Could someone please explain why the answer is A not B? Thanks!

Stimulus says: Manners are necessarily social (i.e. manners require a social element). Morals are not necessarily social (i.e. morals do not require a social element). Rules of etiquette do not apply to situations with morals or manners alone.

Things I noted upon reading:

Most strongly supported?

A: You can be immoral without causing harm. (i.e. you can not be moral in a case that is not social). Yep, this fits with #3 above.

B: An immoral act is never a violation of etiquette. This could be false if the situation also involved manners, so we can´t say it is supported.

C: Morality applies only when one is alone. I think you´d only choose this if you were hella confused.

D.: It is more important... I stopped reading right there and knew this was wrong. There is no comparison being made in the stimulus.

E: A social situation will never have anything to do with morality. Clearly wrong based on #2 and #3 described above.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

I answered (C): I thought this would be right because it was the statement that was most backed up by what is in the stimulus.

The right answer is (E):I was battling between C and E, but I didn't pick E because it seemed like a statement although true, the stimulus was not supporting it directly.

Can someone explain why E is correct and why C is wrong? I feel like I am overthinking this.

Admin note: Edited title and post; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]." Also, please review the Forum rules "Do not post LSAT questions", the title format helps others reference the PT and question. Thanks!

Does anybody have all of the flaw questions that has circular reasoning as a correct answer choice?

Hey 7sage community,

This post is going to be edited multiple times by myself over the next several days/weeks...

TLDR: Free Lsat RC tutoring and LSAT coaching. Ideal for students who are really early in their process of studying or what to revamp their approach/mentality. I am intentionally starting with RC because I want to challenge the myth (yes myth) that it is the toughest section to overcome. If that's what you think, then guess what, WTF are you going do in law school? Read below for more info!

Deadline for the Application: March 10th

Short Story / About Me:

First of all, if this is a violation of the 7sage discussion forum, admin please delete this. I have not been on this website in a long time and I understand 7sage now has a tutoring program.

A little bit about me - in my last semester of law school (Dalhousie University - Halifax - Canada) and my passion for the teaching the LSAT has not gotten away from me (https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/22608/giving-back-to-the-7sage-community-free-tutoring). Secondly, I am teacher by profession. Honestly, nothing made me more happier in law school then having one of my students get accepted into York University's law program (weird but it was the honest truth). I cannot believe I am about type this - > I think law school only increased my passion for the LSAT!

Reflecting back on my law school life (loool....I should write about this in another blog), I think the best way I can give back to my law schools Weldon Tradition (google it) is to alleviate access to justice by getting more people from marginalized communities into law. I really believe this is the best way of dealing with "injustice" in the justice system.

The LSAT - I cannot stress this enough - is a great exam for developing your skills to be a great law student and lawyer. Only if I knew this, or thought of the exam differently before hand (I actually did - but I decided to have a kid LOL and that destroyed my law school timeline). TBH - I am going to restart studying for the LSAT post April and want to take my final LSAT probably next year...don't know why but I really want to ink down 170+ on my LSAT transcript. Its always been a weird passion of mine and I do not want to let this dream go (I know I am weird).

To get my free RC tutoring & LSAT coaching - DM me with the following (the more detail - the more it will help you!)

My goal is to create a group of three students - to teach you how to read RC (perhaps 7 to 8 sessions it may take) and then create a new group of three students, and continue this process. Also during this journey I want to coach you on your general LSAT journey.

.....

Stay tuned for my next LSAT post: The LSAT mentality!

P.S. I am not sure if other alum feel this way, but writing posts while being in law school about the LSAT is weirdly therapeutical LOL.

First time using 7sage. I've already taken the LSAT twice - 147 and 150. I feel confident with LG - I don't think I need to re-learn how to LG by watching the videos. Also feel pretty confident with RC.

How should I incorporate 7sage with my prior knowledge of LG + RC?

Should I skip LG + RC lessons and continue practicing? My tutor wants me to do 1 RC section daily M/W + 1 LG section daily T/Th.

LR is my weakest section. I have been studying by doing half an LR section daily M-Th with one full section on F. Averaging around -11 to -15. Clearly I'm not understanding LR. Should I only do the LR lessons and then do half an LR section once I complete the LR lessons?

Thank you in advance.

Hey everyone,

So, I studied abroad twice, earning a total of roughly 30 credits. I studied abroad in two different countries with programs administered by two different (U.S. based) organizations The grades I earned studying abroad show up on my transcript and have been factored into my GPA, however, they are still noted to be off-campus programs.

Will my study abroad grades be factored into my LSAC GPA?

Thank you!

Hello,

I'm confused on how to approach this weakening question. My understanding of the auto industry executive's argument:

The auto industry executive is rejecting the recent guidelines that are requiring the production of cars with higher fuel efficiency (C) because statistics show that cars after 1977 that were built smaller to be more fuel efficient had a higher incidence of accident related fatalities (P). As I understand it, the executive is making a poor correlation-causation argument between building cars smaller and the assumed increase of fatal accidents. I'm having trouble with how the AC's best weaken the argument.

I initially chose D, and was struggling to find a better AC during BR. I eliminated E and B right off that bat. That left A C D. I chose D because I thought if modern technology could make cars more fuel efficient WITHOUT having to alter the size of the car (the executive is linking smaller fuel efficient cars and fatalities), then it might weaken the argument. You eliminate the need for change in size, you eliminate one potential connection with accidents.

I'm struggling to see how AC C is correct. I noticed the change between big and small and left that AC at first. Can someone help explain how that is the correct AC. From my understanding, if large cars can have a better fuel efficiency from new technology based off recent guidelines, does that weaken the executive's argument that the guidelines would have to adopt previous standards that they (incorrectly?) linked with accidents and fatalities?

Hi, I am about halfway through the old LR CC (around Weakening Question problem sets) and I am looking to switch to the new beta CC for LR. Has anyone done this? I am looking for advice on the most efficient way to make the switch!

Question Stem: Sufficient Assumption

Stimulus: Shoe factory employs more unskilled full time workers (W) than all other businesses in town combined.

If shoe factory closes, more than half of town RESIDENTS who are W will lose jobs.

See the shift between the W that are employed at the factory in the premise, and RESIDENTS in the conclusion? Look for an idea connecting these 2 ideas: workers at the factory and residency.

A. residency, no workers

B. workers, no residency

C. workers, no residency

D. everyone employed at the factory is a resident.

E. neither

D works because without it, we have no idea where the workers come from - what if they all live OUTSIDE Centerville? Then there is no way the conclusion is true. So D closes this one gap.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

I've applied to four law school in the Illinois/Indiana region back in late November and still haven't heard back from any of them (despite a huge range in rankings for these schools), not even an indication on when they might make their decision or reach out to me... Nothing.

Should I be concerned?

I genuinely did not understand the stimulus.

The "but" in the first section reveals the author's position on Midville: it is not as expensive as others perceive it to be. The following sentences provide support as to why they believe this is true.

disclaimer: this is about my personal study schedule not 7sage's.

Hi, I am retaking the exam in April after having taken it in January this year. I am not working so I can study full time, however every time i sit down to study I get extremely overwhelmed and have no idea where to start because I know the basics and can't get a solid routine down for my week. I got 153 for January and my main issues are with LR. My PTs range from 151-159.

If drilling takes over the problem sets, (aside from few of the most recent PTs) I will not be able to take all 4 sections of any PT without some questions being spoiled, assuming I've done all drills. Therefore, if I took all 4 sections of PTs, my score would be inflated. On the other hand, if I took the 'simulated modern' version, PT 45 and onward would not be spoiled and my score would not be boosted, giving me a more realistic score. But I have heard it is good practice to take all 4 sections. So what should I do then?

Would the contrapositive of "If all farmers were to practice organic farming, they would be unable to produce enough food for Earth's growing population" be different from the contrapositive of "If farmers were to practice organic farming, they would be unable to produce enough food for Earth's growing population?"

The only difference is the "all" right before "farmers."

Thanks!

I got 4 out of 5 right in this drill but got this particular questions drastically wrong. I selected B and on blind review selected C. I never felt E was correct during the drill or blind review. I do not know what I am not seeing on this particular question. I do not understand why C is incorrect. If 40% in the first group reported awaking paralyzed with a strange presence in the room, wouldn't it be correct to say 60% had not? Or is C wrong, because it only mentioned "strange presence" and excluded "paralyzed" as part of the answer? #help

Do you like to read about unknown facts? For example, about nature/animals? I think I'm the only one

I had mapped it as:

/RDW - /Alleviate

- IEI -> RTV

w/ the contra, i sort of see why B is correct:

[ Nat. Responsibility -> /RTV -> /IEI -> RDW ]

Does that make sense?

But why wouldn't E be correct? Is it that the idea of alleviating conditions of injustice are not the same thing as creating conditions of economic justice?

This was not a fun flaw question.

At its absolute most basic, the stimulus says:

Conclusion: Not X.

Premise: If we BELIEVED X -> Y.

The assumption here is subtle: Since not Y, not X.

But why on Earth would we make that jump based on the single premise we are given? Also, notice we are drawing a conclusion based on what would be true if we BELIEVED otherwise, not if the case it WERE otherwise.

Answers:

A. A true belief (X) can have bad consequences (maybe, not Y). In other words, the author is failing to consider the possibility that X -> not Y. If this is true, the argument doesn´t work.

B. The author establishes one claim to not be true, but where is the other???

C. Irrelevant, there are no motives mentioned.

D. No implication that the most negative outcome must occur.

E. There is no group of individuals being compared to another.

I can understand why (B) is correct - but not sure why (C) is wrong. I think I'm not understanding (C) correctly. What does it mean to "indicate the falsehood of the implications" of a hypothesis? Doesn't the author do so in the stimulus, by showing that predicting an invention according to the hypothesis necessarily entails inventing it (the implications), which would be self-contradictory? Is (C) wrong because self-contradiction ≠ falsehood? I'd really appreciate it if someone could give me an example of (C) since I'm not exactly sure I understand JY's example either.

Thanks in advance!

For the correct answer choice, why does it matter if the trees used are or old or new since the answer is talking about the harm caused by the products they will be turned into? This is the reason I did not choose it #help

How does the correct answer choice interact with the comparison to pharmaceutical drugs? If anything I would think this answer supports the position of the critic #help

Can someone explain the percents/proportion relationship that makes B the right answer? I am having a hard time understanding it. #help

Would one W on my transcript taint my applications - particularly for t-14 schools?