On PT 58.1.13, we have one of the harder main point questions. I got this one correct, but I want to make sure I am understanding the passage correctly.

Does the phrase "it is a given" introduce a premise? Also, does "for such" introduce a premise?

EDIT: I got rid of the "always introduce" since there are probably exceptions. I am more wondering if they tend to introduce premises.

I had a very tough time with this question, can someone evaluate my analysis of A, D, and E for me?

This is a weaken question.

The Kiffer Forest Preserve (KFP), which is a part of the A Valley, is where most of the bears in the valley live. The main road through the KFP has been closed for 8 years. During those 8 years, the bear population in the KFP has doubled. Therefore, the A Valley's population will increase if the road is kept closed.

What I am looking for: I think there are a few things wrong with this argument. First is the "part to whole" flaw. It is true that the KFP's population increased, but is that support for the idea that the entire valley's population will increase? Not really. What if the bears just moved there from other parts of the valley? Second is the causal flaw. What if there was something else that led to the increase in the bear population, and the road being closed is spurious? Third is the futuristic prediction. Let's assume that closing the road was the reason for the increase in the bear population, will continuing to keep it closed work? What if the bear population is at max capacity right now and no new bears can live there? You'd have to assume that that isn't the case.

Answer A: I had a very tough time eliminating this one, and I originally chose it during the timed exam. I had enough time to come back to it, and I did change it. I think this is wrong because to weaken the argument, you have to assume that the migration came entirely from other parts of the valley. But, that isn't an OK assumption. This answer choice leaves open the possibility that the migration came entirely from outside the valley.

Answer B: I think this may strengthen the argument since it sort of implies that migration from other parts of the valley was not another cause of the population increase in KFP.

Answer C: This is superficially similar to B, but it is wrong for a different reason. The statement is too weak to undermine the argument. Sure, the population increase in KFP didn't come from bears outside the valley, but what if the bears in KFP just had more babies or something due to cars not scaring off the bears? This answer choice doesn't do a whole lot.

Answer D: I changed my answer from A to this one. I think this is wrong because leaving out the rate of increase in KFP is important. Say that it is true that the population of the bears outside the KFP decreased a little bit, but what if bear population in the KFP increased by a million times? This scenario might strengthen the argument since the total population of the valley would still increase, even though only one small part of the valley is responsible for the increase.

Answer E: This is what I changed my answer to during BR. If the total population of the valley remained the same, then the doubling of the KFP population was solely due to internal migration. It wouldn't make any sense to say that the increase in the population of a part (KFP) transfers to a population increase of the whole.

PT70 Section4 # 17

For #17: Parallel Form

I got confused on how to diagram it (I understood everything except how to diagram (Note: the way I diagram for these is using broad A-->B,etc since the context isn't important but the form of the logic is):

The stimulus says that:

-some halogen lamps are well-crafted

-because halogen lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at FL

-and any item on display at FL is well-crafted

I wrote it as

some A-->B or A(--some-)B

A-->C

C-->B

But my diagram is wrong for:

because halogen lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at FL

it should be A(-some-)C

why is it some?

Need some help. There are huge gaps between by BR and actual PT scores, i.e. (175/155). Would love to hear how some you overcame this challenge.

Happy Veterans Day to all my brothers and sisters in arms! If any vets out there need help with anything from the LSAT to admissions to educational benefits, I offer a free full hour of one on one assistance either in person or over Skype! Thank you all for your service and have an awesome day!

I've been taking the infamous birds watchers, fruit stand and cd LGs at least once a day. Why? I like them! JY says in the videos that they're incredibly easy although the rest of society (not really but yeah!) thinks they're among the toughest LGs released. So last night I was doing the cd game and I could tell immediately my timing was off but I kept moving. Long story short, I eventually just put my pencil down, brushed my teeth and went to bed. I couldn't finish it. I have no clue why I couldn't figure it out??? I can't count the number of times I've done this game. I remember the answers for the most part, but not all. I didn't just circle and move on because I already knew the answer, but for some reason it was like I had never seen the game ever in my life! Or even attempted a LG for that matter! I was disgusted! I know I've been frustrated before and just decided not to do anything LSAT related for that day, but that was just unreal to me! First true experience of burnout for me. It's real folks! I've got my clean copies and I'll be back at it on my lunch break!

I had a diagnostic of 156 in June. By end of September I was averaging 167/168 range. I didn't do as well as I hoped on October exam so decided to retake in december. I have been testing again and scored a 169,170,and 174 respectively on my last 3 tests. This is obviously great news, however, I haven't changed anything up such really such as drilling,new methods, etc aside from a small focus on RC which has been my weak spot but I haven't really improved there much. My biggest improvement has been on LR actually although I've done nothing other than PTs and BR to work on it. Has anyone else seen these types of improvements just "happen"?lol Whatever is happening I hope it keeps up until December 5th.

@nicole.hopkins @Pacifico I could use your wisdom.

The Trainer PREACHED to eliminate all wrong answer choices first for 99% of questions then chose the right answer. Do you do this? I have found that it really is taking me more time and that it is making me consider answers I never would have. I have adapted this skill when I run into hard questions and has helped 10000% but this book was hell bent on doing it every single time. I am averaging about -2 per section LR. What do you guys do?

Just want to confirm my diagram of "Not Otherwise" is correct.

A police officer is eligible for a Mayor's Commendation if the officer has exemplary record, but not otherwise.

Exemplary Record >> Eligible

Not (Exemplary Record) >> Not (Eligible)

i finally get logic games. i get 9/10 correct but each game takes me around 15 minutes. What can i do to cut it in 1/2 without sacrificing accuracy?

thanks

For #23:Parallel Flaw

like in #17 I had trouble diagramming a part of this stim.

The stimulus says that:

Almost every SP in the past had MTC

Using MTC to introduce VB

Therefore VB will be a SP

I diagrammed:

A-->B

B-->C

-----------

C-->A

But for "Using MTC to introduce VB" is suppose to be diagrammed as:

C-->B

Why? And why is my diagram wrong?

Unsure on how to approach this. I scored a perfect on the Games section from PT43 when normally I do not what should I think of this?

This is kind of a dumb question and I feel like no one else has this problem, but I've realized I constantly make mistakes identifying the scope or relevance of an AC on logical reasoning (RC too). If I'm choosing between two answer choices, I'll choose the more tempting one and later realize it was out of scope, and the right AC was really subtle.

Does anyone have any suggestions for this/exercises I can try/lessons I should focus on? I think I read carefully but I really don't know how far away I can go from the scope of the stimulus

If AC "C" only said "children tend to have more acute tastes: therefore, they zero in on foods with the most distinctive tastes" I would have seen it as being the correct AC right away, but instead this answer goes on to state they get sick more often than adults do? I thought we were not supposed to make assumptions or add things that aren't there when dealing with MSS question types? Although every other AC seemed no good, what popped into my head when looking at AC "C" is how do we know... children become sick more than adults do -where does it state this or is it even allude to it in the stimulus? Any insight would be nice. Thanks!

How is is C the correct answer... I'm not seeing the connection. Someone please help!

The conclusion is "we can now dismiss the widely held suspicion that sugar consumption often exacerbates hyperactivity in children with attention deficit disorder". The supporting premises are the results of the study and it concludes that there was no significant difference between the experimental groups (received a type of sugar) and control (sugar substitute).

How does (C) weaken the support of anything I assumed it would strengthen the conclusion. (C) states that the consumption of some sugar substitutes exacerbates the symptoms of hyperactivity. I immediately thought this was irrelevant because a sugar substitute is not sugar... I don't see how this would weaken the support.

For #17: Parallel Form

I got confused on how to diagram it (I understood everything except how to diagram (Note: the way I diagram for these is using broad A-->B,etc since the context isn't impotrant but the form of the logic is):

The stimulus says that:

-some halogen lamps are well-crafted

-because halogen lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at FL

-and any item on display at FL is well-crafted

I wrote it as

some A-->B or A(--some-)B

A-->C

C-->B

But my diagram is wrong for:

because halogen lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at FL

it should be A(-some-)C

why is it some?

For #26: I understand why (E) is wrong because the stim. is not defending (never says if right or wrong) but I was just wondering if someone could explain the difference between context and fact (this is what confused me answer (D) says historical fact while (E) says historical context, I just wanted to get a better understand of context vs fact in case it shows up on another question then I can eliminate them even quicker) Thanks :)

What DOES make a Democracy not a well-functioning one?????

Find out tonight at Group BR!

Wednesday, Nov 11th at 8PM ET: PT52

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/w7McAagFN3pf

Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

Note:

Okay, this question has got me. I'm BRing it, and I honestly cannot rule one answer out with confidence. That never happens. A, C, and D all seem pretty subjective to me, "mischaracterizing what Brooks says", "unhappiness varying in intensity of significance" ....are these not more ambiguous and generic than usual, or am I crazy? (actually, please don't answer that, I'm pretty sure I already know the answer) lol.

Could a kind soul please explain which one is correct, why, and why the other 4 are incorrect?

Thank you!

Thus far, I have noticed that when I practice games, at first, the outcome is crappy. Meaning that easy questions are missed, etc.

However, after completing about 3/ 4 games, it I do a lot better by averaging nearly 100% correct and usually within a good time.

Given that I work on games 6 days a week, does this appear to be normal?

I didn't see this yet so I thought I would start it. Thank you to all who serve and protect this country. @Pacifico you're the man! Are there any other 7sage Veterans?

I've take PT 35-58 (58 this morning), and I am in the frustrating 168-172 range. Prior to the 50s, I was consistently going -2/-3 (with a few -0s here and there) on RC. Besides the games, I would have said that RC was my easiest/most consistent section. However, ever since PT 50, my RC score has just been awful: I've averaged -6 to -7 in this section, which has just brutalized my score (my past 3 or 4 exams have been significantly lower than my average because of this). Today was the most frustrating; I thought I turned a corner and aced the RC section, but I went -6. BR was -5 (which is still not what I am looking for). Any advice? I don't really think the passages in the 50s were that different from the other previous exams.

Hello everyone,

I'm in a bit of a dilemma and could use some advice. I have taken the LSAT in the past and had a total freak out. I did very poorly and I have seen minimal improvement. I'm currently scoring in the low 150s and can barely make it through a whole PT without giving up. I have spent countless hours in classes and with private tutors, but I am already an extremely nervous test taker, which hasn't helped in the past.

I was shooting for a 160, but that is a lost cause. I just want to score in the high 150s and I'm starting to have serious doubts as the date approaches that I can achieve this goal. This is my second shot at the exam and I really don't have it in me to postpone to February, or study anymore than I already have. I have a high undergrad GPA and a high graduate GPA (both upwards of 3.7), awesome letters of recommendations and internships in the legal field. I know the LSAT is incredibly important, but I'm literally doing everything I can and nothing seems to help my overall score. I score fairly well when I take just 1, or 2 sections individually, but otherwise I'm totally screwed.

I am adamant about going to law school next fall and with the way I'm scoring I'm sure I will not be offered any scholarships. My top choice is Ohio State, Moritz College of Law and their median LSAT is a 160.

I have dedicated ALL of my time to studying and I have been studying for over a year (with minor breaks in-between). Should I postpone until February, or just keep studying (although it is so painful at this point) and cut my losses this December?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

Does anyone actually waive it?

Webinar video here:

YOU ASKED FOR IT: Hey folks—You've been asking if I'd offer this webinar again. Well, you have spoken: I have heard you. It's Hammer Time—ROUND 2!

If you missed the first one, or just need a refresher, this is for you!

RC Webinar | Saturday, November 14th 6pm–8pm ET

Free and open to the public (and to folks at all levels of LSAT mastery).

It's Hammer Time

In this webinar, I'll share my notation strategy and talk about how to effectively turn the passage into a toolbox with which you'll eliminate 4 wrong answer choices for each question. This strategy is for beginners, strugglers, and experts looking to refine their own method.

There will be a Q&A period and, time permitting, I'll demonstrate how to eliminate answer choices effectively.

If you'd like to join (we will be using GoToWebinar), follow the link below.

Note: no special materials or preparation necessary!

Please register for It's Hammer Time | Reading Comprehension with Nicole (7sage Webinar Series) on Nov 14, 2015 5:00 PM CST at:

https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/4378000585563908609

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

Brought to you by GoToWebinar®

Webinars Made Easy®

If you're unable to attend, don't worry—we'll cycle through the list of topics periodically, and a recording will be available.

In the meantime, you can review the slides on my website (ilovelsat.com) by using this link: http://www.ilovelsat.com/s/Webinar_RC.pdf

In the future, I plan to offer another, more advanced (but always free) webinar: "All About Those Inferences." Stay tuned for that!