Is this a PSA or SA? Or is it a principle question?

"Which one of the following principles most helps to justify the mathematics teacher's argument?"

What is this flaw called:

"Takes for granted that a hypothesis has not proven to be true is proof that it is false"

Is there a name for this?

What helps me remember the directions is telling myself: if we are doing something to the argument, it's UP. If we are using the argument to answer a question it's DOWN.

How are PRINCIPLE questions UP?

It seems to me it would be DOWN because we are using the argument to find the answer, and not adding anything to the argument. Or are we? Is it that the argument needs the "PRINCIPLE" explained to help it?

Am I thinking about LR support direction the wrong way?

HERE IS THE LIST:

Logical reasoning question stems grouped by support direction

UP:

Strengthen

Weaken

NA

SA

PSA

Principle

Resolve, Reconcile, explain

Resolve the paradox

DOWN:

Main point

Method of reasoning

Argument part

Flawed method of reasoning

Parallel method of reasoning

Parallel flawed method of reasoning

Point at issue

Must be true

Most strongly supported

Must be false

I have heard that one should visit the law schools they are applying to.

There are a few law schools I am applying to, I can pay for a flight to visit 3 of them (when landed, I can travel to each one by bus).

Is there a point to visit my top law school choices before I'm admitted?

If yes, what should I be doing once I'm there? Introduce myself to the secretary, or meet with someone in particular? Should I be enquiring about more details regarding the clinics the prospective law school offers? I feel like I can do all that over the phone if I really need to.

Would there by specific law schools that are should be visited, like Harvard or Yale, rather than smaller names?

I'm having trouble understanding the translation for the conditional logic to this question.

All material bodies are divisible into parts,

Material bodies --> Divisible

and everything divisible is imperfect.

Divisible --> NOT perfect

It follows that all material bodies are imperfect.

material bodies --> NOT perfect

It like wise follows that the spirit is not a material body.

Spirits --> NOT material bodies.

I chained this question up like this (which is wrong I think):

Material bodies --> NOT Spirits

Material bodies --> Divisible --> NOT perfect

There are two conditional arrows connected to Material bodies, but I represented it like this because I can't draw it out here.

The answer shows the chain like this:

Material bodies --> Divisible --> NOT perfect --> NOT Spirits

How did they come up with this chain?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-3-question-10/

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation. I am not sure about my explanations for "B" and "D"

*The kind of question this is:* Weaken

*CTX:* Post office must be replaced with a larger one.

*Premise(s):*

• The present one cannot be replaced.

• Land near the present (center of town) location is more expensive.

• Cost of acquiring a site is a significant part of the total construction cost.

*Conclusion:* Post office can be built more cheaply on the outskirts of town.

*What I am looking for:* A reason, that outweighs the burden of cost, in favour of the office to being built near the present (center of town) location, rather than on the outskirts.

*Answer A:* No. That is just information. Irrelevant. The building code is not a stated obstacle.

*Answer B:* Yes. The office on the outskirts will need a parking lot that is more expensive than not having one.

*Answer C:* No. That’s an issue that the new post office would not need to worry about. It is not mentioned how this would be a problem.

*Answer D:* No. So what if they have to deliver mail to home. The mail will still arrive to the costumers. The post office on the outskirts will still be in business.

*Answer E:* No. That’s not a problem. That’s just the process that will be taken to build the office in the center of town.

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

*The kind of question this is:* Weaken

*CTX:* Local agricultural official gave fruit growers of District 10 a new pesticide that they applied for three years to their pear orchards in place of the pesticides they had used before.

*Premise(s):* during the three years, the proportion of pears lost to insects was significantly less than it had been during the previous three years period.

*Conclusion:* based on the results, the official concluded that the new pesticide was more effective than the old pesticide, at least in the short term. In limiting the loss of certain fruit to insects.

*What I am looking for:* Just looking for answer choices that weaken the argument. Maybe an alternative explanation as to why the pears lost to insects were significantly less than it had been during the previous three years period.

*Answer A:* Yes, this is the right answer. This is irrelevant and does not weaken the argument. There were less fruit being produced because the number of mature trees has declined of the past 8 years. Who cares. The argument is talking about the “proportion of pears lost to insects.” So, it doesn’t matter how many pears we started with, it’s how many of those that were lost to insects with the new pesticide.

*Answer B:* Not the right answer. This weakens the argument. Insect abatement programs were used in the last 5 years, and were successful. That explains why the pears lost to insects were significantly less than it had been during the previous three years period.

*Answer C:* Not the right answer. Over the past 5 years, the birds that prey on the insects that feed on the pears have spent more time in the district 10 region. Weakens.

*Answer D:* Not the right answer. Insects in district 10 that infest pear trees are water breeders, and access to water for them is shrinking. This means the insects did not get to the pear trees. Weakens.

*Answer E:* Not the right answer. It is saying the old pesticide is still in effect after it has stopped being used, so it may not be the new pesticide that is credited with eliminating many pear eating insects. Weakens.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-04/

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

*The kind of question this is:* Weaken

*Premise(s):* Marijuana has THC → THC has been found to inactivate herpesvirus (IH) → IH can convert healthy cells into cancer cells.

*Conclusion:* Marijuana can cause cancer.

*What I am looking for:* extra information that we didn’t know about marijuana and its correlation with THC.

*Answer A:* No. That strengthens the argument by showing that scientists had a consensus and the same results.

*Answer B:* Yes. There is information we did not know about marijuana and how it neutralizes THC.

*Answer C:* No. That strengthens the conclusion.

*Answer D:* No. Great, but that is only an “IF.” It would still stand that marijuana causes cancer.

*Answer E:* No. Marijuana is beneficial to cancer patients, but it would still cause cancer for none cancer patients.

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

*The kind of question this is:* Weaken

*Premise(s):* There are several unsuccessful immature works by Renoir and Cezanne that should be sold because they are inferior quality and add nothing to the overall quality of the museum’s collection.

*Conclusion:* The board’s action (to sell some works from its collection in order to raise the funds necessary to refurbish its galleries) will not detract form the quality of the museum’s collection.

*What I am looking for:* The benefit of keeping the unsuccessful immature works?

*Answer A:* No. This is attacking the premise, so I am skeptical. This answer talks about directors of art museums in general, and how they can raise funds through other ways. The Federici Art Museum may have its own reason why it cannot do that, we don’t know. This answer would have been right if it said Federici Art Museum can raise funds through other ways, but it talks about directors of art museums in general.

*Answer B:* Yes, quality is subjective, so selling these art pieces may detract form the quality of the museum’s collection.

*Answer C:* No. This is just a history lesson on the art pieces. This extra information does nothing to the argument.

*Answer D:* No. This is other information that is irrelevant to the argument. The issue at hand is not whether or not inflation happens.

*Answer E:* No. Yet again, this is information we don’t need. This answer is talking about what the artist demands in the art market.

Damn... I was doing PT23 S2 Q9, and have no idea to connect and translate the words.

If I were to look in the question bank, how do I separate the conditional logic LR questions from the other ones. I can't seem to find it in the categories.

It's hard for me to explain what my problem is, but I hope someone understands. It's not the logic I am having problems with, it's translating logic from words!!! After looking at the process and answer, I found that some words and statements were the different in the argument, and I treated them as same variables!

PLEASE BEAR WITH ME, here is the logic translation text in order, with quotations, and answer process of question PT23 S2 Q9 :

ARGUMENT: Every action has consequences, and among the consequences of any action are other actions. And knowing whether an action is good requires knowing whether its consequences are good, but we cannot know the future, so good actions are impossible.

every action has a consequences

Action --> consequence (okay I got that part)

And among the consequences of any action are other actions

consequences --> action (what? How is "other actions" the same as "every action," it doesn't like they are talking about a different category)

And knowing whether an action is good requires knowing whether its consequences are good

Know if action good --> know if consequences are good (okay, got that part)

but we cannot know the future, so good actions are impossible

NOT knowing the future consequences good --> good actions are NOT possible (Okay, I see how this we done)

Now the answer I was reading goes and chains the rest of the answer like this:

NOT know if future consequences good --> NOT know if good --> good actions are NOT possible

MY PROBLEM #1: I can't see how a contrapositive of Know if action good --> know if consequences are good can turn into NOT know if future consequences good --> NOT know if good (this was done to chain up the statements, and I don't the how the heck these statements are the same).

MY PROBLEM #2: the answer chains up conclusion with a chain of three, and I don't understand how:

NOT know if future consequences good --> NOT know if good --> good actions are NOT possible

To me, that to me cuts into the other conditional statements.

How do these two statements below combine into one conditional chain? What rule allows this!?

NOT know if future consequences good --> NOT know if good

NOT know if future consequences good --> good actions are NOT possible

According to the answer, both statements above combine to this:

NOT know if future consequences good --> NOT know if good --> good actions are NOT possible?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-2-question-14/

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

*The kind of question this is:* Strengthen

*Paraphrased question:*

Kim:

During eighteenth century, northern Europe had a change of attitude on expression both in adoption of less solemn and elaborate death rites by the pop. at large and in a more optimistic view of the human condition as articulated by philosophers. This change is because of a result of dramatic increase in life expectancy that occurred in northern Europe early in the eighteenth century.

Lee:

Your explanation that “this change is because of a result of dramatic increase in life expectancy that occurred in northern Europe early in the eighteenth century,” could not be correct unless the ppl of the time were aware their life expectancy had increased.

*What I am looking for:* Something to prove strengthen the relationship between “change of attitude on expression both in adoption of less solemn and elaborate death rites” and “this change being because of a result of dramatic increase in life expectancy that occurred in northern Europe early in the eighteenth century.”

*Answer A:* Yes, this strengthens Kim’s arguments because it directly addresses a relationship between “increase in life expectancy in a population,” “rise to economic changes,” and “influence on people’s attitudes.” I circled this one, but reviewed the other ones just incase.

*Answer B:* No, but this is tricky for me because it gave an explanation of why ppl’s attitudes toward life change in response to information about their life expectancy. This answer seems to strengthen Lee’s argument rather than Kim’s because Lee argues “change is because of a result of dramatic increase in life expectancy that occurred in northern Europe early in the eighteenth century,” could not be correct unless the ppl of the time were aware their life expectancy had increased. That is what Answer B is saying.

*Answer C:* No, this has nothing to do with Kim’s argument. Philosophers making conjectures that did not affect the ideas of the population does not strengthen or even do anything to Kim’s conclusion.

*Answer D:* No, but thanks for information. This weakens Lee’s argument, but does not strengthen Kim’s.

*Answer E:* No. We are talking about strengthening Kim’s idea that “change is because of a result of dramatic increase in life expectancy that occurred in northern Europe early in the eighteenth century.” The influence of religious teaching vs demographic phenomena on attitudes of Northern Europeans is broad and does not focus on Kim’s conclusion.

I know that HLS is among the top 5 law schools on ratings, there is a certain image, prestige, and level of success to attend such a school. I imagine being a HLS grad opens doors to unique opportunities (e.g. jobs) and has wide range of resources for one to access.

It's really expensive, and other law schools teach basically the same stuff.

But, are there other reasons why HLS is a desired destination? Why Harvard?

Hey everyone,

I'm taking a step back and redoing the CC. When I first did it, I went through it too fast to internalize what I learned.

After abandoning the LSAT for a while, I've decided to come back strong for one last shot.

I want to hit 170+ and am around the 150 range right now.

My plan in order:

1.) Go through The LSAT Trainer (BOOK), while building up my RC skill.

2.) Mastering LR by revisiting the CC, mainly focusing what I most need improvement on.

3.) Pacifico’s Logic Games Attack Strategy

4.) PTs and BR.

Ill supplement my learning watching webinars, visiting discussion pages, and engaging with the 7Sage community.

I hope to make it in time for the Sept test, but we'll see.

Any other recommendations, advice or feedback? I definitely need it. (I imagine I'll be tweaking my study schedule a bit).

What's your plan?

Edit*

Here is Pacifico’s Logic Games Attack Strategy:

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/2737/logic-games-attack-strategy/p1

I have:

G most F

------------------

C some G

I am trying to conclude C some G, but I am a bit confused.

To me this: G most F ---> C concludes G most C, and not G some C.

Can G most C and G some C be used interchangeably in this instance?

If I have:

/G most W

--------------

W some U

And, I want to draw "W some U".

Are these possibilities?

/G most U

/G most W

/G some U

/G most W

/G ---> U

/G most W

I don't see how this one works.

/G some U

/G most W

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation. Got this question wrong and choose A because I could find any answer I was happy with.

*The kind of question this is:* Weaken

*Paraphrased question:*

First legislator:

Premises: Medical Research is predominantly done on groups of only men. For example, the effects of coffee drinking on health are evaluated on only men, and studies are lacking on hormone treatments for older women.

Conclusion: Government sponsored medical research should be required to include studies of women.

Second Legislator:

Considerations of male/female balance are inappropriate with respect to research; they have no place in science.

*What I am looking for:* An answer that would attack the reasoning? (I got this question wrong and choose A.)

*Answer A:* No. That is information, but doesn’t effect the second legislator’s argument.

*Answer B:* No. Serving as a subject doesn’t address whether male or female groups will be created, nor does it address the second legislator’s conclusion, let along weaken it.

*Answer C:* No. This is information that does not talk about the issue of male over female patient groups.

*Answer D:* No, this is talking about the training of male and female scientists, and not them as group of patients. This is not helpful.

*Answer E:* Yes, if there were to be restrictions on males, this date base would result in inadequate science. Same case for females.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-1-question-05/

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

The kind of question this is: Weakening

Paraphrased question:

Premises: In North Atlantic, Codfish population declined as population of Harp seals increased from two mil to three mil, so there is blame on the seal for Codfish decline, but Cod plays a negligible role in Seal’s diet.

Conclusion: Therefore, it is unlikely seals are responsible for the decline of codfish.

What I am looking for: Something I didn’t know about the correlation between Cod decrease and seal increase. (broad lol).

Answer A: No, this doesn’t weaken the argument. It’s not about how people are inconvenienced about fish because of the seals, its about Cods and Seals.

Answer B: No, but sure, there could be a threat. But, there is no information saying that Codfish are dying from this so-called threat. And, what kind of threat is it anyways?

Answer C: No. Sure they capable enough to thrive in water that cod can’t swim in, but that doesn’t mean they can only live in that type of water. They can swim to warmer water to catch cod if they wanted to.

Answer D: Yes, because if Cod feed almost exclusively on capelin, which is a staple diet for seals, then they must run into each other a lot underwater. Or maybe where you find capelin, you will find Cods, and Cods happen to get eaten too.

Answer E: No, that strengthens the argument because it suggests that the seals have nothing to do with the cod decrease.

Okay, I can't get logic for the life of me lol!

One cannot prepare a good meal (GM) from bad food (/F),

GM --> F (my answer. "/F" is negated because of the word "cannot").

GM --> Not /F (official answer).

Produce good food (F) from bad soil (/S)

F --> S (my answer I negated "S" because of the word "cannot" which is connected to the necessary from the first sentence).

F --> Not /F (official answer. Where the hell did "/F" come from?).

Maintain good soil (S) without good farming (Farm),

/S --> /Farm (my answer. I negated "S" because of the word "without," and negated "Farm" because of the word "cannot" which is connected to the necessary from the first sentence).

S --> Farm (official answer).

Or have good farming (Farm) without a culture that places value on the proper maintenance of all its natural resources so that needed supplies are always available (Maintenance).

/Farm --> /Maintenance (my answer. I negated "Farm" because of the word "without", and negated "Maintenance" because of the word "cannot" which is connected to the necessary from the first sentence).

Farm --> Maintenance (official answer).

Take a look at my translation from English to conditional logic symbols. What's my problem, and what am I doing wrong!?!??!!

I totally suck at translating English into conditional logic symbols. I've got some good advice from 7Sagers, but any more advice on how to improve translating English into conditional logic symbols?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-37-section-2-question-12/

Admin note: copyright issue

I don't get how both these answers are saying different things. I think they are both NA, but apparently the first answer is not a NA.

How is the first answer not NA? And is there a difference between these two answers in what they are saying?

I know what I will have to face, the fear of stress and boredom. This is a journey of a serial procrastinator planning to study and LSAT, Monday to Friday. I tried everything from listening to music while studying, going hard close to deadlines to watching all kinds of motivational videos. I always resort back to my ways of procrastinating. Relapsing again and again. I've had enough.

Day 1

I picked up where I left off. Last time I was on 7sage was in Nov. Work and fear of not perfecting of my studying prevented me from continuing. I studied a good 3 hours today, not bad considering all the stuff I had to do. Voices in my head told me to go back to sleep as I chipped away at the syllabus at 8:30am. They told me to do it later, they told me that it's just too cold in the room right now.

I thought to myself, why don't I take a break and check my email, or look at Facebook. These distractions, which I refer to as screens, are triggers. The pull me to the endless black hole, the Internet. I call it the black hole because once I get sucked in, I can't stop. It is the place I go to escape reality and imagine myself successful, when in reality, I'm at the same job, same house, same city. There is nothing wrong with where I am, but it's not where I want to be. I put my life on hold for many years, but I'm going to reclaim it.

This is my struggle, not with the LSAT, but with myself.

Why is answer (B) wrong?

So, I understand that:

Answer B says: Deer ticks sometimes drop off their hosts without having fed at all.

Okay, I understand that Ticks drop off host when fed to capacity, and not before. BUT, I also know that Deer ticks feeding off white-footed mice must drop off between noon and sunset.

So I assumed that if Deer ticks started feeding on the mice really late in the day, they would have to drop off them right at sunset, EVEN if they didn't finish feeding!!!

Also, I thought ticks and deer ticks behave differently because the sentence "Deer ticks feeding off white-footed mice must drop off between noon and sunset" to me contradicts "Ticks drop off host when fed to capacity, and not before." This is because I assumed that no matter what, deer ticks MUST drop off their hosts AT SUNSET regardless if they didn't finish feeding.

Sentences 1 and 2 feel contradicting to me.

Why am I wrong to think those things? How can I properly adjust my though pattern?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-4-question-05/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-3-game-2/

Preptest 25 - Section 3 - Game 2

I don't get question 10 and 12!

Can someone help out for question 10? I don’t see why it’s not answer “C,” which allows four tourists to speak Turkish.

@dannyy121 Mentioned:

“For Q10, is it also possible that H,I,K all speak Turkish? My board looks like:

V: M

X: N

Y: H & I & K

Z: L

Each tourist can speak only one of the languages that the guide can speak. so in case where N and L speak Spanish, N can also go to X, since X speaks Spanish and Turkish?”

Because of this confusion, I chose answer "C," but the right answer is supposed to be "B."

Given the rules, I feel that this is an acceptable situation. What am I missing?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Q12, I don’t see why exactly 3 tourists don’t speak Spanish (answer “C”). My board looks like:

V: K

X: M & N

Y: H & I

Z: L

“M, N & L” all speak Spanish, which would make “C” a choosable answer. Can someone help me out here?

I don’t see where I went wrong. In my eyes answer “C” and “E” are right, and I chose answer “C,” but the right answer is supposed to be "E."

PT2 S2 Q14

Type of question: WEAKEN

Correct me if I am wrong in any part of my explanation.

Premise(s)

Oct. 1929 suicides due to stock market crash Comparatively low, summer had higher suicide rate, while Stock market flourishing

Conclusion

Stock market crash Suicide wave in Oct. 1929 more legend than fact.

What I am looking for:

Answer A NO. We don’t need to know the reason of suicide.

Answer B NO. This strengthens conclusion.

Answer C YES. I was thrown off by language. I thought “preceding and following years” was talking about how suicides stayed above average for preceding and following years, which doesn’t answer why summer suicide rates were higher, and seemed a bit off topic. What this answer is saying is the average suicide rate of Oct and Nov was lower than stock market crash before and after 1929. So, it means stock market crash did indeed increase suicide rates. Weakens the conclusion.

Answer D NO. We don’t care about beginning of calendar year.

Answer E NO. Unnecessary information. Not the same as Oct and Nov? And, season has to do with it?

MISTAKE

I didn’t understand answer C. I picked E, and was not happy with it, but moved on.

Hey all,

Just wondering how I can increase focus/concentration? I keep on thinking about other things while doing PT questions. I take longer than I should/could on questions.

I starting meditation right now every morning.

Is there anything else anyone recommends?

PT2.S2.Q11 LSAT 2 PREPTEST 2 Question 11 section 2

I don't get how this answer is "B."

The question is asking "Which following statements are consistent with biologist's claim, but not with politician's."

biologist claims: deforestation --> NO Koala

Politician claims: If save Koala --> stop deforestation (did I get that translation right?)

How is "B" consistent with Biologist's claim? I see how it's not consistent with politician's claim, which is part of the answer.

Is it that the Koala could still get extinct for another reason. If that's so, how do I get in the mind set to infer an answer like that?