How do we tell the difference between an inclusive 'or' (group 3 rules) or an exclusive 'or' (can be negated to mean 'and')?

Rainymood.com and the self control app.

If you're like me and need some white noise while studying, check out rainymood.com :) I'm obsessed with thunderstorms and the sound of birds chirping and this site has both!

Second, since most of our studies nowadays require an internet connection, it's harder to avoid social media and sites such as youtube, reddit, etc. and that's where SelfControl comes in. It's an app that can be downloaded on your Mac or PC that essentially blacklists any websites you have listed for the amount of time you choose ( you can pick from anywhere between15 mins - 24 hrs) I mentioned this app on here a while ago but thought I'd do so again since it has helped me so much with concentrating.

Feel free to share any apps/sites etc. that help you study :)

Hi All,

This question gave me some issues during my timed take and BR. I'm hoping to talk through it and get someone else's perspective.

We are given a set of facts and we are asked which one of the ACs can be properly inferred.

So, if the scientists are correct, we have this chain of events here:

Air pollution caused global warming, which enhanced the strength of El Nino which caused the widespread drought, which made the tropics especially susceptible to fires.

I don't have an issue with eliminating A, B and C.

D gave me a bit of an issue though. Is D incorrect because it specifies "size and intensity" rather than mere occurrence? For example, if D said "At least some scientists believe that air pollution was responsible for the susceptibility of the tropics to fires in 1997," would that be correct? Or is there something else I am missing here?

I also considered the possibility that D could be wrong because D prescribes a believe to a group of people (some scientists) that might not have been something they were even aware about. For example, the stimulus states a belief of many scientists that have to do with El Nino, global warming and air pollution, NOT the fires. The fire in the tropics is a separate occurrence that the scientists may or may not be aware of. So, due to the mere lack of knowledge, the scientists could believe that air pollution was responsible for the strength of El Nino, but because we do not know the extent of the scientists' awareness of the fires, we cannot infer that they would have any beliefs about the fires. Belief presupposes knowledge of the subject of that belief, right? So it could be the case that, if the scientists were aware of the fires that they would infer a causal relationship, but we are not told that they are aware.

I can't tell if this is me taking this question wayyyy too far and overthinking it, but I would love to know what anyone else's grounds are for eliminating D.

Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-69-section-4-question-20/

(Unless you need a day off- don't burn yourself out)

Hello gamers,

I seem to always get stuck on sequencing games where one of the rules involves having "at least two spaces between X and Y". I get particularly stuck when there's a switch on top so it can either be X _ _ Y or Y _ _ X. Furthermore, sometimes I skip over the "at least" part, which ensures other issues... I know this uses the same concepts as all other games, but for some reason this kind of rule always takes me longer to get my head around. Does anyone else have this issue?

As for improving time, anyone know of certain games with this quality? I want to do as many as possible so I can get more comfortable.

Thanks!

Sophia

Im slightly confused by this question. It says that taking 'no headache pill stops pain more quickly' so why wouldn't the answer be B? Unless it is referring to one person taking different types of pills and comparing its effect, Danaxil would most quickly resolve a persons headache. However, we might not be able to compare between two people? Am I on the right track?

Your help is much appreciated :)

I am on HLS waitlist snd want to attend if offered. It seems H requires WL to attend if they offer. But its possible that due to a requirement at my current work, I may have to continue at it for one more year. If offered a spot, I want to have a choice to go there next year or reapply next year.

I don't want to withdraw as yet as it's possible I may be able to go this year, but it's uncertain.

What can I do to be able to decide after offer and not affect chances next year?

The answer for this question is E. I don't think any of the answers really have a logic structure that parallels to that of the stimulus. For the stimulus I got:

CA--> P

CA some MR

therefore, P some MR

For E I got:

SP some TP

SO some TP

therefore SO --> SP

I won't exactly say they are parallel, though E is the closest answer I guess.

Any thoughts on this?

Hello, could anyone explain to me why the answer is B and not A. Isn't the argument centred around reduction in capital gains tax and how they would lead to increase in deficit?

I still don't understand this question, I chose A but the right answer is B. Why is it B, since it does not mention anything about persons?

Hello Everyone!!!

In the journey of studying for the LSAT I have become a little exhausted! I'm trying to figure out what I can do to muster up energy to make it through the next 5 weeks before I sit for the June LSAT. If any of you have similar stories would you be so kind to tell me what you do to snap yourself back into the groove of things?!?!

I am retaking for june to get off the waitlist at WashU and wanted to see if anyone in Dallas wanted to get together to study.

On PT 35 S1 Q15,

Conclusion: We should be skeptical about the magazine’s conclusion.

Premise: The sample is unrepresentative and the question is biased

answer choice B contains Most (the conclusion drawn in most magazine surveys have eventually been disproved.) and JY shared that it provides little bit of support to the argument.

my question is,

is it always safe to assume that MOST provides little bit of support for strengthening question?

how about for SOME?

Hi everyone. I'm having trouble following the rules to translate a sentence with a group 3 indicator. The lesson states that it doesn't matter which term you put as the sufficient condition at first, as the result will be the same - you negate one of the terms, and then create the counter-positive. I keep seeing 4 possible outcomes. Here's what I mean.

If you have the sentence: There is no reward without hard work.

"no reward" is /R; "hard work" is HW

Let's say we choose /R as the sufficient condition:

/R --> HW

To negate, you could either do:

/R --> /HW OR R --> HW (negate the "no reward")

That gives us the counter positives: HW --> R and /HW --> /R (If there is hard work, then there is a reward. If there is no hard work, then there is no reward)

Lets say you choose HW as the sufficient condition:

HW --> /R

To negate, you could either do:

/HW --> /R OR HW --> R

That gives counter positives: R --> HW and /R -- /HW (If there is a reward, then there is hard work. If there is no reward, there is no hard work)

Any suggestions for someone struggling with the required intuition to crack this?

Hello 7sagers,

I am thinking of doing free reading comprehension tutoring by using passages from older practice tests. Let me know if any one of you is interested in joining me.

I do want to put it out there that I am doing this primarily for my own good because RC happens to be my weakest section. My average for LR is -1.5 but RC is -5 at the moment. So I need to focus on that and one really good way to improve on RC is to go over it with someone.

So if you are struggling with RC and would like to work on this with me, I would be happy to help. But if you are doing well on RC and would still like to just work on it with me let me know as well. I think either way this could be helpful to everyone who just wants to work on improving their reading comprehension skills.

So yes : ) Let's tackle RC!

Update:

Hey everyone,

So I think the best way to proceed would be to just meet and do a passage together. We can rotate volunteers when we go to the next paragraph and then we can all do the questions together under time constraint. So with that said, I have set the tutoring time to be Sunday, May 7th at 5:00 p.m. (eastern time).

We will be using the Reading Comprehension section from PT #3. So please have a clean printed copy of the RC section in front of you and be ready to work on it as we go along. To get the most out of this session, please do not do the passages before the meeting. I think the best way to do this would be to work on this together.

If you would like to join me on Sunday simply click the link provided below at that time and hopefully I will see you all there : ).

P.S. for people who cannot make it at this time. Please let me know what day and time does work for you. I'll do my best to accommodate you guys the next time : )

Decoding Reading Comprehension with Sami

Sun, May 7, 2017 5:00 PM - 6:30 PM EDT

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/863069925

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States: +1 (646) 749-3122

Access Code: 863-069-925

First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: http://help.citrix.com/getready

Hi all! Thought I’d share something I found helpful/necessary during my studying. I started the core curriculum during the last week of January as I planned to take the September test. According to my original study schedule, I was supposed to start PTing around April 1st. From the end of January to April 1st, I had not completed the foolproof method for Logic Games and I felt that I should not (with some advice from @"Alex Divine" on another post) start PTing until I had done so. Naturally, I was apprehensive to push back the PTs because I wanted to finish all of them before the September test, however, by doing all the Logic Games, I feel like I am infinitely more prepared to start PTing than I was before. The fool proof method works wonders and I highly recommend doing all Logic Games before PTing. Also, rushing through to get every PT done instead of doing comprehensive BR and really learning from the mistakes is just a waste of time. I originally tried a different study schedule from another prep company that had you doing four PTs a week which is ridiculous! If you don’t learn anything from a PT and apply it to the next, then why do it at all. Hope this helps anyone who was or will be in the same situation I was in!

Does anyone know where I can purchase the Cambridge drill packets? Any other places to find questions to practice with?

I noticed that 7sage provides a list of foundational in/out logic games, grouped by easy, medium, and hard. Are there are other sets of games for sequencing and grouping games?

Hey guys, I was wondering whether the #19 is usually the most difficult question of each LR section? anyone has the same feeling?

Failed to understand student's argument. Any insight will be appreciated.

is that if A, then not B, and A or B, but not both the same thing?

Can someone break this down for me?

I was torn between 2 different answer choices.

I mean I can see how B is correct, but I also thought D had merit.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-49-section-4-question-16/

I have a question about PT49.S4.Q16. If this were a sufficient assumption question, can (D) be a correct answer?

(D) says "beautiful → best." "Most beautiful" are beautiful, so it would to be "Most beautiful → beautiful → best." (D) certainly fills the gap in the argument. But I think it's not necessary since we don't need all beautiful pieces to be the best to conclude that "beauty" and "truth" are different.

Argument Breakdown:

[[Main Argument]]

Premise: A [beauty = truth] → X [most realistic (R) → best (B)]

(Sentence 2: If there were no difference, then the most realistic pieces of art would be the best as well)

Premise: /X [most realistic (R) and not best (/B)]

(Sentence 3: But many of the most realistic artworks are not among the best)

————————————

Conclusion: /A (beauty =/= truth)　

(Sentence 1: There is a difference between beauty and truth)

[[Sub-argument]]

Premise: A [beauty = truth] → C [most realistic (R)→ most truthful]

(Sentence 2: since the most realistic pieces are the most truthful)

A [beauty = truth] → C2 [most realistic (R)→ most beautiful]

[[[[[GAP IN THE ARGUMENT]]]]]

——————

Conclusion: A [beauty = truth] → X [most realistic (R) → best (B)]

(Sentence 2: If there were no difference, then the most realistic pieces of art would be the best as well)

[[[[[GAP IN THE ARGUMENT]]]]]

C2 (= C) → X

most realistic (R)→ most beautiful → best (B)

[[Answer choices]]

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/

On Tuesday, May 9, at 9 p.m. EST, I’ll lead a personal statement boot camp. We’ll cover everything from choosing a topic to shaping your story. When I’m done, I’ll answer your questions about the admissions process. Hope to see you there!

Webinar: Personal Statement Bootcamp

Tue, May 9, 2017 9:00 PM - 10:00 PM EDT

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/543945565

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States: +1 (571) 317-3122

Access Code: 543-945-565

First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: http://help.citrix.com/getready