Now that logic games won't be featured on the LSAT anymore, should we just skip the logic games curriculum on 7sage?
I know that there are a few logical reasoning questions out there that require you to be able to diagram conditional statements. So is there any part of the Logic Games curriculum we should look at, just in case?
Thanks all!
E introduces a conditional statement ("if...then..."). This is a significant departure from the original meaning of the stimulus. The stimulus firmly establishes that both authors are from similar backgrounds and have led similar lives. The stimulus is not saying anything about a conditional situation and what would happen if that conditional situation were true.
Secondly, "suspicions of plagiarism are unlikely to be warranted" (E) doesn't match the conclusion as well as "it is less likely that... guilty of plagiarism than that the similarity... is coincidental" (D). The conclusion in the stimulus states that "it is MORE likely that the similarity... is coincidental." Therefore D is closer to this conclusion than E, almost word for word. Both the conclusion and D state that coincidental similarity is "more likely" than plagiarism.
In contrast, D is alluding more to how the suspicions of critics may not be warranted, or may not have as much weight. Similar in meaning, but the nuance of the emphasis is a little different.
This is my opinion on why D is a better answer choice than E.
22.
(A) is wrong because there is no implication that the first criticism is pointing at "dishonorable motives." Rather, Victorian philanthropy was simply ineffective in addressing the kinds of problems that were prevalent during that time.
(D) is correct. The first criticism states that these problems necessitated action from the state. As for the second criticism, it's a little tricky. But since the 2nd criticism points at the "self-serving" nature of the management class, I believe you can infer that the government would not have such a motive, because the government has no reason to "flaunt wealth," "cultivate social connections," or "ensure the dominance of the management class."
Another reason why D is wrong: it says those comets were thrown into those oval orbits by a close encounter "WITH SOME OTHER OBJECT."
We are trying to prove that oval-orbit planets in other solar systems became that way because of a close encounter with other PLANETS orbiting the same sun.
What if those comets in our solar system were thrown into oval orbits because of a stray satellite, or an asteroid? (I know, probably not plausible because of weak gravitational pull, but for the sake of argument.) The point is that it does not specify, and so it does not give us any reason to believe that planets in other solar systems with an oval orbit became that way because of nearby PLANETS.
Main conclusion question. I haven't missed one of these in a while but this one has me truly confused.
The conclusion of the stimulus is: "This demonstrates how the local media show too much deference toward public figures." ("This" being a case where a politician who was promoted as honest by the media was caught up in a corruption scandal.)
I was tempted by C, but chose E - The local newspaper's treatment of Clemens is indicative of its treatment of public figures in general. I chose E because to me it seemed important that Clemens' case was used to "demonstrate" this phenomenon. C didn't have that. C just says "the local news media show too much deference toward public figures."
Why is E wrong??
Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-75-section-3-question-08/
"Generally accepted" is not "unanimously accepted." There still could be some hardcore skeptics even if the GENERAL public accepts the existence of ESP.
Chose B because I thought that if most of the seals were attached to documents that have since been destroyed, that suggests that there were many more documents stamped per seal that we don't know about.
But I guess as JY said, it doesn't matter what the modifier after "document" is. Maybe all the researchers knew about the different documents, and the documents were destroyed in modern times.
#9 - I chose D, the tadpoles' carnivorousness calls into question the inclusive fitness theory. I thought that the fact that the tadpoles sometimes eat each other initially causes a problem for the inclusive fitness theory, which states that natural selection benefits organisms that help their relatives.
I'm guessing this is wrong mostly because, yes, the tadpoles sometimes eat their siblings, but the fact that these tadpoles DO have some form of kin recognition suggests that they try not to eat each other when possible. So ultimately, the tadpoles' discriminatory, selective cannibalism does not significantly conflict with the inclusive fitness theory.
Another reason why D is wrong: it's not necessarily the carnivorousness that poses a problem for this theory, it's the sibling cannibalism.
C - maybe the proposed law applies to everyone equally, but well-to-do professionals are just more aware of the new law because they have more access to information and professional support
"concerning specific flights" should have stood out to me more. It made me pause, but I went and chose it anyway. The stim doesn't assume the tapes are inaccurate about specific flights. You might assume that the stim is implying that the tapes are inaccurate somehow, but it's a stretch to say the stim assumes that about "specific flights."
Pamela argues that the long hours of physician training is unsustainable.
Quincy argues that it has worked well in the past, so there is no need to change it.
B gives us a reason to believe that there IS a good reason to change the status quo, because the situation has fundamentally changed from the past. Keeping physicians up for long hours was acceptable then, but now that patients are more ill, then maybe outcomes will be drastically worse if the problem of overworked physicians is not solved.
C suggests that the current situation where physicians work for up to 36 hours straight is still compatible with this standard of continuous 24 hour care since it fits well within that window. This also doesn't touch Quincy's objection at all - why should something that has worked in the past be changed?
C) negation test - There were plays written last year that the drama critic has neither read nor seen performed.
This doesn't necessarily wreck the conclusion - it still leaves open the possibility that even those plays that the critic didn't see doesn't meet his standards for longevity.
Also as others have pointed out maybe the critic can be certain that no other plays meet his criteria because he has heard about them from other reviewers, who said those plays don't examine human nature skillfully.
Gotta be careful about not glossing over concepts that don't link up, like future popularity and regular screening.
A little more difficult than normal for me. I missed -4 and -2 on the LR sections for that one.
Some critics say it's unfair that so many great works of art are in huge city museums, since those people already have access to lots of art.
But this is unwarranted because there are so few masterpieces that distributing them more widely is impractical.
Plus, if a masterpiece is to be fully appreciated, it must be seen along other works that provide context for it.
I chose B here because I thought that people would benefit most from getting a full appreciation of the art, and that distributing them more widely would diminish that appreciation for more people.
I mostly understand why D is right, but does the last sentence of the stimulus play any role in answer choice D??
Also can anyone explain why my thinking for B was wrong? Thanks!
I tend to struggle with parallel flaw questions.. I was so confused on this question because I was focused on matching up the negatives.
Great medieval universities ---> /administrators
/administrators ---> longevity
I chose A, even though I didn't love it. I ruled out B because that answer choice said that we should also get a computer to be successful, but I thought the answer choice would have to recommend NOT having something, like the stimulus.
Is my thinking incorrect here? With parallel questions, do the negatives/positives not always match up? I guess instead I should have thought of "no administrators" as "a certain characteristic that helps longevity" rather than "not A," right?
And is A wrong because the point of the stimulus isn't that just that a certain characteristic is not necessary for the ideal outcome, but rather that characteristic SHOULD be adopted BECAUSE it is the reason for the ideal outcome? The author is mistakenly assuming that the lack of administrators was necessary/responsible for the longevity of great medieval universities?
Thanks!!
WEAKEN
Stimulus:
If the public library was moved from Redville to Glenwood, then the library would be within walking distance of a larger number of users.
Because:
-More people live in Glenwood than Redville
-People only walk to the library if it's close to their home
Was stuck between A and B for this one. Can someone explain why it's not A and why the answer is B? Here's my attempt:
A) - Maybe relocating the library to Glenwood would put the library within reach of a whole new segment of the population, so the fact that more people who currently walk to the library live in Redville doesn't matter?
B) - This is literally a direct comparison of how many people would use the library in Redville vs. Greenville if it was located in their respective areas, so this is the correct answer?
The fact that some of the details were erased doesn't change the fact that the remaining footprint still has definitively human characteristics - the squarish heel and the big toe.
Maybe the erased details show something really weird and non-human, maybe they just show other human characteristics. But you don't know for sure from the answer choice that the details would show that the feet are nonhuman. For all we know, Dr. Tyson could still be right and we could just be missing extra human characteristics from the footprint.
Stimulus: Joshua Smith's book was criticized for being too "implausible." But that criticism is unwarranted. If you actually read the book, you would see that each incident that the hero gets involved in could happen to anybody.
Prephrase: Ok, so this is saying that because every incident that the hero gets involved in is something that sounds plausible, that means that the book as a whole is plausible. But what if those incidents, while they make sense independently, don't make sense when they're strung together? This isn't a great example, but let's say that on 12/21/2020 at noon, I was at the grocery store. Also, at that same time, I was at the movies. Those two separate things could happen to anybody, but those two things can't happen together, so as a whole it isn't plausible.
Correct answer, D : This is exactly that prephrase. The argument assumes that the whole story will have a certain characteristic (be plausible) just because the parts are plausible. Maybe each incident (each part) that the hero gets involved in is plausible, but as a whole it doesn't sound realistic.
This question is just a matter of addition. So, 77% of the students endorsed a liberal position.
The students breakdown is as follows:
25% - conservative
24% - liberal
51% - middle of the road
Let's say all of the "middle of the road" students endorsed the liberal position (were part of that 77%). And then let's say all of the liberal students endorsed the liberal position too. 51% + 24% = 75%. That means at least some of the conservative students endorsed the liberal position, because that doesn't quite add up to 77% of all the students.
Alternatively, let's say all of the middle of the road students and all of the conservative students voted for the liberal position. That's a total of 51% + 25% = 76%. So at least some of the liberal students endorsed the liberal position.
And of course, if you have all the conservative and liberal students endorse the liberal position, that's only 49% of all the students, so you need some "middle of the road" students to make up the gap.
Basically, that means that within the 77% that endorsed the liberal position, all three groups are going to be represented.
So that makes D the right answer, because even if you have all of the liberal and middle of the road students endorsing the liberal position, that still leaves us with a small gap that needs to be filled, and the only other group of students are the conservatives.
Hi! I’m interested. Taking February.
Taking in February, I’m interested!
Taking in February but I’m interested!
Citizen's group: A new business park would bring in twice the amount of business that your highway would, so if you really cared about the economy, you would've built a new business park.
To make this argument work, the mayor has to be on the same page that a new business park would bring more business than the highway. If the mayor believes that the highway brings in more business, then he could argue that he actually does care about the economy - he just has a different opinion on which is the best option to stimulate it.
The answer could include "many" if it was phrased like this: if you have many crimes, then you have some (=at least one) laws to break.
But E is wrong because a society that has many crimes could just have one law. Maybe people are just breaking one law many times. Or maybe there are only a few laws, not many. Many crimes does not allow us to conclude definitively that we have many laws.
Answer is D because if you have some crimes, that implies that you have at least some laws (some = at least one).
#feedback I feel like there is an assumption here that only Disney Vacation Club members can access the Genie+ pass. The stimulus says what DVC members must do to get the Genie+ pass, but it doesn't preclude the possibility that there may be other ways to get the pass as a non-DVC club member.