As far as I remember about conditional reasoning, if:

1. A-> B

2. C-> ~A

I can combine 1 and 2 (~B-> ~A: Contrapositive #1 and C-> ~A) and turn out C-> ~B.

So the diagram about the stimulus I thought was:

1: B-> A

2: L-> ~B

So contrapositive #1: ~A-> ~B

And I combined 1+2 and turned out L-> ~A, so that's why I chose E, but the answer is C.

So I have no idea why E is wrong. Am I missing something?

And why is C an answer?

Please someone explain me.

Thanks!

I processed POE, chose B and know why it is an answer, but I can't entirely understand why E is wrong. E kept bugging me.

If more people choose cheddar cheese more than ice cream just as the stimulus said and which means people choose cheese over ice cream, can E be an answer too?

Why can't E be an answer?

Please someone enlighten me.

Thanks!

For many of us, this is a long process. It will most likely not be a steady incline toward your goal. With that being said, you will have your ups and your (many) downs, but keep a level head and keep plugging away.

It wasn't but 10 days ago I was feeling pretty hopeless after regressing about 10 points back to my diagnostic score. After taking a few days off and getting some much needed encouragement by lurking through the 7sage forums, I got back at it and not only did I get back to where I was, I actually surpassed my previous high score (+3) and met my goal score when I took PT72 today.

Y'all have helped me tremendously, so I just wanted to send some encouragement to anyone who may need it. Keep goin!

Hi All- I am wondering how to best drill to improve my score on various sections. I have a book I got from a friend that is the Manhattan LSAT 10 Real LSAT questions grouped by question type. I am currently focusing on questions that according to the LSAT analytics tool on 7Sage says are high priority. But I feel like I am spending too much time on each question type and do not feel like I am seeing a difference in my prep test scores. Any tips or advice on the best way to drill?

Hi Everyone! This is my first time writing in the forums. I am totally struggling with understanding Law passages in Reading Comprehension and I'm not sure what to do. I am taking the October LSAT and I am trying to clean up some of the areas that are hard for me. Any suggestions?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-2-question-14/

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

*The kind of question this is:* Strengthen

*Paraphrased question:*

Kim:

During eighteenth century, northern Europe had a change of attitude on expression both in adoption of less solemn and elaborate death rites by the pop. at large and in a more optimistic view of the human condition as articulated by philosophers. This change is because of a result of dramatic increase in life expectancy that occurred in northern Europe early in the eighteenth century.

Lee:

Your explanation that “this change is because of a result of dramatic increase in life expectancy that occurred in northern Europe early in the eighteenth century,” could not be correct unless the ppl of the time were aware their life expectancy had increased.

*What I am looking for:* Something to prove strengthen the relationship between “change of attitude on expression both in adoption of less solemn and elaborate death rites” and “this change being because of a result of dramatic increase in life expectancy that occurred in northern Europe early in the eighteenth century.”

*Answer A:* Yes, this strengthens Kim’s arguments because it directly addresses a relationship between “increase in life expectancy in a population,” “rise to economic changes,” and “influence on people’s attitudes.” I circled this one, but reviewed the other ones just incase.

*Answer B:* No, but this is tricky for me because it gave an explanation of why ppl’s attitudes toward life change in response to information about their life expectancy. This answer seems to strengthen Lee’s argument rather than Kim’s because Lee argues “change is because of a result of dramatic increase in life expectancy that occurred in northern Europe early in the eighteenth century,” could not be correct unless the ppl of the time were aware their life expectancy had increased. That is what Answer B is saying.

*Answer C:* No, this has nothing to do with Kim’s argument. Philosophers making conjectures that did not affect the ideas of the population does not strengthen or even do anything to Kim’s conclusion.

*Answer D:* No, but thanks for information. This weakens Lee’s argument, but does not strengthen Kim’s.

*Answer E:* No. We are talking about strengthening Kim’s idea that “change is because of a result of dramatic increase in life expectancy that occurred in northern Europe early in the eighteenth century.” The influence of religious teaching vs demographic phenomena on attitudes of Northern Europeans is broad and does not focus on Kim’s conclusion.

Sorry if this a redundant post, but do you guys warm up before you take a PT? I noticed awhile back that my second LR section was consistently better so I started to do some LR questions. Have you seen a benefit to warming up? If so, I am curious to how many questions you guys do before. Do you do a game and a RC passage before too?

I didn't mark this for BR, so I was pretty surprised I missed it. I still don't see how E doesn't strengthen the argument. Here is my breakdown:

Public health dudes have waged a long term education campaign to get people to eat their vegetables. The campaign isn't working since people haven't changed their diet. This is probably due to the fact that vegetables taste terrible. Thus, the campaign would be more successful if included ways to make vegetables more appetizing.

What I am looking for: We want to strengthen the argument. The argument is pretty prescriptive, so any evidence that making vegetables appetizing would lead to people eating more vegetables would strengthen the argument.

Answer A: Who cares about the people who already love vegetables? This isn't the group the conclusion is concerning itself with.

Answer B: This would weaken the argument I think since making the vegetables appetizing would defeat a purpose of the campaign.

Answer C: I think this weakens the argument as well since it suggests that making the vegetables appetizing wouldn't do anything.

Answer D: This is apparently the correct answer, but I take issue with the word "how." The conclusion/prescription isn't talking about the PEOPLE making the vegetables more appetizing, but the CAMPAIGN making the vegetables appear more appetizing. I don't see how this shift allows you to conclude that this is the correct answer.

Answer E: I just don't see what is wrong with this one. If the only way to make the campaign more effective is to ensure that ALL people (which would encompass the people in line 5-6 since it is a "many"/some statement) who dislike the taste of certain vegetables learns to find those vegetables appealing, then wouldn't this hugely strengthen the prescription? This to me is an obvious answer choice.

I think I am making this one way harder than it needs to be, but I have been spinning my wheels for a half hour on this one. I don't understand how B weakens the argument? The conclusion only states that "it is clear why humans have some diseases in common with cats." So what if B is true? What about the some diseases that humans have in common with cats that do have a genetic basis? B to me is completely consistent with the argument. The argument isn't concluding that ALL diseases or MOST of the diseases are common. I have watched the video on this one 2-3 times, and I am still dumbfounded how B even slightly weakens the argument.

Hi all!

I'm registered for the December LSAT but im thinking of pushing it back to February. Any thoughts on applying and then just sending in my February score. Most schools that i'm looking into have March/April deadlines. So I'm not sure if i'll still be ok.

I took a year off, and I just really don't want to take another one.

Thanks!

.

Hi everyone, I was just wondering is there a way to keep the original as well as the BR score for each test? Or should we just keep the original score on the 7Sage site? I just think it would be helpful to compare progress or lack of in both, especially in the early stages of PTing. Thank you in advance for your feedback.

Any interest in an additional Monday Morning Group BR???

We had good attendance for all BR groups last week, but I saw a few who wanted to do mornings. Who would be interested in Mondays? If we add a fourth, that’s fine, but I’m not entirely certain which PTs that that group would like to BR (maybe PT 50-60???). I’d love some input. Please comment!

And for those waiting to hear about Oct. 3 test scores, here’s some love from Westeros:

Wednesday, Oct 21st at 8PM ET: PT64

It’s as easy as riding a bicycle...for 2 days.

Friday, Oct 23rd at 8PM ET: PT74

The Red-headed stepchild of the BR Groups got popular!

LSATurday, Oct 24th at 8PM ET: PT65

Who needs a social life when we have LSAT!

Be sure to announce in the comments which group(s) you’re planning on attending.

Note:

Hey fellow Canadians, it's election day today. Don't forget to vote!

If you're not sure what party matches up with your political views, CBC has a slick little webapp that will tell you after just a couple minutes of questions:

https://votecompass.cbc.ca

I was about to start up studying again for the December LSAT and wanted to get through as many practice tests to up my endurance since I feel the only thing holding me back is my timing. I was thinking 2 days of rest in between tests is adequate rest while not working or going to school and 3 days would be fine when working 40 hours a week, but I wanted some feedback on this idea.

Clearly I'm having a hard time mapping out logic... Can someone please explain the correct answer? Also any tips on how to improve mapping out logic would be greatly appreciated!! Thanks!

I’m posting this tonight because I’m going out of town to a wedding this weekend. So everybody dance!

Saturday, October 17th at 8PM ET: PT63

Note:

I am really, really struggling with Sufficient Assumptions questions. I am just not getting it. I do not know what else to do. Any suggestions???????????

Can the writers of the LSAT really be able to deceive you the way they do on this question? One of the rules states that "At most one CD received more stars than Quasi did". And there can only be 1, 2, 3, or 4 stars. Thus, Q cannot receive 4 stars. Yet in the asnwer choice Q does receive 4 stars.

This does't make any sense and is obviously contradictory with their rules. I even watched the video on this, and there have been numeorus complaints about this quesion. Can the writers really contradict their own rules like that?

.

I chose D but the answer is E. I still don't understand why D is wrong.

If the bear population in areas of the Abbimac Valley outside the Kiffer Forest Preserve has decreased, I think it can weaken the conclusion.

So Why can't D be an answer? And why is E right?

What's the difference between them?

Please someone explain me.

Thanks!

Ok, is this just me or do ya'll hear JY's voice in your head there entire time you PT saying:

"What? That's complete irrelevant. This answer is just wrong."

And, "'This' that is referential phrasing that refers to ___ up here."

And, "Yea but so what? Who cares? It doesn't matter that _____"

Might be going crazy but if for sure helps.

Hi folks, can you post here/message me if you are planning to join Fri and/or Sat? (73 and 63?) Last week I was the only one and I just wanted to make sure that I definitely want to take these PT's this week (e.g. instead of reviewing and taking them later).

I got this question correct by POE since B-E were totally irrelevant. However, during BR, I am having a very hard time explicitly justifying why A is correct. How does this strengthen the idea that Homer was not translated into Arabic? Doesn't it sort of suggest the opposite since the translators had possession of the epics? I know that I am assuming too much when I say that it suggests that the translators actually translated the epics, but wouldn't this be a more reasonable assumption than assuming that they either consciously didn't translate them? or they just left them on their shelves forgotten?

I picked E but the answer is C. And I still don't understand why E is wrong.

I think E also can weaken the conclusion since it says "The physical effort~~~~does not stimulate circulation enough to warm your hands."

So Why can't E be an answer? And why is C right?

What's the difference between them?

Please someone explain me.

Thanks!