Self-study
Are all LG resources on 7Sage (sections, explanation videos, and archived classes, etc.) going to be taken off after the June test?
ye22x545
- Joined
- Sep 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
LSAT
Not provided
CAS GPA
Not provided
1L START YEAR
Not provided
Discussions
ye22x545
Sunday, Sep 25 2022
@scottmilam205
And can we still download the archived videos? The button seems to have disappeared. Thank you!
ye22x545
Saturday, Sep 24 2022
@scottmilam205
I just read your email from September 22nd, that the classes will be available after September for $30 per month. But the website also says an extra $100 would be added to the existing $69. So which of the two additional rates applies? Thank you!
ye22x545
Monday, Sep 19 2022
(A), (C), and (D) all have no impact on the argument because they address premeditated assaults, whereas the stimulus talks about unpremeditated ones. (B) strengthens the argument by implying that there's a chance that the actual number of unpremeditated assaults is even higher than reported. (E) is the correct answer, because one assumption of the argument is that the "potentially lethal knives" are used as weapons.
ye22x545
Thursday, Sep 08 2022
Note that the author is saying that the "best" of the two types of amplifiers are indistinguishable, whereas (B) is talking about the "range of variation," which we're not concerned about. We just care about the best ones, that is, the best in the range, doesn't matter how wide or narrow that range is.
ye22x545
Thursday, Sep 08 2022
The stimulus tells us that the best of the two types of amplifiers are indistinguishable with respect to the characteristics "commonly measured." The author is making the assumption that these common characteristics are sufficient considerations, leaving out the uncommon ones. (C) turns that assumption on its head, stating that well, some important characteristics cannot be measured, thus weakening the argument.
ye22x545
Tuesday, Sep 06 2022
For (E) to be correct, you'd need to make at least another assumption, like... leisure induces homicide, that if people have more free time, they would just go and kill other people, that a reason why they didn't commit homicide as much before the introduction of television sets was that they didn't have leisure time. See how far you have to go on this route? Contrast that with (B), which fairly makes the assumption that people would be watching on television if they have television sets that have portrayals of violence.
ye22x545
Tuesday, Sep 06 2022
First of all, I was confused about the antinuclear activist's words. I couldn't identify which of the two sentences was actually their argument, until I realized that neither was. The activist simply made no argument. They just had two separate claims, one of victory and the other of acknowledgement. What we're asked to do is to strengthen the first claim, or to provide evidence to that claim and turning it into an argument.
Second, always make sure to read what the question stem asks for––in this case, we're asked to support the first claim of victory. Because of the fuzziness around what the activist's conclusion was, along with a glossing over of the question stem, I thought that I should support the second claim, to strengthen the point that the industry can't operate plants safely and so chose (A). But (A) is incorrect on two counts: 1) An expired license doesn't necessarily mean less safety, think of an expired elevator license; and 2) Even if an expired license means less safety definitely, this would weaken the activist's claim of "victory," because then it would mean we're introducing an alternative explanation to the plant's closing (not the antinuclear cause, but an expired license).
ye22x545
Tuesday, Sep 06 2022
Consumer advocate:
Deceptive → Morally wrong, illustrated through an example
Advertiser:
Well, nope. True → Deceptive. Taking issue with whether or not the advertisement is deceptive.
(E): True (made with the expectation that...) → Deceptive.
Strengthens the consumer advocate's position against the advertiser's response.
ye22x545
Sunday, Sep 04 2022
Not sure whether I'd have the mental capacity to do all the conditional mapping if I were to encounter this question on a real test. For SA questions, of course it'd be best if we could pre-phrase the missing link before looking at the answer choices. But for hard ones like this, I'd say as long as you understand the stimulus to a certain extent, it wouldn't hurt to at least give answer choices a try (better than skipping all together, right). If the answer choices don't guide you and just make things more confusing, then skip.
It turns out that (A), (B), and (C) are all irrelevant to what could be the missing link. (A) talks about how the company will find out about the offer; (B) addresses why Ann wants the fellowship; (C) addresses why the company doesn't allow its employees to work for a competitor... So these are quick eliminations.
(D) is, well, hard to either choose or eliminate, so, jump to (E), and you see that the answer choice contradicts with the stimulus, which tells us that if she quits, she is offered a fellowship, whereas (E) reverses the two elements, saying that if she is offered, then she would quit.
So by POE, (D) is what we would choose, whether or not we understand why it's correct. No time for deep analysis under timed conditions!!
ye22x545
Saturday, Sep 03 2022
You can definitely use the some statement while drawing up the conditional chain. The word "all" in answer choice (C) actually adds to the some statement, since "some" indicates anywhere from 1 to 100 and that (C) says, well, not anywhere, it's in fact 100, "all."
ye22x545
Saturday, Sep 03 2022
Whichever one you negate, you end up with the same conditional relationship:
"No ski resort owners are lawyers."
Option 1: SRO → L
Option 2: L → SRO
These two indicate the same relationship, that the two groups are mutually exclusive. A lot of the times what would help is to forget about the "rules" of how a draw a diagram. Instead, focus on understanding what the line means. Imagine a friend talking to you, "no member of my family went downtown last weekend," you see how you can quickly infer that their family members and those who went downtown, these two groups don't intersect? Always focus on understanding first before drawing diagrams.
ye22x545
Saturday, Sep 03 2022
As you might recall from the basic lessons, "some" in logic means anywhere from 1 to 100 (just needs to be greater than 0). Answer choice (C) here says "all," which is included by "some" in the stimulus and therefore doesn't contradict it. I
ye22x545
Thursday, Sep 01 2022
Whether or not if the word "equaled" were replaced with "lower than," (D) would be 100% incorrect, reason being simply: It does not have to be true for the procedure to work, i.e. not a necessary assumption. (D) would have been correct had the question stem asked us for a strengthen or SA answer choice.
ye22x545
Thursday, Sep 01 2022
(E): ... earthquakes at least once in 100,000 years
Negation: ... earthquakes more often than once in 100,000 years
Since the negation does not wreck the argument, (E) is not a necessary assumption.
I'm thinking of your apple example:
1st: "I eat no more than one apple a day."
2nd: "I eat at least one apple a day."
See how the range of possibilities in the first statement includes 0 and 1, whereas that in the second possibility includes 1 and greater? You can say that "one apple a day" gets to "overlap," but the two statements do not lead to the conclusion that you eat one apple a day, because according to the first statement, you might just not eat any apple at all, which contradicts the second statement.
ye22x545
Wednesday, Aug 31 2022
Yes, (E) is both a necessary and sufficient assumption. There are two types of necessary assumptions in LSAT. The first is what we're more more accustomed to and is usually. For example, one necessary assumption for "X played basketball this afternoon" would be that "X was alive at the time." Very weak, but correct. The second type of necessary assumptions is like what we see here. So necessary and sufficient assumptions do overlap.
ye22x545
Tuesday, Aug 30 2022
The patron says that most fruit is dangerous until it is washed:
washed→dangerous
and concludes that the fruit IS dangerous,
That's how we know that the patron is making the assumption that the fruit is NOT WASHED, neither DURING the cafeteria (stated), nor BEFORE the cafeteria (implied).
International students + Time of Application