PT F97.S1.Q18 – Roseville Courthouse

We are asked to identify the point at issue / disagreement between Mayor Tyler and Councillor Simon. Tyler suggested to build a new courthouse for the city of Roseville in 1982 for a price of 26 million dollars, but ‘now’ in 1992 the price of the courthouse is 30 million. Tyler uses these premises to infer that Roseville would have saved 4 million dollars if the courthouse had been built in 1982, as suggested. Tyler also mentions in passing that the existing courthouse has been overcrowded.

Simon responds by bringing in the topic of inflation: The 26 million dollars that the courthouse would have costed in 1982 are equivalent to 37 million in 1992 dollars. Simon takes this to show that Roseville actually saved money by not building the courthouse. Simon also mentions in passing that the courthouse, had it actually been built, would have been underutilized.

There thus are at least two disagreements in this exchange, one much more overt than the other: (1) Roseville was right not to build the courthouse in 1982: Tyler disagrees, Simon agrees. (2) Had the courthouse been built, it would have been put to good use: Tyler agrees, Simon disagrees. The answer choices are tricky in that four of them purport to get at this first disagreement while not actually resolving it. Only one answer choice, the correct one, gets at the second disagreement and actually resolves it:

(A) This gets at Roseville’s actions going forward, does not directly relate to either disagreement.

(B) This gets at the issue of inflation adjusted prices, does not directly relate to either disagreement.

(C) This gets at the extent of Tyler’s responsibility, does not directly relate to either disagreement.

(D) This does get at the second disagreement and points out one issue where Tyler and Simon disagree: Would a new courthouse actually have been needed / been put to good use? Tyler agrees, as Tyler proclaims the present courthouse overcrowded, i.e. insufficient to serve Roseville’s existing population spatially. Simon disagrees; states that a hypothetical larger courthouse would have remained underutilized. The disagreement is subtle, but definitely present.

(E) This confuses the issue of inflation adjustment with financial upkeep, purports to get at the first disagreement but actually misrepresents information from the passage, in an apparent attempt to confuse test takers who did not select one of the previous answers the first time around.

Takeaway: This is a tricky question in that there are two disagreements only one of which gets resolved. The question stem arguably hints at this by speaking of ‘A point of disagreement,’ rather than of ‘The point of disagreement;’ i.e. the question stem leaves open the possibility of multiple disagreements. Nevertheless, this question demands some reflection. Read stimulus and answer choices more than once to get at the nuance of the issues at play. Do process of elimination for the wrong answer choices. If necessary, flag the question the first time around and return to it at the end of the section.

In lesson 2 of Assumption and Weakening questions, J.Y. stated, "Bear in mind that most arguments in real life and on the LSAT do not have a valid relationship." A deeper explanation at this early stage will be very helpful to me. I am particularly interested in the "real-life" side of this argument, but also what this means for the LSAT as I work through this section.

Can someone provide a deeper explanation of this statement?

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/good-v-bad-arguments/?ss_completed_lesson=1003

Economic growth -> Increase agri (+ keep biodiversity) -> abandon conventional agri

Conclusion Econo growth -> abandon conventional agri/modify agri

SA?

A. Increase biodiversity -> /Increase agri

Increase agri -> Reduce biodiversity this is not what the stimulus is saying so non sequitur.

B. This would place biodiversity back in the loop and make it relevant by connecting the pieces of the structure

C. But this is alr listed in the stimulus

D. We dont know this

E. Modify agri -> increase agri this flips the lawgic

Just made a discord group for those interested! here is the link

https://discord.gg/FzmNZy4u

....Hi I know there is an addendum that we can explain everything what happened during gap years, but unofficially would many gap years + withdrawals from classes be frowned upon?

My GPA is around 3.6 and I am not even sure if I can dream of T10 with these on and off situations...

This was a toughy

Admin note: For the community to better assist you, please include PrepTest number, section number and question number in the following format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question"

I am studying from the core curriculum beta version and i am completely lost on the logic. I think I need a more visual explanation because I really don't feel like I understand it.

If anyone has any advice or suggestions on what to do so I can understand it.

Hi 7Sagers,

We appreciate you choosing 7Sage for your LSAT studies, and we are honored to be part of your journey.

We're always happy to hear about your success stories -- if you are interested, we invite you to share your experience so we can feature your testimonial on our website!

If this sounds up your alley, please email studentservice@7sage.com:

We're so grateful to have you as part of our community, and love seeing you succeed!

Our payment system will be offline for maintenance on Friday, April 28 at 1pm (10am PT).

Came back online at 8:05pm ET

11pm ET (8pm PT)

tomorrow morning

7pm ET (4pm PT)

During this time, you will not be able to purchase a subscription or modify/cancel an existing subscription. Sorry! We appreciate your patience and understanding.

If you need any assistance, please reach out to studentservices@7sage.com.

can someone explain why D is the right answer

Hi everyone. I finished the CC and wrote a brand new diagnostic. My first diagnostic score was at a 148, and 155 Blind Review in the beginning of the curriculum. The new diagnostic I just wrote had a 153 and a 165 blind review. I wrote both exams using the "simulate modern LSAT" option.

Should I not click "simulate modern" and write the extra LR section? I decided to not do so because I was thinking that I could use the extra questions for drilling and didn't want to waste them.

Moving forwards, should I focus on drilling sections of the exam that I am the weakest on, including the question types that I suck at BEFORE deciding to write more PT's? Or should I weave some sessions for drilling inbetween days where I PT?

My analytics are: -11 RC, -9 LR, -6 LG

Thank you!

Can someone please explain?

i read recently an article by the ABA that indicated that lawyers on average score very high on surveys in positive traits like analytical reasoning and abstract reasoning, but very poorly on sociability and , notably, "resilience" which apparently is a trait meaning how well someone "rolls with the punches"...."lets things go" etc. just general agreeableness i guess you could say

have you noticed any negative personality changes in yourself as a result of lsat study? i love studying for the lsat. on balance, im happy with the way the geometry of my thinking has been reshaped by the test. but ive also definitely become a more cynical person. ive become more circumspect of the motives of others, and ive become much more critical toward things people say. the change in this person climate of mine has produced new weather patterns of occasional annoyance, irritation, and downpours of negativity. i find it interesting honestly. ive read all the positive ways the test has changed people , but talk to me about some of the negative ways? thank you

https://www.legal500.com/gc-magazine/feature/all-in-the-mind/

above is the article. its an interesting read. i originally read it on the ABA site a while back.

I had this question right initially but doubted myself and switched the answer during the blind review.

This necessary assumption question discusses the treatment of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) with a newly developed drug. CFS is associated with three different symptoms, and we don’t know if these symptoms are the effects of only one virus or of multiple different ones. Tests of the new drug indicate that this drug lessens the severity of all three CFS symptoms. The stimulus takes this to provide evidence to the effect that CFS probably is caused by one single virus, not by multiple different ones.

Pre-phrase / anticipation: We need an assumption to the effect of ‘If a single treatment lessens all of a given syndrome’s symptoms, then it is more likely for this syndrome to be caused by a single virus than by multiple ones.’

The pertinent answer choices are (B) and (D). (B) states: “It is more likely that the new drug counteracts one virus than that it counteracts several viruses.” This matches the consequent in the anticipated assumption but leaves out its antecedent. (B) thus does not make the argument valid and would fall short of being a sufficient assumption. But is (B) necessary? If negated, (B) would indicate that it would be equally likely or even more likely that the new drug affected several viruses. This is not at all what the author is trying to argue and thus would seem to rob their conclusion of any support.

(D) states: “Most syndromes that are characterized by related symptoms are each caused by a single viral infection.” This in itself might be right, and arguably (D) would be a good strengthen answer choice. (D) gets at the conclusion and points out parallel cases where similar correlations have been observed as well. A number of things seem off though: (1) Do we know that the alleviated symptoms in fact are ‘related,’ as this answer choice suggests? We certainly know that they all are effects of one or more causes, but does that also render these effects related to one another? (2) The conclusion in the stimulus takes the results of the experiments with the new drug to provide evidence to the effect that CFS has a single cause, but (D) does not contain a connection to these experiments. Instead, (D) is just making a general claim that arguably strengthens the conclusion in isolation but that does not also connect it to the other parts of the argument.

As an NA answer choice, (B) thus seems better than (D). (B) is essentially saying: In probabilistic terms, the new drug’s acting on three different effects indicates that these three effects likely have a single cause rather than three different ones. By contrast, had the drug only affected two of CFS’s three symptoms, it would have been likely that there are at least two causes for CFS, one virus that triggers two of its symptoms and another virus that triggers the third one. (B) is thus hinting at a sort of appeal to simplicity behind the author's reasoning. The author seems to assume: If two different hypotheses about the causal relationships behind a given correlation are possible, the simpler hypothesis is more likely correct.

Hello! Would anyone be down to take LR drills and review them together over Zoom?

I started my journey about a year ago, with about a 140 diagnostic. Went to 148, then 150, now 155 on the last April test. My average for the last 10 practice tests I had taken was from 158 - 163. After the 150 test, I made some serious shifts in my mindset, study habits, overall approach to review and drill etc. I was starting to feel so good, intuitive, confident. I seriously thought I was ready.

I need a 160 on the August test - 5 more points - it truly will be my last try for personal reasons I don't want to get into on here.This is 3 months worth. Is this doable?

If so, how? Drill each section for now, review? Or practice tests and then analytics from there and review? 76 75 84 85 91 69 is the ones I have left that I haven't taken or were taken long ago. Is it okay to retake tests already taken and see the comparative improvement? In terms of material, how do I use it to my advantage?

I feel so lost, confused, and this shook my confidence down by a lot. Figuring out technology for 30 min and starting late, starting at a much later time than most of my past tests, and during the third section feeling my brain already fall asleep - these are the factors that come to mind, if that is of any value. I don't mean to sound self - defeatist and I'm aware that my situation isn't necessarily unique, but I truly do feel disappointed and so low after seeing this. I really think I can do better, I'm just feeling down and confused and lost as to how I can specifically execute that.

Any specific study guidance (moving forward in my particular situation), words of wisdom, and genuine advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for whoever chooses to respond.

Also, here are my analytics from my last 10 practice tests on here:

LR: -5.7 average

LG: -7 average

RC: - 7 average.

I don't understand how I got a 155 on test day and missed that many more points, like I'm truly so confused.

I have been reading and hearing a lot that there are patterns to this. Can someone explain to me what that means? I can see how it relates to LG but confused on the patterns for LR.

Hello everyone! I am new to 7Sage. I am writing because I work a full-time job from 8:15am to 4:30pm. I have to wake up a 4am which kills me. I take the train to work every day and i get home at around 7pm. I am tired from work, and I do not have time to do anything but get my clothes ready and go to sleep. Do you think the studying for the LSAT just on the weekends would help. My goal score is a 167. During the week I just do not have time and I suffer from migraines and sleep apnea. I need some advice. I plan to take the November LSAT. What do you all suggest?

Hello everyone! I took the baseline PrepTest in the beginning of the course, but haven’t yet taken another one to gauge my progress. I’m about 20% through the LR course- how often should I be taking the PrepTests?

Free will is not applicable in determining responsibility for all situations (its not a one size fit all equation).

We hold criminals responsible bc they cause damage out of free will.

We do not hold drivers (driving while heart attack and cause damage) responsible, even though the heart attack could be prevented from diet (free will).

A. Itself is not a conclusion

BC. Not “Should”

D. Not true

E. Maybe, saying that we do not apply free will equally to all situations (i.e both criminals and drivers under heart attack both stem from free will but they have different outcome).

Hi! Recently started learning about formal logic and it's kicking my butt to be honest. I'm still a little confused on how you even identify a conditional statement (I was going through some of the exercises and was like seriously, this is a conditional statement?).

More importantly, I'm still a little confused about how to deduce sufficient vs necessary conditions. I don't want to rely solely on indicators as LSAT is a test about understanding. If you guys could share your tips/explain, I would appreciate that so much, thanks!!

How did everyone feel about the Retest?

I had RC, LR, LR, LG.

RC (Ormes Comic Strip – Torcy Comics (civil rights movement)

Comparative Passage: Micro Finance in the Bangladeshy Banking Systems.

Theories of Property Ownership

Einestein and Dark Matter and the Expanding Universe(had the most trouble on this passage)

LR#1

grandfather drinking and you know lived a long time

morally virtuous and honesty people

Mites in a cave

health in there I think

LR#2

Periwinkle’s

Bat pups

sleeping platypus or platypi

Claims PH

LG:

1)Traveling to different cities Houston, Seattle, Toronto, Montreal.

2)China cabinet: gold, silver, vases, tea cups.

3) 4 Summer Camp Activities for 12 consecutive weeks

4) 3 interviews: reasources, personel, training for 1, 2 or 3 weeks.

Did anyone else have the same content as me, or something different? I’ve heard some people had different than me but I thought a retest was suppose to be the same content just different question and section orders so I don’t know but curious to see how everyone felt about it compared to first test and type of test

Pseudo-PSA

Political self-determination from external force -> /truly free

Maintaining freedom -> political virtues earned during the struggle for freedom

The bridge here is about linking political self-determination from external force + virtues necessary for freedom

A. Not true, its the opposite

B. Who cares what other virtues they achieve

C. Free -> develop political virtues… maybe

D. Remain truly free -> political self-determination, but this is missing the virtue part.

E. Imposed?

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

i dont understand why this is E