Sooooo inferences are usually much more clear and this one is giving me a lot of trouble. I gave B a considerable amount of thought, but I felt like it's a flaw because it goes from health food enthusiasts to saying in general, those who take XYZ will lower chances of heart disease. And I saw that the researchers corrected for differences in health habits, but I still felt like I'd be making some sort of assumption by picking B.

That being said, I didn't like D or E much either because I felt D is really broad. For E, this is the one I chose because although I thought it shouldn't be going from XYZ to general "large daily doses of vitamins," I thought it was the best option available

What am I missing here!

http://www.wsj.com/articles/on-friday-the-first-thing-we-do-lets-love-all-the-lawyers-1446774232

It's today!

All Librarians enjoy spending time organizing books. Since Susan enjoys spending time organizing books, I imagine she's a librarian.

It is well known know that Yahoo Corporation has slashed the amount it pays in salaries by 6 percent this year. Since Jeff works at Yahoo, his salary was reduced by 6 percent.

Are these different flaws or the same?

In a recent poll conducted among readers of popular surfing magazines, surfing was ranked as the most popular sport and beach volleyball was ranked third. Therefore, it cannot be true that tennis is more popular than both surfing and beach volleyball. Part of me feel like this is a biased sampling simply because the readers are clearly supporters of surfing; so of course they would rank it more high. On the other hand, I feel it is also an overgeneation because it bases its conclusion off of those reader's opinion, and never specified if those polled were representative of the population.

Will there ever be a flaw question containing an overgenerzation and biased poll answer choice? because if both appeared as an answer, I wouldn't know which one to choose and why

hi,

for those of you (like me) who might have started in the late 140s and have been stuck in the 50s for a while...

how do you convince yourself that it CAN BE DONE? I had 161 as my best score and 160 and then dropped back down. I can feel that part of me doesn't even believe that it even is possible, to get into the higher 160s much less in the 170s. i know at this point i need to convince myself of the actual possibility of this happening, or my scores won't budge. do you meditate on a specific number? Use a vision board? zone in on where improvement has actually happened? I was just curious if anyone had any advice. I read the "don't give up post" (thanks!) but can still feel this weight...

Is there any quick way to diagram the following sentence during the exam? It takes me a lot of time to figure it out during PT.

If a sentient being on another planet cannot communicate with us, then the only way to detect its existence is by sending a spacecraft to its planet.

This is how we do it in BR Group. Hope to see you there!

Wednesday, Nov. 4th at 8PM ET: PT68

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/wGTZaVjudu5m

Friday, Nov. 6th at 8PM ET: PT A

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

LSATurday, Nov 7th at 8PM ET: PT69

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/tA67DTS6xgqW

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

Note:

UPDATE: Hey folks—just in case anyone has trouble joining or the Webinar fills up, there WILL be a recording and a PowerPoint—and I'll give out my email address during the session.

Due to popular demand, we will be holding this webinar using GoToWebinar. Please continue to use the sign-up link below. You will receive an email prior to the webinar with instructions.

NEW! 7sage Webinar (RC) | Saturday, October 24th 6pm–8pm ET

Hey y'all. A few of us Mentors are going to be hosting webinars on a variety of topics. These are free and open to the public (and to folks at all levels of LSAT mastery).

RC with Nicole: It's Hammer Time

In this webinar, I'll share my notation strategy and talk about how to effectively turn the passage into a toolbox with which you'll eliminate 4 wrong answer choices for each question. This strategy is for beginners, strugglers, and experts looking to refine their own method.

We'll also talk about what makes a good RC answer choice, and how to sniff out the bad ones.

If you'd like to join (we will be using GoToWebinar), fill out this super simple form.

http://goo.gl/forms/poB0E5eSez

If you're unable to attend, don't worry—we'll cycle through the list of topics periodically, and a recording will be available.

Note: no special materials or preparation necessary!

Hi I know that there are books that group the logical reasoning into question types but does anyone know of a book or other study material that has lsat questions grouped specifically by the type of flaw

EX.) the flaw: Absence of evidence-describes the flaw and then lists flawed lsat questions that are this flaw

do this for each type of flaw

(I feel this would really help me see how each type of flaw is used in a lsat question) -Thanks

m

So I'm still going through the 7Sage curriculum and I'm sure (or at least hoping) that I'll get much better at Logic Games (before enrolling when I just tried them out a few times I was like -15) and as I'm slowly going through the practice and what not, I'm noticing the one MAIN and basically only issue I have with games.

I am horrible at figuring out / visualizing in my mind how to set up games if they are not simple 1 to 1 sequencing.

Diagramming the rules, coming up with inferences, all of that is coming to me fairly quickly, but reading the stimulus and figuring out how to draw the setup what rows/charts/etc to use is where I seem to get stuck at.

Any tips on how to overcome this?

I have been working on my LG for the last few days, in preparation for the December test. I am now getting to the point where I can get all the questions right on a standard linear game, but it's taking me a minimum of 12 to 13 minutes, and sometimes as much as 15 minutes per game.

I have a hard time seeing how I can increase my speed. For me, the games just require a lot of thought and that takes some time.

Anyone else faced this issue? Right now, 8 minutes per game seems almost impossible. Is it just a matter of practice, and that taking a lot of tests will increase speed?

Hi y'all, I'm studying for the upcoming Dec LSAT and am currently scoring in the low 160's. I'm interested in working with someone(s) to do PT'S/BR/Drill etc. Shoot my inbox and let's set something up to crush the LSAT. It's almost time!

Just curious if being significantly older than most students applying to law school (lets say hypothetically speaking 20+ years) would qualify you as being URM? Not that I would actually know anyone who was of course :)

.

Absolutely clueless on this one. I've probably watched the video 5 times, and I just don't see how B weakens the argument that is in the passage. Also, can someone look at my reasoning for A?

Win democratic elections not fully subsidized--->poor candidates supported by rich. As a result, it could be true that the poor candidates will compromise their positions to win the rich guy's support. However, the proportion of rich people in all of the political parties is the same as their proportion in the population. Thus, the belief that it could be true that poor candidates will compromise their position to win the rich people's support is wrong.

What I am looking for: The premise doesn't support the conclusion at all since we don't know whether being proportionally equal nullifies the pressure to conform to the rich guy's opinion. For example, say that rich people are 1% of the population in all political parties; they must then be 1% of the total population. It might be reasonable to say that the rich don't have that big of an influence on policy. Now, what if the proportion was 99%? The rich might have a huge say in policy! Thus, the premise could go both ways in either providing support for the conclusion or not.

Answer A: This is what I chose, but I still am very unsure why it is wrong. I think the argument does fail to address this answer choice. Maybe it is wrong because of the word "primary?" I'm not so sure though since we are usually supposed to accept the answer choices as true. If it is the case that the "primary" function of a party still may not negate the influence of wealth, then doesn't this paraphrase the flaw very well? To me, this is hinting at the idea that the proportion of the wealthy might be so high (or so influential) in political parties that it doesn't matter which one the poor candidate choose, they will have to conform to the wealthy point of view's party.

Say that the word "primary" is the reason why this is wrong (which I am not really sure why it would be), what if this answer choice said "a function of political parties...?" Would it be correct then?

Answer B: Like I said earlier, I just don't see how this weakens the argument. I do think it weakens an argument, just not the one in the passage. Here is my breakdown of this answer choice: say the poor candidate believes, "Every person who takes the LSAT should get a 180 and full ride to Yale" but the Democrats and Republicans both think "absolutely not" (the positions of the parties is way less varied than the position of the candidate). Then sure, joining a political party would compromise the poor candidate's views. But, that isn't the argument in the passage. The argument is that the "possibility of a poor candidate compromising his views to win the support OF THE RICH [not the political party] is not true." How are these two the same argument? In other words, if this is true, isn't the LSAT equivocating between the views of the "political parties" and the views of the "wealthy patrons?"

Answer C: We don't care about government subsidized elections.

Answer D: We don't care about wealthy candidates.

Answer E: We don't care about other flaws.

What lessons are the best to review for mapping out logic? Perhaps maybe a couple rule of thumbs to always go back to would be great! I use to do very well on SA questions and now I see myself getting more than half of them wrong, I know these type of questions usually play leave on mapping out the logic.

I'm trying to figure out the best way to make use of the 7Sage Core curriculum, the LSAT Trainer, and a bunch of grouped LR questions based on question-type (going up to PT 30) which I'm using before I go into the whole PT/ BR phase in preparation for the June 2016 test. If you've used both 7Sage and the Trainer how did you approach your studies? Is it generally advisable to go through the course and then read the Trainer or vice-versa? Would you make use of the grouped question-types at the end of each lecture on that specific type or use them later for review? I'm considering starting the whole PT/BR regimen at the end of January at the latest which would give me at least a solid 4 months before the test. I really need to structure my studies so any advice/ comments going forward would be great.

The Trainer wants me to use PT62-71 for drills and full exams. Can I use PT40-50 instead? I don't want to use newer tests until I'm somewhat ready.

.

Just curious if anyone keeps a spreadsheet or anything of the questions they get wrong on the PTs? Or do you all just track it in LSAT Analytics? If you do log the questions you are are getting wrong in a spreadsheet, do you actually write out the questions, answer choices etc. and make notes of why you got it wrong? Or do you just write the test number section, & question & type of question. Just trying to figure out if it would be helpful for me to do this or if it would just be wasting valuable time I could be spending more productively. I'm already doing a BR. Although I think I'm going to change the way I have been doing that. I am going to start doing an untimed BR of the complete exam instead of just reviewing the ones I circled in addition to the ones I actually got wrong. Any tips or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

This question is difficult because once you spot the flaw, it is hard to put it into words, which is why I missed it. I couldn't figure out how any of the answer choices paraphrased the flaw, so I had to pick an answer and move on. I don't really see how C is the flaw and how A is worse than C.

Bike riders don't follow the rules of the road, and this is a causal factor in 25% of traffic accidents involving bikes. The lack of bike saftey equipment is also a causal factor in 25% of those accidents. Thus, bikes are partly responsible for more than half of the traffic accidents involving bikes.

What I am looking for: I think the flaw is a math error. The conclusion says that 50+%, but we are given information about a causal factor being 25% and of those accidents a causal factor is 25%. Instead of additive, the relationship should be multiplicative. The conclusion should only talk about the percentage of bike accidents that included inadequate bike saftey equipment.

Answer A: This was the answer I chose, and I don't see how this doesn't adequately point out the flaw. Sure, you need to make an assumption that motorists are a factor in traffic accidents, but how is that not a reasonable assumption that the author overlooked? Additionally, since we conclude that 50+%, this is implying that less than 50% ("less than half") have some other cause. But, since we can't conclude anything about 50+%, this presumption is not justified. I don't see what is wrong with this one.

Answer B: No. We are to take the causal premises as truth.

Answer C: How is this the correct answer choice? Doesn't the conclusion say "at least partially responsible?" Thus, the argument DOES consider the possibility that more than one factor may contribute to a given accident? Additionally, the argument isn't talking about "all/given accidents;" it is limited to accidents involving bikes. How can the flaw be about "given" accidents?

Answer D: We don't need a source.

Answer E: Who cares about the severity of injury?

I'm trying to significantly improve on logic games. If I study every day for an entire month for so many hours, what are the chances of me seeing major improvement?

May I ask: what is the trainer?

I've looked at about 3 different courses with explanations for this question and none of them really make an sense to me... I still see answer choice (B) as an attractive answer choice... Can someone please explain why all the answers are incorrect and perhaps a better way to approach PSA questions for next time? GREATLY APPRECIATED!