#help I still don’t understand why B is wrong.

I initially chose E and change to B after careful review.

I didn’t choose B by matching words, instead I see the argument as having two very obvious flaws. One is the undefined “prudent” and the other is “imprudent”. B “imprudent people act intuitively and instantly” would means “prudent” people don’t act intuitively and instantly which is “forming opinions about others….”. Therefore, it is also imprudent to appear prudent.

I was not able to follow through JY's explanation for this question, so I reasoned out my own thoughts for those of you who are still confused after watching this video:

if beauty = truth, then :

"most realistic" → "the best"

because "most realistic"→ "most truthful".

From here, we get "most realistic"→"most truthful"→"the best".

But "most realistic"("most truthful") /→ "the best",

therefore beauty/=truth

we can see "truth" defined as the "most realistic/most truthful", but we still need to connect the other "undefined" term of beauty to "the best".

I narrow down to A and D

A "the most beautiful artworks are the best artwork" (negation" the most beautiful artworks are not the best, argument falls apart"

D "only the best artwork are beautiful" (negation "not only the best artwork are beautiful, others can be beautiful as well. This doesn't destroy the argument")

I was not able to identify which one is the correct answer choice, using the negation test. I figure out A is necessary, while the negation of D is not necessary.

@ said:

Hello? Can you add me to the group please?

hey Brian, sorry for my delayed reply. Can you dm me and I’ll send you my phone number!

Thank you!! Yes, I've seem both happened to be correct in the past. This is actually from The LSAT Trainer, and Mike Kim chose 1) as well. > @ said:

I feel like this is risky enough (with students complaining that both answers are right) that LSAC wouldn't give both in the same question unless the stimulus matched one exactly. But if I had to pick I'd lean towards (1). In the end A --> B, B--> C is just A --> C. If we then erroneously say C, therefore A, it's generally the same as the stimulus since we're affirming the necessary condition in both cases.

Thank you, my expected flaw(E) is hard to prove based on the argument, whereas (D) points out what the argument is doing directly.

@ said:

MLSAT isn't saying that a poll can never be unrepresentative. They're saying that you can't make that your flaw accusation without better proof. Here, you're essentially guessing at whether a sample of 125 CEOs of large corporations is representative of top management behavior or not. You're taking for granted that a survey of 125 CEOs can't possibly reflect the behavior of top management in general, but what's your basis for that assertion? The situation is not nearly clear enough to make that kind of claim with any kind of confidence.

The provable issue here is that while these CEOs can say whatever they want, their actions are how you actually judge the circumstance in question. The argument, in short, says: CEOs claim to care about employees. Therefore, CEOs behave like they care about employees (or, more technically accurate - it's wrong to think that CEOs behave like they don't care about their employees). But who cares what the CEOs say if they're not backing it up with actions? I can swear up and down that I hate Taylor Swift's music, but if you find me bopping along to her tunes in private, what does that say about my initial statement?

Put another way, it's possible that the error stated in E is happening, and it's possible that it's not - we'd need further factual inquiry to clear it up. But the author definitely makes the error in D, which makes it correct answer to the question.

Hey Ashley,

Conclusion: bus fares should be raised enough to cover the cost of the service.

Why? because city tax should be used primarily to benefit the people who pay them and city tax are subsidizing fares on public bus that go towards people who live outside the city.

Couple flaws/assumptions: I see here: it takes for granted that people who doesn't live in the county don't contribute to city tax revenues like sales taxes?

it also fails to consider that increasing the fares means more money being paid by people taking the bus overall, what if majority of bus takers who don't have low fares are from the city? What if higher fare means more subsidizing?

A) Eliminate, weakening the argument by giving a reason not to raise the price

B)ditto

C) This answer choice is very strange... but using the logic of "if true", adding to the argument it does makes the argument weaker by having contradicting premises (the things counselors said are inconsistent).

D) this is the correct answer, it doesn't propose anything to weaken the argument. People opposing doesn't mean it shouldn't be raise.

E)Eliminate, it match one of my expected assumption, people who live outside the city actually contribute to the city tax.

What did you do to get your LR down to 0-2? I am fluctuating between -1 to -6 average about missing -3...

@ said:

LR is my best one. When I started I was getting 12 wrong on AR, 6 on RC and 4 on LR for about 155 or so. Right now I get between 0-2 wrong on LR and RC. My overall score depends on my AR section, some are better than others, but I don't feel it's arrogant to think I could score mid 160s to low 170s. In percentile that's high, though many on here are well above that

For some reason,,, the letter B becomes an emoji when posted....

Anyways, hope it helps.> @ said:

Conclusion: environmentalists should relax about the sustain increase would threaten human life

Why? because nature will adjust the carbon level.

Flaw/assumption: well, what if nature adjust at certain rate? only part of it being adjusted?

A) is irrelevant

B) eliminate, it goes after the premise

C) Eliminate, it doesn't really weaken. even taken what you said it is part of the blanket do you know it plays an important or less important role?

D) Eliminate, it still doesn't address whether nature will do the job

E) it matched my expected flaw: If E is true, then nature don't adjust all of the released carbon.

Conclusion: environmentalists should relax about the sustain increase would threaten human life

Why? because nature will adjust the carbon level.

Flaw/assumption: well, what if nature adjust at certain rate? only part of it being adjusted?

A) is irrelevant

B) eliminate, it goes after the premise

C) Eliminate, it doesn't really weaken. even taken what you said it is part of the blanket do you know it plays an important or less important role?

D) Eliminate, it still doesn't address whether nature will do the job

E) it matched my expected flaw: If E is true, then nature don't adjust all of the released carbon.

Assuming what you meant by attacking the sub-conclusion is actually attacking the support between premise and sub-conclusion. yes, some questions will require you to attack the support between premise and sub-conclusion. I have seen it happened a few times in the core-curriculum and also in pts. It happened when the support between sub conclusion and conclusion is quite strong, therefore you need to attack the support between premise and sub-conclusion. > @ said:

In arguments, we're supposed to take premises as facts and question the conclusions. But intermediate conclusions are both used as premises (to support the main conclusion) and as conclusions in and of themselves (albeit subsidiary ones).

So how would you treat them if you were trying to evaluate the validity of an argument? Is is acceptable to attack or challenge a sub-conclusion? Assume we have a weaken question-- would we ever see an instance of a correct answer attacking the causality of a sub-conclusion?

I am! Let me know if you are still looking for a study buddy!

#help#help#help for Q7, I chose A which is the correct answer. But I am confused how JY eliminate E, I think passage A does mention some "literature on purple loosestrife control" in the end of first paragraph and also in the last paragraph. Passage A explicitly says they use Glyphosate and also digging to control the spread of purple loosestrife.

I post something similar before and I found a lot of the advices under my thread are super helpful. Do you get the easier or harder questions wrong? What are your prioritized question type from analytics?

Some advices that I have come across in 7-sage and also manhattan forum are:

for Flaw only (I am weak at flaw questions)

drill a whole bunch of LR question, it is a matter of hard work

make a list of wrong questions and keep studying

know why you got the question wrong, was it because of the abstract answer choice, super convoluted argument or didn't find expect the right flaw?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/28164/suggestions-for-lr

Hard LR questions are hard because of the abstract answer choices. Some common patterns that I find that makes the question extremely hard when I am drilling 5 star LR questions are: flaws can be hidden between premise and sub-conclusion. Instead of saying mistake necessary for sufficient, they say something like the absence of sufficient can still lead to necessary

just want to point out something I saw from other people's explanation. The assumption this argument is making is not that "confidence in their own immediate economic situation" unrelated to "the state of the economy", but instead is how "the state of the economy" don't affect "confidence in their own immediate economic situation". The former can lead to answer choice A whereas the latter leads to D.

@ said:

I'd be interested in joining a study group! Is there room for more people

I can form a groups of 3-4 if you are interested.

@ said:

lol I went from exact 168 in April to 171 in June, and almost had the same stats by section as you. I used "The LSAT Trainer" though didn't finish reading it. But I think it was really helpful. I found that just saying to myself "read for structure" (which was the idea I learnt from this book) three times before I start the RC section could usually boost my RC score. When reading the passages, I would suggest don't rush. Taking three to four minutes to really understand the structure and the purpose of every sentence worked much better for me than to rush through the passages. Also skip a passage if you find it difficult after reading the first paragraph. You can go back to it after you've finished the other three. Good luck!

It sounds like we have a lot of similarities. I also did the trainer and didn't finish it.

Thank you for your input!

@ said:

Can help with RC tutoring!

Any advice for RC? Thank you!

I initially chose E but then realized this is D.

To simplify,

1. we know coffeehouse offer free poetry reading almost on all Wednesdays

2. if there's poetry reading there's 1/2priced coffee.

Inference: coffeehouse offer free 1/2priced coffee almost on all Wednesdays. which is D

E is incorrect because although free poetry guarantees 1/2priced coffee, failed sufficient (free poetry) doesn't necessarily mean failed necessary (1/2priced coffee).

It could be the case but it is not an inference we can make from the information.

the argument is flaw because it gave a sort of random explanation to the question we discuss. Just because we can't truly comprehend an action, doesn't mean understanding human behavior requires inquiring nonphysical aspects of person.

*Premise: physical → /understand human action

Conclusion: understand action → /physical

This is contrapositive of each other........

A) Eliminate, there's no analogy given for the conclusion. It would need something that illustrate that understanding human behavior require nonphysical aspects. The evidence only talks about physical aspects can't suffice to understand human behavior.

B) exactly, conclusion is saying we can't understand human action without non-physical. Premise is saying physical can't suffice to understand human action.

C) Eliminate, this answer choices is saying we need nonphysical aspects to understand human action from the premise that fail to say we don't need to know non-physical aspects for human action. This is descriptively incorrect.

D) Eliminate, not clear what it does to the argument. Why does author need to consider something undermine his argument?

E) Eliminate, descriptively incorrect. It is not presuming.... It is stated in the premise.

I am not giving advice on how to release test day anxiety because I personally can’t sleep the night before any big test….

but a few tips that had helped me in my January test and gets me a 172(within my pt ranges).

-try meditation, 10minutes before your test can calm your brain and possibly give it a reboots if you had insomnias like I did the night before test

-try caffeine, different ones (redbull or coffee, energy drink)

-during your break, try deep breathing and push-ups

Understand your problem:

Is the material that bothers or is it your mental stress?

@ said:

Here for it

let me know if you are interested!

@ said:

Interested! Im in the same boat as you

dm you！

@ said:

Hey, I need a study buddy.

Great dm you!

@ said:

yo

Hey thanks for keeping this alive lol