https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-46-section-3-question-24/

This sufficient assumption question really has me thrown. I've read the Manhattan explanations on this, but I'm still having a hard time with understanding the whole question.

Conclusion: Money doesn't exist.

Why? The only thing you need for money to disappear is a universal loss of belief.

Gap seems to be that because something disappears it doesn't exist.

So Manhattan represented this in conditional logic as:

(loss of belief --> disappear) --> NOT exist

Easy enough, although it wasn't my instinct to put loss of belief as the sufficient condition. Still, with this conditional logic, I think I understand how (A) is the correct answer as the contrapositive.

Exist --> NOT (loss of belief --> disappear)

My problem is I'm having a hard time understanding what the necessary condition is saying here. What does NOT (loss of belief --> disappear) actually mean? Something can exist even if there isn't a loss of belief and it doesn't disappear? Also confused about how this works as a sufficient assumption answer, how does this prove that money doesn't exist? Any help?

As a side note, has anyone seen this conditional logic set up in other questions I can look at?

Can someone explain 29/4/5? (B) seems like it has the relationship backwards. In order for it to be the correct answer, shouldn’t it say that mainstream opinions are generally in the bland and innocuous ones? Because the other way around tells me nothing of what the mainstream opinion is likely composed. For all we know, the mainstream opinion is mostly composed of striking, insidious views. This is consistent with bland and innocuous opinions being generally in the mainstream– these opinions may compose a very small portion of the mainstream opinion.

Even with the negation test, I cannot understand this answer. So what if bland, innocuous opinions are NOT generally in the mainstream? What if they are generally in the violent anarchist view? That tells me nothing about how much of the mainstream is composed of bland and innocuous opinions. It could still be the case that mainstream opinions are composed ENTIRELY of bland and innocuous opinions.

I have never felt this frustrated with a questioN!!

I chose (E) because if we negate this, then surely, the argument that the opinions on television are the result of market forces comes into question. Of course, who knows, maybe the executives’ opinions just happen to be reflected in market-directed opinions, but considering how much weaker (B) is, I chose (E).

What am I doing wrong?

Out of curiosity, do people generally label the LR passages (i.e. Premises, conclusions, etc.) or just do it mentally? I'm considering labeling the premises and conclusions in every passage to improve my overall speed at identifying these things, but I'm not sure if that's something that people use as an actual test strategy.

hi, I just wanted to know if you can get a good score (155+) and only do two full logic games in the lsat

Guyssss I took my 10th pt today and I got the same as my 2nd ever score!!! And thst one was basically a diagnostic. Is this normal?? I did feel like I was not very concentrated but even when I feel like I didn't concentrate I don't do this bad!! So sad especially cuz I have been studying a lot :(((((( *cries*

Hi all. What type of clock is in the actual testing centers? I feel like it's very different keeping track of time on an analog vs digital. Any thoughts?

hi everyone,

for those of you using the trainer and 7sage together, i was wondering what you thought of learning/using the "complex or rules drill" (pg 196)? I don't really remember having learned something like this in the 7sage curriculum (correct me if I'm wrong) and I'm kind of feeling that it might just confuse me. Is the alternative making more sub gameboards?

Help would be much appreciated. Thanks! Trying to pick out of this book what works/doesn't work with 7sage, and I've found the LR to be pretty good.

If following is true, what can you say about "Typically, Most likely, Almost certainly, Undoubtedly, and Purely"?

Many: 3 or more

Some: More than 0%

Most: More than 50%

Thank you in advance!

I continue to BR PT 39, and I got my ass handed to me on this one (seriously, did other people think PT 39 was much harder than 38)? I BR'd 9 points lower on this exam compared to PT 38, and I used a blank exam to BR.

Anyway, I don't understand at all how A is the correct answer for this one. I picked E (during the exam and during BR), and here was my reasoning (this is from my comment on the video):

I don’t understand question 25 at all. In line 3, it states that Internet users believe that access to information should be free. How would charging people for information (answer choice A) be a compromise? This seems to go against the core principle of the Internet users as established in the passage. Also, wouldn’t charging people further promote the idea that the information is a commodity (line 60)? To me, this answer choice is no compromise, but a full rejection of the Internet community and full acceptance of the publishing community's ideals.

Additionally, how is E not a better answer choice? Research is already exempted under the current laws, so current copyright holders are presumably familiar with this idea. Also, this keeps with the tradition of the free access to information. Yes, the free information wouldn’t be to everyone (only those conducting research), but it’s a compromise! I fail to see how A works at all, let alone is better than this answer. It seems to me that both sides would agree to this.

Hi everyone! Because of other commitments, I have to take the October lsat in Spain. Has anyone taken or read about the Spain test center? I assume it won't be that different... Thanks!

ok people

@Jengibre and I and others will be READY to BR with you at 7pm ET tonight. Go take that PT. Add me on skype (nikkers625).

I feel like I am not grasping the fundamentals properly, I am rarely able to predict what the answer choice will be until I get to the answer choices, although I have this general idea of what could be wrong with the argument. I am also missing a ton of level 4 and 5 questions. After 4 PT's I have narrowed down my weaknesses to Flaw, NA, SA, and even though it does not happen often MBT questions. I want to add that even when I am BR'ing I don't I still lack the ability of choosing the correct answers for those questions. Do you guys think this is a fundamentals issue, or it is lack of experience since I have only done 4 PT's?

Hi everybody,

I am in desperate need of help with the RC section. The interesting thing about my progress is that it is getting continuously worse. Back when I first started reading comprehension passages, I didn't follow a specific method. I just read through the passage, underlined some important things, and moved straight to the questions. I would get between 2 and 3 wrong. I have subsequently tried the Memory Method and another methodology, similar to the Memory Method, but I would add the extra step of quickly skimming over the passage one more time before moving on to the questions. Unfortunately, both methods have not worked so well for me. On RC sections, I can get anywhere from 5 to 9 wrong.

I am not sure what is wrong, perhaps it is burnout or simply a loss of confidence, but no matter which of these three methods I try now, I end up doing poorly. Time is also an issue for me; I am a rather slow reader and it takes some time for me to process the ideas, especially in the times when my mind is not focusing optimally.

If anybody has been in a similar situation and has found a way out, or if you can offer any specific advice, I would really really appreciate it. The October LSAT is coming so fast, and I am in great need of finding the best method for me, even if it doesn't guarantee a perfect score on the RC section.

Thanks!

-Nastassia

Man, I got murdered on this PT (after completely destroying PT 38). I thought the RC and LR were nightmares on this PT. Anyway, I cannot figure out how C is better than A for this question. Here is my reasoning for this question:

This is a flaw/descriptive weaken question (specifically in S's argument).

R: If you are more diverse in experience, then the more you will understand the need for compromise. Therefore, to become a politician, a person should have a diversity of experience.

S: To be worthy of public trust, it's not enough to only have diverse experience. Such a person wouldn't necessarily be worthy of public trust.

What I am looking for: I know we only want S's flaw, but R is missing the link between compromise and becoming a politician. For S, she doesn't actually say anything. She pretty much goes "no, diverse experience isn't enough because it isn't enough." S also equivocates "becoming a politician" with "worthiness of public trust."

Answer A: How is this not it? S gives an opposite point of view (you don't need a diversity of experience) and she gives no reason for it (S gives absolutely no evidence; in my mind, S's second sentence is completely redundant of the first).

Answer B: S never talks about what is beneficial.

Answer C: How is possibly the credited answer? Yes, S attributes a view to R ("as you suggest"), but how is the second part of this answer choice correct? Where does S explicitly or implicitly say that the view is more vulnerable than what is actually expressed? I don't see anywhere where S remotely says something like "R, your belief about diverse experience is very vulnerable to critics."

Answer D: Personal vs. relevant? S doesn't mention this.

Answer E: Flexibility? S doesn't talk about this. Also, S doesn't actually talk about politics, only "worthiness of public trust."

Help much appreciated.

HI Folks!

I am looking for the previous post(s) that had a compilation of the hardest passages.

I am especially looking for hardest RC and LR.

Thanks a lot!

After multiple starts and stops due to family, I have covered the basics to prepare. I still have weaknesses in a few areas but feel confident in others. I would really like to expose all weaknesses under time constraints while not burning thru PT's while I am still learning through the BR process.

I started the LSAT journey haphazardly so I do not have a diagnostic, but the few PT's I have taken are 155-160, but no blind review as of yet for optimal knowledge of where I stand or as JY would say that it could have been "blind luck":)

My plan is 2 per week with thorough BR - thanks to everyone sharing their experiences to not burn-out. I am not sure that going sequentially is the best plan given the shifts in the later PT's (not harder, but different - thx again for all of the input). But, I am not sure it is wise to use more current PT's during this stage.

Fortunately, I started studying before PDF ban and have all PT's and JY's videos to make the process easier. My plan is to join as many BR group sessions as I can that do not conflict with family obligations.

For you that have been there - done that - what sequence would you advise to begin serious PT'ing?

I have been placed on academic probation (which relates back to medical issues) and therefore I have to write a statement. My question is (or rather idea) is that this statement should describe any affected periods in my transcripts and does not have to be creative like the personal statement... Is this the correct way to approach this character and fitness addendum?

Great 3 min clip to think about your day!

This question was included in the weaken drill and I can't seem to figure out the reason as to why D was the correct answer. Someone please help!

I usually take a timed PT and then do the whole PT again untimed (BR all questions). Afterwards I review the answers for all questions using LSAT Analytics. For explanations, I use JY's videos for the questions I got wrong in the BR, and I use Manhattan for the questions I got right. This process is taking hours upon hours.

I want to do 2 PTs a week but that's not happening with this process with a 3-4 hours/day LSAT study time allocation. I also desire to drill LR and follow @pacifico LG drilling technique.

Your advice is very appreciated

Hello 7sagers,

I'm currently finished with the curriculum and have taken 15 PTs with BR and I've plateaued around 157 with my BR as high as 171. One issue I have is the lack of ability to predict one or multiple predictions, or even a general prediction before I reach the answer choices. I want to be able to predict the right answer choice and then be able to find the one I predicted and have it right there glaring in the answer choice.

I noticed reading the stimulus SLOWER has made it slightly easier to predict answers because reading it slower made it easier to grasp the understanding of the stimulus, but more times than not, I still can't predict answers the way I should be.

I've drilled almost all of the Cambridge sets and now just drilling practice LR sections. My goal is a 161 and I'm currently enrolled for the October exam. Any thoughts?

I'm having trouble with the following question from Superprep, A:

L: People's intentions cannot be, on the whole, more bad than good. Were we to believe otherwise, we would inevitably cease to trust each other, and no society can survive without mutual trust among its members.

Stem: Most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?

A (correct) - It fails to rule out the possibility that a true belief can have deleterious (harmful) conseuqences

My analysis:

The author claims that if we believe that intentions are more good than bad, we would cease to trust one another and as a result without this mutual trust we would not survive. We are surviving, so we must not have the belief that that intentions are more good than bad.

There is clearly a gap between believing and the truth of a statement, but I cant put my finger on the flaw. I would normally say that the flaw is that just because a belief can't be true, doesn't mean that the underlying element can't be true. This, however, doesn't line up with the flaw stated in A.

I actually understand C and how it is the answer, I am more confused around making sense of its meaning in a practical way, as it stands I need a way to understand how it was put it into practical understandable language (ie positive form) I watch the video and the answer choice was translated as : an ideal bureaucracy will always (never elminated) have (without eliminated) complaints about a problem that are not covered by regulation.

I'm just not sure what rules he was using to get here. Like when I come across these type of statements in the future, I need some method for dealing with them. Because I would have likely eliminated all the nots in the statement and I know it is wrong. Why did never become always instead of some times, and why did he elminate both without and never?

Would the negation test for this be:

an ideal bureaucracy will never have (without eliminated) complaints about a problem that are not covered by regulation.

or

an ideal bureaucracy will always/sometimes [not sure which one] (never elminated) have permanently without complaints about a problem that are not covered by regulation.

I have taken 3 PT's so far. For my BR I re-do the section without looking at the answers. Here is my problem.

I did not get to the last 4 questions during my test so I missed these and 3 others. On my blind review I got the last 4 correct and the ones I missed, but heres the catch. I missed 5 questions I got correct because I chose a different answer in BR.

What is the solution? Just study more? I am somewhat frustrated by this Lol.

Thanks as always. Hope I am the only one in the library tonight. Smoke a cigar/have a beer for me.

I got burned out and said eff the LSAT for two weeks... Now it's time to refocus and get back the momentum before gameday. The moral to the story is burnout is real. The End.