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!

I don't really post about stuff, don't know just not like me... BUT,,,, I am really excited right now because when I took the 2007 prep test at the beginning of the course I scored a 148, but now with my first prep test and I haven't even finished the course I scored a 157!!! Not my goal but definitely getting there!!! Thank you 7Sage!

By today I finished 10 PTs. LSAT Analytics reads that my accuracy in Flaw is 40% ! I was planning to do section by section drilling but after seeing this number I thought I probably need to drill Flaw type questions from the Cambridge Bundle. What do you say?

I think that I am good at Flaw questions especially after finishing The Trainer, but still this what LSAT Analytics shows. The number is reflecting older PTs which were taken before reading The Trainer. My worst types are NA and Flaw.

Thank you very much

When I use the app on my phone or my iPad, the speed function for the videos shows but has no effect, or does not show at all.

Anyone else have a problem with this?

Any interest in a Friday Group BR???

Last week, we only had one taker for Friday Group BR. If no one’s interested this week, we should probably move it to a different day (maybe a morning group BR???). I’m open to suggestions...

Wednesday, Oct 14th at 8PM ET: PT62

Are you going to the Information Overload talk or to the Handling People talk?

Friday, Oct 16th at 8PM ET: PT73

The Red-headed stepchild of the BR Groups.

LSATurday, Oct 17th at 8PM ET: PT63

It’s BYOB to this party!

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

Note:

Friday means LSAT? Don’t let Friday be the Red-headed step child. Please comment if you plan on attending!

Friday, October 16th at 8PM ET: PT73

Note:

gone.

Hey all --

I'm planning on taking the Feb test (though I'm not against pushing it to June). I've finished the Ultimate curriculum thoroughly, gone through the Trainer and am currently working on fool proofing games 1-35 using Pacifico's amazing LG games "4 times" strategy. I'm also drilling LR and RC sections here and there to keep those skills fresh as I work on perfecting my LG. I plan to finish the 1-35 games by the end of October and then start a PT schedule.

Is there an ideal PT schedule any of you would be willing to share with me, particularly one that includes 36-75 and mixes them up in a nice order; if you guys recommend progression from 36 to 75, I'm fine with that as well - I just need some wonderful mentor advice here. Also, I'd like to throw in that I'm a little nervous whether or not 12 weeks is enough to PT and BR all those tests -- please feel free to share experiences on this as well. I'm really okay with pushing to June, if it's recommended. Thanks in advance!!

I don't see how D seriously undermines the hypothesis. How do we know anything about the death of diatoms? For this answer to work, you have to assume that Antarctic diatoms die near Antarctica (why can't they move or float away, or the death shells float away?) Lastly, don't you have to assume that the sediment left by the death shells would be indicative of a population increase? Aren't life and death two totally different ideas?. How are we supposed to know that these are OK assumptions?

Take for instance A (just for the sake of argument, I understand that A is incorrect). I think A would work if you assume diatoms of today are similar to diatoms during the ice age. You would also need to assume that the "unusually large amounts of ferrous material" that does not exist today would not promote a further increase in their population today. How are these assumptions less reasonable than the ones needed for D to be correct?

Hey! So I think I'm confusing myself but the game states: Telemarketing will not be given until both Goals and Objections have been given.

then the next rule:

Negotiating will not be given until Persuasion has been given.

I thought I could make both Telemarketing and Negotiating the sufficient, negate them, then make the others the necessary...Why is that not the case?

Thanks in advance for your help!

Hello,

I do not know of anyone else taking the lsat so i am just posting my concerns here ;)

I took my 1st lsat on Feb of last year got a 141. (hardly studied, and was full time study and work)...i retook the next lsat in June and got a 149 with almost 2 months of studying. English is not my 1st language and its very hard for me to sometime understand the sayings or tone in the lsat. Since my immigration status does not allow me to have private or federal loans in this country I need at least more than 160 to get some money for law school. I live in South Florida with T4/5 law schools that will freely give money. The tier of school is not an issue for me.

Im planning to take the lsat in june of 2016. I have been trying to get back to it since august. I am working on LR since its my hardest section but cannot get out of 15-17 right in timed sections . I need at least 20 or more right. I have gone trough the whole curriculum and seems that I am getting most MBT/SA/NA mid to hard questions right but then the easy or mid main conclusion or weakening questions I sometimes get wrong..with stupid mistakes. When I do the blind review I usually get the right answer but I keep making the same mistakes. I go over everything and the lessons but still same mistakes. I do not know if its my concentration or i need more timed practice. Can you guys advice on what techniques to use for these 8 months leading to the test and to get out of the 15-17 range? Thank you ;)

I have the hardest time with these questions. It's like I can't find the relevant paragraph because the statement/statements is so subtle under time constraints that they are easy to miss. By nature I tend to overthink everything which doesn't help. Does anyone have any advice on these questions?

Hey guys I just started started studying for the LSAT and I've watched some 7Sage videos for LR and I've noticed that J.Y usually reads the question before the stimulus and I was just wondering whether or not if that was recommended for test takers or if that is just a technique he uses for the videos. Thank you.

I took PT 52 yesterday, and I BR over the past two days. One thing that I notice about my PTs (I have taken 35-52), is that half of my wrong answers (and like 99% of the ones I miss that I don't mark for BR) are just complete brain fart mistakes. Did anyone else go through this phase? How did you fix it?

Hi, I recently upgraded to the Ultimate bundle and bought all the recommended PTs at Cambridge. All of this cost me a little over $1000. I've been working through the core curriculum and am now in the process of doing the problem sets. Is it worth it to shell out another $300 for PTs 35 and below?

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned in an earlier thread, so I apologize if I am repeating it.

Jon, would it be possible for you to use a better mic when recording future explanation videos? Maybe my speakers are just bad, because there's some feedback that makes it difficult and unpleasant to hear what you're saying. I raise the volume in an attempt to hear it better, but the feedback just gets louder and more unpleasant to listen to. Otherwise, your explanations are great. Thanks!

Hey in the trainer schedule it has you take PTs. Should I take these PTs before I start 7sage? I'm not starting 7sage until the summer but I am using the trainer to familiarize myself with the LSAT

This is another one that just baffles me. I don't understand how D is a necessary assumption. I also don't really understand how C is not correct. Here was my breakdown:

Country X should institute a nationwide system of air/ground transportation for getting seriously hurt people to trauma centers (this is the MP). Why should they do this? Quick access to the medical care that only these specialized centers can provide can save lives (this seems like a pretty good reason). The earnings of these people would increase country X's GNP. Also, the taxes on these earnings would increase government revenues.

What I am looking for: The argument is assuming that the reasons why country X should put in the system are good reasons. Additionally, the argument is assuming that the new air/ground system wouldn't cost the government more than the increase in tax revenue from the earnings of the saved people.

Answer A: Why do we need to assume that per-capita income is the same? Sure, this would strengthen the argument (I think), but it isn't necessary.

Answer B: This also isn't necessary. In fact, I think the argument weakly implies that specialized trauma centers already exist in country X. If they didn't, where would the air/ground systems link to?

Answer C: After typing this out, I think I get why this one is wrong. This answer choice doesn't paraphrase one of the things I was looking for very well at all. We don't need to assume that the trauma centers are more costly, but that the air/ground system is. Also, this answer choice isn't even talking about costs to the government, so you would have to assume that is, which we can't do.

Answer D: This is the correct answer, but whaaa? I looked up the GNP formula (it's been a while since Econ101), but it is consumption+Gov Exp+Investments+Exports+Foreign Production by domestic companies-Domestic Production by foreign companies. Why must there be a net increase in employment? Even if this answer choice wasn't referencing the GNP formula (which I don't really think this answer was since the passage would have probably defined GNP if it were relevant), I still don't see how net employment MUST increase. What if the surviving people just kept their same job/didn't get fired/didn't leave because of the injury? Couldn't net employment stay the same? For this answer to even possibly work, don't you have to make the dubious assumption that the earnings of the surviving people increase net employment? Huh?

Answer E: Automobile accidents? Way to specific for a NA

I don't understand how A is better than D. Isn't the conclusion in the passage stating that the belief is incorrect? Doesn't D mirror this? A's conclusion isn't parallel since it states that the actual thing (unicorns) don't exist. Shouldn't it say that the belief in unicorns is false?

I can't grasp why B weakens this argument and C doesn't. The only scenario I can think of is if a symptom of a disease is required for that disease, but can't a disease have multiple symptoms that aren't always present? Just because not all victims of ebola aren't afflicted with hiccups doesn't mean that many aren't. And also the questions stem itself says hiccups were experienced by "many", not all... If all victims of ebola were afflicted, then yeah that would definitely weaken it, but I don't see how it does not.

As for C, I don't see how that could weaken it less than B, since there are plenty of ways someone could have been infected outside of athens and brought the disease back to the city....

I started studying last Oct with the trainer, and took the LSAT in Feb. I got a 153. I took a break and started studying in June and went through all the 7sage stuff and took the Oct test. I'm going to take the Dec LSAT regardless of my Oct score. I study 3 hours each morning. For LR I usually go through the LR questions on 7sage and then watch the explanation. I usually get through a section each morning. For RC I'm going through the Manhattan prep book. I'm good on games. I also do a PT on the weekend. I've been studying long enough and I'm familiar with most of the techniques involved with the LSAT. What should I do from here? What do people do after they go through all the basics? Should I go back over the basics? Should I just PT like crazy? My biggest weakness is timing. How can I improve that? I've tried so many things and nothing seems to improve my timing or get me scoring in the 160. This is my last time to take, and I need to figure out what's going to work for me. I'd appreciate any advice!

Thank you.