Hi I was hoping someone could answer a question that i have been struggling with. In the question stem what is the difference between "reasoning" and "argument"? Such as Flaw questions 1. "A major flaw in the argument is that the argument".... 2. "The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument"...

Im having trouble finding definitive definitions for the following aspects of the LSAT

1. Reasoning

2. Structure

3. Logical- such as "logically follows" or "logical features"

Hi,

On this question I narrowed it down to C and D. But even though I've read a couple explanations on it, I don't see why D is glaringly wrong. I feel like C isn't fair enough because it has words like "chance" and "try to identify" which means that either way, some people will probably be left out and it still won't be fair. But in D, if everyone gets denied the rebate, then no one gets it, which means no one has an unfair opportunity.

I just couldn't find a helpful explanation because everyone just rules D off as "obviously unfair," and I guess I'm feeling kind of blind right now!!!!

Hello,

I'm having a hard time understanding why B is incorrect but A is. I chose B because it though it was implying that the children's preexisting condition made them more vulnerable to OPV than kids who don't have that. And I eliminated A because of the phrase "at least a few" because that sounds like a weak defense given they're only taking about "some"

So can someone please explain why B is wrong but A is right? Thank you

I took a few PT tests prior to starting the 7Sage course videos. I am not all but done with the course videos and ready to hit the PT tests heavily. After the first test I did not see my score go up. My question is... after watching the videos, is it typical to see one's score increase only after BR of the PTs? I guess I am just worried that the videos didnt have a redounding affect, and am looking to confirm my thought that it will take many reviews of tests to implement what I have learned...

Thanks for anyone's thoughts ;-)

Hello,

I chose E and can't really understand why it is wrong whereas C is correct. Can someone please break down the logic or reasoning behind this argument? Thanks in advance

*

Plan on re-taking in December. At this point the only relevant fresh PT's I have left are PT's 50-54 and 67-69.

I have about 5 weeks left before the December LSAT and can't decide if it would be better to take these fresh PT's or just re-take 70-75 while using the fresh PT's for drilling? I can really only manage to take one full timed PT with a thorough BR per week right now since I'm taking a full semester and graduating in December. I've never re-taken any PT's yet and don't know if it's at all useful or not. Any advice is much appreciated.

Hi, this is the first time writing anything on the board, so I'm a bit nervous, so bear with me.

I am preparing for December LSAT.

Last week, I have finished going through PTs until 70. And I would say I was averaging some bumps up and down occasionally from 163 to 166. I planned to go through from 51-73 twice until December LSAT ( a bit more than a month left).

I am taking two PTs every two days (of course BR afterward), and for the last 10 days, I am planning on taking two PTs everyday.

Yesterday, I've taken 59 and 60. So far, I am averaging about 170-ish, a couple 167+ and a couple 173+.

I am planning on taking fresh set of 71, 72, and 73 at the end of each cycle.

My question is:

How important is it to repeatedly practice already-taken-PTs?

I know that taking already-taken-PTs is useful in general and it's pretty much the only thing I can do right now, but when I get a good score on my second round, instead of being happy about it, I'm more skeptical of the score (but of course, I am happy). And when I get a poorer score, I'm just really distressed. From reading lots of posts, I know my schedule is probably something nobody would recommend, but since I am not attacking any new PTs, I get constantly nervous on whether my logic foundation is improving or not through these second round PTs. Although I do try going through every single question as thoroughly as possible as if I'm doing the new test, I constantly doubt if I was solving it out of my logic ability or from a bit of memory left in me. Consequently, I just decided to keep myself busy by keep doing PTs non-stop, so that at least I wouldn't have any regret afterward as to "I could have done A and B and blah blah~"

I know about the burn-out as well. I recently got out of it about a month ago, but I still feel like I would have some regret if I don't really try my 200%. If you ask me whether this plan has been exhausting for me or not, I would say there is exhaustion after going through 8 sections every two days, but it's pretty manageable until now. Add to that, I would say mental exhaustion from doing 8 sections every two days would feel more manageable than anxiety from not studying (although I haven't experienced it yet).

So, I just need a bit of advice on how effective it would be for me to keep following this plan. Or, any advice.

I am preparing my application (to start LS next year). My question is concerning the addendum: Should I write one? In Peru, I did two years of medical school (1997-1998). Didn't graduate. Students, in Peru, enter medical school directly after high school graduation. Those two years had the equivalent of 22.50 credits of pre-med. My university, here, accepted my credits so I didn't have to take all the credits required for my bachelor degree.

Here comes my issue: First, should I write an addendum about why I chose medical school 18 years ago: I was young and stupid; didn't know what I wanted. Second, during those two years I got most Cs, one A, and one B (GPA 2.5 according my school in the US). I graduated from a FL university with a GPA 4. Do I need to write about why those grades differ so much even though it happened 18 years ago.

My school in FL has the grades and courses from Peru in its transcripts. LSAC also has the transcripts from my Peruvian university (LSAC wanted to do their own evaluation).

Thank you so much for your help

The February Test. The Undisclosed Test. The Sloth of LSAT family.

If you have no idea what I’m talking about, you need to drop that logic game in your hand and go watch The Goonies. It’s a classic, and you’ve no right being a lawyer if you’ve never seen it! Go watch it. :)

Wednesday, October 28th at 8PM ET: PT48

DON’T FORGET TO CLICK THIS LINK: https://join.skype.com/w7McAagFN3pf

IF YOU DON’T CLICK THIS LINK YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE BR GROUP

Note:

Really struggled with this on the exam, and I still missed it during BR. Specifically, I had a really tough time differentiating answers A, B, C, and D. Can someone help me out with those answer choices? Here is my breakdown:

TV show MOST depend on ad funding

TV show MOST cancelled with no ad funding

Ad funding----->Some people watching buy the advertised products

Most people don't buy the advertised products------>Shows cancelled soon

Thus, person who thinks a show is worth preserving------>should buy the stuff advertised during the show.

What I am looking for: I need something that concludes that people should buy the advertised stuff.

Answer A: This is what I chose, but it doesn't fit the facts of the passage. All we know is that MOST TV shows would be cancelled with no ad funding, and that if MOST people don't buy the products, the show sill be cancelled. This answer choice is too certain about the inevitability of cancellation.

Answer B: I don't understand how this answer choice is that different from A. How do we know about the certainty of cancellation?

Answer C: We don't know if the TV show is ACTUALLY worth preserving, only that someone "feels"/believes that it is.

Answer D: What makes this one incorrect? If B is correct, how is this one incorrect?

Answer E: "Feel most strongly?" This was the only one I could confidently eliminate since we don't care about the degree of caring.

The writer of the Toni Morrison Jazz passage is this guy,

who then got to have beers with the arresting officer and these two guys!!

Wednesday, October 28th at 8PM ET: PT66

DON’T FORGET TO CLICK THIS LINK: https://join.skype.com/wGTZaVjudu5m

IF YOU DON’T CLICK THIS LINK YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE BR GROUP

Note:

How is A a sufficient assumption? I didn't like any of the answer choices, so I pretty much guessed on this one. I thought A was the least attractive answer choice because it lacks the conditional nature that is typical for sufficient assumptions. My understanding of the argument is this:

We can't figure out how effective a certain model cleans simply be looking at how powerful the motor is. This is because the efficiency varies a lot, even with identical motors.

The sufficient assumption I was looking for was this: if efficiency varies (even with identical motor power), then we can't determine how effective the model cleans.

How does A paraphrase this?

Hey LSAT Team,

I am aiming to take the February test. I'm almost done with the curriculum, have about 5 full sections left and some problem sets (I have Ultimate + though so there are a LOT of problem per curriculum set). I plan to finish up the curriculum this week (expect for the entire problem sets).

I wanted to confirm to myself I will not be ready for the Dec test, so I just took PT 52 (it's the lowest test I have in my possession at the moment) and got a 162. The break down is:

-11 LR: Almost exclusively in the "harder parts" between Q's 17-25

-4 LG: missed 2 from silly mistakes

-8 RC: I'd say I got lucky here because I guessed correctly on 2 of 4 Q's

BRed a 168 without even trying to BR the games (I don't know why, I don't find it very useful compared to full re-drilling them after a bit of time but I know I should).

With a full time job, what do ya'll think should I do from here to February? Obviously finish the lessons in at the top of my priority but should I actually go back and do ALL the problem sets by question type?

I have about 3 full month left to the test which means I can get anywhere from 15-25 PT's in between I would say. Depending on how I decide to spend this up coming prep time. SO the question boils down to 25 PT's with thoroughly BRed and basically nothing else or 15 PT's with drills in between to work on my weakest areas? Particularly focusing on RC which I feel complete inadequate at, at the expense or LG which slowly appears to be clicking for me.

Any and all advice is highly appreciated.

Note: I know a lot of people will tell me: wait for June! But no thank you. I honestly feel I work better when under more pressure and closer deadlines. The idea that I am 8 months away from the test I don't think will work well for me. And if anything, June can be my second chance.

What kind of jobs are out there for lower ranked law schools? I'm talking 70+ up to the 90s but no unranked schools. Michigan State University is one example.

I originally planned to knock out each section one at a time. However, the 7sage course syllabus mixes them. I know the 3 sections are all connected (logic reasoning, analysis, etc.), but any good reason for following the 7sage method as opposed to just knocking out all LR, then all LG, then all RC?

Thanks.

I found some pratice tests waaaay back from 1993 and up.

Should I bother taking those or are they too old?

I don't understand how B is the answer. In the lessons regarding weakening, I was under the impression that we were to look for ways to weaken the connection between the Premises and the Conclusion. If the question states that "many human diseases are genetically based," then how does B not just attack the Premises? I mapped out ... human diseases (HD) are genetically based (GB)... HD -> GB. Then some of Cat's (CG) genetics are the same to humans (HG). ... CG(--s--) HG. Then I said Some of Primates (PG) genetics are the same as Humans .... PG (--s--) HG... the conclusion is humans have many diseases (HD) in common with Cats (CD) ...HD --m-->CD

I figured (albeit I now see that it was an incorrect conclusion... I just dont know why) that the question was trying to jump from some cats and some primates genes are the same as humans so therefore Humans have diseases in common with Cats. Answer C could provide a weaker link with the premise/conclusion connection by pointing out that a some correlation does not imply a most correlation.

Any help or guidance would be appreciated.

When I read the question I assumed that the debris hurled into the atmosphere causing the blocking of the sun and extinction of the dinosaurs was only in the Yucatan Peninsula. Which is why answer choice B was attractive and I picked it rather than answer choice E. I understand why E is correct, but can somebody explain why or how I should have assumed the debris from the asteroid was around the world versus just affecting the Yucatan Peninsula?

Anyone from the Chicago area interested in getting a group together for mock LSAT exam?

Did anyone else find these games sections more difficult than usual? I am a pretty consistent -0 to -2 on the games sections, but damn the A, B, and C games sections are brutal. For example, games 3 and 4 on PT A each ate up like 12-13 minutes. I will definitely be redoing these sections in a few weeks. Did anyone else feel the same way about these games?

So I took the October LSAT and came in at a 169. My dream school is Stanford, which puts me on the 25th percentile in terms of LSAT score. My undergrad LSDAS GPA was calculated to be 3.68 which is a little below 25th percentile. The real GPA was a tenth of a point higher, but I suppose that is irrelevant for my purpose. I would call myself something of a non-traditional law student. I have a Master's in Music, as well as some post grad studies, and was a professional classical guitarist/instructor for five or so years and have traveled much of the world. I only list these last things out of hope that they might somehow set me apart on my application, though that may be wishful thinking. I'm looking for a little advice here. Should I apply? or would that be tantamount to lighting a $100 bill on fire?

1. People with long legs make good runners. Everyone in Ashley's family has long legs. Therefore, Ashley would make a good runner. (I think it's a bad argument because just because Ashley's family has long legs doesn't necessarily mean she does, right?)

2.In Los Angeles everyone over the age of 18 who drinks also smoke. But not everyone in Los Angeles over the age of 18 who smokes are drinks. It follows tear among people over the age of 18 in Los Angeles there are more who drink than there are who smoke. (this felt like a bad argument to me)

3. All of the painting in the Janet Collection will be put up for auction next week. Since the paintings to be auctioned next week are by a wide variety if artists, it follows that the paintings in the Janet collection are by a wide variety of artists (This felt like a bad argument to me)

4. A writer's first book will become a best-seller only if it has a romantic setting and a suspenseful plot. Since many author's first novels have neither, it follows that not many first novels become best-sellers. (I thought this was a good argument)

5. Some short poems are thematically pluralistic, since some sonnets are characterized by such pluralistic, and all sonnets are short poems. (I thought this was a bad argument, because I couldn't diagram it)

6. Most of the people in Los Angeles buys gasoline on Mondays only. But almost everyone in Los Angeles buys groceries on Tuesday only. It follows that fewer than half of the people in Los Angeles buy gasoline on the same day on which they buy groceries.

I don't know where else to ask this but I haven't been able to really log in to my account for a couple days now. I'm "logged in" because I can post this but I can't access any of the course material (can't study!!!!!"

This is the error message:

503: Service Temporarily Unavailable

Too many IP addresses accessing one secure area!

Please contact Support if you need assistance.

Plz help!

Feb-ers!!!! Welcome to Group BR!!

Skype is not doing well. I have a pet theory that might work; it involves clicking a link for each individual conversation we’d like to join rather than having a regular group of 25 people in the conversation. It might reduce the needed bandwidth. But if that plan doesn’t work, we may need to change from Skype to Google Hangout. Please PM your Google Hangout email (a gmail account will do) to me. We’re working on trying to make this transition as painless as possible, but there may be snags here and there. Thanks for your patience.

Wednesday, Oct 28th at 8PM ET: PT48

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

Friday, Oct 30th at 8PM ET: PT70

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/sdiINq0J9AwI

LSATurday, Oct 31st at 8PM ET: PT67

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/C8Yeac0csm8G

Be sure to click the link of the conversation you’re attending and announce in the comments which group(s) you’re planning on attending.

Note: