Discussions

All posts

New post

491 posts in the last 30 days

Here is my analysis of the answer choices. Grateful for commenting on my thoughts, please! Thank you!

(A): Both disagreed. Cynthia - the reason to be funded by Gov is to further theoretical knowledge not unforeseen practical applications. Luis - the "expected" to yield practical applications in the stimulus is more definite that "may have unforeseen.." in AC.

(B): Luis disagrees; Cynthia - not known because we don't know what project does she think the Gov should not fund. In the stimulus, we only know Cynthia would agree that the government should fund researches that further the theoretical knowledge, but that does not mean the Gov should not fund projects that have practical application.

(C): Luis - not known because the only thing we know from stimulus is "Gov fund projects --> research that is expected to yield practical applications" (ie. every gov funded research should have practical application), but that does not mean that every research that has practical application should be funded by Gov. As for Cynthia, I am confused because I am not sure if "research project in theoretical science" in AC is equivalent to "research project seeks to further theoretical knowledge of nature" in the stimulus. But in either way, the AC should be eliminated.

(D) Not known because we don't know if the new technologies will help further theoretical knowledge of nature or yield practical applications

(E) Cynthia agrees and Luis disagrees.

Are my interpretations correct?

Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-2-question-14/

Admin edit: title and link

0

Hey guys...I'm taking the October 3rd LSAT and wondering if you had any advice on some of the heavy hitting areas I should focus on over the next two weeks - maybe areas where you saw the most improvement? I work full time (much more than 40 hours a week, ha!) so putting in 8 hour study days just isn't realistic. I usually average 3-4 hours but am having a hard time right now narrowing down what to focus on. I'm doing practice testing but scores are staying pretty stagnant.

Not shooting for the Ivy's here - but definitely want a decent score.

Any help you could offer would be much appreciated!!!

0

I am an older applicant and am going to hire a professional service to research my background for any character and fitness issues. I had a situation come up that caused me to have significant retrograde amnesia that is likely not reversible. My family and friends tell me there is nothing major in my past in terms of C and F, but I will not be able to vouch for the absence or presence of some of the smaller issues myself that could have happened in college, etc., which is now many moons ago. Should I write a short addendum explaining such?

0

Proctors: The proctors were absolutely terrible. They acted as if they had no clue as to what was going on. After the rules and everything else had been read, including the statement that you have to write. they admitted 2 people without reading the rules again. They did not check for phones, and several went off, mostly emergency weather alerts due to flooding in the area. During the break, one test taker asked if he could be given his test back, since he didn't bubble any of his answer choices due to the proctor not saying when 5 minutes were left. The proctors gave him his test book and answer sheet back for the entire break and let him work on it.

Facilities:

Very nice facilities. Very fancy.

What kind of room:

Classroom

How many in the room:

50

Desks:

Long table-like desks. Not individual desks but plenty of room

Left-handed accommodation:

Not necessary

Noise levels:

Due to the phone emergency alerts, noise level was high, as well as proctors just sitting there laughing and asking each other if they set the timer correctly.

Parking:

Parking deck right across the street

Time elapsed from arrival to test:

1.5 hrs Super slow and annoying

Irregularities or mishaps:

Already mentioned

Other comments:

I filed an LSAC complaint. LSAC said the proctors denied any of this happening LOL

Would you take the test here again?

HELL NO. AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE

0

Hello, I'm struggling with understanding Hybrid games. I have a solid foundation on ordering and grouping but for some reason hybrid is tough. Are there any tutors that specialize in Hybrid games?

0

Hi all-

I am hoping to negotiate for scholarships with one of the schools I am admitted to. It is equally ranked with another school that offered me a partial scholarship, so I think I have good grounds to go off of. Is it common practice to do this with a formal written request, or can I ask via email or even over the phone?

Thanks!

0

hello,

I took the diagnostic test, but I realized that I couldn't understand the passage.. What can I do to understand/comprehend?

0

Hello 7Sagers,

I’m going over my last PT— 65– and in section 1 Q 16, there’s a sufficient assumption question with a bi-conditional premise. I understand it now, but it was a major time sink on the PT because I froze up. Can anyone think of other questions like this one? It seems cookie-cutter, so I’d like to practice a little more, and it’s too specific to filter in the Question Bank.

Thanks!

0

Hi,

I chose E, but the answer was A.

Here's supposedly why the answer is A: given that the question is asking for what would "most support the author's claim [on lines 24-27] about the relationship between muralism and the Mexican Revolution", people are treating this question as if the "claim about the relationship" is the statement on 26-27: that the muralists reflected important innovations in the art world (thus leading to the correct answer = answer choice A.

Here's why I chose E: I thought that a relationship had to be a connection between the Mexican Revolution and muralism, so I was focusing on the phrase that muralism was the result of changes that the Mexican Revolution represented (line 24-26). This led me to choose E, since this looked like the only answer choice that could possibly support a claim regarding the relationship between Muralism and Mexican Revolution.

In other words, I didn't agree with A's reasoning because the claim on 26-27 only talks about muralism and doesn't connect it with Mexican Revolution.

Can anybody explain how answer choice A was correct? How were we supposed to know that this claim regarding this relationship was that described on lines 26-27 rather than that described on 24-26?

Any #help would be appreciated!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-39-section-3-passage-1-questions/

0

Hello,

Here is my analysis for question 17 in section 3 for prep test 72. This is a weaken question; therefore, I wanted to weaken the connection between the premises and the conclusion.

Argument Analysis:

Premises:

Individuals who get injured due to unsafe actions not only cause injury to themselves but also can put financial and emotional burdens on others who they are close with.

Conclusion:

The Government is vindicated in making actions that are considered risky to one’s health illegal, in order to guard other people’s interests.

Prephrase:

Just because something that could be injurious to one individual and that brings pain to their family is not grounds for outlawing it. Think about it this way, just because trampolines can cause you harm and make your family pay your hospital bills doesn’t mean that this is grounds to ban using them.

Answer Choices:

A. This supports the argument because it further justifies why it would feasible to implement the law. The reason is due to the fact that it shows how putting a burden on the people you have close ties to constitutes harm to oneself.

B. This doesn’t weaken because just because we have an obligation to not injure ourselves doesn’t mean that we won’t injure ourselves. For example, one may have an obligation to not eat their sister’s last piece of chocolate cake; however, is that obligation strong enough to prevent us from eating it? Probably not.

C. This strengthens because it meets the necessary condition of posing a financial burden to the family.

D. This weakens it entirely because entirely wipes out the evidence that the argument provided for the conclusion. If the evidence is not sufficient than the conclusion is not entirely justified to be true.

E. Again, just because you have an obligation doesn’t mean that it will guarantee that people won’t do it. The person could easily say, well this law will just affirm this obligation.

Honestly, I wish I hadn’t gotten this question wrong. I had originally picked B because I assumed that because one has an obligation to not do something that they won’t do it. But, how many obligations have we had that we have broken? Conversely, D shows that the evidence that the person gave does not completely bolster the argument for instituting the law.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-3-question-17/

0

If this is not the hardest question on the set, I don't know which is. I had a great time trying to understand this question and why C is correct and spent an hour just scratching my head trying to figure it out. Would still love to see what everyone thinks about this question. But so far I don't see that many asking about this question so here is my take on it.

Background: Some researchers claim that people gesture less when expressing abstract instead of physical ideas

Premise: Some people perceive words in different ways: for a word that has both abstract and physical understanding, people can perceive it as either abstract or physical

Conclusion: The argument that the researchers' claim is not universal is not sufficient reason to reject it.

WTF. What are the connections between the premise and the conclusion? It seems to me that the premise is trying to say that the researchers' claim MIGHT WELL BE universal.

The argument implies that the critics would challenge the researchers' claim by doubting its univsersality. It might be something like this: the word "comprehension" represents an abstract concept, but some people apparently gesture and make a grabbing movement when they say it. This is a disproving evidence that would show that this claim is not universal, therefore it can be rejected.

Author counters by saying: hey, "comprehension" doesn't have to mean the abstract concept of understanding. It can definitely mean "catching" or "grasping." Not so fast critics, the claim of the researchers can still be universal: people just understand a word differently, and their actions regarding gesturing when expressing different words or concepts are still in accordance with what the researchers have claimed. Just because someone does gesture when expressing a word that has an abstract definition does not mean that person are thinking of the abstract definition of that word. He or she might well be expressing the physical definition instead of the abstract one. In this line of reasoning, the researchers' claim still stand and still might be universal.

AC C matches this pretty well. The author is trying to use a psychological fact (people perceive words in different definition) to reconcile a general claim (researchers' 'people gesture less with abstract concepts'") with apparently disconfirming evidence (people do NOT always gesture less when expressing abstract concepts). I find this line of reasoning the most applicable to the right answer to this question. I might be dead wrong with this, and I would love to see what others have to say about this.

0

The CAS system appears to have a first major and second major category. However, I'm a triple major and was wondering if anyone else has come across this.... Do I only put two of my majors?

0

PT30 Game 2

The six messages on an answering machine were each left by one of Fleure, Greta, Hildy, Liam, Pasquale, or Theodore...

Anyone know of similar games? This one cost me a perfect LG section... which was infuriating because it's so easy once you get it. Wanting to try a similar game fresh.

0

Hello I have a question regarding the method of identifying an assumption. This is a strengthening question.

Context: Therapeutic intervention before the occurrence of mental disorders can mitigate factors known as major contributor to them.

Premise: A much more comprehensive research program is necessary to verify these results and allow for the design of specific health care measures.

Conclusion: In order to explore a potential means of cost-effectively helping people prone to mental disorders, we should increase funding for intervention research.

In order to find an assumption, I tried to see the gap between the premise and conclusion and found one gap that increase in funding for the research could lead to a much more comprehensive research program. With this in mind, I went to AC. But I could not find an answer that matches the assumption I drew. In the second shot of POE, through (C) I found that the author is assuming that by saying that the intervention research is cost effective the author is making an assumption that the research program is inexpensive compared to long-term treatment.

My question is, how come do I find the assumption that the right answer actually requires if that assumption cannot be drawn from the gap between the premise and the conclusion? Here, the claim that the research program is cost-effective seems to have nothing to do with the premise.

This question is part of CC.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-3-question-04/

Thank you.

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?