I've been through the 'Some and Most Relationships' module once....and twice...but am still unclear on the exact difference between a contrapositive (which auto-correct always tries to make 'Contraceptive'!) and a negation. Both in terms of definition and strategy.

Now, of course, I know they are radically different - but nailing the specifics throws me.

Does anyone have any wisdom? I'll give you one gold bean for your time :)

*I was sent this LR study guide a couple of months ago from a fellow 7Sager and it has been very helpful. It's not as detailed as some of the others floating around but it does have enough information for you to get a head-start on your own notes. I hope this helps those study for the upcoming LSAT!

LR Question Types:

Main Point/Main Conclusion Questions

- The most fundamental skill on the LSAT. Take a label and slap it on the sentence that you think is the main point

Most Strongly Supported Questions

- They are similar to MP/MC questions in that you must locate the conclusion then find the answer choice that provides support

- The “fine” difference is that in MP/MC questions the conclusion is in the stimulus and you just need to identify it and in MSS questions the conclusion is removed from the stimulus and placed into the answer choices.

- If you properly understand support then you will be able to identify the displaced conclusion among the answer choices

Assumption and Weakening Questions

- Assumptions are the weakness of the argument; they are premises that the author has left out.

- Assumptions are subtle: they are hard to detect but you must be sensitive to them as assumptions determine the strength of the argument

- When looking at the answer choices consider answer choices that support the conclusion

** Note, arguments are good and bad. An argument is considered “good” insofar as the premise support the conclusion

- The more assumptions the argument makes, the weaker the argument

- How to weaken an argument?

It is very abstract and subtle

You must remove the support

• What support? The support the premise provide to the conclusion

- Weakening questions test you on:

*YOU DO NOT ATTACK OR CONTRADICT a PREMISE, EVER

* YOU DO NOT CONTRADICT OR DENY a CONCLUSION, EVER

• An answer choice will strip the existing premise of its strength.

• A correct answer choice will show, despite the premise being true, with the consideration of the additional premise (correct answer choice) the existing premise(s) are now, way less supportive

- Ask yourself?

Why is it, that despite the fact the I accept the premises I no longer accept the conclusion

The correct answer choice will give you a reason

Causation and Phenomenon Hypothesis Questions

- Causation Theory:

- Type of Logic

- Employed in LR

- Causal Relationship

- Causation Theory: (as the LSAT understands it)

1) Causation implies correlation: if you have no correlation then you have no causation

2) Causation implies chronology: If A--> Then A must have come first

3) Causation strongly suggests there are no competing causes

- Correlation Theory:

~~ Empirically observes co-variance: CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION

**Empirically Observed: Out in the world. Data we see/observe/find

** Covariance: Change that happens together

Example: Fire Fighters (A) and Fire (B) (correlated)

** Just because A and B are correlated, it does not mean (A) fire fighters causes (B) fires.

*If you are given a correlation you cannot assume causation, but causation DOES imply correlation

4 Possible Explanations:

When we observe that A is CORRELATED or CO-INCIDENTAL with B there are 4 possible " situations"

1. A caused B

2. B caused A

3. C caused both A and B

4. There is no relationship at all (alternative cause)

We Use Causation Strategy:

1. Stimulus: Premise gives us either correlation or coincidence and then the argument proceeds to assume causation or concludes causation

2. Answer Choices: Check for the following

A) Competing Explanation: the intro or denial of an alternative cause

B) Chronology: causes MUST precede effects

C) Third common cause: Maybe there is a third cause that is causing both 1 and 2 and both effects are the effects of a 3rd common cause

D) Data Sets: Look for competing or corroborating data sets.

Strengthening Questions

- The answer choice you choose will introduce a new idea that increases the support from the existing premises to the conclusion

- You are tasked with exposing and affirming and assumptions made by the author

- You make the premise(s) more supportive of the conclusion

Sufficient Assumption Questions

- You are looking for the answer choice that provides the stimulus with the missing information that will help the argument to reach the holy grail status of validity

- Your goal is to bridge the gap between the premise

- Ex: Here is my premise A and here is my conclusion B, you must provide the “if then”; If A, then B. With this additional premise you have a VALID (MBT) argument.

- These question types rely heavily on conditional logic and diagramming/mapping

-If you understand validity, sufficiency and necessity relationships these questions should be “gimmies” on the LSAT

Pseudo-sufficient Assumption Questions:

- Very similar to sufficient assumption questions in that they rely heavily on logic. The difference is, they LSAT writers are leaving a small window that says the answer choice may not make the argument valid but it is ALMOST valid.

Must Be True Questions

- Validity is the strongest most special relationship between premises and the conclusion, it is an argument which makes zero assumptions so therefore, it is valid.

- The definition of a valid argument: 
If the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. So choose the answer choice that considering the info provided, MBT

Must Be False Questions

- Rare on the LSAT, are the opposite of must be true.

- The Stimulus will provide you with a set of outlines/rules etc and then give you answer choices

- One of the answer choices will violate the outlined “rules” there for making it a must be false/cannot be true

Hey guys, just need you to verify of this is correct from my understanding.....

You must buy milk or eggs or both

Diagram :

Not M ->E

Not E->M ? (So implies either M or E, you can get both)

You can't buy both milk and eggs

Diagram:

E-> not M

M-> not E ? (So implies either E or M , or NEITHER?...you do not even need to buy both?)

Hello, everyone!

So I've posted here before about my situation, but I'm going to summarize it a bit before asking for your opinions. So I was consistently scoring 156/157 before my Dec. LSAT (it was scary consistent), but it was good enough to get into the school I wanted with some scholarship (the school is right down the street from where I live). However, on test day I did not perform as well as I know I should have. I scored a 147. I was sad, depressed, and upset with myself. Anyway, I applied to the 2 schools in my area, my plan A school and my plan B school. I got into my plan B school, BUT got denied by my plan A school.

There's a light at the end of the tunnel, however. The recruiting manager of the school A said I can take the June exam, and if I do better I can be reconsidered for the Fall 2015 admission cycle. This brings me a lot of joy and a lot of stress.

My plan B school is not very ideal for me. It is about an hour away and is about 35k a year. While plan A school is 5 minutes from my house and about 21k a year. I can't imagine the amount of study time I'd be killing driving an hour to plan B school and back, and how much more money I'll owe in the long run.

Anyway, I've started up the 7Sage curriculum again. Everything just seems to click, even more than before. My LR seems to have gotten better, my RC has gotten better, my LG seem to be in tact. It's as if not studying since Dec. gave me a huge mental rest. Unfortunately/fortunately for me the pressure is back on. I'm on week 3 of the curriculum and have completed almost all of it in one day. I only feel better when I study. Studying for midterms, going to work, and etc. all feel like a waste of my time. I'm pretty much becoming an insomniac. I can't sleep, all I can do is think about LSAT and getting better. I sleep maybe 4-6 hours, wake up in the middle of the night and just start studying for LSAT because it's the only thing that eases my mind. Well, that and working out.

My friends say I'll burn out, and while I'm afraid of that as well, I just can't agree with them. This doesn't feel forced, it's almost like it's my therapy. I enjoy learning it. I genuinely enjoy learning this information, like it's all a fun game. Maybe I'm just becoming delusional.

So, here's the end. What if I do score really well. What if I break the 165 by June (which at the moment is about 8-9 points of improvement). If I get in, should I take it? Or, should I wait a year in order to get a scholarship (if I'm reconsidered in the summer there won't be any money left). I know the answer seems obvious, but like I said I feel a bit delusional. Woke up at 3am est, and it's now 8pm est (me typing this is my break).

I already tried sleeping a couple of times today but could only sleep for 10 minutes max before waking up and only thinking about LSAT.

I know this is a long post. This probably just seems more like venting than anything else, and if I wasted your time I'm sorry. Any input is appreciated. I'm off to go study some more and will be watching for any responses.

I'd like to thank J.Y. and the 7Sage team for creating this awesome site, and I'd like to thank the interactive and awesome community here on the discussion board. Congrats to all those who reached their LSAT/Law School goals, and good luck to everyone who is studying for the LSAT!

Hi All, if I were to purchase drilling packets from Cambridge on the Logic Games. Which should I go for?

LSAT Logic Games by Type, Volume 3 (pdf download)

All 80 Analytical Reasoning Problem Sets from PrepTests 41–60, Grouped by Type (This one?)

or

LSAT Logic Games by Type (PrepTests 1–38)

thank you!!!

http://classic.7sage.com/lesson/the-embezzler-weaken-question/?ss_completed_lesson=991

Help!

I thought the assumption in this argument was

"It is more likely that actuaries are the embezzlers because accountants would never make the lender mistake"

So I thought to weaken the argument you would have to look for why accountants could be the embezzlers and could make the mistake?

But I noticed rather to weaken the argument you have to show how it "could not be actuaries " .Instead of how it could be the accountant.

So weaken questions are we attacking just the conclusion? Or do we assume an assumption and see what attacks that? Because I feel like mine was way off HAHA

(P.S Sorry for bombarding you guys with questions. I am doing my best to learn as much as I can :) , Bare with my silly questions..)

Can someone tell me how to access the additional games that are provided. I finished the lesson, but want to practice the additional in/out games. At the end of the lesson, we are offered more games for additional practice. I click on a game and only get the explanation. I can only see the Youtube explanation. I need to see the game so I can work it out. How can I see the game?

Hey guys, I dug these up in the older posts. Just wanted to repost if anyone needs them

Edit: These notes belong to @emli1000! Thanks!

INTRODUCTION TO GROUPING GAMES: THE IN-OUT GAMES

CONDITIONAL RULES TRIGGER V. IRRELEVANT Lesson 1 of 27

• Sufficient satisfied: Rule triggers, necessary must be satisfied.

J→ F

Jl

------------

Fl

• Sufficient failed: Rule irrelevant, necessary free to satisfy or fail.

J→F

/JA

-------

YOU CAN STILL INVITE F

• Necessary failed: Rule triggers, sufficient must be failed.

J→F

/FA

-----------

/JA

• Necessary satisfied: Rule irrelevant, sufficient free to satisfy or fail.

J → F

FA

-----

*YOU CANNOT SAY IF ALLY IS FREE TO BE A F USER OR A J

“NOT BOTH” V. “OR” TRUTH TABLES LESSON 5 OF 27

NOT BOTH:

• SC = POSITIVE

• MAX = 1, MIN= 0

OR:

• SC= NEGATIVE

• MAX=2, MIN=1

HOW TO QUICKLY REACT TO LOGIC GAMES QUESTIONS STEM FLASHCARDS Lesson 13 of 24

1. Must be true / CANNOT be false

This type of question asks you to select the answer choice that must be true. In other words, the correct answer choice CANNOT be false. The four incorrect answers all could be false.

2. Must be false / CANNOT be true

This type of question asks you to select the answer choice that must be false. In other words, the correct answer choice CANNOT be true. The four incorrect answers all could be true.

3. Could be true

This type of question asks you to select the answer choice that could be true. The four incorrect answers all must be false or CANNOT be true.

4. Could be false

This type of question asks you to select the answer choice that could be false. The four incorrect answers all must be true or CANNOT be false.

Hint: switch “must” with “could” and “true” with “false”.

ADVANCED LOGIC- GAMES

ADVANCED: “AND/OR” IN SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS Lesson 2 of 15

SPLIT: OR IN SUFFICIENT

DON’T SPLIT: AND IN SUFFICIENT

• And/or in the SC

• IF Esmeralda OR James teaches the class, THEN Jenny will pay attention

o E or J → PA

Independent sufficient OR (SPLITS)

o E→

o PA

o J→

• IF Esmeralda AND James teaches the class, then Jenny will pay attention

o E and J → PA

o Jointly sufficient for this since it uses AND

ADVANCED: “AND/OR” IN NECCESSARY CONDITIONS Lesson 3 of 15

SPLIT: AND IN NECCESSARY

DON’T SPLIT: OR IN NECCESSARY

• IF Simmi takes American Pop Culture, then James OR Andrew will also take the class.

o S→ J or A

• IF Simmi takes American Pop Culture, then James AND Andrew will also take the class.

S→ J and A (SPLIT)

S→J

S→A

CONTRAPOSITIVES: DEMORGAN’S LAW Lesson 4 of 14

. and becomes or, vice versa

2. negate both elements

• If Tome plays, Then Jerone and Simmi play too.

T→ J and S

/J and /S → /T

= /J OR /S → T

• IF JENNY OR ANDRE SINGS, HEN JULIAN AND ESMERALD SING TOO.

JY OR A → JU AND E

[NOT] JU AND E]

=/JU OR /E → /JY AND /A

CONTRAPOSITIVES: DEMORGAN’S LAW THEORY Lesson 5 of 14

• IF JENNY OR ANDRE SINGS, HEN JULIAN AND ESMERALD SING TOO.

ADVANCED: BI-CONDITIONAL Lesson 7 of 15

• 2 Types

1. Always together, never apart

2. Always apart, never together

• English- indicate that you are reading a bi-conditional

1. (Either) or, but not both

2. If and/but only if

3. … But not otherwise

o EX: Alan(A) attends the meeting if but only if Chris(C) attends the meeting.

o A←→C

o What does this statement mean in English?

-Alan attends the meeting if Chris attends the meeting. (C→A)

And/But (mean the same thing)

-Alan attends the meeting only if Chris attends the meeting. (A→C)

C→A and A→C

= A←→C … Contrapositive is /A←→/C

4. Except

• Mastery

o Embedded Conditionals

• Contrapositive

OR, BUT NOT BOTH Lesson 8 of 15

1. (Either) or, but not both

o EX: Alan (A) or Chris(C) goes to the park, but not both.

o Alan or Chris goes to the park – [/A→C contrapositive /C→A]

o and and

o Alan and Christ cannot both go to the park. [A→/C contrapositive C→/A]

o /A←→C

o A←→/C

BUT NOT OTHERWISE Lesson 9 of 15

• EX: Alan goes to the park if Chris goes to the park, but not otherwise.

If Chris goes to the park, then Alan goes to the park [C→A contra. /A→/C] And/but

If Chris does not go to the park, then Alan does not go to the park.

[/C→A contra. A→C]

COMBINED: A ←→C contra: /A←→/C

EXCEPT Lesson 10 of 15

• Not all that important in a Logic Game. Hardly seen as in indicator

• EX: Alan goes to the park everyday, except the days on which Chris goes to the park.

o A→/C contra C→A

o /C →A contra /A→C

o COMBINED: A←→ /C contra /A ←→C

TWO TYPES OF BICONDITIONALS Lesson 11 of 15

1. Always, Together, Never apart

A ←→B – [always go to the park together]

/A←→/B – [Always together NOT at the park. They always stay home together]

LR: realize the distinguishION between the two have clasped.

2. Always Apart, Never Together

/A←→B [Alan does not go to park, Chris goes to the park]

A←→/B [Alan park, Chris stays home]

***NOTE: ONCE = IF= SC ***

MASTERY: EMBEDDED CONDITIONAL Lesson 13 of 15

• If, then, unless

• EX: If [the seeds are planted in the winter,] then [flowers will not blossom unless fertilizer is applied.]

/FB unless FA

/FA→ /FB contra FB→FA

• COMBINED: SPW→(/FA→/FB)

• WHAT THIS STATEMENT REALLY MEANS:

SPW AND /FA→/FB

OR

SPW→(FB→FA)

SPW AND FB→FA

MASTERY: EMBEDDED CONDITIONAL PROOF Lesson 14 of 15

SPW→(FB→FA)

SPW AND FB→FA

Ex: PROOF:

A→ (B→C)

/A or (B→C)

/A or (/B or /C)

(/A or /B) or C

NOT [/A or /B] →C

A and B →C

LAWGIC REVISTED Lesson 15 of 15

• Rule: 1. Move Sufficient out

2. Change arrow to AND

• Revisited: Translation Across English Construction

• Revisited: Element of Lawgic

1). → = arrow, implies

2). / = not, contradiction, negate

3). And = and

4). or = or

5). ←→ = biconditional

6). A, B, C, etc. = symbols

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

For in/out games, I tend to look for something along the lines of, "Each does exactly one of two things" or "out of x# of people, x# will be selected." For in/out games that have groups on the in or the out side, I usually notice that the pieces are split up before the rules by type. For example, "From 6 scientists, 2 Mad Scientists, 2 Crazy Scientists, and 2 Rogue Scientists, x# will be selected." In these cases, one of the rules will usually create a limit on the # of a particular type that can/can't be selected (at most 1 Mad Scientist can be selected if blahblah).

For chart games, I look for two sets of things with a binary switch for one set of things or the other. An example would be, x# car models/vacation packages/LSAT prep companies each have the possibility of these x# of features .... So you have x# things to which x# of other things either can or cannot apply. The either/or is your binary, your on/off switch and it goes in the middle, while the features and the things to which those features apply go on the outside edges. The cars with leather or sunroof was a good game to learn to recognize chart language.

Simple Grouping Games are a lot like the more complex chart games, but minus the binary switch. Instead of having 3 Council members vote yes/no (that's your binary) on 4 bills, you'd just have 3 Council members must vote on at least x# of bills. The game doesn't care how they vote (or in the abstract, doesn't care about the result of the binary switch).

For sequencing games, I notice lots of ordering words in the rules. For example, anytime I see X must be before Y but after Z, I assume sequencing and set it up as a simple sequencing game. If another rule adds another thing/descriptor that you have to tack on to each thing, then it becomes a double/multi-layer sequencing game - same setup, just add another row on top/bottom.

reposting this I found from old thread, though you guys would find it helpful as well

FAMILY # 1 is the PROVE family where the stimulus is taken to be true but the answer choices are under suspect and you must prove one of them to be correct. So family #1 contains: (6 question types)

1. Must be true questions

• require you to select an answer choice that is proven by the info presented in the stimulus.

Note: The right answer will be a paraphrase of the stimulus and no new extra info in the right answer.

2. Main point questions

•These questions just ask you to identify the main conclusion of the stimulus.

3. Point at Issue

•These questions are the ones where two people are speaking and the question will ask you on either a point that they both disagree on or a point that they both agree on.

4. Method of Reasoning

•The correct answer in this question type is the one that best describes

What method author used to make the argument.

•NO NEW INFO in the correct answer choice in these questions either.

•We focus on form instead of facts in these question types.

5. Flaw in Reasoning

•These questions are also like method of reasoning since they focus on form rather than facts/substance of the stimulus.

•So the correct answer in this question type will point out WHY the argument is flawed.

•Don't get this confused with weakening questions, because weakening questions just attack the support between the premise and conclusion.

•So instead of just making the argument weak, you tell why it is actually weak.

6. and Parallel Reasoning

•The correct answer choice of this question type will parallel the stimulus's

A. Method of Reasoning

B. Validity (either a valid or invalid argument)

C. Conclusion

D. and Premises

The parallel reasoning question types are time consuming b/c you have to sort thru five more stimulus's in the answer choice to pick out the right one.

FAMILY #2 is the HELP family and in this family the stimulus is under suspect while the answer choices are taken to be true. So this family contains: (4 question types)

1. Strengthen questions

•These questions ask you to strengthen the support between the premise and conclusion. So basically if there are any gaps in the argument, just fill those in.

2. Assumption questions

•These question types ask you to identify an assumption that is used to make the conclusion of the argument.

3. Justify the conclusion

•The right answer to these question types will add info to the premise to make the conclusion follow.

•The Justify Formula is this:

premise + correct answer = conclusion

4. Resolve the paradox

•These questions look like they have a contradiction but they actually don't. So with the correct answer you make that appearance of a contradiction go away.

•So the correct answer will allow both sides of the paradox to be factually correct and it will either explain how the situation came into being or add a piece of info that shows how the 2 ideas/occurrences can coexist.

FAMILY #3 is the HURT family and its the same as the 2nd family because the stimulus is under suspect and the answer choices are taken as given. This family contains: (1 question type)

1. Weaken questions

•In this question type you are supposed to weaken the support between the premise and conclusion

FAMILY #4 is the DISPROVE family and its the same as the 1st family where the stimulus is taken as it is but the answer choice is under suspect. This family contains: (1 question type)

1. Cannot be True

•In this question type you are to choose the answer that is most weakened by the info in the argument.

Hello everyone!

Lately I have been struggling to fully devout myself to studying. I just can’t seem to find the time. Currently, I just completed my undergrad studies, and I got a fulltime job working at a law firm. When I get home from work all I want to do is crash. So, my question is what is the best way to balance work and studying? Not to mention my personal life or should I just accept the fact that for the next couple of months I won’t have a personal life? I just want to make sure that I am fully dedicating myself to the LSAT and law school, and not just half-stepping things. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Also, as a side note I am looking to take the June LSAT, so I know things are getting down to the wire, and I am starting to question if I even have enough time .

Thanks again,

Kristen

http://classic.7sage.com/lesson/off-shore-oil-drilling-weaken-question/?ss_completed_lesson=992

Thought this one is interesting. So the assumption is that one thinks they are analogous when they are not.

Will all arguments of analogy weaken correct answer basically be one that tells you how they are not the same? I thought the weakening would be in the argument itself? Or I am just extremely confused.

So I took PT38 and 39 a week apart from each other to give me time to blind review. I ended up scoring 154/171BR on 38 and 150/167BR on 39? I feel like I have a timing problem, but I have no idea where to begin climbing this steep hill. Anyone with a similar experience? I'm not sure what else to try. This is however, my second time doing BR so I'm not sure that has anything to do with it.

Thanks.

Hey guys!

I'm aiming for the June 2015 LSAT. I've gone through pretty much the entire curriculum (a few unfinished practice sets floating out there). My PT scores have increased significantly since December '14. 7sage has been a phenomenal teaching tool.

Right now, I'm sort of hitting a mental wall. My blind review for the past month has been pretty consistent, and I can't seem to score higher during blind review. My problem areas are the more difficult LR and RC questions. Does anyone have tips on how to get past that wall? Review specific lessons? Or is it just continuing taking prep tests? I still have 3 months, so a fairly good chunk of time. But I really want to master the material.

Thank you!

Julia

Anyone else having a difficult time figuring out the subtle assumption in weakening questions? Usually I can sort of figure out how to weaken the arguments. But have difficult time figuring out what this subtle assumption is.

Exactly how are we suppose to find out what it is?

http://classic.7sage.com/lesson/animal-navigation-weaken-question/

(above example)

Hi there,

I was wondering if anyone knew of any simulated test centres in Toronto that I could register to take the LSAT at before the actual test?

Thanks so much!

Hi everyone!

I started 7Sage's Ultimate Course January 1st (I really took my New Year's resolution of actually studying to heart lol) and have worked my way through almost all of it. I skipped the logic game sections as I went through the course because I didn't have time to foolproof since I work full time. Now I'm going back and working through the games.

My problem is this: I began the course with the aim of taking the June 2015 test. However, I am now a few weeks behind in the curriculum and have yet to take a practice test (it's almost March--yikes!). I'm not willing to take this test until I am scoring where I want to be scoring on the PTs (mid-high 160s would be ideal) since I've already taken the test once. Would it make sense to just hold off until October? I work full-time but I'm almost at the point where I'm willing to take time off to study (ie find a new job/opportunity after finishing apps). At the same time, it'd be nice to get the June test done so that I can take all summer to work on rounding up letters of rec and working on essays.

What do you guys think? What has been your experience in finishing up the course and then taking practice tests-is there enough time to improve by the June test?

Thanks so much for your help! I really enjoy this community-oriented discussion page. It really makes you feel like we're all on the same boat, albeit going at different rates haha :)

Hello Everyone

I am looking to take the June LSAT, and I think it would be great to find a fellow study buddy here in Atlanta, GA. I work fulltime in Atlanta, but I am willing to work around my schedule to devise a feasible study schedule. I started the 7 stage curriculum at the beginning of this month, and I also took an in class LSAT course back in October. Hope someone is interested!

Thanks,

Kristen

PS: Skype is another option.

I know that a lot of people state that you should try to drill with the older exams and take full PT with the recent exams. What exams are considered "recent" in order to take full timed PTs?

This doesn't have specifically to do with the LSAT, but I am sure that somebody on here knows the answers. I plan on beginning law school next fall (2016), which means that my early decision application (for SMU) is due this November 1, however they only have their Fall 2015 application open - even though the deadlines to turn it in has passed. I was just wondering if anybody knew generally when applications are posted? Thank!

Hi,

I've just started using the program and I'm liking it a lot so far, but I'm already anticipating a bit of difficulty keeping all of the materials organized. Does anyone have a system that's working especially well for them?

Currently working through the core curriculum and starting the pain of Lawgic. Today's session was learning the nine argument types and "some", "must" theory.

I pretty much get it all but struggle as I am not yet far enough along to see this theory in practice with actual questions.

Do you find that the theory, if you don't fully get it during the videos, falls into place somewhat when put in context with actual questions?

Confidence is a bIt low!

Does LSAC ever post your LSDAS GPA?

I have the "Ultimate" package and am currently about 20% through the core syllabus. No prep tests yet aside from the diagnostic.

Just realized I have been forgetting to blind review the problem sets at the end of each module. I have been making sure I don't proceed until I know where I went wrong with each question - but I forgot to do the actual blind review method.

Will this put me at a huge setback? Obviously I will be doing it from this point forward. Hopefully, being only 1/5 of the way through the core syllabus, it won't have set me back too much.

Thanks,

J.

Hey guys, I’m in the middle of the Weakening section of the curriculum and its kicking my ass. I’s getting all the questions wrong. Can someone please offer and explanation on attacking them? I really don’t understand what JY means by not attacking the premise or conclusion.

Any explanations would be greatly appreciated.

That is the question. I have found that JY will sometimes ignore logical indicator language in a stimulus (always, the only, unless, etc...) for no reason whatsoever and not really explain why he chose to ignore those indicators. Instead, he'll use simple argument analysis. Did I miss a lesson? I'd love to know what criteria people have come up with to know when it's more effective to avoid using Lawgic. JY, you're more than welcome to answer this too, of course.Thanks.