How is D correct?????

Hello everyone,

I plan to apply to law school this fall but at the moment I'm going through a difficult time at work. The job isn't very glamorous, I'm an Operations Assistant at a Real Estate brokerage, but it pays the bills and is giving me networking opportunities as well as a Letter of Recommendation. With that said however, I've decided to quit this job because there's just too many problems and it's time to move on. However, I'm a little concerned when to quit because law schools dissect every part of your resume if you're a nontraditional law school applicant.

I reach the 2yr threshold in July and I'm more than capable of putting up with these problems til then. However, if I don't have to, I'll give them my 2 weeks and quit sooner.

So my question is: do law schools place a bigger emphasis on the number of years (an even 2yrs) that you've worked at a place or does it just not matter after you've crossed 1yr or 1.5yrs?

Maybe I'm overthinking this but I'm concerned that working less than 2yrs at this job will seem suspect and will weaken my application.

Please participate in the poll and/or let me know your thoughts.

Thank you

Hello, I have been struggling with my timing and accuracy on reading comp.

When I move slow throughout the questions and passage, I tend to do much better with the questions (obviously). I will usually get all the questions right for easier - medium passages/questions, and only 1 wrong for harder passages.

My biggest problem however is that is takes me awhile, and usually in the 35 minutes I can only get through 3 of the passages. I have attempted speeding up my reading / time in questions to reach all 4 passages but my accuracy in questions severely drops in where I may get 2-3+ wrong per passage.

I have gotten much better at low res summaries, and I find that method helpful especially for structure questions.

What is the best way to speed up while maintaining accuracy? I have read previous discussion forums in where people only focus on the 3 passages and leaving the 4th passage for guesses. I have experimented with this method and i usually do way better in terms of accuracy (getting around 18-20 correct, vs 12 - 15 correct). I do recognize I sometimes waste time by checking answers in the passage when I am fairly confident in my memory however, I can't seem to trust it (as every now and then I check to find out my memory was wrong).

Any help / recommendations is recommended, thanks!

I am barely getting these questions correct and i am about to give up. Could someone please tell me your methods for approaching these questions cause negating isnt working for me.

Hello. I'm applying to law school in the fall, and I'd like as much input as possible on what my chance of a T3 school are.

Hards: 176 Lsat, 3.98 GPA

Softs: 1 year working for a lawyer, plus a separate summer internship for a NY supreme court judge (hopefully... I don't actually have the job yet.

250 hours (roughly a year) volunteering for the Crisis text line.

Skills: coding (python, java etc.) unrelated to my undergraduate degree.

Great letters of recommendation from my boss, professor and super at the text line.

Are my chances above 50% ah HYS... or even superman wouldn't be a guarantee in at the top?

P.S. I'm a white male, so not a URM.

All input appreciated, thank you in advance 🙏

I have been missing -4 pretty consistently on LR for a long time. I started around -6, been studying for about 3 months. I know I can get my LR down to -2. Anyone been in this situation have any tips?

I was curious if any others have had issues playing 7Sage explanation videos. I first noticed the issue last night and rationalized it as an network connectivity problem, but the same issue continued today too.

I am back to discuss another cookie cutter argument form. Here is the link to the cost benefit argument structure that I posted about previously: https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/21220

This one is known as Phenomenon Hypothesis. In this argument form, an observation about the world is made, followed by a proposed explanation. This post will discuss some common answer choice types LSAC uses to effect the strength of a hypothesis in explaining a phenomenon or observed occurrence.

1. Affirm/Deny Mechanism

Tells us exactly how the hypothesis would explain the phenomenon.

For example, if I say: there is a correlation between white blood cells and strong immune systems, therefore white blood cells cause strong immune systems.

A mechanism would be explaining a plausible way for white blood cells to improve immune systems. Like: white blood cells contain disease fighting chemicals that kill all bad bacteria. So this information strengthens our hypothesis by providing a plausible mechanism.

To deny the mechanism or weaken, we would show that white blood cells have nothing to do with the immune system.

2. Corroborating Data Set

This is when we bring in a new data set which corroborates or jives with the notion that our hypothesis explains our phenomenon.

For example, if I say: bees left a part of Florida that was experiencing a heat wave, so it probably was the heat which drove them out.

A corroborating data set could show that a heat wave happened recently in Nevada and the bees left as soon as it began. This corroborates our hypothesis and makes it stronger by showing that we introduced the purported cause and got the intended effect, right away. This does not make our hypothesis have to be true, but it does make it more plausible or strengthen it.

3. Competing Data Set

The opposite of a corroborating data set. So, a new set of info that makes our hypothesis a less attractive means of explaining the phenomenon.

To stick with the bee example, we could show that another state experienced a heat wave and the bees stayed put. This would show that we have our purported cause without the effect. This does not kill the argument entirely, but it does weaken or make it slightly less plausible.

4. Consequences

Science operates on eliminating hypotheses. We determine what would be necessary if a hypothesis were true. Such that:

Hypotheses true——> Consequences True

Next, we test those consequences. If they are not true, the hypotheses is not true. If they are true, our hypotheses does not need to be true but it lives to fight another day. We then find more additional consequences that would be true and test those. The hypothesis that survives this consequence testing is deemed best and closest to truth, until proven otherwise.

Example:

There was a UFO sighted over Nevada, close to Area 51, it must be aliens.

A consequence of this hypothesis being true would be that aliens exist, are able to travel, or can build things. If we find out any of these are untrue, the hypothesis is no longer possible.

This form is sort of like a Necessary Assumption for science.

5. Block/Introduce Alternative

This answer choice would either build up or break down a competing hypothesis.

In our Alien example, we could say that the US military was conducting weapons testing during the time the UFO was reported and in close proximity to the sighting.

This being true would explain the observed phenomenon without our hypothesis needing to be true. It also is more plausible than our hypothesis. So, our argument would be weakened.

To block out such an alternative, we would just say that the US military was on holiday the day of the sighting and conducted 0 activity in Nevada. Ruling out an alternative hypothesis, helps make our hypothesis slightly more likely.

6. Temporal Affirmation

If a hypothesis is going to explain a phenomenon, it needs to make sense time wise.

For example:

On Monday, it rained and the highway had 35 car accidents. Normally, there are only 10 accidents per day. I hypothesize the rain created poor driving conditions and thus more accidents.

For this to work, we need the additional accidents to have happened after the rain. To strengthen the hypothesis, we say that the day was average at first and the accidents piled up after the rain

To weaken this, we show that there were already 32 accidents that day, before the rain.

7. Irrelevant

Most Answer choices you see on phenomenon hypotheses questions will have nothing to do with how the hypothesis explains the phenomenon.

Always ask yourself: Does this piece of information have any bearing on how the hypothesis explains the observed phenomenon?

For our Alien example, some irrelevant answer choices might look like:

Aliens are more intelligent than Lizards.

Human beings do not have sophisticated enough means to communicate with Aliens

The UFO was sighted by 3 people with doctorate degrees

A similar sighting happened in Nebraska, in 1984.

These things are all great, but they do not address whether or not the object was in fact Aliens!

This list is not meant to be exhaustive and I am sure there are many other ways to strengthen or weaken such arguments. Feel free to share any others below :)

hi everyone! context: i started 7sage in january and plan to take the june lsat. a few weeks ago, i graduated from core curriculum to taking PTs every week. i've been scoring in the lows 160s timed and mid-high 160s/low 170s BR. my goal is a low to mid 170.

does anyone have any tips for how they closed the gap from scoring in the 160s to the 170s? i feel concerned seeing that i only have about 2 months to do so. i'm also not sure how exactly to create a study plan from here besides reviewing my weaker areas and improving on timing.

i'd appreciate any advice/insights/tips from experience :") thanks so much.

Does anyone how I can improve on weaken questions? I really having a tough time with them.

I understand you have to weaken the support the premise gives the conclusion, but how? Am I questioning the premises? Is there something I'm looking for? Do I say, what if it's something else?

How do I weaken the support? In what ways???

I know these questions are supposed to be "gimmes" but I still struggle with SA and PSA questions, even the ones I get right I don't feel 100% confident. So I've been drilling them and I had some trouble with this one. If anyone could confirm my thought process, and/or offer any tips, it'd be much appreciated.

Context:

Fred and Dorthy are allegedly being considered for receive 25% raises.

Conclusion:

Jim argues that he should also receive a raise to at least what theirs will be or else it is unfair.

Tasha argues that it would be unfair to raise Jim's salary without also raising the 35 employees' [who have been at the company for the same length of time as Jim and earn the same salary as him].

Premise:

Jim has worked at the company longer than Fred and Dorthy have and their salaries would be higher than his with the proposed raise.

Similarly, Tasha says it's unfair to raise his without raising theirs because they have been at the company for the same amount of time as him and earn the same salary.

What I'm looking for:

I need something to justify both parties statements which both deal with fairness and raising (or not) another parties salary with equal or less tenure. So something tying pay to tenure to company. If you raise one party's salary and do not raise another party's salary who has worked at the company for the same or larger amount of time than the first party, then it is unfair.

AC:

A) It starts off correct, "in order to be fair", which would mean the contrapositive of my prediction but the second part doesn't follow. Our stimulus did not mention anything about differences or similarities in duties (although this thought did occur to me while reading the stimulus) so therefore it wouldn't justify why we have to raise Jim's and the 35 employees to raise Fred and Dorothy. Also it says "identical salaries" and Jim is arguing for a salary increase at least F and D. I'm not sure if this would be another reason to eliminate, but at the very least it doesn't match the stimulus. Eliminate (more so for the first reason I think).

B) Same with A that this starts off correct, but the second part also doesn't follow. Although, I didn't eliminate this right away because I initially assumed experience in the field=length of time at company. Upon final confirmation I deleted because experience in the field is much broader than what's supported in the stimulus and we just don't know anything about their experience. It could very well be the case that Fred and Dorothy have 50 years of experience in the field but have only been working at the company for 5 years, whereas Jim while he has been working at the company for 10 years, he only has 15 years of total experience in the field. Therefore, it wouldn't justify the conclusion that Jim's should be raised simply because he has worked at the company longer than they have. Eliminate.

C) The wording of this AC tripped me up because it starts with "in order to be fair" so I took that as the sufficient, but then says "if the first..." So I had to figure out which was the sufficient and which necessary. Ultimately, I understood it as if first employee worked for company longer than second --> business must pay one employee more than another, or else unfair. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought this was the reversal of what we needed. It establishes that Jim must be paid more than F and D because he has worked for longer than they have, whereas we need that if we raise F and D (workers with less or equal tenure), raise Jim and 35 employees (higher or equal tenure). Eliminate.

D) This is what we're looking for, as it is essentially the contrapositive of my prediction. "In order to be fair", "must never pay one more than another", "unless" establishes, If you pay one employee more than another---> first employee has worked for company longer than second. So because F and D have not worked at the company for longer than Jim, you cannot pay them more than him. Similar to Tasha as well. Correct.

E) Amount of time they work every day is not discussed nor is relevant in justifying the conclusion. Eliminate.

why was it marked D instead of C? i feel like C is the correct choice because it matches the argument.

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

How seriously should we take the "actual score" that's provided on our PTs? I can't help but feel like it's an inflated score. For instance, on PT 55, getting nine wrong would've been 167 according to the original curve, but a 170 according to 7sage's "actual score" predictor. What am I supposed to make of this?

If my "actual score" is always a couple points higher than the score assigned to me by the original curve, isn't this implying that the new LSATs are just easier?

Any clarification would be appreciated!

Hi all! I am really struggling to understand why B is incorrect. I know now that D is the right option, but I'm not sure how to structurally identify why in other LR sections. I'd appreciate any help/explanations!

Aside from the study breakouts offered here on 7sage, is anyone interested to cram study for the upcoming April test? Zoom modality, maybe?

If a good set of people is available near the LA area and is willing and able to meet at some library or conference room (i.e. Law Library), that would be even more interactive and efficient.

Hello. I'm applying to law school in the fall, and I'd like as much input as possible on what my chance of a T3 school are.

Hards: 176 Lsat, 3.98 GPA

Softs: 1 year working for a lawyer, plus a separate summer internship for a NY supreme court judge (hopefully... I don't actually have the job yet.

250 hours (roughly a year) volunteering for the Crisis text line.

Skills: coding (python, java etc.) unrelated to my undergraduate degree.

Great letters of recommendation from my boss, professor and super at the text line.

Are my chances above 50% ah HYS... or even superman wouldn't be a guarantee in at the top?

P.S. I'm a white male, so not a URM.

All input appreciated, thank you in advance 🙏

I saw a comment on this question that stated: but & and are logical equivalents. Is this true?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-2-question-10/

Wouldn't the inability to detect methane in the atmosphere (C) be the answer? The right answer (B) says that not all living beings have the ability to produce methane, but couldn't "not all" still mean that 99.9% of living beings could (and hence NOT weaken the argument)

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

Hello everyone! I could not find any study group on Discord so I just made a new LSAT study group and would love to connect with you all! Please feel free to pass the link around and I look forward to studying with you guys soon. Thank you!

https://discord.gg/uXXcjb8Vb3

Can someone please explain why AC C is incorrect here? Thank you!

I’m scoring 150s on my diagnostic. I want to get to 170. I have the power score bibles for logic games and logical reasoning which I’m going through. Also, should I complete ALL of the core curricula ? What are y’all’s thoughts on the loophole ? Should I get that book too?

For this question answer choice C is correct which makes sense to me. I picked D because I thought the analogy between car technology and computer technology worked well. My question is: are answer choices with analogies usually wrong on strengthening questions? OR does it just depend on the question?

On this question I initially answered correctly, but then during BR changed to the wrong answer. I am beginning to understand why C is correct, but I still feel like I am not even 100% sure what the stimulus itself is actually saying.

Here is the stimulus:

The energy an animal must expend to move uphill is proportional to its body weight, whereas the animal's energy output available to perform this task is proportional to its surface area. This is the reason that small animals, such as squirrels, can run up a tree trunk almost as fast as they can move on level ground, whereas large animals tend to slow down when they are moving uphill.

What's throwing me off is that I don't understand how "energy output available to perform this task" differs from "energy an animal must expend." I was also a little confused by the jump from talking about energy to speed (saying that this is why squirrels can run up a trunk at the same speed)- am I meant to interpret that as saying that it uses the same amount of energy? If so, is that in relation to energy output available or the amount that must be expended and how would I know that?

Thanks for any help in advance!

I am a bit confused with PT2.S4.Q14. This was the logic I worked out for each of the answers:

A) This would support the argument, as it would show that there is a causation between the change in definition to only including heart attacks and strokes

B)the cities financial properties are irrelevant to the argument

C)"Expert opinion" is not relevant in this argument

D) Other cities opinions are not relevant in this argument

E) Last year's count does not necessarily reflect the count of this year. it's possible that this year the count was lower

The correct answer was E. I understand that both A and E aren't perfect solutions (otherwise this would be a sufficient assumption), but i do not understand why E is a stronger choice than A. Thoughts?

"not a problem in well-ventilated house but it is in well-insulated house" implies that a well-insulated house is not a well-ventilated house, hence D, correct? I picked E because I mistakenly read the well-ventilated as well-insulated in that a well-insulated house with a houseplant would have fewer toxins in the air than a well-insulated house without houseplants.