Imagine on the 23rd...that would be nice

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

*The kind of question this is:* Weaken

*CTX:* Local agricultural official gave fruit growers of District 10 a new pesticide that they applied for three years to their pear orchards in place of the pesticides they had used before.

*Premise(s):* during the three years, the proportion of pears lost to insects was significantly less than it had been during the previous three years period.

*Conclusion:* based on the results, the official concluded that the new pesticide was more effective than the old pesticide, at least in the short term. In limiting the loss of certain fruit to insects.

*What I am looking for:* Just looking for answer choices that weaken the argument. Maybe an alternative explanation as to why the pears lost to insects were significantly less than it had been during the previous three years period.

*Answer A:* Yes, this is the right answer. This is irrelevant and does not weaken the argument. There were less fruit being produced because the number of mature trees has declined of the past 8 years. Who cares. The argument is talking about the “proportion of pears lost to insects.” So, it doesn’t matter how many pears we started with, it’s how many of those that were lost to insects with the new pesticide.

*Answer B:* Not the right answer. This weakens the argument. Insect abatement programs were used in the last 5 years, and were successful. That explains why the pears lost to insects were significantly less than it had been during the previous three years period.

*Answer C:* Not the right answer. Over the past 5 years, the birds that prey on the insects that feed on the pears have spent more time in the district 10 region. Weakens.

*Answer D:* Not the right answer. Insects in district 10 that infest pear trees are water breeders, and access to water for them is shrinking. This means the insects did not get to the pear trees. Weakens.

*Answer E:* Not the right answer. It is saying the old pesticide is still in effect after it has stopped being used, so it may not be the new pesticide that is credited with eliminating many pear eating insects. Weakens.

Today :)

So just to give some background I started studying for the October LSAT end of June and was PT-ing around the early160's by the time I wrote the exam.

The thing is that I didn't do all the PT's from 30-75 as usually recommended since I was on a time crunch, so I skipped 51-61. But did the 30's, 40's, 60's and 70's.

Now I am studying for December and writing all the PT's that I missed. The bizarre thing is that in the 50's series so far I've been getting mid 150's! Should I be too concerned? Why has my score dropped so much for the older LSATS?

Thanks in advance!

Hi

I just wanted to know, how many practice tests I should be taking on daily basis. I am writing LSAT on december 5th and just finished with the lessons and wanted to start taking full timed tests.

Thank You

Currently.

Hey guys! So this is my first time waiting for my score and I was wondering what the grey arrow is. I can't seem to find it under LSAT Status and am DYING to know when my score will come out.

Thanks! Good luck to everyone!

Can anyone explain the incorrect answer choice "B" because I'm having trouble getting through the convoluted way it's written?

Basically, I've taken 8 PTs and as of recent I'm scoring 157-159, while taking about 2 a week. Originally, I was scoring 156 more or less. -7/8 on LR, -5 on LG, -8 RC averages around. I feel that I never drilled much before starting my PT phases. I only did about a 1/6 of the logic game bundles and never drilled RC too much. Should I break from PT'ing and focus on doing the Logic Game bundles and RC sections before I start PT'ing? I feel like since my score isnt in the 160s after 8 PTs that maybe it's a bit premature and if I drilled RC/LG for a few weeks, it would help me jump into the 160s. Thanks.!

Does anyone have a specific strategy for these? They seem to be cropping up more often, and I usually do it by gut instinct, which is fine with easy ones but hasn't worked as well for harder questions. I think this trips me up because I'm not sure what the LSAC wants here. I heard one explanation that you need to take all given premises from the stimulus and choose a conclusion that uses them all in some way... but should that the be goal if using all the given premises would make you construct a bad/illogical argument? I don't know if they want a solid, less flawed argument, or something that looks more like a typical question stem with issues, but that links all the ideas in a flawed support structure.

Help?

South Bay area people where do you take the test?

SCU used be excellent but lsac removed it as a test center this year.

Jfku Pleasant Hill had complaints related to overcrowding, exteme close seating this year.

Looking to register for december.

If anyone would like to meet up in the DC or Northern Virginia area to go over some practice tests leading up to the December LSAT, feel free to reach out to me. I work in Arlington (Ballston) during the week, but am available most weekends leading up to the test. Also, most days after work if we schedule in advance. If anyone prefers skype that's an option as well. Trying to set myself up for success on this test, and I feel that it would be beneficial to have someone else to bounce ideas off. Let's crush this test together.

-Chad

The answer should be D, as the other answers all call for too much. There is no apparent need for real strength. 'To be believed' is the key phrase.

I am still confused why the conclusion is adequate productivity --> high- tech technology. I negated the high tech technology part because of the "not" present in the sentence. I tried reviewing my notes and I can't find where he explains in the negation of conditional logic that this is viable.

Hey guys.. It looks like the guys over at 180watch.com ran out of stock. Anyone know where else I can pick it up? I'd love to buy it!

Hello fellow 7sagers!

I hope that studying and preparing applications is going well!

I was just wondering if I should write a "Why X?" essay to the law school I will be applying ED. I read on TLS (http://www.top-law-schools.com/writing-effective-why-x-addendum.html) that I run the risk of being redundant if I do write one, as my decision to apply ED essentially says more than my essay ever could. Should I go on ahead and write one anyway? I feel like I should just to be safe...Thanks!

How does the BR group work, I just tried calling into it & it didn't seem to work?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-04/

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

*The kind of question this is:* Weaken

*Premise(s):* Marijuana has THC → THC has been found to inactivate herpesvirus (IH) → IH can convert healthy cells into cancer cells.

*Conclusion:* Marijuana can cause cancer.

*What I am looking for:* extra information that we didn’t know about marijuana and its correlation with THC.

*Answer A:* No. That strengthens the argument by showing that scientists had a consensus and the same results.

*Answer B:* Yes. There is information we did not know about marijuana and how it neutralizes THC.

*Answer C:* No. That strengthens the conclusion.

*Answer D:* No. Great, but that is only an “IF.” It would still stand that marijuana causes cancer.

*Answer E:* No. Marijuana is beneficial to cancer patients, but it would still cause cancer for none cancer patients.

I got this question correct by POE, but I don't have any clue why C is something the author would most likely to agree with. Can someone point to where this idea is supported in the passage? Also, why is answer choice D explicitly incorrect?

LSAT Prep Test 28 (June 1999) - S2 - Logic Game 3

As explained in the video, there are so many probabilities on where to put the entities that attempting to make all of the inferences at the beginning becomes an hindrance because too much time is taken up.

I am getting a lot better at games because I attempt to make as many inferences as possible at the beginning.

My question is, what should I look for when a game is designed, such as LSAT Prep Test 28 (June 1999) - S2 - Logic Game 3, to make a person waste a lot of time making inferences?

Skipping making inferences/ not splitting up boards seems to be very dangerous!

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

*The kind of question this is:* Weaken

*Premise(s):* There are several unsuccessful immature works by Renoir and Cezanne that should be sold because they are inferior quality and add nothing to the overall quality of the museum’s collection.

*Conclusion:* The board’s action (to sell some works from its collection in order to raise the funds necessary to refurbish its galleries) will not detract form the quality of the museum’s collection.

*What I am looking for:* The benefit of keeping the unsuccessful immature works?

*Answer A:* No. This is attacking the premise, so I am skeptical. This answer talks about directors of art museums in general, and how they can raise funds through other ways. The Federici Art Museum may have its own reason why it cannot do that, we don’t know. This answer would have been right if it said Federici Art Museum can raise funds through other ways, but it talks about directors of art museums in general.

*Answer B:* Yes, quality is subjective, so selling these art pieces may detract form the quality of the museum’s collection.

*Answer C:* No. This is just a history lesson on the art pieces. This extra information does nothing to the argument.

*Answer D:* No. This is other information that is irrelevant to the argument. The issue at hand is not whether or not inflation happens.

*Answer E:* No. Yet again, this is information we don’t need. This answer is talking about what the artist demands in the art market.

Are we REALLY altruistic so we can spread our genes around? Or in the words of my costar Ariana Grande...

I’m not certain she actually said this, but my former life prevents me from missing an opportunity to name drop ... so sorry, not sorry.

Wednesday, October 21st at 8PM ET: PT64

Note:

I thought I diagrammed this correctly, but I can't figure out how E is "properly concluded" or must be true.

Here is my diagram:

Explanation--->Must Distinguish from justification

Human action--->potentially has an explanation-->Can give an accurate description of the causes of the action (I don't think you can link these up to the first sentence)

Action justified--->person performing has sufficient reason to act

Action justified SOME justification forms no part of the explanation (These you can link together).

Generally, rational--->justification/reasons form an essential part of the explanation

What I was looking for: Since the only thing I could link up were those two middle statements, I thought the answer was going to be Person performing has sufficient reason to act SOME justification forms no part of the explanation. This isn't an answer choice though.

Answer A: This isn't in any of my chains.

Answer B: This isn't in any of my chains.

Answer C: I ended up picking this one even though I didn't see any support/I had eliminated all of the other answer choices. It was the "closest" to what what I was looking for, but it still wasn't in any of my chains. Explanation isn't part of the linked up middle statements.

Answer D: Discovered? Totally irrelevant idea.

Answer E: This is the answer choice, but where is the support? The only time "cause" is mentioned is in the second conditional statement. But even then, it is only talking about giving a "description of the cause." Rationality does imply reasons forming an essential part of the explanation (last conditional statement), but why must they be causes? Shouldn't this answer choice be "If any human actions are rational, then the reasons must be given an accurate description of the causes of the action?" I don't see how this is the same thing as what answer choice E states.

Hi 7sagers!

I've been working on keeping track of the amount of question types I keep getting incorrect. What I'm currently doing is writing everything out by hand with every test by creating a table. In this table I have 4 columns. The first column includes question types(each question type = one row) and the other 3 include tests (one test per column) I then go down each row and tally the amount of questions per question type I get wrong. After three tests I count how many MBT question types I got wrong, or how many Strengthen questions I got wrong. By visually seeing the last 3 tests tests and amount of incorrect question types, it gives me a better visualization on what I have to work on.

A major perk I learned for doing this is:

- it forces me to label all question stems during blind review (I double check them through 7sage grader if I'm having trouble)

I'm not scoring that high yet, and I can imagine this not really working on the high scorers (since you're probably only missing like 2 questions per section anyway). But for the newbies, like myself :) I've found it to be helpful and just wanted to share :)

If anybody has any recommendations or ideas let me know! I can always use some guidance.

So I've gotten through 17 PTs, and until the last couple of weeks my BR score has consistently been between 173-177, although it jumped around spastically within that range. A few weeks ago, that suddenly jumped to a consistent 178-179. Then, four tests ago, I FINALLY got a 180 and I've managed to do the same on each test since. I'm curious, for those who have a good number of PTs under their belts, did your BR scores follow a similar pattern? It was a little odd to me how they seemed to move in such discrete steps. And once you got to that point, did your actual scores level off as well, or did they continue to improve afterwards? I'm still not quite where I want to be and I'm hoping that my BR is indicating that I've mastered my fundamentals and may see a corresponding increase in my true score if I keep at it!