Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
David Wayne
About
- Username
- David Wayne
- Joined
- Visits
- 35
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member
Comments
-
No. Like rule substitution questions, watching enough of the videos themselves from 52-72 and listening to JY's narration is intended to provide a sufficient framework for doing these passages.
-
Do all them all as if they were the real thing. You won't discern the section before or during the test, period.
-
These start around the 50's. JY has noted that these questions are an LSAT invention in the logic games section featured specifically in the newer exams.. Just do 50-72 to see all of them, as you won't find any in the earlier preptests.
-
Hey thanks so much Alan, sorry to be nitpicky but i'm sure this is beneficial for plenty of people.
-
First of all don't be dismayed by missing #8, as its an incredibly difficult question for being that early on in the section. Before looking at E first make sure you understand why D is correct. The several in this answer choice is indeed synonymou…
-
It only takes some people to create the correlation that weakens the argument's link between its premise and conclusion. If some people who are in this group also partake in kidney damaging activities then the evidence in favor of a competing conclu…
-
Wow, i think few will agree with you on the logic games, particularly game 4. Even Graeme Blake missed 2 on that one in his timed take of it.
-
No you're not. I just wanted to point it out to the tech team since it used to highlight the question you were on. When you scroll down to go to the next question you may not be thinking of what the exact question was. I don't know why it doesn't hi…
-
Shut up and take my money.
-
NOT (A->B) simply means that this conditional relationship is not true of our world. The way in which this is expressed is that A occurs without B occurring. So we'd need to go out in our world and observe A and /B. That proves that A does not le…
-
We know the conclusion is that the practice is unacceptable. Our premises indicate that a segment of the population is at risk of harm from the use of the pesticide. The principle we need - and the unstated assumption underlying this argument's line…
-
not sure, maybe send jy or alan an email
-
You have to pay for preptest 69 separately. Well worth the cost, in my opinion.
-
The only available videos of JY doing LR are included in the preptest 69 separate package. He includes a video of himself doing each individual problem. It is very cool and helpful, as he discusses his performance in the video explanations and talks…
-
I don't see why you would assume that the legal fees would be would be repaid to them. That would probably act as a weakener to one of their arguments, but we aren't being asked to be evaluative of our speakers' arguments in identifying a point of d…
-
Technically, incompetent does constitute a binary cut of competent, since the 'in' portion of the word is the english language's way of saying 'not' something. The same difference applies to 'incredible' versus 'credible', or 'inconceivable' versus …
-
Hey Anne, We actually are not in a disagreement. I specifically specified we were in 'LSAT' territory when providing my definition of the word inference. You are correct to note that inferring something doesn't mean you've arrived at something tha…
-
Your first problem is that you've mistakenly classified this question as a MSS question when it's actually a must be true question. A "conclusion that can be drawn on the basis of the information above" means that we're being asked to identify somet…
-
You finally deemed a post as 'like-worthy'. It was all worth it.
-
If you just have a regular conditional statement, A->B, there are three possibilities: A happens, therefore B happens A does not happen, B happens A does not happen, B does not happen. If you have a bicondtional statement, A B, then the 2nd pos…
-
H-J M-H Possibility one: Sufficient and Necessary satisfied. M-H-J Possibility two: Sufficient Failed, Necessary failed. J-H-M I can't do a better job of explaining this than the "Advanced Logic" section of the 7sage syllabus. It may be necessary …
-
I'm not 100% sure as to what you're question is, but i do know that you may not be entirely clear on how contrapositives work. In your latter statement, you've written H will go before J only if it is after M This means that H-J -> M-H. This…
-
That's right, you're referring to Preptest 53, Section 3, Question 13, a great question for really understanding when you can and cannot apply whole to part logic (the answer choice with the steel table comprises a logically sound argument, and that…
-
Your argument doesn't commit the characteristic whole to part flaw the LSAT commonly employs. It does commit another flaw, that of inappropriately interpreting what the term 'generally' means. Having done a great deal many of the LSAT arguments fro…
-
No such flaw was committed; the argument's premises indicated that all salespeople who work for commission direct their customers towards those items that allow them to make the highest possible commission. The argument then indicates that all sale…
-
This isn't a real LSAT question and you really should not be using this to study, unless you are in dire financial straits and are being forced to utilize a friend's or library's [fake] LSAT materials. I do however sympathize with your lack of cla…
-
Your conclusion is reversed. Only someone who truly understands economics means that 'econ' would be the necessary condition. So your conclusion should be: Chance->Econ. Flawed method of reasoning questions, like all arguments - as JY often not…
-
I read all three bibles cover to cover and they contain nothing of benefit or importance that 7sage does not. So you can definitely save yourself some time on that front. I agree with the above post as well.
-
Hi CCwilso, The LSAT knows that a lot of test takers like yourself understand that there's some sort of sufficiency/necessity confusion going on in this problem, but the answer choices aren't simply going to say "Confuses a sufficient condition for…
-
I don't see any reason why 51/3/23 would call for diagramming or negation. Could you clarify your question?