If some clouds are black and it's humid, then it will rain.

I have it notated as follows:

C(-s-)B + H -> R

My question is - can you even take a contrapositive of this statement?

And if so, is it the following:

/R -> /H or C->/B

In other words:

If it is not raining, then it means either it is not humid or all clouds are not black...

Am i correct in thinking this?

I am looking for study buddy located in Ohio. If not zoom works too

Hello,

I am a little confused on why answer choice A is the correct answer.

Anyone in Nashville or in the South Vicinity that would like to meet on zoom or facetime for studying?

Created this Discord a bit ago - trying to get a lesson of the week going where we read/attempt something on our own and then get together to discuss and share any insights we have.

You can join here: https://discord.gg/U437CP5n

Why is the answer C and not A?

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"

E.g. PT37.S1.Q12 - Political scientist: Efforts to create a more egalitarian

I put B but am confused to why the answer is A

Olsas says the admission committees of the law schools reserve the right to apply their own evaluation. But will they really see my original transcript and realize 3.3 can’t really represent my academic performance? Does they solely rely on the WES result?

Can someone please explain this to me: “‘or’ does not, in and of itself, exclude the possibility of ‘both.’ Thus, if a rule states, ‘F or G will be assigned to Y,’ it is entirely possible that both F and G can be assigned to Y.”

How???

When it comes to strengthening causal reasoning, I understand that offering other instances where a cause leads to an effect (cause -> effect) will act to strengthen an argument. In addition, I have read that offering instances where there is no cause there is no effect (no cause -> no effect) acts to strengthen arguments as well. One particular question that shows this logic is PT 66 Section 4 Question 12.

Is it true that (no cause -> no effect) acts to strengthen? I've tried to look into this and have come up with various answers.

Hi, I'm looking to organize a study group for the August exam! Message me if you are interested, I will be making a GroupMe for this where we can schedule reviews / go over PTs over zoom. This can be a great support system and a way to keep each other accountable and motivated. Thanks :)

I started studying for the LSAT in December, I grinded on it for like 4 hours a day for the next 5 months until I took the April LSAT. After finishing the CC, my study plan was to take Full PTs everyday because I am competitive and that is how I could get myself juiced up to study, just like in golf, I hate going to the driving range, but I love playing because every round starts with the chance to beat my high score. I took a total of 45 full PTS before taking the April LSAT, my PT average got to be a 174, with 3 179's mixed in there. I felt really good coming out of the real LSAT, with only one question I was not feeling confident about I was feeling like I might have scored a 180, but alas it was not to be. My score came back as a 171, I still have no idea what happened, in my PTs I almost always have a feeling when I am not certain of a question, all of my wrong answers are usually ones I flagged, even if I still get it wrong in BR. I really wish they showed which section the wrong answers came from for my personal sanity. Anyways, I had already taken off 3 weeks between the test and the score release, and the next day after getting my score back I scored a 177. I figured I still know what I know, and that I would just take it easy until the June LSAT and see what happens. 3 weeks after the last test I took, today I got my first 180. I think the time off has really given me time to compress all of my knowledge and feel a lot more confident when looking at questions. The questions all feel a lot more simple, my thought process is much quicker.

Who knows what will happen on the June LSAT, but the point is that sometimes less is more, and don't stress over breaks because you aren't going to lose your progress, it will stick with you, and you might even improve.

Hi Guys,

I was seeing if anyone would like to partner up and do a study session. I am aiming to be in the 99th percentile on the test and looking for those that are also studying to aim the same score. Even though this doesn't matter, a little bit about me, I speak Spanish and Portuguese, am a Christian as well. So even if we don't share those interests no problem, it is just cool to meet people that also share the same interests too. I also have an interest in studying Immigration Law. Thanks so much everyone!

Sincerely,

Matthew

Hi Guys,

I achieved a diagnostic score in March of a 130 and in April as well, but my score was still pretty low. I am planning to take the test in October and started studying about May 13th. I really would like to hit the 99th percentile, if possible, but not sure if anyone else has achieved more than 40+ increase. I am studying about 20 hours week and seriously studying, but just concerned. I know anything is possible, but just a little worried that I scored a little lower. Not sure if this is normal. I want to get full-ride scholarships.

Thanks so much! Stay Blessed!

For this NA question I choose B, could someone explain to my why C is correct?

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

Hi, I wanted to reach out to other 7sagers to see if anyone would be interested in studying RC with me.

I have been studying for the test about 10months, and I would like to have more routinely discussion based study sessions for specifically RC.

Here are some suggestions on how I would like to have the sessions.

Here are some info about me

Please let me know if you are interested!

Good luck with your studying!

Anyone else have this annoyance? I have to scroll all the way down to see my drills.

Hi what is a good approach for these questions? I been studying for 6 hours and Im still not grasping it? :(

does anyone remember what pen that Henry recommended on the LSAT Podcast?

Hi guys, I was wondering if it’s normal for LR scores to fluctuate between -13 to -6. Both are my worst and best score on my recent LR. (I have been studying for some time; I’ve finished CC and been practicing tons of drills.) Let me know if any of you relate and if you have any solution for this!

I was going to take the LSAT in June, but I decided to switch my test date to August, since I got out of habit of studying. Im applying for Fall 2024!

Can anyone explain why PTJ07 is titled so differently from other LSAT titles? Is there a difference from other PrepTests?

Does anyone want a study buddy who's from the Chicago area?

anyone in seoul/south korea or similar time zone that wants to keep each other accountable?!

for context, i just went through the entire 7sage curriculum and about to start drilling and taking PTs. aiming to take the august/september/october lsat :)

lmk!

Premise 1: Clark brand name parts are made for cars manufactured in this country.

Premise 2: they satisfy all the government's automotive tests.

Premise 3: for foreign made parts, you never know which one might be cheap look-alike and reliable.

Conclusion: you should prefer Clark brand name parts to foreign made parts.

The question is asking for the necessary assumption of the stimulus. I picked the right answer. But, upon second look, I think even the right answer, strictly speaking, seems to be wrong....

Answer C, the supposedly right answer, states that "parts that satisfy our government standards are not as poorly constructed as the cheap foreign-made parts".

It doesn't seem to me the negation of this answer choice necessarily undermines the original argument. For I read the premise 3 of the stimulus as only implying that, in contrast to foreign made parts, you COULD KNOW which one might be cheap look-alike and reliable in the case of Clark brand name parts, which means Clark brand name parts could contain cheap and unreliable parts just as foreign made ones do. The only difference is you can tell the difference in the case of former, but not the latter. For answer C to be the necessary assumption of the original argument, however, we need to read that premise 3 as implying that Clark brand name parts are INDEED NOT cheap look-alike and reliable, which seems to me a bit too strong an inference to be made.

Furthermore, nothing in the stimulus implies that cheap and unreliable foreign-made parts cannot satisfy the government automotive standards.

Can someone help point out if I miss anything? Am I reading too much into the stimulus?