211 posts in the last 30 days
Although I struggle with consistency identifying these arguments in complicated passages, I do tend to recognize them in easier forms. Hopefully this helps someone in need of a better understanding of this particular concept
The explanation video for Q11, PTM20 talks about two approaches for solving suspension questions, i.e. knock out and squeeze in. Where in the CC can I find the detailed tutorial for such approaches? Thanks a lot!
For question 19 of section 3 on the october 2008 test, the stimulus reads: "Bureaucrat: The primary, constant goal of an ideal bureaucracy is to define and classify all possible problems and set out regulations regarding each eventuality. Also, an ideal bureaucracy provides an appeal procedure for any complaint. If a complaint reveals an unanticipated problem, the regulations are expanded to cover the new issue, and for this reason an ideal bureaucracy will have an ever-expanding system of regulations."
Answer choice A reads "An ideal bureaucracy will provide an appeal procedure for complaints even after it has defined and classified all possible problems and set out regulations regarding each eventuality."
In negating this answer choice, I believe that the clause "even after it has defined..." all the way to the end remains constant in both the answer choice and its negation. If this is the case, how does it not break the conclusion of the argument that "an ideal bureaucracy will have an ever-expanding system of regulations."?
Hello,
I've been studying JY's method of "knock-out" answers v.s "sneak-in" wrong answer choices.
And I'm wondering if it's possible for an answer choice to be BOTH a knock-out AND sneak-in wrong answer choice.
For instance, in PT 66, S3, G2, Question 11
Answer choice (E) seems to knock out a situation that was possible in the old world (e.g. PVROSTR) but also sneak in a situation that was not possible in the old world (e.g. RVRSTOP).
What does this mean?
Thanks!
Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-66-section-3-game-2/
#help
How do you go about annotating and jotting down the summaries without a physical copy.
LSAT Party time, that is!
LSATurday, Nov 7th at 8PM ET: PT51
Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/C8Yeac0csm8G
Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.
Note:
Okay guys, this is pretty much my dumb down version of explaining some formal logic based on my knowledge. I believe this is something that needs to be really understood in order to improve in logic games.
Example 1:
If A-> Not B
If B-> Not A -------> That implies that
*A can be alone
*B can be alone
*Both can be absent ( BUT YOU CAN NOT HAVE BOTH A AND B SELECTED!)
Example 2:
If Not A -> B
If Not B ->A ----------> That implies that
*If A is out, then B is in
*If B is out, then A is in
*Or both A and B can be in
THEY BOTH CAN NEVER BE ABSENT!!
Example 3:
If not A ->not B
If B ->A ------------> That implies that
* Both CAN be absent
*Both CAN be present
*A CAN be by itself
* B CANNOT! I REPEAT CANNOT be Alone!!!
Excuse the caps, the emphasis helps me remember haha...Please make any changes if I am wrong. But this is what I came across. When I finally had this written down, it made so much more sense to me.
Hello everyone! I took the November LSAT, and while it wasn’t exactly what I hoped for, I scored a 155. I’m scheduled to retake the test in January and would love to connect with someone local who’s in a similar score range to study together.
For reference, I’m currently scoring between 155–160 and blind reviewing at 166.
I’ve taken a month off, so I might be a bit out of practice. If you’re planning to test later, that’s fine—I'm in the same position. I won’t be applying this cycle, so I’m hoping to connect with someone to study and stay motivated together.
P.S. I am a 23-year-old black female and would feel most comfortable studying with another woman.
Its not all that painful... Life in law school gets easier ;)
Listen and subscribe:
7Sage Live Instructor Max shares the changes that transformed his prep, from sharpening his conditional diagramming to tightening his grammar skills. Learn how you can apply his techniques no matter where you are in your LSAT journey.
PT145 S2 Q24 "Tariffs on particular products tend to protect the small percentage of the population that works in industries that make those products while hurting everyone else through higher costs. Polls show that in fact most people oppose such tariffs. So politicians would be more likely to be reelected if they voted against these tariffs."
Wow. Just wow. LSAT writers having their Simpsons arc predicting the future from all the way back in PT145!!! Let's get some votes against tariffs like the stim says! Regardless of your opinion on the tariff situation, I think this is the most relevant LSAT question to current events I've seen in my time studying.
Hey everyone!
Can anyone please provide some insight on this optional video submission for law school. Has anyone done this before. It says it needs to be one minute and I have the discretion on how I want to do it. What are they looking for when students submit their video? Is this new? I'm debating if I should do it.
Episode 19 is here!
https://soundcloud.com/user-737824810/19-most-strongly-supported-questions
Subscribe to our podcast:
I finally broke 170 and I never have to take the LSAT again. My diagnostic score was a 161 and I just got a 171. I got those 10 points by studying with 7Sage. Thanks J.Y.
All groups now meeting at 7pm ET. Folks with schedule restraints—please just join when you can. You won't miss much. Any serious objections, please PM me. Schedules can be changed but only if you let me know!!
Questions about upcoming weeks' schedules? Look at this. http://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/3490/october-15-group-br-calendar-now-available
BR Groups, Week of September 15th: THURSDAY (PT72), Sat (PT73)
Ok. Ok. Ok. You still with me? ARE YOU STILL WITH ME, FUTURE SAGES???
Of course you are.
THURSDAY (NOTE DAY CHANGE, this week only), September 17th at 7PM ET: PT72
Join @pujals and Matt N. for this evening of delights.
LSATurday, September 19th at 7PM ET: PT73
Second to last LSATurday. *tear*
Note on all groups
I am having trouble finding sample essays for their 250 word essay. Can anyone find a link to a site?
I know this is a wide range but due to the military I travel a lot in state.
If anyone is serious about studying for the LSAT please PM me!
Are you a 7Sage user looking for an easy way to find people to study with? Or do you just want a break from reviewing questions on your own?
You're in luck! Join us for our next "Study Group Breakout" on Monday, October 10th from 9:00-10:30pm ET.
Here's how it works:
Hope to see you there! Register for the event using this link: https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZAudOuqpj4jH9yM7wzclb8gA3-3uxLtqt-P
I'm retaking the LSAT in February and am looking for someone to meet with a few times to study with and talk through some of the material. I'm located in Waukesha area but am willing to travel to Madison or Milwaukee area, or perhaps other places to meet at least a few times. Please message me if you live in the area. Thanks!
Scholarships Mar 23, 2020 12:24:41 PM
Due 3/27/2020:
Due 3/31/2020:
Due 4/6/2020:
Due 5/1/2020:
Due 5/2/2020:
Due 5/15/2020:
Due 5/31/2020:
Due 6/1/2020:
Due 6/17/2020:
Due 6/30/2020:
Due 7/1/2020:
Due 7/15/2020:
Due 8/15/2020:
Due 8/31/2020:
Due 9/1/2020:
Due 9/30/2020:
Due 10/26/2020:
Due 11/30/2020:
Due 12/1/2020:
Due 12/31/2020:
Rolling deadline:
There’s more information on our page about financial aid and scholarships.
Looking for a study buddy in Shanghai that is also planning to take the June exam. Send me a private msg!
Proctors: 4-5 women. One was very particular about not having water bottles on the desks for some reason. Don't think anyone got called out for taking too long. They actually seemed helpful when people had questions.
Facilities: 3rd floor of the law school
What kind of room: Med-Lg size lecture hall
How many in the room: ~100
Desks: More like big tables. Plenty of room for any papers. Lots of space between you and the person/people next to you.
Left-handed accommodation: Since they were tables it wasn't really an issue
Noise levels: Fine, didn't have any issues at all.
Parking: Had to pay but it was a couple blocks away and there was plenty of parking.
Time elapsed from arrival to test: ~2 hours
Irregularities or mishaps: None
Other comments: I think this is a great spot to take the test. Of all of the things I was worried about, none happened.
Would you take the test here again? Yes, actually I am in June.
Date[s] of Exam[s]: 12/2015
I had a really hard time understanding the answer choices, which is why I missed this one. I don't understand how D is the flaw.
Determinism is the belief that everything has a preceding cause sufficient for its occurrence. This belief is wrong since we cannot know the complete state at any given time since we cannot accurately measure both the position and velocity of a subatomic particle at the same time.
What I am looking for: Is knowing the complete state relevant? Why can't a complete understanding of the state of the universe be beyond our understating and determinism still be correct? Next, is not accurately measuring position/velocity of subatomic particles evidence for not knowing the complete state of the universe?
Answer A: This isn't the flaw in the reasoning. Just because we can't know at the same time doesn't mean we can't know them independently.
Answer B: This is what I chose, and I chose it because I couldn't figure out what D actually said. I guess this isn't the flaw since the argument isn't saying "since we can't know the complete state of the universe we can't know the states of the particles." I think this statement is backwards since the lack of knowing the states of the particles is used to support the idea that we don't know the state of the universe.
Answer C: Isn't this exactly the same idea as A? Skip.
Answer D: I don't understand how this is the flaw. Where does the argument claim that there is "no complete state of the universe?" The argument only says "it's impossible to know the complete state of the universe" because we don't know the complete state of the subatomic particles. The point of the argument is that determinism is incorrect, but I don't see how saying determinism is false means that there is no complete state of the universe. Why can't determinism be wrong since the preceding cause isn't sufficient for the occurrence, or for some type of negation of the necessary conditions provided in the first 2 sentences?
Answer E: I don't really know why this is wrong other than it just "feels" wrong.
Hey All, Im studying for the JUNE 2017 Lsat and I work in the city during the week but live in Yonkers. If anyone is from westchester county itd be great to meet in a coffee shop or bookstore. Anyways Message me :))))
