Even though this question is old, it has several lessons built into it. I was able to parse this question out mainly because of the lessons on 7Sage. The first lesson I see with this question is the importance of being attuned to the grammar of the LSAT. The stimulus begins with “since.” This should reference back to the core curriculum grammar lessons: “since” generally introduces something that we will be using to build towards a conclusion. In other words, we are hurled by the first word of this argument into a premise. We also have an additional premise that is introduced by the word “and.” We then have a comma and the conclusion is given to us in conditional language. I sometimes feel on LR that what I am given in a stimulus is like joining a conversation mid-talk and I am expected to piece together the information into the way the authors want us to. This is a perfect example of that phenomena in my estimation.

The second lesson in this question is the heavy use of conditional language. You have to know your conditional indicators in order to map this question correctly. What we end up getting when we map this question is:

P 1:If you support the new tax plan——>no chance of being elected.

P 2:If you truly understand economics——>Not support the new plan.

C:If you have a chance of being elected——>truly understand economics

The third lesson from this question is the idea that questions are often related in the task they set out for us, a deep understanding of this sits at the bottom of the case for reading the stimulus before the question stem: if you can tell what is wrong from the stimulus this thinking goes, the question stem shouldn't have to be read first (I am not a proponent of this view.) When I lined those conditionals up, out of habit I wanted to find the sufficient assumption. Well it turns out that if we look at this question through a sufficient assumption lens, we can actually garner quite a bit. Lets take the contrapositive of that first statement:

P 1: If you have a chance of being elected——>Not support new tax plan

P 2:If you truly understand economics——>Not support the new plan.

C:If you have a chance of being elected——>truly understand economics

So insofar as the premises supporting the conclusion this isn’t a valid argument. But why? Above there is simply no way to get from the premises to the conclusion. The forth lesson dawned on me when I was BR’ing this question: This is where the flaw really is: as currently stated, the premises do not support the conclusion. Familiar terms are used in the premises and conclusion as a way to distract us, but the conclusion might as well be something about football or motorcycle maintenance. There is simply no support for the given conclusion from the given premises. The relationships between the elements do not support the given conclusion.

This is when we take a look at the fifth lesson embedded in this question and that is to take a close look at the question stem. This isn’t actually asking what the flaw is in the way we are all used to. Instead, this question is asking us for something that the argument ignores the possibility of. More specifically, that the argument ignores the possibility that “some people who _____” The fifth lesson here is how to deny a conditional relationship. So if I were to give you the conditional relationship: All cats are mammals, you would deny that by saying “some things that are cats and not mammals.” The existence of a thing that is both a cat and not a mammal is enough to deny the sufficiency of something being a cat triggering the necessary condition of being a mammal. With this knowledge in mind lets take a closer look at what we are given in the stimulus.

chance of elected———>Not support new tax plan

+

Understands economics——>Not support new tax plan

Conclusion:

Chance elected——>Truly understands economics

How could we make this valid? We could say that Not support new tax plan——>Understands economics!

99 times out of 100, if we have gotten this far and we are stuck, it was actually our translation of the logic where we have gone wrong. Meaning if this was a sufficient assumption question, I would bet that I had translated something wrong. But, we didn’t. The only other possibility is something very peculiar: it appears that our author has given us: Understands economics———>Not support new tax plan, but has interpreted this statement in logic to mean: Not support new tax plan———>Understand economics! If we (wrongly) interpret the second condition as Not support new tax plan———>Understand economics, we have a simple A——>B——>C argument.

This is an incredibly difficult step to take. I am open for correction here, but the idea that we are given a conditional statement, that we translate correctly, but have to take a leap in judgement to conclude that the author might have interpreted that conditional statement wrong is hard enough. Finding where the author’s translation went wrong and then negating that translation to point out the flaw makes this, for my money, the hardest flaw question of all time. The author's assumption here is actually a mistranslation of the logic to: Not support new tax plan———>Understand economics The denial of this is (D)

I look forward to a correspondence with members of this community about this question. Has anyone come across something like this elsewhere? Would it behove us to classify this flaw under the umbrella of sufficient/necessary flaws more generally? Thank you!

David

**Admin note: edited title**

Hi community,

I cannot remember all my dorm housing policy violations that I breached in college

because I threw away the papers and the college email is now terminated.

So I contacted the student life office and asked them to release all the records.

They only had one alcohol violation. Honestly I cannot remember if there is anything more.

Im not so concerned about law school app as to the Bar C&F. What if Bar C&F

find out something that I don't remember despite my effort to research and disclose?

Maybe some records are expunged despite receiving written warning, but I cannot remember? (- this is what Im most concerned about.(/p)

I want to disclose everything but I cannot find records. This is really getting frustrating.

I saw something in a comment somewhere about logic game sets of similar questions to do, and I saw on one explanation JY had "if you struggled with this type of question, here's a bunch more". Are there multiple of these lists/ do these lists exist?

The purpose for me pursuing law school is to ultimately work in public interest. I hope to get into policy making/changing.. especially education law and disability law. With that said.. I would love to make it to a T14 school.. Georgetown would be a dream come true.. or Cornell.

My husband is applying to veterinary school the same time I am applying to law school.. This limits my choices of T14 schools. I honestly just want to get into a decent school with scholarships that will allow me to work in public policy.

Considering what my goal with a law degree is, is it reasonable to NOT attend a T14 and still accomplish my goals?

I've been doing too much lurking on the TLS forum.

Are their any more premise or conclusion indicator(s) words that have been found that we can add to the list?

And even words indicating a switch in the argument?

73.4.20 https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-4-question-20/

This is a phenomenon-hypothesis Strengthening question, so we are looking for an answer choice that strengthens the hypothesis or an answer choice that prevents an outside factor from weakening the hypothesis.

The passage is basically saying that the process goes like this: When nerve cells are damaged after a stroke, glutamate can leak from them and can kill other nerve cells. We are left to reasonably presume that this is included in the definition of continuing nerve cell deterioration. Therefore glutamate is present in blood of those whose nerve cells continue to deteriorate after a stroke.

Answer choices (it came down to C and D):

A – incorrect because saying that any neurotransmitter that leaks from damaged nerve cells will damage other nerve cells does not strengthen the relationship we want. It doesn’t give us any more reason to think that glutamate in particular is impacting surrounding nerve cells.

B – incorrect because it’s irrelevant

C – This was very hard to eliminate, but it is incorrect for a couple of reasons. 1) Knowing that it is the only one that leaks from damaged nerve cells doesn’t necessarily impact the relationship. If it does, we have to stretch it with a bit assuming in order to do so (for instance, you have to assume that it actually DOES leak from those nerve cells). 2) It doesn’t rule out the possibility that glutamate could come from five billion other locations in the body. It therefore definitely does not strengthen the statement that glutamate from damaged nerve cells is a cause of brain damage. Just because it is the only neurotransmitter that leaks from oxygen-starved or damaged nerve cells does not mean that it only leaks from those nerve cells. In fact, it leaves the door wide open to think that it could leak from a long list of other places, and we know from the stimulus that we don’t care about those other places. We just want to know if leakage from oxygen-starved or damaged nerve cells causes brain damage, and this answer choice doesn’t give us enough security and clarity for us to be able to do that.

D – This is the correct answer, because it specifies that glutamate can ONLY come from damaged or oxygen-starved nerve cells. This enables us to say (or at least makes it possible for us to say) that glutamate very well could cause brain damage/long-term nerve cell deterioration, since the way it can get into the blood stream in the first place is from oxygen-starved or damaged nerve cells.

E – incorrect because 1) we don’t need to know anything else about nerve cells to conclude that glutamate causes brain damage, and 2) it doesn’t matter that they can leak glutamate and still survive intact. This has no impact on the relationship we are trying to strengthen, since if they were destroyed, it wouldn’t do us any harm or any good.

[Admin edit: replaced with link to question. Please don't post full questions, thanks!]

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-76-section-2-question-24/

We are looking for a necessary assumption.

The conditional for the first sentence is: write in order to give pleasure  /impart truth. However, the conclusion of the argument is that this conditional is not true. They say that if this conditional was true, then you could take any popular book on the shelf and the conditional would be: popular  gave people pleasure  /impart truth. To do this, you would have to assume that if a book gives people pleasure, then it would have to have been written in order to give people pleasure. Just insert the original conditional in right in front of the “/impart truth” part of the equation.

This was counter-intuitive for me because I was immediately looking for a bridge to the conclusion of the stimulus, which is that those who write in order to give pleasure CAN impart truth to their readers. This one is tricky because it is asking you to look for the NA in a part of the stimulus that you’re not used to looking for it.

[Admin edit: Replaced with link to question. Please don't post copyrighted material, thanks!]

Hey all!

I've been hiding away doing applications. I hope everyone did well on the December test and if you didn't, Feb is around the corner and I know you all will kick ass.

So this hasn't actually come up until today but one school I'm applying to asks for an explanation if your second LSAT score is five points or above your last one. I improved by five points and wasn't sure how I should approach the explanation.

Three main reasons for why I increased:

So I'm not sure if I should explain all of this or if it makes me look like a slacker. I don't want the school to think I can't handle stress or change.

Any thoughts?

Thanks and love this site!

Hey 7sage community,

My name is Alex and I am planning on taking the LSAT in June/September 2017. Is anyone looking for a study buddy in the Los Angeles area? I believe it would be great to find a study partner and go over 35 minute timed sections together and help build motivation in conquering the LSAT. I have taken 2 full PT's thus far, my diagnostic score was a 144 in November, my 2nd was 150 last week. I am reading the LSAT Trainer, I have just ordered the Powerscore LGB and Manhattan LR. I reside in Glendale and Whittier.

If anyone is interested in partnering, please leave a comment!

Hey there, has anyone on here seen of, or complied a list of the more difficult RC sections in LSAT history? Wanted to try and tackle them all before sleighing the beast in two weeks.

Hello, I have a question about the letters.

1. Should we show our PS DS or any essays to the prof?

2. I have a couple of letters and wonder what steps to take after LSAC received the letters...I thought we can choose letters, but no? If we submit them, will all of them be sent to all schools?

3. When they say at least 2 letters, but accept 3, how many do you submit? I heard 3 is better, but also heard if the contnt is the same (almost) you should not bother Adcom to read the additional one.

4. I'm meeting another professor. She is quiet busy but I hope I can get a letter from her asap...how can I be polite but still ask her to write a letter as soon as she can?

Thank you for your help.

Sorry if this is redundant due to being asked and answered elsewhere. Direction there would be good if so, but I can't find an answer with a few searches.

I just upgraded my membership. Previously, I had used the question bank + filtering to drill questions marked as high priority from my PT + blind review. Now that I have access to new questions, I would like to filter again for those question (yes, I still suck at some of them) but not see all the ones that were available in my lower level subscription. That is to say, I only want to see the "new" ones that are available given my new upgraded membership. Is there a trick or way to do this? I guess it won't kill me to redo old questions if not. . .

Many thanks.

Hi all,

In December, RC, which is my best section, was the first section and I felt like I wasn't understanding any of the sentences I was reading. So I read the sentence again and again but I just kept feeling like I didn't understand it...I guess this is a form of test anxiety.

How can I prepare to prevent such disaster in June? Any thoughts?

Thanks! :)

This professor is a good guy, and I like him a lot. He was kind enough to send back a draft. Can I pm one of you guys to get your opinion on the quality?

So, I've done this question many many times. And I've never felt great about it. Can some run it down for me?

Specifically, answer choice A.

Here's what A looks like:

A:

Writer has right ---> Author granted writer the right

I believe A is incorrect because "Writer has right" should not be in the sufficient condition.

Rather, to be correct, A should look like this:

Author granted writer the right ---> Writer has right

Is this accurate?

(if you want to add anything else helpful, it'd be greatly appreciated).

I am working towards a faster pace for the test questions but have tremendous difficulty lowering the time spent. I can score close to perfect on the logic games with an additional 20 minutes and LR & RC roughly the same. I am not certain how to overcome this with multiple factors of working full time and being a single mom of 2. I am scheduled to take the Feb 2017 LSAT and feel unprepared for the time factor. What is the most efficient way to decrease time? And should I schedule to take the LSAT in June 2017 given the issues above? Thank you for your help:)

I'm prior service and had two of my army psychiatrists write me a letter to send to the LSAT people asking for extra time due to my ptsd and the fact that i have minor ADHD take ritalin and propranolol for tests,how are they with giving extra time? is it a difficult process? anyone think i have a chance?

Since the LSAT may not always be straight forward...

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/44/c6/c9/44c6c9c3795df4ab90580b82b4e73a91.gif

Study Groups are available to help prepare for the unexpected and answer those "curve breaker" questions!!

The Weeknight Study Group will complement the Saturday Study Group sharing the same schedule providing more options to address everyone’s study needs. A new feature for the PT specific BR calls is for everyone to ask specific “priority” questions that they personally want to review with the study group which hopefully will allow anyone in different time zones to join at any point during the session and gain the benefit of review.

Studying part-time over the past year plus, the BR calls have been invaluable to me and offered many occasions to lead calls throughout past testing cycles. Vanessa @nessa.k13.0 has already started providing the Saturday group with workshops and we are collaborating with Josh @"Cant Get Right" on expanding the Study Group into so much more than a BR call with opportunities to enhance the entire PT/post curriculum prep experience - Sage led workshops and RC/LG intensives – details to follow based on each of the Study Groups needs and requests:)

Look forward to seeing you Wednesday and/or Saturday nights – you never know who might show up to lend their expertise??!!

I will be posting details for Wednesday night PT60 soon. Let me know if you want to continue to be tagged in future posts:)

~Tyler

(Thanks @montaha for the gif:)

Tentative study schedule

https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=aWw1aWEzYTRkbWdoaDZsa3U3YjBsaDBlZDBAZ3JvdXAuY2FsZW5kYXIuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbQ

Hey 7Sagers,

We're very happy to announce that we've come to an agreement with the LSAC to re-release PrepTests in a very limited format. Specifically, they will be viewable and printable as digital rights management (DRM) protected electronic documents.

You can find them on the syllabus page by scrolling down to the PrepTest and clicking it. The e-doc will be next to the silent videos. You can see what I mean here:

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/preptest-36/

We want to make it clear that these are not PDFs - they are DRM protected electronic documents (e-docs). Please do not refer to them as PDFs. We would feel really bad if a student enrolled in a 7Sage course thinking they would get PDFs when, in fact, they would not.

Currently, PT36 - PT80 are the only tests available as an e-doc. Assuming all goes smoothly with these, we expect to be able to release other PTs slowly over the course of 2017, so watch out for those!

I'm sure you have many questions. Please PM me with your questions. I will answer them as a followup post to this announcement. Please do not start new threads on this subject because we will delete them.

[Edit: All PTs are now available as e-docs!]

Hi Guys,

I don't really know how to address overconfidence errors. So far, I have been taking my PT's and BRing just the questions I circled, and then BRing the rest of the section. However, it has come to my attention that it is more important to BR the questions that you circled first and then address overconfidence errors.

My question is this: what do you do to address the overconfidence errors? Do you look at your test booklet and see the question you circled and try to see what your reasoning was? What if you don't remember it? I took a PT on Friday and am now reviewing the test bc I was busy yesterday. Do you just try to reason why the one you chose is wrong and all the other answer choices? Or do you look at the answer and then rationalize why that is correct and the others are incorrect.

I'm really confused about the process for the overconfidence errors and would be most appreciative of any insights or help someone can provide me.

Hey guys! It's me again.

Although, I have just started studying not too long ago... I can sense that time will be an issue for me. I find myself rereading the first two sentences multiple times. I think this might be the case because I'm often that last student writing the test. I have ALWAYS taken my time with writing tests and knowing that I only have 35 minutes per section gives me anxiety.

Not sure how I will be able to get through this.

Help!

I am just curious to know for logic games, people who are scoring well in that section, once you find what you believe to be the answer choice. do you move on to the next question? or are you also verifying the the other answers as well just to make sure the answer you chose is correct?

Hi all,

Sorry if this has already been asked and/or answered.

Any idea when the PT80 explanations will be coming out, particularly LR (not just games)? I am going over and BR'ing my December exam and I am extremely stuck on a couple of the questions.

I don't think this is a spoiler... but in my opinion, the LR sections seriously increased in difficulty from even just the early 70's. Instead of planting a couple insanely difficult q's spread out across the test or near the end, there were times when it was quite early in the test and there were 3 mind-boggling insane questions all back to back.

I'm writing in Feb. I know I'd benefit going into the next test knowing that I thoroughly reviewed the most recent PT and fully understood where I got tripped up.

Thanks in advance.

I am scoring somewhere between -4 to -6 on LR now (yesterday I had a -11 but I was frenzied and used the "5" setting on the 7sage proctor when I already have enough distraction). Anyway, I have noticed that what absolutely kills me, regardless of how much I try, is necessary assumption. I know that you are supposed to boil it down to the base necessity for the argument to exist, but my mind trails to the assumption that will often fix it. It's to the point where if I could just sort out NA, my LR would probably give me 2-4 extra points on the test.

Does anyone look at NA in any specific light that gives them clarity when doing these types of questions?

When reading passages, are there any signs/ signals that one should look out for that may be an area of interest that questions focus on?