Hi friends, I'm having a hard time with conditional relationships chaining. I am not sure what course of action to take when there are two logical indicators, how can I be 100% certain that the one I chose isn't the redundant one? Also, I am not quite clear on how to link several concepts, I seem to freeze!

Does anyone know what PT this "never-before-disclosed" test is? I haven't done it yet, but afterwards I would like to go over the test explanations, but without knowing what PT # it is, that won't be possible. Thanks for any help!

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation. Got this question wrong and choose A because I could find any answer I was happy with.

*The kind of question this is:* Weaken

*Paraphrased question:*

First legislator:

Premises: Medical Research is predominantly done on groups of only men. For example, the effects of coffee drinking on health are evaluated on only men, and studies are lacking on hormone treatments for older women.

Conclusion: Government sponsored medical research should be required to include studies of women.

Second Legislator:

Considerations of male/female balance are inappropriate with respect to research; they have no place in science.

*What I am looking for:* An answer that would attack the reasoning? (I got this question wrong and choose A.)

*Answer A:* No. That is information, but doesn’t effect the second legislator’s argument.

*Answer B:* No. Serving as a subject doesn’t address whether male or female groups will be created, nor does it address the second legislator’s conclusion, let along weaken it.

*Answer C:* No. This is information that does not talk about the issue of male over female patient groups.

*Answer D:* No, this is talking about the training of male and female scientists, and not them as group of patients. This is not helpful.

*Answer E:* Yes, if there were to be restrictions on males, this date base would result in inadequate science. Same case for females.

Howdy y'all.

So I took the October LSAT last week and decided to take this week to go back to drill certain arguments while working on RC and LG as I usually do. However, when I took a timed arguments section today I got -11 (yikes), and after BR I didn't do significantly better (-9) as I usually BR around -4. I haven't taken more than 3 days off of LSAT since I first started studying back in May, because I'm afraid that if I take the recommended week off and then come back with a fresh mind, I'd be in a worse position.

I think I have become too attached to the LSAT and it's hard for me to leave it aside for a little while...help.

Hi there,

Hope you're having a good Saturday. I'm currently studying for the Dec LSAT and thought I'd post because I'm looking for a study buddy/group of people I can meet with online (difficult for me to find people in Minnesota), over skype. I've tried to join in on some BR groups but the Fri/Sat understandably doesn't seem to work for everyone. Also, I'm not sure if I'm looking only for someone to BR an entire exam with, but could do more low-commitment stuff like go over an LR section together for an hour, and maybe we can target weaknesses together. Currently in the mid-upper 150s and would love to get tips and share tips with whoever who's down! I have a very flexible schedule--shoot me a message! I just think verbalizing why answer choices are right or wrong could probably help lot of us out on sections like LR.

Have a good rest of your weekend! :)

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-1-question-05/

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

The kind of question this is: Weakening

Paraphrased question:

Premises: In North Atlantic, Codfish population declined as population of Harp seals increased from two mil to three mil, so there is blame on the seal for Codfish decline, but Cod plays a negligible role in Seal’s diet.

Conclusion: Therefore, it is unlikely seals are responsible for the decline of codfish.

What I am looking for: Something I didn’t know about the correlation between Cod decrease and seal increase. (broad lol).

Answer A: No, this doesn’t weaken the argument. It’s not about how people are inconvenienced about fish because of the seals, its about Cods and Seals.

Answer B: No, but sure, there could be a threat. But, there is no information saying that Codfish are dying from this so-called threat. And, what kind of threat is it anyways?

Answer C: No. Sure they capable enough to thrive in water that cod can’t swim in, but that doesn’t mean they can only live in that type of water. They can swim to warmer water to catch cod if they wanted to.

Answer D: Yes, because if Cod feed almost exclusively on capelin, which is a staple diet for seals, then they must run into each other a lot underwater. Or maybe where you find capelin, you will find Cods, and Cods happen to get eaten too.

Answer E: No, that strengthens the argument because it suggests that the seals have nothing to do with the cod decrease.

,

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

*The kind of question this is:* Weakening

*Paraphrased question:*

Premises: One of the advantages of B.t. Toxins (BTTs) over Chemical insecticides (CI) results from specificity for pest insects. The BTTs have no detrimental effects on mammals or birds + limited range of activity of the BTTs toward insects means that often a particular BTT will kill pest species but not affect insects that prey upon the species.

Conclusion: This advantage makes BTTs preferable to chemical insecticides for use as components of insects pest management programs.

*What I am looking for:* Something that I didn't know about CIs that make them a better choice, or BTTs that make them a bad choice.

*Answer A:* No, This looks like it strengthens the argument by stating how CIs cause harm to a greater number of insect species than does BTTs. We don’t want to cause the ecosystem to collapse. That might kill off the balance of insects that are non-threatening.

*Answer B:* No, We only care about a particular pest insect and not if BTTs are effective on other insects.

*Answer C:* No. we are not concerned with weeds, and are concerned with only pest insects. Plus, this could strengthen the argument because BTT also doesn’t do damage to weeds, which means it another good thing BTT does.

*Answer D:* Yes, Insects (which includes pest insects) build resistance more readily to BTTs than to CIs.

*Answer E:* No, who cares birds and rodents often do greater damage to farm crops than do insects. This passage is only concerned with pest insects, so lets not let the LSAT writers trick us by adding things that are not in the passage.

Can someone please help me with this question, i do not get where some came from in correct answer ?

Sequence Games With A Twist

I Am Pretty Good At Making Inferences When I See Rules That I Am Accustomed To. However, Just About Every Game Introduces A New Concept That I Am Totally Oblivious To. Therefore, I Am Worried That When I Am Ready To Take The LSAT, Many Games Will Have Concepts I Have Never Seen Before.

Is It Safe To Say That Once I Make It Through All Of The Sequence Games With A Twist That I Have Seen Just About All Of The Tricks Of The Trade??? This Way I Can Be Prepared?????

PLEASE RESPOND.

Are you getting a clean copy of the preptest to BR the entire preptest ? Or are you just doing the problems you thought you may have gotten wrong ?

I don't see how E is MSS supported. Can someone evaluate my reasoning?

Here was my diagram:

Opera singers with demanding roles at young age MOST lose voice early because they lack maturity/power.

Young singer with great vocal power MOST LIKELY ruin their voice

Young singer MOST lack technical training needed to avoid straining vocal chords-------->Truncated singing career.

What I was looking for: I didn't think any of the existential quantifier statements linked up (which I thought was weird), except the last one. The first statement talks about opera singers, then we go to young singers with great power (we don't know if they are opera singers), and then we go to young singers in general (we don't know if they are opera singers nor if they have great power). Thus, I was expecting an answer choice that just said that Most/Some young singers have truncated singing careers.

Answer A: We don't know about anyone lacking great vocal power.

Answer B: This is what I chose, but under the timed conditions, I rushed through it. Ruining a voice is only linked to young singers. We don't know if the young singers are opera singers.

Answer C: Only? The only necessary condition is truncated singing career. This answer choice doesn't mention this.

Answer D: Same as C. Maturity isn't a necessary condition anywhere.

Answer E: This is supposed to be the correct answer, but how? Straining vocal chords is a MOST relationship between young singers. The young singers may or may not be opera singers! What if there are 100 young singers and 51 strain their voice. But let's say that 49 other opera singers don't strain their voice! The only thing from the stimulus that we can conclude is that most young opera singers lose their voice early since they lack maturity/power. Where does the idea of "straining" link these ideas? To me, this answer has zero support.

Saturday, October 10th at 8PM ET: PT72

Note:

So I cancelled my October score and I'm looking to kill it in December. That being said, I want my score to go up by at least 7 points in these two months and crack 170....

I know some people study 6 hours a day, and I was just wondering...what do you do for all that time? All I do right now is take a full practice test 3 times a week, and do a BR of the practice test the day after I take it. And I take one day off every week. Sometimes when I see I need help in an area, I review the lessons on it.

But I don't know what else I should be doing? I know I have to do much more Logic Games so I'll work on that, but I feel like I'm missing something important because I don't study 6 hours a day...!!!!

Hey! So I think I'm confusing myself but the game states: Telemarketing will not be given until both Goals and Objections have been given.

then the next rule:

Negotiating will not be given until Persuasion has been given.

I thought I could make both Telemarketing and Negotiating the sufficient, negate them, then make the others the necessary...Why is that not the case?

Thanks in advance for your help!

Hi Everyone!

I just started studying for a retake next year (ughhh...) and had a quick question regarding the differences between the trainer and 7Sage. I know that in the trainer, they begin the first real chapter by talking flaws. Whereas, with 7Sage, the first test based content is main conclusion. Basically, for those that have used both simultaneously, do you use the Trainer to support the 7Sage curriculum or vice versa? To elaborate, do you follow along with the 7Sage syllabus and then when you skip to that chapter in the Trainer? Or vice versa? Idk...just trying to make sure that this go is much more effective than the last.

Thanks!

.

I took the October LSAT last week. Despite having purchased my account in March, I never really started until August.

However, my scores improved significantly during that month and a half, and based on my most recent PTs before the test, my score will most likely be in the range I would need to be competitive in the schools I will be applying to.

I would still like to take the December LSAT just in case my scores are on the lower side of my average. Unfortunately, the scores come out after the initial deadline for December. I wouldn't mind just going ahead and signing up, since a possibly better second score would also make me a stronger candidate for scholarships, but I don't want to be held up in the rolling admissions process. Does anyone know how schools deal with applications with a second test score pending? Do I need to specifically tell them to go ahead and regard my application as complete or is that the default action?

Thanks alot.

My syllabus is no longer updating as I progress through the course: I am having to manually put the green check next to it. Does anyone know how to fix this?

Question: What is the difference between the two? What can you get out of the question bank that you cannot get out of the problem sets?

I know the question bank helps distinguish level of difficulty but doesn't the answer section of each problem set also lay it out?

Just trying to figure out the biggest difference between the two.

I have gone through several lessons tonight, however, when I check my syllabus, it does not show that I completed them. I clicked the next button at the end of each lesson until I was done with a section. So far, I can keep track of where I am but I am afraid once I get further, I will get confused as to what I have or haven't done.

Any reason this is not working? Thanks!

Friday means LSAT!!!

Friday, October 9th at 8PM ET: PT71

Note:

Hey everyone, I'm about to start taking the preptests and was wondering which books you guys bought to do able to do the preptests discussed here in 7sage?

Will the following three do?

10, Actual, Official, LSAT PrepTests

10 New Actual, Official LSAT PrepTests

The Next 10 Actual, Official LSAT PrepTests

Thank you!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-23/

Here is my conditional reasoning:

teachers are effective ------> when they help students become independent learners

teachers have power to make decisions in their own classrooms ------> enable their own students to make their own decisions

become independent learners -------> students' capability to make their own decisions

teachers are to be effective --------> have power to make decisions in their own classrooms

Apparently my conditional reasoning in line two is incorrect??

But I don't understand why it would be.

"Yet not until teachers have the power to make decisions in their own classrooms can they enable their students to make their own decisions."

This looks like: Not until TD can they enable SID

"until" is group 3, negate sufficient

So negate "not TD" which would make it just TD and keep it in the sufficient spot which would turn to TD --> SID.

But this screws up the chain.

Can someone explain?

I don't really post about stuff, don't know just not like me... BUT,,,, I am really excited right now because when I took the 2007 prep test at the beginning of the course I scored a 148, but now with my first prep test and I haven't even finished the course I scored a 157!!! Not my goal but definitely getting there!!! Thank you 7Sage!