortable with the material again.

I would do the CC for the questions types I missed previously and then follow up with drills after I am done with CC.

Hope it goes well!

Where did you get the material to drill from? Were you using the questions from 7Sage's question bank or from the practice tests? I would appreciate it if you could clarify.

Did the webinar discuss if schools will extend their application/commitment deadlines?

I missed this. I'm worried now.

Classic Phenomena Hypothesis Weakening Question with Correlation-Causation Flaw.

Conclusion: Adequate prenatal care decreases the risk of low birth weight babies

Why?

Premise:

1. Records show premature babies tend to have lower birth weights

2. Records show adequate prenatal care makes it LESS LIKELY they'll have low birth weight babies

We must weaken by asking:

1) Can an alternative explanation (hypothesis) explain this (the phenomena)?

2) Does something weaken the truth/dents the credibility of the data in the explanation(hypothesis)?

We must weaken by taking a skeptical stance:

It's NOT that A (Adequate prenatal care) decreases the risk of B (low birth weight) babies)... it is because of C...

A & D give the same logical forms of trap ACs. They both are consistent with the argument yet try to trick you into thinking they contradict premise. Both of them give possibilities that are already included in the argument due to it being a correlation which allows for people/data who don't conform.

A) No, consistent with argument

“The records indicate that babies born with normal birth weights had mothers who had inadequate prenatal care”

/low birth wt-->/adequate prenatal care

D uses opposite groups and gives the same logical challenge as A

D) No, consistent with argument

“Some babies not born prematurely had low birth weights and mothers who received adequate prenatal care”

low birth weights--> adequate prenatal care

A&D do not weaken because these possibilities are already included in the correlation in the stimulus because correlations allow for people that don't conform/nonconforming data points. It's not a conditional statement but a correlation.

Our groups are x) low birth weight babies and y) adequate prenatal care

C & E are both incorrect because of the irrelevant term shift of the groups: z) premature, which is irrelevant to the conclusion. We don't care about it.

C brings up irrelevant term x) low birth weight babies and z) premature

E brings up irrelevant term y) adequate prenatal care and z) premature

B) Correct because it dents credibility of the data which addresses question #2 "2) Does something weaken the truth/dents the credibility of the data in the explanation(hypothesis)?" . If it's the hospital, by default, classifies them having "inadequate prenatal care" when they actually don't have record of the care at all, we cannot trust the data. It weakens the records used to justify the phenomena in the hypothesis.

My goal is ED acceptance at a T14 school that guarantees a scholarship.

I have not taken a diagnostic because I knew that a low score would hurt my motivation and self-confidence however, I'm familiar with how all of the questions on the exam as I've looked through the 2007 exam.

I am a bit new to studying for the LSAT. I read through half of the Manhattan Prep LR book before finding 7Sage and purchasing the entire ultimate course. I've been working through the CC section by section however, I'm trying to figure out how and when to incorporate the Question Bank's problem sets in with the CC... I'm also unsure of how to put together certain sections from the PT that people drill and which ones to set aside for full-length PT.

I know Logic Games will be a weakness for me. Additionally, I need to improve the speed of my reading comprehension (which I know is said to take a long time with consistent practice). In LR, I have a tendency to read the stimulus at least twice (or 3 times( in order to fully understand the content. I average about 1:20-1:50 mins/question and 2min on hard LR qs which I know is bad.

@ said:

Hey, be a little easier on yourself. You are managing the stress of this pandemic while studying for the LSAT and that's admirable!

For the CC, I would go over the questions I missed and watch the videos for its corresponding question type. It would be less tasking and focused on remembering. After that, do drills with the same question types.

And remember, you are doing the best you can.

What do you mean by "drills"? How many questions from the question bank would you set up for each question after going over the videos?

Would you drill those questions while simultaneously moving through the CC to next topic?

@ said:

@ Hi there!

So I like to keep my low-res summaries brief. I typically try to make them 1 word, two at the most generally, that I can "unpack" by asking "why" or "what" to get to my high-res summary. The "low-res" summary should also be very focused on the content/subject matter of the paragraph and fairly passage-specific. For example, a good low-res for a paragraph might be "abalone experiment." That gives me an idea of what the paragraph is about. Here is how I might use that to get to the high-res.

Low-res = "abalone experiment" okay, why? The abalone experiment was conducted to see if a certain mineral could be extracted from their shells. Okay, why? The mineral is important to use in manufacturing a new type of medicine. Now I have something closer to a high-res, going from my low-res "abalone experiment," all the way to "the abalone experiment was conducted to see if a certain mineral could be extracted from their shells because we need that mineral to create a special type of medicine."

I hope this helps, let me know if I can clarify!

How long did you spend on Blind Review?

The author argues that since (premise) 2/3 of buying decisions are made in the store, that companies, that want to boost sales, should use in-store display to catch their attention. Fails to consider other reasons 2/3 of buying decisions are made a the store & takes for granted that it's based on the window display. It's NA so I expect a Defender that will Rule out an Alternative Explanation which is what D) does.

I need help with QUICKLY rephrasing the premise, conclusion in my brain and then making a QUICK assumption. It's taking me far too long to do that.

I'm very interested! PLease add me.

B) is a big trap for those who read too quickly. It's trying to trap people into thinking this says they believe their pain is caused by the weather but that isn't what it says, it's saying their beliefs about the causes of their pain may affect how intense the pain they feel is. The argument is NOT about how accurate the pain they feel is but whether or not they are accurately associating an increase in their pain with a potential cause.

How do we know this is a causal argument? The conclusion says a causal key word, "lead to" and the answer choices talk about things like "a factor" and "responsible for". The flaw is that it takes for granted that just because a Cause: Slipped Disc is not always sufficient to cause Effect: Pain, that it never does... That is a very strong assumption!

Let's match up the wordy answer choices with the stimulus.

B) Correct--A factor (Slipped Disc) that is not in itself sufficient to produce a certain effect (Effect: Pain) may nonetheless be partly responsible for that effect (Effect: Pain) in some instances. Yes, the flaw is that it's NOT it is not independently sufficient like JY says, It's takes for granted that if some people with Cause: Slipped disc ---- do NOT have Effect /Pain, that Cause: Slipped disc--- could NOT cause ---Effect: Pain. This is too strong and broad to conclude.

C) Effect (Pain) that occurs in the absence of a particular phenomenon (No Slipped Disc) might not occur when that phenomenon is present (Effect: No Pain & Phenomenon present: Slipped Disc) ---This is not a flaw the argument is making

ALL are either PT or Bladed splits it into a binary world where anything that is NOT PT, is Bladed. We only have PT or Bladed.

ALL PT are used for engraving. ALL=100

Some Bladed are for engraving & some Bladed are not for engraving. Some=at least one 1

So, we know that for engraving: 100 PT + 1 (at least one) Bladed= 101 # ....given that, the total # used for engraving will always be greater than the amount used for NOT engraving. It does not matter how many Bladed has as long as Bladed is at least one 1 or more (and we know it is), the total number used for Engraving will be greater than the total not used for engraving.

Compares 2 groups: the telecom industry & national parks

Premise: Telecom industry benefit people because of private company management created competition that resulted in lower prices & better service.

Con: Private company management of national parks will probably benefit people too.

What if there is a difference between the way telecom industry works to benefit people vs. national parks OR a disadvantage of private company managing the national parks? What if there is an alternative to it that benefits people more?

B) Out of scope- we are referring to the benefits of the CONSUMERS of the telecom industry--not anything else about it.

D) "would benefit a much smaller number" So, people are still benefiting--this doesn't weaken.

E) Weakens the argument that the same strategy that worked for the telecom industry would also work for the national parks! If the privatization would produce MUCH less competition for the national parks than the telecom industry, this weakens the argument that because of the private companies creating competition in telecom industry (which caused the benefits: lower prices & better service), the same strategy would work for national parks too.

Premise: MANY symptoms of mental illness are affected by organic factors (like a deficiency of a compound in the brain) yet the symptoms vary around the world.

Conclusion: The organic factors that affect the symptoms aren't distributed evenly around the world.

What if the organic factors that affect the symptoms of mental illness are distributed evenly across the globe but these symptoms look different?

C) Gives an Alternative Explanation- cultural factors can affect how the symptoms look aka "manifest themselves"

D) "presumes... ANY change in brain chemistry manifests itself as a change in mental condition." Did the argument assume that ANY/ALL changes in brain chemistry result in a change in mental conditions? This sounds very strong... Since, this is presuming/assuming, we can treat it like Necessary Assumption by negating the answer choice. If the negated answer weakens the argument, then it's correct. Negation of Any/All= Some not "Some changes in brain chemistry do NOT manifest themselves as changes in mental conditions". Does this hurt the argument? No because the author didn't assume this since the argument refers to "MANY symptoms of mental illness are affected by organic factors such as a deficiency of a compound in the brain", not ANY/ALL changes in brain chemistry

The conclusion's should not be "supplied" is very similar to the correct answer E) "should be provided". Supplied is close enough to provided so we know that the conclusion is addressed here. C) is a trap since it uses the new word "should not be suppled" in it but the stimulus was NEVER about "consistency" of supplying the water. The stimulus is about whether or not supplying water is the private company's job.

Premise One chance to save it is a new marketing campaign

Con: We should try the new marketing campaign.

What if there's a disadvantage to the new marketing campaign for the company? What if there's something else that would be a better thing to try than the new marketing campaign?

D) BIG disadvantage: The new marketing campaign would "endanger" the company.

Cause: Snoring--- Effect: Throat damage. Can reverse be true--Can Throat Damage cause the Snoring? Could there be a 3rd New Factor that causes both Snoring & Throat damage? Predict: Strengthen via Rule out Reverse true The throat damage is NOT cause of the snoring!

B) Rules out Reverse True Trap- The throat surgery is not a part of the correlation: from the surgery biopsies, they found a correlation between 1) Throat damage & 2) Snoring. The surgery has no impact on the argument that a correlation of Throat Damage & Snoring means we can conclude "Snoring can cause throat damage".

C) Rules out Data Problem trap- somewhat strengthens because it controls for other things that could've caused the damage but it's still not a randomized sample & sometimes we must choose between an answer that somewhat strengthens vs. powerful strengthener.

E) Powerful Strengthener Wins--- Rules out reverse true

back up system = part vs. risk of fatal catastrophe is exaggerated=whole. Infers that something is true of the whole (risk of fatal catastrophe on trip is exaggerated) merely FROM (premise) the fact that it is true of each of the parts (if back up system in place, deaths unlikely)

C: "It's probably not true" false Colic can't be caused by cow milk.

P: “since” babies that are “EXCLUSIVELY” breastfed have colic too.

Diagram: Cause→ Effect

P: Colic→Breastfed infants

C:Colic→Cow-milk fed infants

Gap/Assumption: Correlation-Causation flaw. Author assumes breastfed infants don't have traces of cow-milk antibodies in their system. Weaken: "Colic can't be caused by cow milk because infants fed breastmilk have colic too" Just because breastfed babies have colic too doesn't mean it's because cow milk doesn't cause the colic.

Third Common Factor: Can something else cause the colic in both cow milk fed and breastfed infants?

Alternative explanation: Maybe there is an alternative explanation for the cause of colic in babies that are breastfed?

A) No, irrelevant because this is a correlation that doesn't weaken

B) No, so what? Irrelevant because we don't care what happens after they stop experiencing colic (phenomenon).

C) No, irrelevant. If anything, it affirms argument because if infants on cow's milk didn't experience colic, it strengthens author's point that colic is not caused by cow milk.

D) Yes, weakens via alternative explanation. Author assumed breastfed babies did not have traces of cow milk in their system and this introduces alternative explanation of how they get cow milk antibodies despite being breastfed due to mother's diet.

E) No, does not directly impact conclusion and has no mention of colic.

Tony: P: New video= shorter viewings than old vid but much cheaper

C: Stores should buy new video because it’s cheaper

Anna: P video is a small expense for stores.

C: . Problem is expensive royalties.

Weaken Anna’s argument:

C Yes, it weakens because the store would pay less in royalty fees and defeats Anna’s argument that royalty fees are a large cost. (It's also the only AC that refers to royalties).

Note: This question is a good example of indicators "most" being in the correct AC and an interesting Q stem with multi-premise support.

Carefully read the question stem. Question stem asks you "Which of the following if true most weakens THE SUPPORT offered by the director for the claim concerning the marketing of vaccines?"

-Pay attention to the Q stem in case it is asking you to do something weird like this.

C: Gov. should subsidize the development costs of new vaccines

P:“In support of this claim…” Marketing of vaccines is less profitable than marketing of other pharmaceutical products.

If you were also stuck between A and E, I will explain while A is correct and E is wrong.

A) Vaccines are administered to many more people than are most other pharmaceutical products

- While blind reviewing, I did not feel the wording was strong enough and so "many" and "most" caused me to avoid it. However, note that "most" is a common word in correct strengthen/weakening answer choices.

-If vaccines are administered more frequently than other pharmaceutical products, then it could increase vaccine sales which weakens the claim "vaccine sales are likely to be lower"

E) The cost of administering a vaccine is rarely borne by the pharmaceutical company that manufactures that vaccine

-E is a trap answer choice and an LSAT example of tricking you with incorrect term shift

- Term shift: Administering the cost of the vaccine is different than the development cost in the stimulus, "...argued development costs for new vaccines should be subsidized by the government"

-Also, 2nd incorrect Term shift: it does not weaken the claim because we are focused on the sales of vaccines vs. administering costs. We are focused on the claim that "sales are of vaccines are likely to be lower" not administering costs

I'm interested.