A lot of the LSAT isn’t intuitive, and sometimes learning a single pattern can completely change how you approach a question.
For example, in Reading Comprehension, if an author presents two opposing perspectives but never explicitly states their own position, the final perspective presented may help reveal the author’s implied stance and the passage’s main point—especially if the author leaves that perspective unchallenged. This isn’t an absolute rule, of course; you still need textual support.
What are some non-intuitive LSAT insights or strategies you’ve learned through 7Sage? Share anything that made you think, “I never would’ve figured that out on my own!”
7
2 comments
In a sufficient assumption question, if the conclusion of the stimulus presents something new that wasn’t mentioned in the stimulus before, any answer that doesn’t also mention that new thing is automatically ruled out.
That pointing a flaw in an argument doesn't mean someone is saying the conclusion of that argument is false. They could still think their conclusion is true for other reasons, even if they think the person presenting it has a bad/flawed argument.